Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 27, No. 4, October 2010, pp.

376390

Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse: Is There No Truthiness in Humor?

Priscilla Marie Meddaugh

The Colbert Report, a contemporary appropriation of the carnivalesque, is a potent agent in bearing witness to shortcomings of the political realm. Colbert as carnival challenges authoritative claims to the center of discourse*in this context, official knowledge distributed by traditional news venues and information practices. Carnival laughter positions audiences as insiders, in contrast to their traditional roles as outsiders of official discourse and authorized modes of communication. In challenging the rational practices and normative values of traditional information industries, the Colbert Report operates as a critic of the press, as well as a unique site of media literacy education. Keywords: Colbert; Carnival; Bakhtin; Journalism; Fake News
Language has always been important to politics, but language is incredibly important to the present political struggle . . . if you can establish an atmosphere in which information doesnt mean anything, then there is no objective reality . . . What you wish to be true is all that matters, regardless of the facts.* Stephen Colbert

In 2006, a new word entered contemporary consciousness. Truthiness, chosen by Merriam-Webster as the Word of the Year, signaled the entrenchment of its creator, Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Centrals Colbert Report, into the American psyche. The term, used by talk show hosts, news magazines, and newspaper columnists encapsulates the epistemological uncertainty of modern political knowledge. New York Magazine coined truthiness as the summarizing concept of our age (Sternbergh, 2005).
Priscilla Marie Meddaugh is Assistant Professor of English at Millikin University, where she teaches courses in rhetoric, critical theory, journalism, and media studies. The author wishes to thank Carol Colby and Kaitlin Hanger for their assistance on this project. Correspondence to: Priscilla Marie Meddaugh, Department of English, Shilling Hall, Millikin University, 1184 W. Main, Decatur, IL 62522, USA. Email: pmeddaugh@millikin.edu
ISSN 1529-5036 (print)/ISSN 1479-5809 (online) # 2010 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/15295030903583606

Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse

377

Premiering in October 2005 on Comedy Central, the Colbert Report has quickly become the source of controversy and Emmy nominations, respectively. Comedy Central frequently targets younger audiences, about half the age of those who prefer traditional news shows. The Report appeals to men more than women, and the median age of audience members is thirty-three (Garofoli, 2008). The comedy series attracts an audience of two million viewers a night, and continues to grow popularity (Azote, 2005; Baym, 2007). Rolling Stone Magazine hails Colbert and Stewart as the most trusted names in news, fake or otherwise (Dowd, 2006). Their success comes at a time when the notion of fake news intrigues audiences and academics alike. Young people in particular are turning to alternative sources of information with shows such as the Colbert Report, the Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, and the Tonight Show with Jay Leno informing their political knowledge (Bennett, 2007, p. 282; Cuneo, 2004; Moy, Xenos, & Hess, 2005, p. 112). Television critic and communication professor Robert Thompson dubbed such late night comedy fare as the new Fifth Estate (Timberg, 2004, p. 23). Scholars continue to debate the impact of such programming as the primary channel of political information to Americas youth. Young voters have traditionally been the lowest demographic to turn out on Election Day (Jasperson & Yun, 2007; OToole, Lister, Marsh, Jones, & McDonagh, 2003). Yet, the success of the Daily Show and similar programming in enticing young audiences may indicate that they may be interested in politics, just via nontraditional venues (Feldman, 2005, p. 2). Conversely, audience attention to conventional sources, such as newspapers and national nightly newscasts, continues to decline (Baumgartner and Morris, 2006, p. 344; Moy et al., 2005, p. 112). The genre of fake news is difficult to define in an age where the threshold to legitimate information has diminished. Delli Carpini and Williams (2001, p. 161) note the blurring of boundaries between information and entertainment, or infotainment, stating: This erosion not only makes more obvious the political significance of popular culture in the social construction and interpretation of the news, but also makes the very distinction between news and nonnews increasingly untenable. Scholars identify a number of technological, economic, and cultural developments that are reinventing the boundaries of journalism (Baym, 2005; Feldman, 2005, p. 6; Heflin, 2006). First, technology such as the Internet, as well as low cost video and editing systems, have turned business, government, and the public into potential publishers, avoiding the gate-keeping role of the traditional press (Baym, 2005; Love, 2007; Plaisance, 2006, pp. 225226). As authors and endorsers of rational discourse, public officials and mainstream journalists endeavor to minimize debate as to who speaks with authority in the political realm (Warner, 2007, p. 18). New media technologies, however, challenge established power distributions in the information industry, allowing previously marginalized voices to participate as producers of political and social meaning (Delli Carpini & Williams, 2001, p. 161).

