The Daily Show and democracy

There is currently a small debate taking place regarding whether the Daily Show is dangerous for democracy (see here, for example). The thrust of the argument against the show is that its sarcastic portrayal of politics engenders complacency by portraying all political actors as incompetent and hopelessly out of touch with reality (serious paraphrasing, here).

First, I’d like to point out that this “debate” is a rehash. The same criticisms have already been raised, though obviously not laid to rest. I’ll leave the obvious interpretation of the debate as new media sources colliding with old ones to others. But I feel the need to point out a few glaring deficiencies in the analysis.

1) More people are paying attention to politics as a result of the Daily Show. It’s a popular, funny show with a lot of political content. Regardless of whether its spin on political matters is biased or jaded, can we honestly argue that it would be better if all of those viewers that would otherwise be totally oblivious to current affairs were completely tuned out? I’d argue not.

2) Politics as a comedic subject is nothing new. What is new is entire shows devoted to political comedy that don’t fail due to a lack of interest. I’m not sure that it’s fair to fault the Daily Show for the fact that politics is a fertile ground for comedy, especially if you look at it from the right perspectives.

3) It’s entirely possible that the endless highlighting of the failings of politicians will, in the end, encourage people to hold their representatives to higher standards. The Daily Show does not view the world through a pair of disenfranchised glasses. The show is actually very laudatory of some lawmakers and thinkers. And they’re not all left-wingers — observe the relationship between Jon Stewart and John McCain, a Daily Show favorite.

It’s logically fallacious to conclude that, because the Daily Show mocks some politicians for their apparent shortcomings, its viewers will believe that all politicians are incompetent or crooked. Elections are essentially transactions in the public opinion market. Electoral rules and institutions can distort that market, making incumbency a near-guarantee of re-election, for example, or making personal wealth and fundraising far too important for the process of seeking office. I think that the Daily Show might correct some of these market distortions by forcing politicians into a constant, critical public eye that can’t be avoided by sending out glossy flyer and buying thirty second TV spots.