Teaching Media Critique through The Colbert Report: Toward a Parodic Pedagogy

JACOB W. GREENE

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE THROUGH THE COLBERT REPORT Toward A Parodic Pedagogy

According to a recent news consumption survey conducted by the Pew Research Center (2012), a majority of younger Americans (ages 18-29) continue to cite comedy newscasts such as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as their primary sources of news (p. 15). As others have argued, the growing popularity of parody news among millennials is partially fueled by an ongoing disdain for the rampant sensationalism and ideological partisanship within mainstream media and politics (Baym, 2009, p. 126 and Moraes, 2011). Indeed, parody media, with its focus on critically and entertainingly analyzing political, cultural, and media discourses, would seem to be the perfect antidote to the cynical detachment exacerbated by the mainstream media. Even beyond the shows’ content, the cult fan bases surrounding parody media offer a prime opportunity for reinvigorating a sense of participatory engagement and accountability within political and media discourses. In her conclusion to America According to Colbert: Satire as Public Pedagogy, Sophia McClennen (2011) seems to be in agreement on both points, writing that “youth-oriented political satire offers one of the most powerful ways of reinvigorating the public sphere” (p. 158). In an earlier Pew report (2010), a majority of The Colbert Report viewers stated that they consider their experience of the show as primarily entertainment (p. 9). Thus, one might be tempted to criticize comedy newscasts for perpetuating a cynical and disengaged populace in the same manner as “infotainment,” a negative term typically levelled at mainstream news outlets that focus on “soft news” (recipes, personal stories, DIY tips, etc.) or present the news in a polarizing or sensationalistic manner (2008, Brants). However, there is no evidence that the presence of “entertainment” itself contributes to either political disengagement or lessened knowledge of current events. On the contrary, a number of surveys have shown the viewership of comedy newscast to be far more knowledgeable than the viewership of traditional news in their awareness of current events and understanding of basic political processes (Pew Report, 2012, p. 43; Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2014). Unfortunately, the informative benefits of comedy newscasts have not been easily translatable to a pedagogical context. The scant empirical research available on college undergraduates’ perceptions of comedy newscasts revealed that students exposed to such shows not only displayed confusion concerning their satirical

JACOB W. GREENE

angle but also increased signs of cynicism toward both politics and television news media (Baumgartner, 2006). In this chapter, I present a theoretical framework for how college composition courses can address some of the problems preventing parody media from capitalizing on its cultural exigency as a vital site of critical public pedagogy. My definition of critical public pedagogy comes from McClennen’s (2011) approach to the term through the work of Henry Giroux, which refers specifically to pedagogies that encourage students to become “more fully aware of the ways that the news media, political discourse, and other forms of entertainment teach us how to think about the world” (p. 2). Focusing specifically on The Colbert Report, I explore how identifying and employing the method of media critique modeled by parody news programs works to promote a site of critical student engagement with cultural and political discourses. Drawing from a close analysis of several segments of The Colbert Report, I show how the analytical skills displayed in Stephen Colbert’s parody newscasts model an effective approach for media critical pedagogies1. By focusing on the material patterns within media discourse, Colbert is able to more effectively expose contradictions not only within politics and culture but also within the various modes of representation through which they are disseminated. Pedagogies that encourage students to critically reflect on the ways in which cultural texts and practices frame social experiences and contribute to the formation of identity are typically categorized under umbrella terms such as “cultural studies,” “social constructionism,” or “critical pedagogy” (Giroux, 1995; Hawk, 2007; Olson, 1989). For the purposes of this chapter, however, I use the term “media critique.” Although I will expand upon my definition throughout the chapter, I prefer this term because it frames the rhetorical analysis of culture in relation to its object of study (media) rather than the ones being manipulated by it (students). Next, I articulate what I term “parodic pedagogy” by situating the formal focus of my approach to media critique within composition theory and pedagogy more generally. As other educators have argued, encouraging students to intentionally manipulate the formal elements of a text is not only a generative method for revealing patterns or inconsistencies within it but is also an effective means of repositioning student identity in relation to cultural discourse (i.e. from consumer to producer). Lastly, I turn to the circulatory potential of new media assignments as a means of extending media critique beyond the confines of the classroom and sustaining a “rapport” with media discourses in a post-Colbert era.

