Aidan Murray

Introduction
In Stephen Colberts ever-witty and satirical show The Colbert Report, he
impersonates an ultra-conservative news show host, and continuously lambasts liberal
guests and politicians alike to seemingly further his ridiculously conservative and
satirical views. Colberts reaction to The Citizens United v. Federal Elections Committee
Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case is a perfect example of how Colberts satire has taken
effect; it was in the wake of the decision that Stephen Colbert founded Americans for a
Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow also known as the Colbert Super PAC, and the news
controversy surrounding the entire event clearly illuminated the satirical value of
Colberts PAC, which he used to make spoof campaign videos in an effort to lampoon
various local and primary elections. Colbert even took to the steps of the Federal Election
Committee building and addressed his followers by exclaiming As we stand here on this
historic site, where 250 years ago today, George Washington filed his papers to form his
independent expenditures, nonconnected political action committee, we are standing at
an American crossroads (Colbert). Amber Day clarifies the Colbert PACs satirical
development by explaining that Colbert is able to first develop a knowledge base for his
viewers by providing information about all the pertinent events and decisions regarding
the PACs. Day further clarifies that by providing this background information, Colbert
manages to make the intricacies of campaign finance law entertaining, and
simultaneously impart more information than many newspaper articles on the same topic
(5). Part of the significance of Colberts satire is that he maintains the simple, yet
informative substance that draws in audiences and quickly conveys his satirical message.

Aidan Murray
Day exemplifies this when quoting Colberts quick synopsis of what a PAC does, as he
states I like to think of them as a give a penny, take an election tray (qtd. in Day 6).
Satire has become the focus of many scholarly investigations recently,
especially in regards to its impacts on societal behaviors. A forefront opinion that has
surfaced amongst large groups of scholars is that Satire can effectively act as a method
for inducing action or change in a groups behavior. Scholarly opinion has it that
Colberts show not only increases political intelligence (with viewers being more
educated than average regarding current and political events) but also political
participation. In fact, the Pew Research Center found that regular viewers of The Colbert
Report or The Daily Show were found to have 19% higher knowledge of current events
than the national average. Moreover, results of a study by Cao and Brewer demonstrate
that political comedy shows may increase political participation by fostering common
experiences and opinions among viewers (91) and that exposure to political comedy
shows was positively associated with two of the three time-based activities: Attending a
campaign event and joining an organization (95). These both represent the significance
of political satire in the public sphere, because it demonstrates that society as a whole
benefits from exposure to political satires.
There are others, though, that diverge from the belief that Colberts satire is a
force of good in the political sphere. NBCs Chuck Todd expressed severe concern as to
the nature of Colberts satire and its effect on the political system it is meant to critique.
Todd says, He is making a mockery of the system Is it fair to the process? Yes, the
process is a mess, but he's doing it in a way that feels like he's trying to influence it with
his own agenda and that may be anti-Republican (qtd. in Mirkinson). Is Chuck Todd just

Aidan Murray
bitter that Colbert seems to be pushing people away from classic conservative
viewpoints? This seems not to be the case, because findings of Baumgartner and Morris
2008 study found that young viewers of The Colbert Report actually tended towards
more conservative views after viewing the show (granted, these were casual viewers and
not a part of his consistent audience). Todd must be aware, though, that the entire purpose
of satire is to undermine and criticize a given subject or topic, so it seems that Todd is
conceding the successes of Colberts attacks on the federal election system if he is so
worried that Colbert is mocking the system as a whole. Furthermore, this concession
seems to indicate the general opinion of Colbert from much of the conservative crowd.
Bill OReilly and many others have criticized Colbert for being a phony, which is quite
ironic because that is the entirety of the faade that Colbert emulates. This would be the
same as calling OReilly blindly conservative; it embodies his entire character and show,
so there is no need to make such an obvious observation.
Overall, when considering the Super PAC project, it is necessary to not only
engage in a discussion of its effect on the specific decision by the SCOTUS, but also its
effect on other important democratic indicators such as political activity and participation.
When evaluating the Super PAC project, this report aims to determine the actual efficacy
of his satire in the realm of his Super PAC campaign, and whether or not this satire can
create productive political discourse, knowledge, and action. Though Colberts Political
Satire is effective in the theoretical realm, in that it effectively critiques and lampoons the
flaws of federal election law, his satire falls short in the sense that it cannot effectively
change the decision of the SCOTUS, nor can it effectively ensure an increase in political
activity. The reason there is a lack of efficacy is partially due to the recency of the satire,

Aidan Murray
as it is impossible to determine on a large scale whether there is an overall increase in
voter turnout or any other metric of political activity.

