Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27:263276, 2012

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0890-0523 print/1532-7728 online
DOI: 10.1080/08900523.2012.746110

Can We Be Funny? The Social Responsibility

of Political Humor
Jason T. Peifer
School of Communication
The Ohio State University

Probing the vague boundaries and constraints commonly placed on humor, this exploratory essay
considers the responsibilities and duties that can guide political humor. Working within a deontological paradigm, the essay establishes the relevance of ethics within societys political humor
and considers the importance of ethical political humor. Moreover, this study points to Christians
and Nordenstrengs model of global social responsibility theory as providing a parsimonious and
flexible framework for orienting ethical political humor.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, business as usual in the United States came to
a virtual standstill. Officials grounded airplanes, closed national landmarks, and shut down the
New York Stock Exchange. Broadway theaters went dark, commissioners postponed sporting
events, and television producers canceled episodes of comedy programming such as The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart and The Late Show with David Letterman. Against the backdrop of
a nation in shock, anger, and grief, nonessential events suddenly seemed inappropriate. So
when Saturday Night Live (SNL) opened its season on September 29 and SNL Executive
Producer Lorne Michaels appeared in the opening sketch to ask New York City Mayor Rudy
Giuliani can we be funny? (Season 27, 2001), he was articulating a question that many were
pondering. In the tense days following the September 11 crisis, it was unclear when it would
again be acceptable for entertainers to resume amusing large audiences and when consumers
could return to being entertained. Beyond the question of when to resume, entertainers and
audiences also struggled to know what content was acceptable and what was off-limits. Perhaps
Michaels should have added, and what are we allowed to laugh about?
Comedic entertainment like that of SNL has boundaries and constraints. In a tongue-incheek way, Michaels was indirectly probing the boundaries of comedy, raising questions
Correspondence should be sent to Jason T. Peifer, The Ohio State University, School of Communication, 3016
Derby Hall, 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: peifer.7@osu.edu

263

264

PEIFER

about the expectations and responsibilities of public humor. The broadcast standards of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) establish a few explicit broadcast entertainment
parameters. For example, offensive language and indecency are generally barred in network
television programmingwhether self-imposed by individual networks or policed by the FCC.
Otherwise, entertainers have virtually no broad standards to hold them accountable. Yet there
are informal, unspoken rules that society seems to expect its comedy to heed. Jon Stewart
alluded to such parameters when he held his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in October
of 2010. Stewart said, I know there are boundaries for a comedian/pundit talker guy, and
Im sure Ill find out tomorrow how I have violated them (Seabrook, 2010). While Stewarts
comment suggests that the role of a humorist has limits, it also underscores the undefined
and unknown nature of the strictures. Such vagueness extends into scholarship about political
humor, that is, entertainment centered on political processes, personalities, and topics. Indeed,
the limits and responsibilities of political humor is an understudied and largely undefined
domain (Williams & Delli Carpini, 2011).
This study is designed to contribute to this research gap, extending beyond what comedic
products can technically get away with and, instead, considering what responsibilities and
duties should guide public comedy in American cultureparticularly political comedy. Working
within a deontological paradigm, I will establish the relevance of ethics within societys
political humor and consider the importance of ethical humor. Of course the socially constructed
boundaries of humor are not necessarily linked to the province of ethics. Just because dominant
culture may deem some piece humor to be acceptable or permissible, it does not follow that
it is ethical humor. However, I contend that a clearer conception of ethical responsibilities in
humor can translate into better-informed expectations and standards of political humor in the
larger society. More specifically, by looking to the basic framework of social responsibility
theory, we can find a simple but useful guide for ethical political humorhumor that can
strengthen democratic society.
I will first focus on the contours of humor, mapping out the relationships among politics,
humor, and ethics. After examining the power of humor and the common sense of political
comedy, I will turn to explicating the utility of Christians and Nordenstrengs (2004) global
social responsibility theory (SRT) for guiding ethical political humor.

THE CONTOURS OF ETHICAL POLITICAL HUMOR

Bringing definition to the boundaries of humor is undoubtedly a tricky endeavor. The precise
meaning of a piece of humor can be unwieldy, simultaneously operating on different levels.
Humor commonly employs double entendres and is often meant to be interpreted sarcastically.
Humor thrives on being irreverent, outrageous, surprising, and even licentious. As comedy
frequently involves pushing the envelope in some way, rules and constraints risk dampening,
suffocating, or altogether killing humor. To be clear, this exploration of ethical political comedy
is not about censoring comedy, making humor less ambiguous, imposing rules, or definitively
declaring when it is wrong to laugh (see De Sousa, 1987). Instead, my hope is that by
articulating a normative ethic for societys political humor, such comedy can be oriented in
a direction that promotes a healthy society and democracy. Before attempting to sketch out
several guiding principles for humor in the public sphere, it is appropriate to first deconstruct

CAN WE BE FUNNY?