2

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE

But first, as a way of providing some historical context for the role of comedy newscasts in the twenty first century, I discuss the pivotal role played by The Colbert Report in providing a voice of reason amidst the hostile mix of blind patriotism and media silence that came to define post-9/11 political and media discourse. PARODY MEDIA AND POSTMODERNISM

In general, satire can be differentiated from parody in its more explicit articulation of the problems it claims to expose within the logic of a specific argument and/or aspect of a society. Indeed, this distinction between parody and satire was even mentioned by Stephen Colbert himself when he said in an interview on Meet the Press that satire is simply “parody with a point” (Fischer, 2012). Contrary to satire, parody privileges a “dialectical play” with the formal elements of a work and any undertones of direct or intentional critique often emerge from this mimetic process itself (Rose, 1993, p. 121). Thus, the reason I choose to describe The Colbert Report as “parodic” rather than “satiric” is not to discredit the show’s strong satiric bent, but rather to highlight this generative quality of parody. As Sophia McClennen (2011) describes this attribute of Colbert’s parody, it is the way in which alternate perspectives emerge when an author “embodies that which is being lampooned” (p. 75). By embodying the very discourses that he is critiquing, Colbert is able to locate contradictions across seemingly discrete domains of culture such as politics and entertainment, among others. The Colbert Report first aired in 2005 as a Comedy Central spin off of the highly successful comedy news program The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In contrast to Stewart’s more straightforward critique, Colbert takes a more performative approach by centering his show on a fictional persona derived from the bombastic stylistics of conservative political commentators such as Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. A typical episode begins with an anchor-style analysis of select stories, segments, and interviews from the major news networks including CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and, more often, Fox News. This portion is then followed by a guest interview and/or a more in depth commentary on a specific story, person, or, event presented in the form of one of Colbert’s signature parody sketches such as “The Word;” “Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger;” “Formidable Opponent;” or “Better Know a District.” In both his introduction and comedy sketches, Colbert utilizes a parodic form to re-present the news media to his audience in a way that highlights many of the connections and contradictions otherwise obscured by the desensitizing nature of 24-hour news cycles, which serve more to attract and sustain viewers than to provide an informative analysis of current events.

3

JACOB W. GREENE

Cultural theorist Frederic Jameson (1982/2002) provides one explanation for how this desensitization works within mainstream news media. He argues that this sensationalistic structure exacerbates a society’s ability to historicize its current cultural moment. Due to the structural instantaneity of capitalism, postmodern news media, rather than addressing the constitutive relationship between historical and present conditions, become “the very agents and mechanisms for our historical amnesia” (p. 125). Within a capitalist society, there is no time to explore the significance of socio-political events because the fundamental drive of “new” that is built into the very fabric of our culture resists such stasis. This is why many mainstream media outlets privilege simplistic binaries (us vs. them, good vs. bad, etc.) over nuanced analyses. In his essay “Stephen Colbert’s Parody of the Postmodern,” Geoffrey Baym (2009) argues that Colbert’s ironic appropriation of mainstream media provides “an antidote of sorts” to this media amnesia by revitalizing a sense of “linguistic normality” eroded by the postmodern rejection of rational discourse brought on by the political partisanship and fundamentalist rhetoric that emerged at the turn of the century and after September 11, 2001, specifically (p. 141). Moreover, Sophia McClennen (2011) claims that the mainstream media’s hesitancy in taking critical stances toward government policies following 9/11 created the cultural conditions necessitating a parodic public pedagogy, or a site where political critique could masquerade as mere entertainment (p. 2). For McClennen (2011), Colbert's 2006 roast of then president George W. Bush at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner marked a seminal moment for the public sphere in the way that it displayed a critical engagement with political rhetoric and ideology hitherto lacking in the post-9/11 mainstream media. In his speech before hundreds of politicians and major figures of the press, Colbert entered into territory atypical for the comedic keynote, touching on subjects such as “the loss of innocent life for an unjust war, the unwavering idiocy of the president, and the criminal complicity of the mainstream press” (McClennen, p. 32). McClennen remarks that Colbert's criticism was so effective because the false accolades his conservative persona bestowed upon the Bush administration functioned as a hyperbolic foil “that made his disapproval obvious” (p. 32). She argues persuasively that the press’s negative reaction to Colbert’s speech at the WHCA was indicative of the complex nature of his parody in the way that it moved imperceptibly between entertainment and incisive socio-political critique. After the WHCA dinner, the mainstream media, due to either chagrin or myopia, were virtually silent on the impact of Colbert’s speech. The only review that did discuss Colbert briefly criticized him for being overly harsh before moving on to a more in depth look at the success of Steve Bridges’ lighthearted Bush impersonation (Argetsinger, 2006).