Satire in Practice
The revelation that exposure to Colbert may make people more conservative
begs the question: Can Colberts satire still be effective, even if its intent is missed? This
requires an analysis of the real-life applications of Colberts satire, and the answer still
rings yes, because it is evident that regardless of the political bias viewers may retain
after viewing, the show still creates some form of political discourse surrounding its key
topics. When specifically analyzing Colberts Super PAC, Nathaniel Gilkerson concludes
that Part educational civics lesson, part satirical farce, and arguably, part idealistic
political campaign for change, the Colbert Super PAC project signifies an innovation in
social commentary and political activism (237) and that it is evident that Colbert has
substantially influenced the news media and broader publics understanding of campaign
finance laws and has thus also impacted the real world political debate about the need
for regulatory reforms (237). Although there may not be a steadfast increase in voter
turnout as a result of exposure to political satire, a report from Polk, Young, and Holbert
is able to quantify that exposure to political satire (in the form of The Daily Show and The
Colbert Report) increased political intelligence. The metric used for their findings comes
in the form of a subjects ability to make political arguments and counterarguments, and
the perceived complexity of those arguments. The report found that after exposure to the
various forms of satire evident in the two shows, subjects complexity and length of
response increased, signaling a greater comprehension of the political matter discussed.
To further expand upon this, it is also important to consider potential increases in general

Aidan Murray
awareness of current events. Having had the opportunity to personally attend a filming of
The Colbert Report, I can attest to the fact that the content conveyed during the show,
even though it is conveyed through Colberts conservative faade, was extremely
informative on a number of matters and current events to which I had little previous
knowledge. The glory of Colberts satire is his ability to break down seemingly complex
ideas and make them easily digestible to the average person. This claim is echoed by Day
when she explains that Colbert is able to explain finance law better than most newspapers.
To directly examine and discuss the findings of Baumgartner and Morris, it is
necessary to understand that they, as one of the most cited sources for arguments against
Political satire, use a metric that is not inherently undermining of the efficacy of the satire.
Baumgartner and Morris studied the effects of exposure of 855 college-age students to
Colbert and right wing pundit Bill OReilly, and then compared the results. The findings
are that
Although Colbert is implicitly mocking these strategies with his character, the
findings from this study suggest that his explicit framing has the same
persuasive effect as true right-wing commentators, such as Bill OReilly. Thus,
it appears that Colberts brand of humor has some unintended consequences.
While this research was grounded in the theories of humor and persuasion, it
also fits with other communications research that examines the unintended
consequences of non- humorous messages.
This makes it seem as though the rapid exposure of the students to both Colbert and
OReilly had washed the students ability to comprehend to subtle faade and satire that
Colbert was presenting. Thus, I believe the results of the examination would be quite

Aidan Murray
different if there was individualized exposure to Colbert and OReilly, and that the results
would favor Colberts intent, which is to increase the know-how of the students and to
reveal some of the shortcomings of the conservative train of thought on some critical
issues. It is also interesting to cross apply the Pew Research Centers study that revealed
that viewers of Colbert were more politically knowledgeable, because the same report
found that Fox News, the network that airs OReillys show, had below average results
when considering political knowledge (though only minimally below the national
average).
Another way to address the theory that Colbert is making people more
conservative is that this is simply irrelevant. The goal of the show is to inform the people
and increase their political knowledge, not to make them blindly liberal. Therefore, I
must again look to the findings of Polk, Young, and Holbert where it is indicated that the
viewers were more informed and able to form more developed political thoughts. This
indicates that the show is effectively conveying important information and is able to
increase the critical thinking of its viewers, regardless of their political bias. This endresult is extremely important because the democratic process as a whole relies on people
being active and objective, and a populous that is increasingly able to critically think is a
populous that will better utilize the democratic process.
When specifically examining the Super PAC project, it is important to
understand the nature of the case, because that will determine the effect of Colberts
satire. Because the SCOTUS made a final ruling on the Citizens United case, there is
little that Colbert can do to change this decision or alter its implementation, which is
simply the fact of the matter. This means that in practice, the Super PAC project can

