[News] Satirical News Show Clips

Oliver reposted it in light of the 'Skittles' post by Trump Jr.

I was meaning to watch Sandra Bee's Full Frontal.
I really liked it, although I thought she'd be angrier.

It wasn't 10 times. It was 51 times.

This may be too Discussion-esque, but I wanted to drop this here first as it pertains to modern American satire. If the groupthink feels this doesn't fit the thread I'll gladly move it.

Several think pieces have crossed my sphere of influence and made me rethink my infatuation with the current state of modern American satire. As a disenfranchised liberal youth in the era of the Bush push to co-opt media and religion, I was weaned on the Daily Show. That Jon Stewart's disciples have come to dominate the world of late night comedy-news-satire is something I view as almost a personal vindication and victory.

That being said, is it possible that modern American satire:

1) Is largely toothless and pulls its punches?

2) Is open to misinterpretation and inadvertently fuels the ignorance it satires?

3) Creates a self-reinforcing bubble in which discussion is hindered and opposition alienated?

The idea for this line of thought is largely based on the most recent Malcolm Gladwell podcast The Satire Paradox. The podcast describes most of the positions I present here, but he really drives home the fact that American satire is weak when compared to other forms of satire. Tina Fey's Sarah Palin is demonstrably weaker than the Israeli satire he references. Is it possible that the problem with satire doesn't go far enough?

That satire is often misinterpreted is a sad fact. Stephen Colbert's character was as beloved by conservatives as liberals because they chose to believe he was actually telling the truth. What? This is patently shocking to me. There's a historical context to this failure of satire too if you read about the interpretations of the Archie Bunker character.

The self-reinforcing bubble fact is brought up in this NYTimes op-ed The Samantha Bee Problem. I don't agree with many of the statements in this op-ed, but it got me thinking? Will this wind tunnel one-sided coverage of the issues bring about the backlash he describes? Moreover, does the lack of representation just serve to reinforce the audience? Is the satire monopoly a part of the problem with the current state of political discourse?

If you want an even more extreme view (which I don't endorse), you can read Sinking Giggling into the Sea, a critique that states satire and humor has no place in the political sphere.

At any rate, I'm juggling these questions daily as this political year comes to a close, and I was wondering what you all, fellow fans and subscribers to the modern American satire sphere, would think in response.

Super interesting Kronen, though it probably does deserve a Discussion thread.

Nooooope.