4

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE

However, as Colbert’s performance began to circulate on video-sharing websites, the blogosphere responded with resounding approval to Colbert’s biting satire, deeming it the kind of critique that the politically disenchanted public so desperately craved (Froomkin, 2006). Without a doubt, Colbert’s speech at the WHCA cemented his status as the de facto media filter for many people disillusioned by the irrational fundamentalism and rhetorical posturing pervading media and political discourses of the early twenty first century. THE “TRUTHINESS” OF POLITICAL RHETORIC

Colbert’s unique approach to media critique often focuses on the re-presentation of specific material attributes of media discourse including images, sounds, phrases, and sometimes even a single word. In one of the show’s most popular segments, “The Word,” Colbert focuses on a story or idea circulating within the media, distills it into a single word or phrase (typically a neologism), and exposes its absurdity by pushing its contradictions to their logical extremes. In addition, the dialogic play between Colbert’s spoken utterances and the running textual commentary in this segment acts as a formal parody of Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points” segment on Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor. Colbert’s first (and arguably most popular) segment of “The Word” aired in 2005 and took aim at the irrational rhetoric coming from the Bush administration’s justification for nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court despite her glaring lack of experience (Colbert, 2005). Playing off the President’s tendency to mispronounce certain terms (strategery, misunderestimated, Internets, etc.), Colbert defends Bush’s decision, framing his response around the neologism “truthiness.” In the segment, truthiness is described as the kind of truth “that you feel with your heart, not with your head,” a reference to Bush’s justification for the Miers’ nomination based on his knowledge of “her heart.” Colbert then applies this same “gut” logic to the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq: Colbert: If you think about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces for the rationale for war. But doesn’t taking Saddam out feel like the right thing? Signing off, Colbert takes a jab at the emotionally charged rhetoric of O’Reillyesque media outlets in sustaining this culture of “truthiness” in their pursuit of higher ratings: Colbert: The truthiness is anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news at you. “The Word” segment is a crucial component of Colbert’s media critique in the way that it foregrounds parody’s ability to (de)construct political discourse. The 5

JACOB W. GREENE

running textual commentary subverts the absurdity of Colbert's persona by revealing the diffuse semantic nature of linguistic representations and how language can not only run counter to a speaker’s intentions but also to the overt meaning of the communicative act itself. As a model for a parodic pedagogy, “The Word” displays how a writer can synthesize a variety of texts into a single overarching idea without devolving into reductive generalizations. In Colbert’s model, polysemy is not an aspect of language one should resist in order to arrive at a clear synthesis but rather a fertile ground for rhetorical invention through which one can draw a variety of generative, even contradictory, connections. Although “truthiness” was voted Merriam-Webster’s word of the year in 2006 and has since come to function as a kind of shorthand for referring to Colbert’s blow to the rhetoric of Bush-era politics, educators have had difficulty utilizing his critical parody even though they seek similar goals (i.e. constructing effective rhetorical arguments, analyzing textual and visual documents closely, and fostering engagement with cultural and political discourses). Stacy Beavers (2011) notes that when she screened The Colbert Report for her students, many of them were unable to discern the ironic posturing of his conservative persona and thus read his satirical newscast as a genuine ideological stance on current events. Moreover, she found in her own survey that students who self-reported as conservative responded favorably to the inclusion of this show in the course curriculum (p. 418). Indeed, other research corroborates Beaver’s claim that more conservative viewers of The Colbert Report tend to align ideologically with Colbert’s parodic persona (Colletta, 2009, p. 864; LaMarre, Landreville, & Beam, 2009). To avoid such confusion, Beavers recommends that “instructors who use such comedy must provide students with the tools they need to ‘get’ the jokes and appreciate the humor while keeping the overarching objective of building critical thinking skills firmly in mind” (p. 417). Although appreciating Colbert’s incisive humor certainly demonstrates and reinforces one’s political and cultural knowledge, I part ways with Beavers in her assertion that a pedagogical use of Colbert’s media critique requires that students “get” the jokes. Rather, I would argue that the pedagogical focus of utilizing critical parodies such as The Colbert Report should be more attuned to the show’s method than its content. Specifically, educators should focus on the show’s success in appropriating and remixing the circulation of political, cultural, and media discourses in order to generate alternate perspectives on current events and entrenched ideologies. As a general outline of this method, Colbert often begins his critical parody with an exaggerated interpretation of a specific linguistic (key words, phrases) and/or cultural (movies, advertisements, etc.) signifier. Next, he will typically draw a logical connection between his “exaggerated” interpretation and the actual actions 6