265

the central theme of this essay: ethical political humor. This involves briefly addressing the
foundational questions of what is humor and what is political, leading to consideration of how
ethics are relevant to the realm of humor.

ESSENCE OF HUMOR
Inquiring minds have long wrestled with identifying the essence of humor. Berger (1993) writes
that after thousands of years spent trying to understand humor, there is still a great deal of
controversy about what humor is or why something is funny (p. 2). Despite the perplexing
nature of humor, three dominant theory traditions that grapple with the process of creating and
interpreting humor emerge: superiority theory, relief theory, and incongruity theory.
Superiority theory posits that a feeling of superiority ultimately causes laughter. Gruner
(1997) asserts that the superiority paradigm explains how when we find humor in something,
we laugh at the misfortune, stupidity, clumsiness, moral or cultural defect, suddenly revealed
in someone else, to whom we instantly and momentarily feel superior since we are not, at
that moment, unfortunate, stupid clumsy, morally or culturally defective (p. 13). Gruner points
out that one can even feel superior to oneself. The superiority theory is particularly useful for
drawing attention to the strong relationship between humor and power.
In contrast, the relief theory of humor proposes that jokes and laughter serve to release the
build-up of nervous energy, reducing stress or tension. Morreall (2009) succinctly describes the
notion as humor as a pressure valve (p. 15). This model is evident when a person cracks a
joke to lighten the mood of an otherwise solemn or tense situation. In the political realm, this
theory can help explain why people enjoy political humor: it provides relief and a channel for
venting frustrations and fear within a domain that so often seems dysfunctional, contentious,
and ridiculous.
Finally, incongruity theory asserts that perceptions of incongruity propel humor. Berger
(1993) explains that incongruity theory says all humor involves some kind of a difference
between what one expects and what one gets (p. 3). Laughing at a toddler blurting out swear
words, who has little to no understanding of the social taboo associated with the words, is one
simple example of the pleasure of incongruity. The pleasure of incongruity is also demonstrated
when the mannerisms and words of a political figure are grossly exaggerated during a SNL
parody sketch or when the physical features of a politician (e.g., big ears) are illustrated
disproportionately in a political cartoon.
A brief examination of these theories serves to highlight how humor operates in multiple
ways. As Lynch (2002) suggests, all three theories must be celebrated and the dismissal of
them or unnecessary addition of adjunct motivations confounds the conceptions unnecessarily
(p. 425). Each model provides significant insights, giving us a more nuanced understanding
of how humor tends to be created. Extending beyond consideration of how humor is created,
Meyer (2000) asserts that all the processes explained by the traditional humor theories result
in bringing either unification or division among people (p. 311). Whether it involves laughing
at something/someone with a sense of superiority, engaging with humor as a means to relieve
tension, or sharing an appreciation of some societal norm being turned on its ear, humor brings
together and splinters groups of people, variously creating goodwill and cultivating animosity.
The world of politics is no exception.

266

PEIFER

POLITICS OF HUMOR
In an examination of political humor, it is helpful to briefly clarify what is meant herein by
the term, political. On one level, everything is political. Kelshaw (2006) defines politics
as residing in those innumerable interstices and intersections of interpersonal and societal
relating (p. 160). By constantly negotiating values based in stake and power (p. 156),
Kelshaw argues that we are always participants in political relationships, processes, and
structures, all of which exceed formal jurisdictions (p. 161). Humor is commonly used
as leverage for gaining, protecting, and at times sharing power. Humor can be employed
as a weapon to attack and undermine others; to pronounce judgments and critiques about
people, ideas, and institutions. Yet while all humor is inherently political, not all varieties
of humor reverberate with the same resonance in the world of public affairs and formal
politics. Thus, with an eye on strengthening democratic societies, this study is centered on
a specific conception of humor: humor that operates in the public sphere, offering social
commentary and pertaining to issues and personalities within the realm of formal politics.
Because television programming remains the dominant medium for comedy entertainment,
broadcast political comedy such as SNL or The Daily Show will be the principal focus of this
essay.

