Is Comedy News Good?

Is comedy news good in the sense of providing information? Is it good for society?

After watching comedy news fairly religiously over the last few months, I think I’ve come to the conclusion that comedy news can be both a good thing and a bad thing. I think there is also a key difference as well between watching, listening, and reading when it comes to comedy news shows and their interpretation.

I’m not going to be citing anything this time around; I’m just going to be talking about my experience and my opinion.

When it comes to consuming late-night shows, you do have a few options on the method of consumption. You can watch them, listen to them, or even sometimes read episode transcripts (from what I can tell there are folks who transcribe Colbert’s monologues for example).

I think the ideal method of consumption is watching, or at least having the video play in the background with the ability to back track the video to re-watch certain sections when you may have missed some visual context or cue.

I think if you’re listening for entertainment, that’s fine, but if you’re listening to actually get your news then you should probably just switch over to a news podcast. Because I find when you’re just listening to what the hosts are saying, often times you’re missing the visual aspects, which do take a little away from the entertainment value of it.

There is also a difference between content created for television, that has been converted into a podcast, and content that was created for a podcast. The thing with late-night shows is that they are a visual behemoth. They are produced with the idea that you are going to be watching the show, not listening to it, it was created for television after all. When podcasters are producing content, they know that their audience isn’t going to actually be watching their show (although I think in recent times you can actually watch podcasts now, such as the introduction of videos on Spotify or YouTube podcasts). Creators on these mediums understand that for podcasts, they’re often done adjacent to other tasks. People (such as myself) will use podcasts while doing something else, like cooking, cleaning, or commuting. Whereas late-night shows are generally for watching.

But not only can you watch these shows or listen to them, you also now have the opportunity to read them. And while I don’t think this is a particularly popular thing, it is an option. This is where I think there is more danger in particular. Because not only have you taken away the visual elements, you’ve now taken away the vocal elements. You no longer have the tone shift, the sarcasm for example. There are many times where the hosts will say “and this is true” and say something factual, and there are also times where they say “that’s true right?” or say something is true in a sarcastic manner that would likely be lost in a transcript.

So, when it comes to watching, listening, and reading these shows, there is increased danger for misinterpretation as you get farther from the medium the show was intended for. Again, when you watch, you can pick up a lot of the non-verbal communications and visuals, when you listen, you can pick up on some tone, sarcasm, but you miss the nod, the wink, the joking grimace, and when you read, you lose the visuals and the tone, unless someone has taken the liberty to pencil in tonal descriptions.

So, I’ve talked about the method of consumption here, but again are the shows good or are they bad? Good at providing information, and good for society?

When I think about late-night shows in the sense of Jon Oliver, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers, I do think about them in a positive light. But they of course aren’t without their flaws.

On one hand they do provide information in an easy to consume format, that draws in some viewers who may not be as interested in traditional news media. On the flip side, they also push away people who may not like, or approve of, their tone, or how harsh they sometimes are with their jokes and criticisms. There is some thought that they are increasing polarization between groups, they’re sometimes visceral in a way. They’re not necessarily as inviting to the group they’re sometimes insulting. When they say “oh look how ridiculous you are” those people, who disagree with them, may not be so inclined to change their views, or even think critically on the topic. They may instead be defensive, emboldened, and angry, rather than shamed.

So, like I often say, they’re good at pointing out absurdity, especially in a political context, but is their identification of that absurdity and their making fun of it, making people come on side, or making people defensive? That would be another area to explore through research. When does criticism go too far, when making these jokes? Also, what is the ultimate goal of these hosts? Do they really care if they’re changing people’s minds? Do they care if they’re bringing people on side? Or is it just a job? Or is their role in these positions (as a job) simply to generate views and thus revenue for their network?

In the sense of providing information, I do think as someone outside of the United States, that they are helpful in describing some of the chaos that is going on. I think it’s helpful in the sense of: it’s so mind boggling what’s going on, I just need a laugh about it, while getting some information. And then pair that with Canadian news networks, articles and podcasts. For me, I get a little comic relief through late-night hosts, and then I go get more factual stuff on Canada and the Canadian-American relationship through traditional media sources.

No media source is perfect, and late-night shows certainly aren’t. But I think they’re somewhere in the middle, they can be both good and bad, at relaying information, and for society as a whole.