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE

or qualities of the original speaker(s) or text(s). In doing so, Colbert illuminates the hyperbolic qualities of postmodern media discourses and their role in shaping political and cultural ideologies. In his May 22, 2014 episode, Colbert demonstrates how a parodic focus on seemingly innocuous political rhetoric exposes how language can alter a public’s conception of their role within a democracy. In the opening segment, Colbert reports on the Obama administration’s failure to uphold a promise made to the public to provide United States veterans with adequate health care (Colbert, 2014c). At the time, the Obama administration was in the midst of a broiling controversy instigated by revelations that the government had concealed documents revealing exorbitant delays for veterans seeking health care through the Veterans Administration. Colbert then replays a clip from a 2012 speech in which President Obama says that his promise to strengthen the Veterans Administration “has been kept.” At this point, Colbert interrupts: Colbert: Yes. That promise has been kept, but he's evidently forgotten where he’s keeping it. Colbert critiques Obama’s blatantly false statements concerning his purported knowledge of the Veterans Administration by punning on the underlying analogy of politicians “keeping” a promise. In reading this analogy literally, Colbert critiques the flaw in the logic of political “promises,” revealing how they merely serve to convey a reductive illusion of democracy between two equal entities (“the public” and “the government”). The dialogic framework presupposed in the president’s “promise keeping” analogy is contradicted by documents revealing a dysfunctional veteran’s health care system. In this way, Colbert not only reports on the president’s failure to “keep” a promise that he made to the public, but critiques the very discursive system established through the media that makes it possible for him to even make one in the first place. Another example of how Colbert’s media critique exposes contradictory political rhetoric appears on his June 9, 2014 episode during a report on the media’s coverage of the United States’ controversial negotiations with the Taliban resulting in the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Guantanamo Bay detainees (Colbert, 2014b). He shows three news clips pulled from CNN and Fox News featuring Republican politicians first ecstatically praising Bergdahl’s release and then immediately switching to a condemnatory tone in describing the President’s actions in the situation. In addition, the Republicans’ abrupt shift within this controversy was colored by their emphasis on Bergdahl’s status as a deserter, often referring to the other soldier’s lives he put in danger by going AWOL.

7

JACOB W. GREENE

Republicans’ epideictic vacillations within the media reflects their opportunistic exploitation of Bergdahl’s return as both praiseworthy (returning soldier, patriotism, etc.) and a blameworthy (deserter, AWOL, etc.) Although it is certainly justifiable for a politician to have conflicting opinions about a complex situation, the obviously orchestrated political posturing present in all three clips displays the sort of partisan rhetoric that breeds public contempt for the mainstream media. The contradictory rhetoric exposed by the juxtaposition of these three clips is an effect of the political impasse facing Republican's in the wake of Bergdahl’s release. By applauding the return of the sole P.O.W. from Afghanistan, Republican’s knew they would be perceived as implicitly endorsing the President's actions. However, they were also aware that criticizing the President's actions would appear as an insensitive and unpatriotic position in the midst of a receding war. Thus, Republican’s end up straddling a rhetorical fence by capitalizing on the public’s emotional investment in the Bergdahl story by cheering his return but at the same time criticizing the means of procuring it. This leads Colbert's conservative persona to join in the rhetorical wavering of his fellow conservatives by declaring that the situation is “a victory and defeat” that “has us pumping our fist [sic] with joy while shaking it in anger.” Colbert’s clever combination of plural (“us, our”) and singular (“it”) grammar in this statement alludes to the media fueled representationalism that often forces political parties to tout one coherent message for fear of appearing divided or disorganized. Instead of attempting to articulate a nuanced response to a complex situation, Republicans merely reinforce a contradictory rhetorical binary at the expense of individualized responses that could potentially lead to productive political discourse. Joseph Faina (2012) describes a similar critique of this sort of rhetorical posturing that occurred in a January 2010 segment of “The Word.” In this segment, Colbert juxtaposes statements from conservative pundits claiming that President Obama has “done nothing” for America with statements claiming that his policies are ruining the country’s economic viability. This leads Colbert to a logical deadlock in which he is forced, as Faina puts it, to claim that Obama has “not accomplished anything in his first year in office” yet paradoxically “has done so much in his first year that he may have irretrievably altered the course of the entire economy” (p. 552). The crux of Colbert’s media critique in these previous two examples is directed at not only mocking the illogical consequences of adhering to dogmatic and/or contradictory beliefs, but also exposing the profit fueled media machine that perpetuates them. In this scenario, capitalist media is partially to blame for constructing a discursive realm in which pundits and politicians alike are encouraged to “capitalize” on any opportunity to advance their partisan cause, even if such opportunities happen to conflict.