378 P. M. Meddaugh

Second, the burgeoning number of news and entertainment channels continues to exponentially increase possibilities of consumption, as well as competition, for audiences. Subsequent programming strategies blend information with entertainment to make news more palatable to consumers, increasing market shares (Babcock & Whitehouse, 2005, p. 177; Moy et al., 2005, p. 113). The unsteady wall between the divisions of news and advertising continues to erode in an era where the zeal for profits displaces public service. Furthermore, as fewer media conglomerates increase their ownership of news and information outlets, business sensibilities continue to subsume the traditional watchdog role of the press (Heflin, 2006, p. 30). Third, the modern political landscape encourages the abandonment of the traditional information channels in favor of alternative news sources. Politicians understand that soft news venues attract superior numbers of potential voters who might otherwise be uninterested in public affairs (Moy et al., 2005, p. 112). Additionally, late night comedy programming frequently showcases the softer side of political personalities (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006, p. 342). Baym (2002, p. 94) argues that soft news outlets can serve as effective translators of information too complex for the occasional news consumer. As cheap framing, soft news has more entertainment appeal and requires less cognitive effort, engaging audiences who otherwise may be less motivated in attending to public discourse. Conversely, cynicism in a national media concerned with patriotism and profits casts doubt on legitimate news (Love, Before Jon Stewart: The Truth About Fake News, 2007). Journalists and media scholars alike observe the repositioning of media discourse with US government and military officials in the period following the 2001 terrorist strikes (Baym, 2005; Hutcheson, Domke, Billeaudeaux, & Garland, 2004, pp. 4447; Sotos, 2007, p. 34). Feldman suggests that the role of journalist has transformed from watch dog to lap dog of government and big business. This can result in absurd performances which journalists dutifully reproduce official pronouncements that distorts or hide pertinent information (Borden & Tew, 2007, p. 305). Some critics voice concern about the infotainment culture, suggesting that such an evolution abandons the publics democratic need for substantive, thorough coverage of national and world events (Musa, 2006, p. 149). As fake news becomes more fashionable, hard news venues may become further susceptible in emulating the blurring of entertainment and information discourses (Zinser, 2007, p. 46). Such programming may also promote cynicism regarding the political process, particularly among young people (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Bennett, 2007, p. 281). Other scholars disagree, however, suggesting that fake news comedy attracts audiences that otherwise might not attend to current events as packaged by traditional news outlets (Baym, 2005; Borden & Tew, 2007; Feldman, 2005; Heflin, 2006; Timberg, 2004). As Baym (2007, p. 367) suggests, the inaccessibility of political rhetoric may relegate citizen participation in the public sphere to a leisure time activity rather than a civic responsibility. The politics of play, however, positions news parody as agent for ordinary people to observe and acknowledge the success and failures of political processes that govern their personal and public lives.

Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse

379

Colbert and Carnival I use Bakhtins dualistic notion of carnival to rhetorically examine The Colbert Report. Bakhtin, a cultural theorist preoccupied with the validity of claims to epistemological certainties, saw the time of carnival as an emancipation from prevailing truths, a liberated communality of the people in perennially renewed rebellion against the social and spiritual restrictions of the official order (Lindley, 1996, p. 17). A democratic notion, carnival offers a social space outside official life; as such, hierarchies of social, economic, and political structures are suspended to allow egalitarian contact among citizens (Bakhtin, 1984b, pp. 610). Dominant knowledge, a reflection of the center of discourse of officialdom, is challenged by multiple voices on the carnival square. Carnival, and its primary agents parody and satire, exploit paired images and role reversals, both uniting and juxtaposing the sacred with the profane, the lofty with the low, the great with the insignificant, the wise with the stupid (Bakhtin, 1984a, p. 123). Carnival parody legitimizes communication practices and behaviors not sanctioned in official life: profanation, carnivalistic blasphemies, a whole system of carnivalistic debasing and bringings down to earth (p. 124). Of particular significance to carnival laughter is parodia sacra, or the parody of revered texts and official discourse. In the reverse of the world, sanctioned deities*government, industry, and religion*provide fodder for carnival as cultural critic. Fletcher (1987, p. 23) suggests the notion of carnival can be expanded to include all cultural situations where the authority of a single language of authority is called into question, notably by the simultaneous copresence of other languages, which can challenge it. This is particularly salient to the Report, where Colbert, playing multiple roles*comedian, caricature, and critic*introduces competing interpretations of contemporary culture. I argue that the Colbert Report, a contemporary appropriation of the carnivalesque, is a potent agent in bearing witness to shortcomings of the political realm. Colbert as carnival challenges authoritative claims to the center of discourse*in this context, official knowledge distributed by traditional news venues and information practices. Carnival laughter positions audiences as insiders, in contrast to their traditional roles as outsiders of official discourse and authorized modes of communication. In challenging the rational practices and normative values of traditional information industries, the Colbert Report operates as a critic of the press, as well as a unique site of media literacy education. God, Government, and the Reverse of the World The atmosphere of carnival is apparent as the Report begins, with an overabundance of neon red, white, and blue as the backdrop for multiplied images of a triumphant Colbert viewed from various camera angles. The set serves as both environment and conduit for the hyper-mediated carnival of the twenty-first century. A parody of Fox News, the Report reflects reality in an absurd manner, an entire system of crooked