Aidan Murray
lampoon the SCOTUS decision and its implications unendingly, but there is little
meaningful change that can come from the project in terms of how the federal election
law is interpreted. Where there is a potential for change, though, is how the American
people approach elections under the new interpretation of the law. Through the Super
PAC, there were a variety of political advertisements produced based on funds that were
donated to the PAC, which totaled $1,231,916 after the entirety of the election cycle.
Clearly, with donations summing that incredible amount, there was significant public
support for Stephens project, which signifies that the project was effective in the sense
of creating a common experience for people (echoing the results of Cao and Brewer).
Therefore this demonstrates that in practice, the Super PAC project not only engaged a
significant number of people but it created a means through which those people could
increase their political awareness and participation.

Satire in Theory
Although there may be various results indicating the effects of Colberts
political satire, it is important to delve further into the satire and evaluate the theoretical
reasons why a political satirist like Colbert may be effective and influencing political
activism and change, and this new discussion must include the nature of Colberts satire.
Stephen Colberts satirical style coincides closely with the classical Russian satirist
Mikhail Bakhtin, which therefore prompts the discussion regarding the theory behind
Colberts success. Classical Bakhtinian satire invokes the carnivalesque, which is based
on the medieval practice of having the annual carnival where jesters and actors would
portray the King and members of the Court in a negative light for comedic purposes. This
would bring joy to the peasants who lived the rest of the year subject to the rule of these

Aidan Murray
people, but who can once a year deject and made fun of their rulers. Therefore the
carnival acted as a way of not only critiquing the upper class, but it acted as a uniting
mechanism. Bakhtin even reveals the nature of the carnival in his novel Rabelais and his
World by explaining
Rank was especially evident during official feasts; everyone was expected to
appear in the full regalia of his calling... and to take the place corresponding to
his position. It was a consecration of inequality. On the contrary, all were
considered equal during carnival. Here, in the town square, a special form of
free and familiar contact reigned among people who were usually divided by the
barriers of caste, property, profession, and age. (10)
The carnivalesque is not only reliant on the breaking of social class, but also the
deprecation of the people who hold powerful roles. Bakhtin continues in Rabelais saying,
we are especially interested in the language which mocks and insults the deity and
which was part of the ancient comic cults (16) Therefore, carnivalesque satire acts in the
same manner by using critical themes to deconstruct a target while uniting others in the
process. In addition, Carnivalesque satire is also strongly associated with behavior that is
against main social rule or structure, which is what grants it such strength. Essentially,
Bakhtinian and Carnivalesque satire is work that subverts and liberates the assumptions
of the dominant style or atmosphere through humor and chaos. (Wikipedia)
This method of satire, therefore, is effective at engaging others in such an
effective way because it unites people through all classes and brings their attention to a
single topic of discussion. Through the lampooning of that subject, the people are able to
not only better understand its nature through their laughter, but they are also better able to

Aidan Murray
engage in a constructive discussion regarding that subject (as indicated by Polk, Young,
and Holbert). The satire not only creates discussion, but laughter as well, which is
another important method of the carnivalesque satire. Without laughter, the carnivalesque
could lose its meaning, as it is so strongly rooted in the humor of the situational satire.
Laughter is an extremely important tool for Colbert, and the reasoning for this is revealed
by Bernard Sahlins in a speech he conducted at the 40th anniversary of Second City (a
showcase for satire). He explains that
The fact is, man is the only animal that laughs, and comedys major role is to
evoke the laughter that celebrates our unity as mortal creatures [] when we as
a community laugh at the same thing, its a very special moment. Its the
realization of a desperate hope: the hope that we are enough like one another to
sense one another and to be able to live together (qtd. in Charles 13).
Essentially, Sahlins reveals that it is laughter specifically that brings people together and
is able to unite them behind the cause of the show, which is to increase political
knowledge while satirizing the decision by the SCOTUS.
The Colbert Report in its entirety reflects this carnivalesque nature through its
various sections and its intentional placement of Colbert as a figurehead. Because Colbert
maintains his role as an overly conservative pundit, he is placing himself out on a
pedestal as to encourage peoples criticism and directed deconstruction of his so-called
beliefs. This is especially emphasized during the common segment The Word, where
Colbert will go on a tirade on some topic, but undermining and humorous statements
appear in the graphics for the show to directly counter his comments. This style and
presentation is inherently carnivalesque because it directly sets up Colbert as a king-

