Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [66]
Finally, Colbert uses “The WØRD” segment to critique the media’s self-perception that they are dutiful speakers of the truth for their viewers. Media sources work very hard to suggest that they can be trusted to present accurate information and representative, balanced debates about issues. Such claims depend on the authority of the news reporter or visual graphics suggesting both authority and truthfulness. The intense graphics and music which open news programs, and often punctuate segments within them, are meant to reinforce the authority of the news source while invoking a particular emotional reaction in the viewer. Colbert mocks this strategy directly by pushing it to absurdity in the beginning of his show. Both the opening credits and the set are saturated with stars, flags, bald eagles, and other totems of American patriotism.
Media practitioners do more than just suggest their truthfulness though their visual graphics, however. They must show that they have special access to the truth which, as we suggested above, means presenting themselves as authoritative and unbiased, with a kind of “duty” to bring out the truth. But for all the reasons we have discussed so far, this can only rise to the level of appearances, a kind of fake-dutifulness. Colbert points this out by frequently mentioning his “duty” to “protect” his viewers from information that challenges beliefs they already have. He is simultaneously and ironically claiming to be impartial and biased. This is, of course, the position of all news analysts, and Colbert’s critique lies in making this conflict conspicuous.
But Does Political Satire Promote Democratic Values?
There’s no more clear evidence that Colbert’s style of political satire promotes democratic values, including criticism of status quo politics, than “The WØRD” segment. It attacks both the content and the visual format of American political discourse, and it raises substantial challenges to media, politics, and the claim that any one of its defenders speaks truthfully in support of free, open, and critical political dialogue.
Colbert’s satire succeeds because it models substantive critique in the media’s own language. He exposes the failure of the media to support democratic values allowing criticism of political orthodoxy by identifying the ways framing obstructs or altogether evades critique and debate, and he derides the efforts of both media and politicians to appear engaged in real debate. In this respect, by speaking in the very words of political orthodoxy, then ridiculing them with bullet points and ironic commentary, Colbert shows how political satire can act in the service of promoting democratic values in political dialogue.
But is Colbert’s style of political satire sufficiently similar to the practice of parrhesia to justify our claim that it promotes substantive criticism of political orthodoxy? Or is it just the politics of cynicism played out as satire? One objection to the point we have been making is that Colbert’s political satire is ill-suited to promote informed political dialogue. Even though he criticizes media and politicians, it can be objected that this doesn’t mean that Colbert himself promotes either democratic values or substantive kinds of criticism. After all, a major goal of the show is poking fun at the status quo and making his audience laugh, not improving political dialogue. While we acknowledge the limitations of both television and satire for improving the impoverished dialogue of American politics, there are still features of Colbert’s style that are uniquely parrhesiastic in their criticism of political orthodoxy.
Colbert’s focus on the dominant rhetoric of media practitioners and politicians,