380 P. M. Meddaugh

mirrors, elongating, diminishing, distorting in various directions, and to varying degrees (Bakhtin, 1984a, p. 127). Colberts ultrapatriotic stance, at one point waving an American flag, is intensified by a relentless stream of words, such as courageous, flagophile, and Lincolnish. The Reports appropriation of language echoes the metamorphosis of carnival expression, a discourse that makes no sense except the carnival square. Colberts television character, based loosely on journalism personalities Bill OReilly and Aaron Brown among others, parodies the OReilly Factor in both volume and abrasiveness (Steinberg, 2005). As his parodic doppelganger, Colbert both simulates and condemns OReillys zealous suspicion of all things nonAmerican. His pseudo right-wing, manic persona parallels OReilly to exaggeration, a reflection one might observe in a fun house mirror. Lacking Papa Bear OReillys six-foot-four physical presence, however, Colberts use of physical humor and wildly expressive nonverbals flesh out his on-air personality (Lemann, 2006). If OReilly is the king of cable*his show has been at the top of the cable news line-up for eight years*then Colbert is the jester, using the moniker of fake news to lampoon socially ordained arenas of power: government, religion, big business, and the media. Colbert as carnival challenges authoritative claims to the center of discourse*in this context, official knowledge transmitted by traditional news outlets. Traditional news organizations, in reporting just the facts, assume a center, or authority, of discourse, grounded in the ideals of objectivity. The seeming neutrality of news products elevates such discourses, exempting these messages*and whatever influences imbued from producers of these discourses*from critical examination (Gray, 2006, p. 97). News providers report only an accessible reality, which is constrained by temporal, spatial, economic, and perhaps, ideological forces. As fake news, however, the Report makes no claims to absolute privilege. Rather, the shows epistemological insight is based on textual interplay between the said and unsaid, a convergence of rhetorical situation and historical reality. Nowhere is this more apparent that in one of the Reports primary segments, the Word, where Colberts commentary is accompanied by statements projected onscreen, presumably unknown to Colbert, but viewed by the audience. Grounded in current events, the substance of the Word echoes stories covered in the mainstream press: politics, the courts, foreign policy and other national events. The style, however, spins conventional journalism in reverse, using irony to undermine and critique the stated text. The discursive organization of the Word assumes an inclusive posture towards audience members, where, as in the carnival square, everyone participates because its very idea embraces all the people (Bakhtin, 1984b, p. 10.) Carnival laughter positions audiences as insiders, in contrast to their traditional roles as outsiders of official discourse and authorized modes of communication. As contemporary carnival, the Word offers a gap outside of privileged reality, an interaction that involves viewers and belongs to them, not only to the comic producer (Gray, 2006, p. 234). One Word segment, Mission Control, mocks the impotence of NASA in its charge to safeguard the planet.I have no doubt that global warming exists, Michael Griffin,

Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse

381

head of NASA, says in an NPR clip. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. Colbert responds, NASA has once again shown The Right Stuff! as the Word counters, To Please The Right Wing. Other government agencies should follow their lead, Colbert asserts. For instance, the EPA recently claimed they didnt have the right to regulate green house gasses. The Supreme Court said they did. The Word responds, Emission Not Accomplished. Heres where the EPA went wrong, Colbert insists, The Mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment. Come on, Environmental Protection Agency! Youve got to make it more vague. Oh, and try losing the words environmental and protection. The Word responds, Also Lose Clean, Air and Act. Colberts television persona does not verbalize his assault; rather, irony is the primary mode of delivery. Multilayered, irony requires the participation of the audience to recognize incongruities among the stated discourse, intonation, and verbal cues (Fletcher, 1987, p. 3). The segment Mission Control plays against the backdrop of former President Bushs unrelenting manipulation of scientific studies to correspond to his desired political agenda (Hayden, 2005; Kennedy Jr., 2004). As the jester, Colbert signals the absurdity of devotion to official discourse by reveling in it. He condemns the Bush Administrations assault against science with hyperbole, suggesting that the EPA can erase their accountability, indeed their very existence, by simply deleting it from public discourse. By suggesting the EPA be more vague, Colbert exposes and critiques the ambiguous use of political rhetoric that seems to encompass everything, yet says nothing. His use of word play, The Right Stuff *a reference to the film of the same name*suggests to the audience a science fiction of Hollywood proportions. The implications of the Bush Administrations epistemological exploitation reveal somber consequences, playing in context to thousands of scientists in absentia regarding the official dialogue of global warming. Yet, it is the discursive interaction between text, host, and audience that completes parodys capacity to act as critic in the public sphere. As such, audiences are active participants who share responsibility in the meaning-making process. Another segment, Yellow Smiley Face, ridicules the Bush Administrations assertions of American progress regarding the war in Iraq despite all evidence to the contrary.
What Americans want to believe is more important than whats actually happening [a fabulous 10-year trip to Iraq]. And what we want to believe is that we are winning. Thats why we re-elected George Bush in 2004. A lot of people had doubts about this war. But the President kept saying we will win [He Might Have Meant Ohio]. So, America rejected John Kerry and voted for the President unanimously, or so I would like to believe. And, when it comes to what Americans want to believe, like Tony Snow says, visuals always help [photo of a bombed mosque in Iraq]. This is not what we want to believe. This is [photo of a kitten in soft focus]. How could kittens fall asleep in a world where Iraq was not becoming a democracy? But visuals are not enough. Tony Snow knows, we need a surge of facts*facts that confirm what America wants to believe. Sure, its a fact when a bomb goes off in a