8

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE

Although Colbert directs the majority of his critique at specific contradictions within the media, he occasionally (and inevitably) utilizes parody to critique the capitalist ideologies that played a part in producing them. Colbert’s parodic critique of the pervasive influence of capitalist ideology on various aspects of American society presents a compelling and entertaining method for introducing media critical concepts to students. A common focus in such courses is the media’s role in perpetuating negative selfbody image, especially among women. In a segment of “The Word” titled “Buy and Cellulite” (Moreschi, 2011), Colbert presents a compelling media critique that draws on television advertisements, market research, and the capitalist rhetoric commonly trotted out to justify such a system. Specifically, the segment is in response to a controversial Unilever advertising campaign for a new deodorant promising to provide women with more beautiful armpits in only five days. Public criticism aimed at Unilever and the cosmetic industry in general accused them of promoting negative self-body image in their pursuit of higher profits. Declaring his hyperbolic support for Unilever and capitalism in general, Colbert’s opening lines mimic a common conservative response to accusations that capitalism breeds an ideology of reckless consumerism. He states “one of the secrets of sales is fulfilling the public’s need.” Here, Colbert appears to disarm his critics by describing advertising as a means of informing consumers about products that can satisfy preexisting needs. However, exposing the contradiction with this logic (i.e. new needs don’t “just happen” to arise alongside new products), Colbert parodically adds: “the other secret [of sales] is inventing the public’s need.” He then moves into a description of the Unilever campaign, showing a montage of cosmetics’ advertisements featuring frustrated women unhappy with some aspect of their body (hair, feet, eyelashes, etc). Wrapping up the segment, Colbert notes that Unilever conducted the marketing research for their own campaign and, unsurprisingly, discovered that 93% of women find their armpits unattractive. The litany of class based rhetoric that surfaced in the wake of the 2012 presidential election (e.g. Mitt Romney’s 47% comment, “You didn’t build that,” etc.) exacerbated the divide between competing visions of the role of government in the American economy. As a result, political and cultural discourses began to revolve around a binary between the “makers” (the upper classes, 1%) and the “takers” (Romney’s 47%, the 99%). One of Colbert’s most perceptive critiques of the consequences of this kind of rhetoric comes in his June 2, 2014 newscast centered on Thomas Piketty’s bestseller Capital in the Twenty First Century (Colbert, 2014a). Here, Colbert channels his parodic critique of Piketty’s success through an incisive and accessible analysis that links a reassertion of capitalist ideology with Paramount 9

JACOB W. GREENE

Picture’s successful launch of the Iron Man franchise. In these films, Robert Downey Jr. stars as a brilliant, renegade inventor who uses his vast financial resources to build a state-of-the-art combat suit to protect humanity from evil, power-hungry business men. Responding to Piketty’s main claim that capitalist economies stagnate economic growth and perpetuate systemic inequality, Colbert points to a graphic of Robert Downey Jr. (aka Tony Stark) as he explains how Piketty’s call for higher tax rates for the wealthy would prevent the emergence of billionaire superheroes and ultimately lead to the destruction of human civilization. Colbert: If Piketty had his way and Tony [Robert Downey Jr.] was coughing up eighty percent in taxes, suddenly he’s not a billionaire anymore and can’t afford to be Iron Man. Then who’s saving New York from the Chitauri invasion? ...Billionaire's protect us. Colbert’s method of moving between political (“makers” providing for the “takers”) and entertainment (the super-rich saving the world) discourses works to expose the degree to which the two are intertwined through a shared cultural narrative. Although a society might insist on an ability to compartmentalize political ideology and entertainment media at a conscious level, Colbert’s segment reveals how, at a discursive level, politics and culture operate within a similar logic, simultaneously reinforcing and revealing established societal binaries (i.e. the rich save the poor). This phenomenon is similar to what Frederic Jameson (1981) refers to as a society’s “political unconscious,” or the way in which symbolic resolutions emerge to resolve political contradictions within a society. By focusing on the rhetorical nature of cultural discourse, Colbert's parody encourages the sort of “dialectical play” that generates incisive links between these seemingly disconnected aspects of society (Rose, 1995, p. 121). And, as I show in my next section, this is a dialectic to which undergraduates are often resistant. One reason for such resistance is that critical pedagogies are too often focused on altering student viewpoints, an approach which can create conditions for a hostile learning environment for both student and teacher. Indeed, Colbert's own insistence on his primarily comedic focus functions as a good corrective to educators overly focused on the conversion of student perceptions: “...[Y]ou have to go for what's funny. You can’t be disappointed if you actually don’t change things because it can’t have been your intention” (as cited in McClennen, 2011, p. 179). Parody’s efficacy in evoking a media critical attitude centers on its ability to open these fundamental gaps in our social binaries (people/government, politics/culture, reality/representation, etc.) by appropriating the taking-for-granted discourses through which they are constituted.

10

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE

In my next section, I consider how Colbertian parody models an effective approach to media critique through its focus on tracing and appropriating the material elements of media discourses. I argue that media critical pedagogies should focus less on the consumption of theoretical texts and more on the creation of original representations of cultural discourses. PARODY MEDIA AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGIES

Students’ high level of exposure to new media (social media images, hyperlinked articles, videos, etc.) outside of the classroom often serves as ample pedagogical justification for composition teachers looking to incorporate cultural texts into their curricula. Some composition textbooks even contain units and assignments encouraging students to critically assess the implications of a variety of cultural texts including print, web, and television advertisements; video games/game characters; and even tattoos (Alfano, 2011). However, as I have witnessed in my own courses, and as many other composition teachers have shown, critical approaches to the analysis of culture are often met with student resistance (see, for instance, Hardin, 2001, p. 3). Within the history of composition, the emergence of culture-critical composition pedagogy is typically tied to James Berlin’s (1996) inauguration of a “socialepistemic” approach, which he outlined in his book Rhetoric, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Here, Berlin argues that a socialepistemic pedagogy equips students with the analytical skills and theoretical knowledge necessary to navigate the rhetorical landscape of the mass media as educationally enlightened “citizen-rhetors” capable of exposing harmful and contradictory ideologies circulating within culture (p. 116). Berlin’s pedagogy elicited such strong student resistance because the structure of the course presupposed socially constructed subjectivities which were then posited upon the students through class discussion and assignments aimed at deconstructing the ideological undertones of various cultural texts including advertisements, television shows, political ads, music, and films (Hawk, 2007, p. 211). The problem with Berlin’s social-epistemic rhetoric is that it worked to undermine students’ sense of agency in determining their own identities, desires, religions, political affiliations, etc. In this top-down model, students perceive a teacher’s critical stance as dogmatic, and thus, even if students align with certain examples and/or conceptual tenets of Berlin’s social-epistemic approach, they often actively resist what they perceive as an attempt to substitute one authoritarian ideology for another. In a response to Berlin, Susan Miller (1997) noted that his assignment descriptions strike a paternalistic tone in the way they emphasize that students “must be made” conscious of the media’s influence on their perceptions. Miller’s main critique with Berlin’s social-epistemic rhetoric was that his overemphasis on “managing 11

JACOB W. GREENE

students’ interiors” obscures what should be the main goal of composition: teaching critical and analytical writing (p. 498). Although Miller’s more instrumentalist approach to composition pedagogy may not emphasize the conversion rhetoric of Berlin’s social-epistemic model, this does not mean that her pedagogy forecloses the possibility of student recognition of the media’s constitutive role in the construction of reality. On the contrary, Miller claims that students’ ability to “identify with those who make consequential language” can lead to a vital awareness of the relationship between rhetoric and power (p. 499). According to Elizabeth Elsworth (1989), another core problem of late-twentiethcentury critical pedagogy is its emphasis on abstract theoretical terms (e.g. critical reflection, empowerment, etc.), which she claims obscure students’ highly individuated encounters with oppressive ideologies (p. 304-5). To counter this trend, Elsworth describes her own pedagogical shift from abstract rationalism to “partial narratives,” or what she describes as her students’ “immediate emotional, social, and psychic experiences of oppression” (p. 305). Rather than conceiving her students’ experiences as examples to be utilized in service to an abstract concept, Elsworth brings them to the center of classroom practice, thus taking advantage of the generative potential that emerges from her students’ direct, yet “partial,” engagement with cultural discourses. Similarly, a parodic pedagogy places more emphasis on the cultural materials used to circulate and produce ideologies rather than the theoretical abstractions used to interpret them. Without reducing the rich variety of cultural parody portrayed within The Colbert Report to a rational methodology, I provide a basic structure for how Colbert’s parody might be used as a model within media critical pedagogies. Translating Colbert’s parody into a critical method requires that students focus first on the formal manipulation of discourse and then return after this initial appropriation to map a critical logic retrospectively onto what may have first appeared as unreflective appropriation. As Colbert demonstrates in his opening segments, pattern recognition is a crucial component of media critique. In the initial stages, students must sift through media coverage and look for material patterns (repeated words, ideas, images, sounds, styles, etc.) surrounding a particular event or topic. This is similar to the way in which The Colbert Report recognized recurring (yet conflicting) rhetorical strategies within coverage of the Bergdahl controversy. This pattern then provided Colbert with the material grounds through which a parodic critique could emerge. This initial stage follows a similar method to what Jenny Edbauer (2005) refers to as tracing the “rhetorical ecology” of a cultural event. In extrapolating her theory of rhetorical ecology, Edbauer tracks the cultural signifiers that emerged in the 12