Aidan Murray
figure that can be demoted and critiqued by the audience. This critique is extended,
though, to the conservative pundits (such as Papa Bear Bill OReilly) that Colbert
mimics and mocks, because it is the false opinions and views of Colbert that are
deconstructed and critiqued by the carnivalesque humor. This means that the inherent
effect of Colberts satirical style is to undermine some of the conservative pundits and
their views.
The Super PAC project, as an extension of Colberts show, is especially
effective as a carnivalesque satire because of the interactive element it provides.
Throughout the development of the project, Colbert continually made all information and
activities easily accessible and interactive with the public, which had the effect of
drawing people in and increasing their interest in the project as a whole. People were
drawn into participating, and as a result their interest with the project extended into
interest and awareness regarding the election finance law. Additional glaringly
carnivalesque facets of the PAC project are the variety of satirical campaign adverts that
were broadcast as a method of criticizing specific candidates.

Conclusion
It becomes ever more clear, as more work is published and analyzed, that
exposure to political satire can have benefits towards political intelligence and
participation. When concerning specifically Colberts Super PAC, it is more than obvious
(especially when considering the various results of Gilkerson, Day, and others) that
Colbert has increased public knowledge of election finance law, the Supreme Courts
decision for Citizens United, and the role of PACs in elections. This is evidenced by the
vast amount of public support and fundraising the PAC was able to muster. What is less

10

Aidan Murray
clear though is the effect of his PAC on actual interpretation of the Citizens United case
and on electoral turnout or political participation, which could mean that Colberts PAC
is only partially effective at its inherent goal. The implications of these conclusions are
significant, especially considering the inherent role that political awareness and
participation play in our representative democracy, where an intelligent and informed
populace can best choose people to represent and create legislation for them. At the end
of the day, the main goal of a democracy is to fairly represent and protect its citizens, and
this can best occur when the citizens are fully invested in the proceedings of the
government.
In order to evaluate the full efficacy of the Super PAC project, it is first necessary
to address the shortcomings of the Super PAC project. When Colbert set out to satirize
the Citizens United decision, it is likely that he had some sweeping reform in mind that
would remedy the flaws of the electoral law system. Unfortunately though, we will never
know because the SCOTUS deemed its interpretation of the law as final (until further
challenge), meaning that there will be no reform to the law as a result of Colberts actions
through the PAC. This shortcoming is limited to the short term, though, because there has
been little time since the implementation of the Super PAC project for meaningful policy
change to occur. This policy change is unlikely for now though because the Super PAC
was dissolved as of October 2012.
Secondly, it is important to acknowledge that there is overwhelming support for
the conclusion that exposure to the political satire of the PAC project increased political
awareness. The claim is supported both in theory and in practice, which can lead to our
affirmation of the Super PAC project as an overwhelming success. In theory, there are a

11

Aidan Murray
variety of scholarly sources that demonstrate that exposure to political satire not only
increases political awareness amongst its audience, but that it can also foster an increase
in participation by that same audience which is a significant piece of our democracy.
Theory regarding the carnivalesque satirical style backs this up, creating a significant and
resounding support for our claim. In practice, the implementation of the Super PAC
project was done in a way that fostered support from the public, which acts as a form of
political engagement in itself. In essence, Colberts Super PAC is both an effective satire,
and an effective tool for enhancing democracy, both of which are excellent and admirable
things.

12