Today is my comedy show day. I watch 2 German comedy shows on a daily basic. One full the other one only highlights. I always had an ambivalent feeling towards them. But I could never really express what is wrong with them. For a comparison they resemble: the Daily show with Trevor Noah or Stephen Colbert's Late Night show. The one which I watch fully is on the far-left. But they both pretend not to be partisan.
The best intricate analysis I know stems from David Foster Wallace. E Unibus Pluram. It is an extremely intelligent criticism of the irony used in such shows. Or in general the usage of it in marketing and entertainment. I have not fully understood it though. I did not understand many references of the shows he mentioned. In general to understand his criticism fully you should have better studied literature I suppose.
I would have liked to paraphrase it. But I could not sum it perfectly up. You have to deal with my personal opinion inspired by the text of DFW.
I have the feeling many of those shows are biased and very populistic. I think such shows contributed to the rise of Donald Trump. The postmodern irony which is used pretends like there were no objective truths. In general these shows make fun of universal traditional values. They are often biased in favor of the left (at least in my country I know in the US they are friends with the corporate democrats). Still they act as if this would not be the case. They make self-referential jokes about that. And with the self-referentail humor they act like their bias would become more transparent or at least less bad. It is often cynicsm which is used. The person who made the claim about partisanship should be the butt of the joke. No matter how right the person is. The cynicism should protect the comedians from the criticism. The joke is presented as the perfect solution for problems. But this is exactly the problem.
DFW said "Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it is the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy their cage." I think this is something many people don't understand. You can observe a similar phenomenon on social media. People think tweeting about a societal problem would be enough. They want to feel good for these brave comments about the issues of our society. They confuse internet activism with real protest. I know there were positive influences that started on the internet. But it is also a place for echo chambers and simplying complex matters. It is not important anymore whether a person is guilty. It is already enough when there are accusations. The internet mob. Obviously this problem already has existed before the internet existed. But the technology has perpetuated it and makes it way worse.
And I think the humor on those shows use similar mechanisms. It is something people watch for wanting to feel better. They want to feel superior and comfortable. But it is rather counterproductive if the people become too comfortable with the system we live in. Cracking an ironic joke does not make the problems disappaer. Though we can feel better about ourselves by watching them (without really doing something positive). The same with Twitter or other social media protests. Often the purpose is just feeling better or superior to other people.
I should add: Yes there are also more conservative comedy shows also in my country. They are not really better. I can't really assess whether they are worse. I think I am too biased for that. But also these guys simplify things and use populistic statements to gain attention/support.
Now comes the question I am asking myself. AmI I really better than them? My jokes contain a lot of irony and cynicism. I grew up by watching those shows. And I have internalized their joke patterns. I am not sure which conclusions I shall draw for myself.
The anwser my favorite show gives to that is the following: they combine their show with activism. They even increased the dosage of moral superiority and moral denouncements. But they also mixed it with investigative research. They try to contribute to the society not only with shallow jokes instead they are doing real activism, In every show they explain grievances in our society. It is often a lot of black-white thinking. They oversimply complex issues and frame it to get the best jokes out of it. The show regularly wins prices for showing social responsibility.
I don't know how I should feel about it. Is it just more hypocrisy? I don't know. The whole thing gets too complicated for me and I just try to enjoy the jokes. I feel partly guilty for watching them. It is like a guilty pleasure. I try to keep critical about those jokes. But something inside me screams" don't be such a grumbler". I think this is exactly the intention of those shows.
The best intricate analysis I know stems from David Foster Wallace. E Unibus Pluram. It is an extremely intelligent criticism of the irony used in such shows. Or in general the usage of it in marketing and entertainment. I have not fully understood it though. I did not understand many references of the shows he mentioned. In general to understand his criticism fully you should have better studied literature I suppose.
I would have liked to paraphrase it. But I could not sum it perfectly up. You have to deal with my personal opinion inspired by the text of DFW.
I have the feeling many of those shows are biased and very populistic. I think such shows contributed to the rise of Donald Trump. The postmodern irony which is used pretends like there were no objective truths. In general these shows make fun of universal traditional values. They are often biased in favor of the left (at least in my country I know in the US they are friends with the corporate democrats). Still they act as if this would not be the case. They make self-referential jokes about that. And with the self-referentail humor they act like their bias would become more transparent or at least less bad. It is often cynicsm which is used. The person who made the claim about partisanship should be the butt of the joke. No matter how right the person is. The cynicism should protect the comedians from the criticism. The joke is presented as the perfect solution for problems. But this is exactly the problem.
DFW said "Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it is the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy their cage." I think this is something many people don't understand. You can observe a similar phenomenon on social media. People think tweeting about a societal problem would be enough. They want to feel good for these brave comments about the issues of our society. They confuse internet activism with real protest. I know there were positive influences that started on the internet. But it is also a place for echo chambers and simplying complex matters. It is not important anymore whether a person is guilty. It is already enough when there are accusations. The internet mob. Obviously this problem already has existed before the internet existed. But the technology has perpetuated it and makes it way worse.
And I think the humor on those shows use similar mechanisms. It is something people watch for wanting to feel better. They want to feel superior and comfortable. But it is rather counterproductive if the people become too comfortable with the system we live in. Cracking an ironic joke does not make the problems disappaer. Though we can feel better about ourselves by watching them (without really doing something positive). The same with Twitter or other social media protests. Often the purpose is just feeling better or superior to other people.
I should add: Yes there are also more conservative comedy shows also in my country. They are not really better. I can't really assess whether they are worse. I think I am too biased for that. But also these guys simplify things and use populistic statements to gain attention/support.
Now comes the question I am asking myself. AmI I really better than them? My jokes contain a lot of irony and cynicism. I grew up by watching those shows. And I have internalized their joke patterns. I am not sure which conclusions I shall draw for myself.
The anwser my favorite show gives to that is the following: they combine their show with activism. They even increased the dosage of moral superiority and moral denouncements. But they also mixed it with investigative research. They try to contribute to the society not only with shallow jokes instead they are doing real activism, In every show they explain grievances in our society. It is often a lot of black-white thinking. They oversimply complex issues and frame it to get the best jokes out of it. The show regularly wins prices for showing social responsibility.
I don't know how I should feel about it. Is it just more hypocrisy? I don't know. The whole thing gets too complicated for me and I just try to enjoy the jokes. I feel partly guilty for watching them. It is like a guilty pleasure. I try to keep critical about those jokes. But something inside me screams" don't be such a grumbler". I think this is exactly the intention of those shows.
Last edited:
