Thoughts about Bedfellows

pumpkin pie and spinach metaphor

This metaphor that Peterson asserts in his introduction is full of gravy.  He links pumpkin pie with late night comedy in the context of a PEW study that suggests 61% of Americans below the age of 30 get their political information from that outlet.  The metaphor also implies that people hate news, spinach being hated (recalling GHWB as well).  Spinach, though, is also linked to strength alla Pop-eye with a later line of Peterson's "topical comedy is an inadequate substitute for news."  So, what is actually going on with this metaphor?

Press corps dinner, Colbert

Peterson argues that Colbert was heroic, not because of the jokes themselves, but because of his role as underminer of the man sitting next to him.  He continues this idea later contrasting Colbert to the medieval court jester.  Peterson implies that they are not the same, and that in the 1200s, Colbert might have lost his head.  

Political Satire vs. Comedy about Politics

This is arguably one of the most important distinction Peterson draws in his book about distinctions (even the title sets up a dialectic).  He argues that Comedy about politics is anti political in nature, he demonstrates this with the timeless joke which I'll now update - if Hillary, Obama, and McCain were in a boat in the middle of the Atlantic, and the boat flipped over and all of them drowned, who would win?  America.  It is apathetic and at its core makes the claim that politics are bad.  Political satire, practiced by Colbert, Stewart, and Maher, engages politics.  He later makes the point that one of the most endearing qualities of Stewart is that he in fact "cares" about politics.  

Now, if one were to envision this dialectic as a Venn Diagram, the deconstruction of this argument becomes readily apparent.  The late night jokes of Letterman, Leno, etc. stem not from a deep apathy, for if an apathy that deep existed no one would ever want to hear jokes about politics.  Rather they stem from an even deeper desire to engage politics, tempered by a cynicism born of the distance (the close door, the back room deal, etc.) that both political comedy and real news journalism maintains between the public and the government.  

Only satire, as Peterson demonstrates later, has the power the articulate that distance, thus making it manageable and, most importantly, ignorable.    

conflation of journalistic and comedic ethics (crossfire)

Those were all warm ups.  This, as demonstrated by the oft cited crossfire video , is perhaps a key feature of any discussion involving media, comedy, and politics.  After familiarizing ourselves with everyone from Murdoch to Tocqueville, we have a grasp on the role of the fourth estate.  Yet, that fourth estate has now, according to many, lost its way in light of the conglomorization (good new word) and the theatricitization (I went the extra mile to make that one) of mainstream media.  It has reached the point where, excuse my language, bow tie wearing douches pretend to participate in actual reporting, yet are so confused between the theatrics of comedy and the theatrics of journalism, no one can level the conversational playing field and explain the difference.  

So, this is all my post so I can skip it in class tomorrow so we can have a real discussion.  What do you guys think is the difference between comedic ethics and journalistic ethics?  Where does that distinction fall apart?  And how can we, the public, put it back together in some semi-comprehensible, useful sort of way?