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE

“Keep Austin Weird” campaign in the early 2000s. In describing the application of this methodology to her pedagogy, Edbauer writes that grounding the analysis of cultural discourses in ecological terms forces students to reconsider critique as an exploratory rather than teleological (purpose, audience, etc.) practice. Edbauer writes that by focusing on the visual and textual patterns within a specific rhetorical ecology, her students learn to recognize the material “effects and concatenations” of a cultural event otherwise obscured by the abstractionism of traditional rhetorical analysis (p. 22). Parody emerges more explicitly as a method for generating critique in the next stage. As a tool for invention, parody engages with the hyperbolic logic generated by recognition of material patterns within and/or across discursive systems. For example, Colbert’s recognition of capitalist ideology within both post-recession conservative rhetoric and a popular superhero franchise led to his pronouncement that the demise of the super wealthy (the 1%) is coterminous with the demise of society as a whole (the 99%). The importance of parody to this stage is not merely in its ability to grab the reader’s attention through hyperbole, but rather its ability to illuminate the inherently hyperbolic nature of postmodern culture. Although many educators have utilized parody as a genre for invention and critique, some have expressed concern regarding the use of parody media in the classroom, arguing that it might reinforce the political cynicism it utilizes in making its points (Coletta, 2009, p. 859). However, David Seitz (2011) counters that creating (rather than consuming) parodic text is an effective method for countering such cynicism because it attunes students to the playful aspects of engaging in critical analysis. By embodying a parodic persona, Seitz demonstrates how his students were able to attain the distance necessary “to see the rhetorical effects of language” and explore this implication within their analyses (p. 378). Indeed, he notes that overcoming the obstacle of objectivity is one of the greatest benefits of parodic writing assignments: Perhaps encouraging students to approach critique through a comic frame, rather than traditional academic assumptions of objectivity, is more persuasive for them because it does not assume an ideological superiority students sense in most approaches to critical writing, particularly the linear arguments of conventional academic research papers. (Seitz, 2011, p. 388) The key point to discern from the success of Seitz’s parodic pedagogy is that students are more receptive to exploring alternate perspectives on the constitutive role of discourse in shaping ideas and events when their analysis originates at a material, rather than purely conceptual, level. Additionally, following Colbert’s strategy of grounding media critique in pattern recognition provides students with the observable evidence required to make confident claims about abstract cultural phenomena.

13

JACOB W. GREENE

Applying Seitz’s theories regarding the generative potential of parody to my focus on media critique, I would add that because text, image, and sound are so integral to the creation and experience of twenty first century media discourses, students must also practice image and graphics manipulation. By appropriating the formal characteristics of mainstream media (scrolling text, bulletins, stock footage/images, etc.), students can develop a greater understanding of how text, image, and sound interact to create meaning(s) beyond each of their individual elements. Moreover, considering that basic familiarity with new media technologies is increasingly becoming a prerequisite within industry and academia, teachers must begin crafting pedagogies that acknowledge the unique rhetorical capabilities of emerging technologies (Brooke, 2009). Overemphasis on the production of academic papers forecloses the possibility of parodic engagement with media discourse by not only forcing students to articulate their argument in a manner that is most likely only familiar to the audience not in need of persuading (the teacher), but it also disengages the very bridge between student and culture that the pedagogy claims to be utilizing. The claim of parodic pedagogy is that student analysis of cultural content is best articulated within the language of the culture itself. A production-oriented pedagogy not only leads to a more engaged and original perspective on the discourses of a culture, but also opens the possibility for the critical (re)circulation of media discourse and student produced texts within online spaces. SUSTAINING A POST-COLBERT MEDIA RAPPORT

During the writing of this chapter, Stephen Colbert announced that he will be leaving The Colbert Report to take a more prominent spot within late night comedy television as host for CBS’s Late Show. Although Colbert’s brilliant comedic satire will certainly translate to some extent to this more entertainment oriented format, it is unlikely to come with the same degree of daily media critique exemplified on The Colbert Report. Academic admirers of Colbert’s unique parodic form should consider the exigency of this cultural moment as an opportunity to pursue alternate avenues for carrying on Colbert’s legacy of assessing media discourse and promoting an arena of critical pedagogy within the academy. One such avenue would be the circulatory potential of new media assignments. In Michelle Sidler’s (2001) estimation, one of the core problems within multimedia composition pedagogy is a lack of effective methods for effectively engaging with the process of circulation integral to most new media genres (viral videos, memes, popular blogs, etc.) (p. 4). In order to exploit the full pedagogical potential of twenty first century new media technologies, teachers must develop novel ways of making circulation an integral component of the assignment rather than just an afterthought. However, the circulatory potential of multimedia assignments does not have to be confined to the production of viral videos with millions of views. Rather, the circulation of student-produced assignments might just as well occur 14

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE

within more dialogically suited platforms such as classroom specific forums or even undergraduate journals. Indeed, such efforts are already being pursued through projects such as The Jump (Journal for Undergraduate Multimedia Projects) at the University of Texas-Austin. In these spaces, teachers and students can facilitate local, contextualized feedback before engaging with larger online audiences. In a parodic pedagogy, circulation figures as a vital component to the assignment’s structure, allowing students to grapple with the true ecological nature of twenty-first century media discourses and the various rhetorical skills (novel pattern recognition, humor, concision, etc.) necessary to effect change within it.

15

JACOB W. GREENE

NOTES 1 Season 1, Ep. 1; Season 7, Ep. 51; Season 10, Eps. 110, 111, and 115.