382 P. M. Meddaugh

market in Baghdad, but doesnt that mean its also a fact that its also a fact that a bomb did not go off in Tekreit? The fact is, President Bush does not not believe we should bring our troops home until weve won. But, if we can all believe we have won, the President can believe its time to bring the troops home. Everybody gets what they want. We have to fight them here [especially Iran], so we can stop fighting them over there. And thats the Word.

The smiley face, a pop culture icon in the 1970s, introduces the segment. Devoid of genuine expression, the smiley face is analogous to the mask of officialdom, a deception as to the progress of the war. The motif of deception reverberates through out the segment, as Colbert seems to suggest, the facts becomes irrelevant*what we want to believe is more important than what is. His performance of free expression articulates implicitly what conventional journalism hesitates to say explicitly. Colberts ploy of rhetorical amplification*Bushs self-deception becomes the beliefs of the nation*uses exaggeration to undermine the stated text. The emphasis on visuals over substance, customary in broadcast news, is intentionally overstated in the segment, contrasting kittens to catastrophe. The style of the photographs, however, is even more revealing to viewers. The visual of the bombed mosque, shot in strong light, provides garish shadows to the devastation of war. The kitten photograph, in soft focus, intimates the fuzzy thinking of dominant knowledge. Further, Colberts nonsensical logic, that a bombs devastation in one locale somehow materializes as tranquility elsewhere, mocks the Administrations rhetorical coercion that bad news about the war really means good news, if only we knew where to look. In this context, the Bush Administration points the way to the center of discourse, but Colbert as carnival serves as the detour. The Word both acknowledges and challenges the pathology of official discourse, particularly in the aftermath of September 11. Extreme versions of official discourse are similar to autism in so far as they are totalitarian and do not recognize otherness; they abhor difference and aim for a single collective self (Holquist, 2002, p. 52). In contrast, the Word celebrates the other as an essential component in the process, indeed at the site, of constructing meaning. The Word enacts the doubleness of discourse (Bakhtin, 1984a, p. 184) literally, juxtaposing two incongruent languages to realize a critical frame not possible in the rational practice of conventional journalism. The audience is both witness and participant, discursively present in None two worlds, that of officialdom and that of the carnivalesque. However, Gray suggests that the generation of critical discourse may not necessarily be confined the temporal borders of carnival, stating that audiences can act to reinforce, further disseminate, or even amplify such texts disruptive force (2006, pg. 46). Intertexuality and the Social Organization of Discourse The Report as a rhetorical construct is enabled by what Baym (2007, p. 373) has termed discursive integration, the emergence of a media environment defined by the collapse of previous distinctions among one-differentiated genres, social practices, and discourse fields. Decades earlier, however, Bahktin noted the porosity of texts

Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse

383

and their relative reading, calling the social organization of discourse intertexuality. According to Clark and Holquist, the texts of Bahktins era were no longer limited to written documents once the old ways of interpreting events had broken down and new strategies for reading the world had become necessary (Clark & Holquist, 1984, p. 297). The show relies heavily on intertexulality for its explication of the absurd. In appropriating elements of imported media such as photos, newspapers, books, television and cartoons, the Report resituates these texts as comical, yet critical, perspectives on modern existence. One such illustration is Colberts review of media coverage of the Hilton issue, when Paris Hilton broke probation and was pursued by law enforcement. MSNBCs reporting boasts, THE VERY LATEST, with a split screen; live footage of a police car, presumably with Hilton inside, driving down a highway, and Tommy Chong of Cheech and Chong infamy, providing analysis. The camera shot, reminiscent of the O.J. Simpson low-speed car chase, is accompanied by Chongs inquiry to MSNBCs Contessa Brewer, Who did she murder, by the way? Apparently unsatisfied with Chongs performance, Colbert laments to his audience, When a journalist asks Tommy Chong for commentary on breaking news, you expect a certain level of discourse. After all, this is Tommy Chong were taking about, he says. I mean, consider his body of work, as the audience simultaneously views a clip of Chongs film, Up in Smoke. Chong later joins Colbert on the show via satellite:
Colbert: Dont you understand how this works? When you are asked on a news show to give your opinion, you give your opinion, and therefore validate what theyre reporting as news and then, they in turn treat your opinion as if its worth having. Thats how it works. What dont you get about that? Chong: I didnt actually know the cameras were rolling. Colbert: So you were just shooting the shit! Chong: Yeah, basically. Colbert: Look Tommy, you need to get back on your game or Tim Russert is never gonna have you on. You realize that, right? This wont play on Sunday morning talk shows. Chong: Whos Tim Russert?

MSNBCs choice of Tommy Chong for a guest reaction, designated by Colbert as the crime and culture expert, challenges the concept of fake news as a distinct genre. While Chong plays the foil*he fails to recognize Tim Russert, nor seems to have any idea why he is on air other than just shooting the shit* MSNBC is the target. Chongs expert presence on MSNBC, much like the footage of police cars with Hilton in tow, is an attempt to add authenticity to the coverage. Recontextualized on the Report, however, the clip plays as electronic apparitions, shapes but no substance. Paradoxically, it is Colbert who coaches Chong as to his performance as on-air expert, asserting you give your opinion, and therefore validate what theyre reporting as news and then, they in turn, treat your opinion as if its worth having. The intertextual nature of the Report provides Colbert the opportunity to act as

384 P. M. Meddaugh

media critic, illustrating how the infotainment culture has consumed legitimate programming not intentionally packaged as entertainment. According to Gray (2005), critical intertextuality is an effective mechanism for recognizing the apparatus of any given genre. In revealing the artificiality of the journalism industry, Colberts parodic position becomes one of media literacy education. The show employs hyperbole and electronic juxtaposition to satirize conventional news programs over-reliance on technology in its appeal as authoritative discourse. For example, broadcast journalism utilizes the live shot, where reporters on-the-scene deliver commentary to the anchor housed in the studio. Frequently, the locale of the correspondent*overseas, across the city, or simply elsewhere within the broadcast facility*does not supplement the substance of the report in any meaningful way. The constructed narrative that news consumers witness, however, enhances the legitimacy and proposed accuracy of the report. A studio interview with documentary filmmaker Michael Moore illustrates Colberts manipulation of the technical grammar of news conventions. When he becomes supposedly agitated that the Moore is sitting too close to him, Colbert commands, Jimmy, can we put him via satellite instead? A split screen appears, and Moores frame is shifted to Flint, Michigan. Actually, thats not far enough away . . .can we get him further? Colbert asks, and Moores frame relocates to Flint, Brazil. In poking fun at standard journalistic practices, Colbert pulls back the curtain on the magician, exposing the contraptions used in creating the illusion. His critique requests audiences to reevaluate news as performance. Colberts ridicule of the media industry is frequent, targeting stories that either miss the mark or belabor the obvious. In discussing a front page New York Times article, Romney Political Fortunes Tied to Riches He Gained in Business, he exclaims, Great scoop, New York Times! Whats next, an expose on how the ocean is salty? Call the Pulitzer organization! Colberts dual roles as comedian and critic disputes the agenda setting process of legitimate, even prestigious news organizations whose selection of stories at times confirms the notion of news lite. His interview with blogger Josh Wolf, who went to jail for refusing to turn over video of protesters in San Francisco during the G-8 summit, provides debate as to journalism as performance or profession.
Colbert: Youre a blogger, not a member of the press. Wolf: Define press. Colbert: Newspapers, television, and occasional magazines, depending on what I think of them. Wolf: If Katie Couric has a blog, does she stop being a member of the press? Colbert: No, because she is connected to a television show, and therefore, you know, through electricity, the transitive property, her blog is like a TV show. Wolf: So what about Thomas Paine? Would he be a member of the press? Colbert: No, he was before TV.

