A lot of college students today are probably familiar with late-night TV personality, Stephen Colbert.  For many of us, his antics as host of The Colbert Report on Comedy Central made it seem safe to watch the news again.  With incessant political turmoil and things happening around us that are downright scary, mainstream news channels can almost seem like bad sci-fi movies.  Since The Colbert Report debuted in 2005, however, viewers have at least learned that it’s okay to laugh a bit at the sheer stupidity that is to blame for some of the chaos in this country.  Colbert’s satirical news program can’t change what’s happening around us, but its unique presentation at least helps make the stories easier to stomach.  The problem with satire though is that in order to understand it, people actually have to think.  While this might typically be applauded, it’s often when people start thinking too much that problems arise.  

To truly appreciate The Colbert Report, or simply The Report, it’s important to understand a little bit of the show’s background.  Its host, Stephen Colbert, dresses to resemble a typical nightly newscaster, but his mannerisms reveal that he is targeting the likeness of Bill O’Reilly: conservative news pundit and host of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News.  We know this because Colbert has directly referred to O’Reilly as “Papa Bear” and his loud, outspoken diatribes are repeatedly mocked through Colbert’s spontaneous energy and eccentricity.  Furthermore, Colbert uses The O’Reilly Factor as a platform from which he proceeds to parody other renowned political activists.  Radio personalities like the conservative Rush Limbaugh and liberal Bill Press are also indirectly being targeted by Colbert’s absurdities.  Both air radio programs well known for their extreme political bias in analyzing government decisions.

Stephen Colbert has further lampooned radicals by using terms like “commies” or “bleeding hearts” when referring to liberally-minded individuals and by humorously, albeit blatantly, ignoring the need for facts to support his arguments.  The classic example of this is a daily segment of his show called “The Word.”  The actual word being suggested is “truthiness,” which was coined by Colbert in his first broadcast and refers to instances where people claim to know something instinctively with no explanation as to why.  During his first episode, Stephen introduced it by stating, “…anyone who knows me knows I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books.  I don’t trust books.  They’re all fact, no heart.”

Colbert’s commitment to irrational logic is what defines the show, but it also seems to confuse people. 

Colbert continues stretching things to the utterly absurd in his nightly interviews with politicians, authors, and various other celebrities.  He always keeps the conversations lively with ridiculous theories and questions directed at people considered to be experts in their field.  Oftentimes his remarks coincide with not so brilliant deductions made by other members of the media.  During a 2008 discussion of global warming with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Colbert asked, “What’s wrong with the ice melting?  Maybe now Greenland will actually turn green.”  He later inquired, “What can a person like me do to help that will in no way inconvenience me?”  This satirically played on remarks by Rush Limbaugh concerning Greenland returning to non-tundra-like conditions, and how it could ultimately be a positive outcome of global warming.

Colbert’s commitment to irrational logic is what defines the show, but it also seems to confuse people.  As a result, many viewers are diligently trying to decipher Stephen’s own political agenda and decide whether it in turn favors red (Republican) voters or blue (Democratic) voters.  Personally, I think these hard-working fans might as well trash both conspiracy theories and just combine the two ideologies, forming a purple Colbertican blur that does not officially exist on any political science chart.  Simply put, Stephen Colbert’s brand of comedy doesn’t discriminate.

The problem is that people are so busy analyzing things and clinging to their party lines, they can’t just relax for thirty minutes and enjoy a few laughs together.  Students at The Ohio State University published a study in April of 2009 that showed a depressingly obvious disparity between how liberals and conservatives interpreted Colbert’s satire.  Of the 332 students who took an online survey, Democrats frequently concluded that the show’s puns against conservative anchors amounted to sarcastic insults towards the party, while Republicans believed the remarks were more straight forward and humorously communicated Stephen’s ultimate dislike for liberalism.  Are Americans really so insecure that we are actually taking sides on this one?  If that’s the case, then maybe more people should take a look at what Colbert himself has to say about The Report.       

In a 2006 interview with 60 Minutes, Colbert revealed that he sees his character as nothing more than “a well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot."  From this I think it is safe to conclude that the man behind the desk is not taking things too incredibly serious.  Colbert seldom even lets his children watch him on The Report because as he put it, "I truck in insincerity. With a very straight face, I say things I don't believe."  That being said, people need to understand that the sarcasm is simply aimed at drawing laughs out of situations that might otherwise make us cry.  Playing on the natural ridiculousness of people like Bill O’Reilly isn’t necessarily a slam against Republicans.  It doesn’t attempt to group all conservatives under that stigma.  It just brings into a different light those who practically set themselves up for such ridicule by entering national media with such a single-minded approach.  It’s just humor.  Take it at face value and laugh a little because let’s be honest; with things the way they are in this world, both sides of the aisle could use a little of that medicine.                

The Ohio State University

Autumn 2009