REFERENCES Alfano, C., & O’Brien, A. (2011). Envision in depth: reading, writing, and researching arguments (2nd ed.). London: Pearson. Argetsinger, Amy, & Roberts, Roxanne. (2006 May 2). The new Bush twins: double dubya. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101917.html. Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J.S. (2006). The daily show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and american youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-67. Baym, G. (2009). Stephen Colbert’s parody of the postmodern. In Gray, J., Jones, J. P., & Thompson, E. (Eds.), Satire tv: politics and comedy in the post-network era. (pp. 124-144). New York: NYU Press. Beavers, S. (2011). Getting political science in on the joke: Using the daily show and other comedy to teach politics.” Political Science and Politics. 44(2), 415-419. Berlin, J. A. (1996). Rhetorics, poetics, and cultures: Refiguring college english studies. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Brants, Kees. (2008). Infotainment. In Kaid, Lynda Lee & Christina Holtz-Bacha (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Political Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Brooke, C. G. (2009). Lingua fracta: Toward a rhetoric of new media. New Jersey, NJ: Hampton Press. Colbert, S. (Writer), & Hoskinson, J. (Director) (2005 October 17). Stone Phillips. [Television series episode]. The Colbert report. New York, NY. Comedy Central. Colbert, S. (Writer), & Hoskinson, J. (Director). (2014a June 2). Thomas Piketty. [Television series episode]. The Colbert report. New York, NY. Comedy Central. Colbert, S. (Writer), & Hoskinson, J. (Director). (2014b June 9). Esther Perel. [Television series episode]. The Colbert report. New York, NY. Comedy Central. Colbert, S. (Writer), & Hoskinson, J. (Director). (2014c May 22). Ray Mabus. [Television series episode]. The Colbert report. New York, NY. Comedy Central. Colleta, L. (2009). Political satire and postmodern irony in the age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. The Journal of Popular Culture, 42(5), 856-874. Dadlez, E. M. (2011). Truly funny: Humor, satire, and irony as moral criticism. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 45(1), 1-17. Edbauer, Jenny. (2005). Unframing models of public distribution: From rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(4), 5-24. Elsworth, Elizabeth. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297-324. Faina, J. (2012). Public journalism is a joke: The case for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Journalism, 14(4), 541-555. Fischer, B. (Producer). (2012, October 14). Meet the press. [Television broadcast]. New York, NY. National Broadcasting Service. Froomkin, Dan. (2006 May 2). The Colbert blackout. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/05/02/BL2006050200755.html. Giroux, H. A. (1995). Who writes in a cultural studies class? Or, where is the pedagogy? In Fitts, K., & France, A. W. (Eds.), Left margins: Cultural studies and composition pedagogy. (pp. 3-16). Albany: State University of New York Press. Hardin, J. (2001). Opening spaces: Critical pedagogy and resistance theory in composition. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hawk, B. (2007). A counter history of composition: Toward methodologies of complexity. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.

16

TEACHING MEDIA CRITIQUE Jameson, F. (1982). The political unconscious: Narrative as a socially symbolic act. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Jameson, F. (2002). Postmodernism and consumer society. In Foster, H. (Ed.), The anti-aesthetic: Essays on postmodern culture. New York, NY: The New Press. (Original work published 1982). LaMarre, H L., Landreville, K. D., & Beam, M. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 212-231. McClennen, S. A. (2011). America according to Colbert: Satire as public pedagogy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Miller, S. (1997). Technologies of self?-formation. JAC, 17(3), 497-500. Moraes, L. D. (2013, April 4). Comedy Central boasts about ‘Daily Show,’ ‘Colbert Report’ ratings in 18-to-49-year-old category. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/comedy-central-boasts-about-daily-showcolbert-report-ratings-in-18-to-49-year-olds/2013/04/04/4602109a-9d77-11e2-9a79eb5280c81c63_blog.html. Moreschi, O., & Sherman, S. (Writers), & Hoskinson, J. (Director). (2011 April 13). Morgan Spurlock. [Television series episode]. The Colbert report. New York, NY: Comedy Central. Olson, G. (1989). Social construction and composition theory: A conversation with Richard Rorty. JAC, 9(1/2), 1-9. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2012). Trends in news consumption: 19912012. In changing news Landscape, even television is vulnerable. Washington, D.C. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2010). Ideological News Sources: Who Watches and Why: Americans Spending More Time Following the News. Washington, D.C. Rose, M. (1993). Parody: Ancient, modern, and post-modern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seitz, D. (2011). Mocking discourse: Parody as pedagogy. Pedagogy, 11(2), 371-394. Sidler, M. (2001). Rhetorical economy and public participation: The challenges of webbed technologies in the classroom. Composition Forum: A Journal of the Association of Teachers of Advanced Composition, 12, 1-8.

Jacob W. Greene Department of English, University of Florida

17