Colberts satiric definition of the press, depending on what I think of them, is not entirely without merit. Media scholars note the arbitrary nature of news practices and productions (Baym, 2005; Borden & Tew, 2007; Feldman, 2005; Musa, 2006). As a

Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse

385

commodity, standards of news fluctuate, reflecting the socioeconomic status of audiences, the economic growth of the nation, as well as technical developments in the industry. But again, the Report challenges the epistemological investment that news consumers make in information products that so often governs their daily lives. Through his exchange with Wolf, Colbert appropriates inquiry as opposed to declaration in naming news. He invites the audience to perhaps consider news as dialectic between process and product. The Threatdown: Decrowning Contemporary Fear During the time of carnival, acquiescence to hierarchical mechanisms of social control, all formal structures of terror and veneration*and subsequent associated protocols*are suspended on the carnival square (Bakhtin, 1984a, p. 122123) The Reports segment, the Threatdown, decrowns the culture of fear promoted by the government and magnified by the media. The segment, announced by sirens and a flashing bulls eye, uses hyperbole to satirize hyperbole. In one segment of the Threatdown, Colbert examines the alleged dangers of the tropics. At the top of the roster, Sand! is apparently hazardous, as Colbert warns, Its always proved inadequate building material for my castles. Then the Report posts a story on CNN.com that announces, Sand More Deadly Than Sharks. Apparently, within the last decade, 16 individuals have fallen to their deaths, injuring themselves in holes dug in the sand. Colbert then calls on the Discovery Channel, whose projected graphic promotes Shark Week, to instead broadcast Sand Week. As such, he satirizes contemporary media tradition*magnifying the alleged threat of sand by multiplying media exposure. Another apparent tropical peril, Coral reefs! makes the danger zone. Colbert posts an article from Yahoo!News reporting, Herpes Virus Killing Coral Reefs. According to microbiologists at Plymouth University in England, most of the worlds coral reefs are riddled with herpes . . . Whos been fucking the coral reefs? exclaims Colbert. The elements of carnival are clear; satire, incongruity, and the profane. Yet the sum of the performance is distinct from the parts, indicting the culture of fear appropriated by authority and amplified by media culture. For example, in discussing the stimulus package, Colbert states that the Democrats are taking a page from the Republicans fear book. The Report then shows a montage of video excerpts from multiple news sources claiming, Carnage across nearly all sectors of the US economy, Economic devastation, Economic meltdown, If we dont pass this thing, its Armageddon. The juxtaposition and tempo of the clips increases in speed until the montage reaches a crescendo of farcical proportions. Upon returning to the studio, the audience is witness to Colbert hiding under the desk as he whispers, Oh my god. The end is near. Jesus, Ill meet you at the Arbys where I suppose we will both be working. His emphasis on pathos, emphasized by vocal quality and affect display, mirrors the reliance of political discourse in its appeal to emotion. Yet, Colberts performance, a balance of electronic exploitation and physical humor, reveals the mechanics of fear in the absence of officialdom.

386 P. M. Meddaugh

Fear has always been an effective stimulant in political manipulation, given new status as a rhetorical strategy since the September 11 tragedy. Hiding behind the fac ade of rational discourse, the politics of fear privileges official proclamations of public policy. The monolithic rhetoric of officialdom effectively silences other salient concerns. The Threatdown, however, decrowns such authority by parodying political and social constructs of contemporary anxiety. Colberts choice of Threatdown topics*coral reefs, flamingos, sand, polo ponies*simultaneously suggests that we should be afraid of nothing and everything, revealing the arbitrary nature of crisis. This is illustrated by Colberts concept of the gut-o-meter, the latest weapon on the war on terror, which measures the gut feeling about terror threat levels going up. The Report shows a cartoon of a balding man whose stomach expands with his fear of terrorism: gut-level maybe; gut-level I think so; and gut-level I am almost positive, spoofing the capricious nature of government terror alerts. Carnival laughter shifts fear from the center to the periphery of the carnival square, encouraging participants to challenge national crisis as construction, not certainty. As Colberts real life persona states in a Parade interview, Not living in fear is a great gift, because certainly these days we do it so much. And do you know what I like about comedy? You cant laugh and be afraid at the same time*of anything (Kaplan, 2007). Conclusions Journalists, according to Borden and Tew (2007, p. 303), seek knowledge through a discipline of verification, providing epistemologically defensible standards for creating and communicating knowledge about the social world. By this criterion, Colberts performance as journalist does not equate with performing journalism, and neither he, nor I, make that claim. Yet, the Colbert Report makes valuable contributions to its practice by acknowledging news as representation rather than reality. In challenging the rational practices and normative values of traditional information industries, the Colbert Report operates as a critic of the press, as well as a unique site of media literacy education. Understanding the boundaries of genre, of whose interests are represented and which reality is acknowledged, has significant implications of how news products are interpreted (Gray, 2005, p. 3). The American public experiences the majority of world events*political, social, cultural*through mass-mediated communication. The Reports understanding of intertexuality, of resituating texts beyond their intended boundaries, reminds audiences that, well intentioned or not, the construction of news is only an approximation of thats the way it was. When considering the ubiquity and pervasiveness of the information media in determining how citizens make sense of, and interact, with their political realities, the Reports potential as a critical agent in the public sphere deserves substantial consideration. Further, the Report provides an alternative language to the monolithic discourses of the traditional news industry, becoming a kind of fifth estate (Sotos, 2007, p. 34). Colbert as carnival challenges authoritative claims to the center of discourse*in

Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse

387

this context, official knowledge distributed by traditional news venues and information practices. The traditional journalist occupies an epistemologically precarious position in resisting pressures political and pragmatic, such as deadlines, restrictions on access, and advertising and corporate influence in fulfilling their truthtelling mission (Murphy, Ward, & Donovan, 2006, p. 325). As fewer media conglomerates increase their ownership of news and information outlets, business sensibilities continue to subsume the traditional watchdog role of the press (Heflin, 2006, p. 30; Sotos, 2007, p. 34). Colberts performance of free expression operates a safety valve in the vortex of political and economic forces that restrain the truth-telling role of the traditional press. As a parodic bootleg of traditional news sources, the Colbert Report articulates implicitly what conventional journalism hesitates to say explicitly. The Reports reliance on irony as the primary mechanism of critical inquiry obliges participants to overlook the explicit discursive situation in favor of the implied meaning-making possibilities. The unsaid speaks volumes as to the fractures and failures of contemporary institutions, challenging the hegemonic discourse that so often governs our daily lives. Colbert as carnival provides a temporary suspension from officialdom, inviting audiences to observe and question the shortcomings of political life through parody and satire. It does so through participation rather than instruction, subversion rather than hierarchy, possessing a keen understanding of rhetorical situation and historical reality. Fletcher (1987, p. 31) notes, there are social situations and historical moments when parody is likely to flourish, and to become the medium of important cultural statements. The Report counters the epistemological megalomania of official discourse, bearing witness to shortcomings of the political realm.

References
Achter, P. (2008). Comedy in unfunny times: News parody and carnival after 9/11. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25, 274303. Altheide, D. (2002). Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Azote, A. (2005). Truthiness factor: Colbert kicks up. Media Life. Retrieved from http:// www.medialifemagazine.com Babcock, W., & Whitehouse, V. (2005). Celebrity as a postmodern phenomenon, ethical crisis for democracy, and media nightmare. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20, 176191. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds., M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. (1984a). Problems of Dostoevskys poetics. (C. Emerson, Ed.), Bloomington, IN: Midland Books. Bakhtin, M. (1984b). Rabelais and his world. (H. Iswolksy, Trans.), Bloomington: Indiana UP. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. (V. McGee, C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.), Austin: University of Texas Press. Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efcacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34, 341367. Baym, G. (2002). Sex, lies and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96, 91109.

388 P. M. Meddaugh

Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22, 259276. Baym, G. (2007). Representation and the politics of play: Stephen Colberts Better Know a District. Political Communication, 24, 359376. Bennett, L. (2007). Relief in hard times: A defense of Jon Stewarts comedy in an age of cynicism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 278283. Berger, A. (1998). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Borden, S., & Tew, C. (2007). The role of journalist and the performance of journalism: Ethical lessons from fake news (Seriously). Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22, 300314. Bruner, L. (2005). Carnivalesque protest and the humorless state. Text and Performance Quarterly, 25, 136155. Burke, P. (1994). Popular culture in early modern Europe. Brookeld, VT: Ashgate. Clark, K., & Holquist, M. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Comer, J. (2003). Mediated persona and political culture. In J. Corner & D. Pels (Eds.), Media and the restyling of politics: Consumerism, celebrity and cynicism (pp. 6784). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cuneo, A. Z. (2004). Marketers, politicians, clamor for Daily x. Advertising Age, 75, 3c. Decker, K. (2007). Stephen Colbert, irony, and speaking truthiness to power. In J. Holt (Ed.), The Daily Show and philosophy (pp. 240251). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Williams, B. A. (2001). Let us infotain you: Politics in the new media environment. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 160181). Cambridge: University Press. Dempsey, L. (2007). The Daily Shows expose of political rhetoric. In J. Holt (Ed.), The Daily Show and philosophy (pp. 121132). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Dentith, S. (2000). Parody. London: Routledge. Dobrow, L. (2005). Nighttime is the right time in snaring young eyeballs. Advertising Age, 76, 6c. Dowd, M. (2006). Americas anchors: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert faked it until they made it. Now they may truly be the most trusted names in news. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverStory/jon_jon_stewart_stewart_Colbert_ Americas_anchors Erion, G. (2007). Amusing ourselves to death with television news: Jon Stewart, Neil Postman, and the Huxleyan warning. In J. Holt (Ed.), The Daily Show and philosophy (pp. 515). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Farrell, T. J. (1995). Bakhtin and medieval voices. Gainesville: UP of Florida. Feldman, L. (2005). The news about comedy: Young audiences, the Daily Show, and evolving notions about journalism. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York. Fletcher, M. D. (1987). Contemporary political satire. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Franklin, N. (2005). The spinoff zone. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/ archive/2005/11/28 Gardiner, M. (1992). The dialogic of critique: M.M. Bakhtin and the theory of ideology. London: Routledge. Garofoli, J. (2008). Political ads hit MTV, Comedy Central. San Francisco Chronicle. a1. Gettings, M. (2007). The fake, the false, and the ctional: The Daily Show as news source. In J. Holt (Ed.), The Daily Show and philosophy (pp. 1627). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Gray, J. (2005). Television teaching: Parody, The Simpsons, and media literacy education. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22, 223238. Gray, J. (2006). Watching The Simpsons: Television, parody, and intertextuality. New York: Routledge. Hachten, W. (2005). The troubles of journalism: A critical look at whats right and wrong with the press. London: Erlbaum.

Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse

389

Hariman, R. (2007). In defense of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 273277. Hayden, T. (2005). Scientists and Bush administration at odds. US News and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050630/30science.htm Hein, K. (2006). Laughter helps interpret the news. Television Quarterly, 36, 2631. Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. New York: Routledge. Hutcheson, J., Domke, D., Billeaudeaux, A., & Garland, P. (2004). U.S. National identity, political elites, and a patriotic press following September 11. Political Communication, 21, 2750. Jasperson, A., & Yun, H. (2007). Political advertising effects and Americas racially diverse newest voting generation. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 11121123. Kaplan, J. (2007). After tragedy, TV funny man Stephen Colbert says, If you are laughing, you cant be afraid. Parade. Retrieved from http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_ 09-23-2007/AStephen_Colbert Kellner, D. (2005). Media spectacle and the crisis of democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press. Kennedy Jr., R. (2004). The junk science of George W. Bush: Its more ction than fact. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040308/kennedy Khodarahmi, S. (2007). Words of the year. Communication World, 24, 1112. Lemann, N. (2006). Fear factor: Bill OReillys baroque period. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/27/060327fa_fact Lindley, A. (1996). Hyperion and the hobbyhorse: Studies in carnivalesque subversion. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Love, R. (2007). Before Jon Stewart: The truth about fake news. Believe it. Columbia Journalism Review, 45, 3337. McKain, A. (2005). Not necessarily not the news: Gatekeeping, remediation, and The Daily Show. The Journal of American Culture, 28, 415430. Merriam-Webster. (2006). Words of the year 2006. Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http:// www.m-w.com/info/06words.htm Moy, P., Xenos, M., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Communication and citizenship: Mapping the political effects of infotainment. Mass Communication and Society, 8, 111131. Murphy, J., Ward, S., & Donovan, A. (2006). Ethical ideals in journalism: Civic uplift or telling the truth? Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21, 322337. Musa, B. A. (2006). News as infotainment: Industry and audience trends. In B. A. Musa & C. J. Price (Eds.), Emerging issues in contemporary journalism (pp. 131156). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press. OToole, T., Lister, M., Marsh, D., Jones, S., & McDonagh, A. (2003). Tuning out or left out? Participation and non-participation among young people. Contemporary Politics, 9, 4561. Plaisance, P. (2006). Gatekeepers: Their choices. In B. A. Musa & C. J. Price (Eds.), Emerging issues in contemporary journalism (pp. 225241). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press. Solomon, D. (2005). Funny about the news. New York Times.com. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/magazine/25questions.html Sotos, R. (2007). The fake news as the fth estate. In J. Holt (Ed.), The Daily Show and philosophy (pp. 2840). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Stanley, A. (2007). A talking head meets his comic doppelganger, and sparks fail to y. New York Times.com. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/arts/television/ 19watch.html Steinberg, J. (2005). The news is funny, as a correspondent gets his own show. New York Times.com. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/arts/television/12colb.html Sternbergh, A. (2005). Stephen Colbert has America by the ballots. New York Magazine.com. Retrieved from http://www.nymag.com/news/politics/22322 Timberg, B. M. (2004). Whats so funny? Television Quarterly, 35, 2025.

390 P. M. Meddaugh

Torosyan, R. (2007). Public discourse and the Stewart model of critical thinking. In J. Holt (Ed.), The Daily Show and philosophy (pp. 107120). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Warner, J. (2007). Political culture jamming: The dissident humor of the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Popular Communication, 5, 1736. Zinser, J. (2007). The good, the bad, and The Daily Show. In J. Holt (Ed.), The Daily Show and philosophy (pp. 4154). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Copyright of Critical Studies in Media Communication is the property of National Communication Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.