ETHICS OF HUMOR
Some scholars adopt a value-free perspective of jokes and humor. Arguing for amoralism,
Conolly and Haydar (2005) define their position on humor as the view that jokes are neither
moral nor immoral (p. 122). According to Gaut (1998), the amoralist perspective holds that,
humor is essentially anarchic, it is the sphere of free imagination: : : : As a sphere of free,
nonserious play, it is not answerable to the ethical constraints that rule serious discourse, and is
often at its most effective when it subverts our customary responses (pp. 5152). Conolly and
Haydar explain that while some jokes may seem disturbing, when we joke we only entertain
ideas and do not actually hold them (p. 122).
In contrast to amoralists, moralists do attribute moral value to joking and humor. Aristotle
(1910) exhibited moral judgments of humor when he described satirists and writers of comedy
as really a kind of evil-speakers and tell-tales, as their main occupation is with their
neighbors failing (p. 74). The Bible instructs the faithful to avoid obscenity, foolish talk or
coarse joking, which are out of place (Ephesians 5:4). Implicit in the arguments of moralists
is the assumption that the laughter associated with questionable humor can be morally wrong.
De Sousa (1987) claims that involuntary laughter reflects ones identification with an attitude
toward a topic or person in a joke. De Sousa notes that emotional attitudes are unlike beliefs
in that they cannot be hypothetically adopted; therefore, insofar as the attitudes endorsed : : :
are evil, so is the laughter itself (p. 276). For example, if the attitude that underlies a joke is
sexist or racist, than the laughter evoked by such humor is a morally deficient endorsement of
sexism or racism.
Smuts (2010) argues that DeSousas attitudinal endorsement argument is too simple and
clearcut for the multifarious nature of humor and laughter. Smuts reasons that we are standing
on shaky ground if we say that merely finding any given joke funny is itself reprehensible.

CAN WE BE FUNNY?

267

We may have other reasons for finding [the joke-tellers] moral character suspect, but little
support for saying that any particular set of beliefs accounts for their sense of humor (p. 346).
Gaut (1998) argues that what makes something funny is dependent on multiple factors, such as
context and the intent of the joke teller. Thus while jokes with racist themes can seem clearly
offensive when coming from a racist, they may be less objectionable when coming from another
person. It depends on who is telling them and for what purposes. It is, for instance, striking
that jokes told by Jews and blacks about themselves sometimes employ similar stereotypes to
those that racists employ (Gaut, 1998, p. 53). Rather than apply a rigid moralistic lens for
evaluating humor, Gaut proposes a continuum model for evaluating whether or not something
is funny in an ethically acceptable manner. What is funny is partly dependent on what is
ethical: the ethical badness of attitudes manifested counts against the funniness of a joke, and
their ethical goodness counts towards it (p. 67). In short, when considering the ethical merits
of humor, Gauts model only partially focuses on the attitude underlying the joke. While the
underlying attitude is relevant, it does not fully define the ethical merits of the humor.
Ultimately, I adopt a lens akin to Gauts continuum model for consideration of political
humor. That is, noting that while the underlying attitude of a bit of humor warrants ethical
consideration, any central theme in that humor should only be one part of the ultimate
evaluation. Other factors, such as context and the humorists intention, bear consideration as
well. This understanding of humor highlights the need to be cautious in making snap judgments
about an instance of edgy humor. Gauging the ethical merits of a piece of humor need not be
an either/or choice. I also adopt a consequentialist understanding of humor ethics, noting that
humor can foster immoral (or moral) outcomes, such as implicitly reassuring a racist that racist
attitudes are acceptable or injuring a persons feelings with insensitive ridicule. Smuts (2010)
correctly assesses that telling jokes, encouraging jokes, and laughing at jokes are actions
with clear ethical significancethey are all capable of producing harms (p. 346). Thus, while
it is appropriate to grant humor a liberal sphere of free imagination (Gaut, 1998, p. 51),
there is still an ethical dimension to humor. In practice, we often separate humor from ethical
considerations; hence, a person might deflect critical judgment of some bit of humor with the
defense, Lighten up; its just a joke! Yet in view of humors potential to do harm, it is not a
domain that should be free of value judgments.

THE POWER OF HUMOR

In tandem with the assumption that humor warrants ethical consideration, the goal of articulating
a normative ethic for political humor is also based on the premise that political humor matters.
Political comedy has power. Though such a claim may also seem obvious to some, this assertion
runs contrary to how many people think of political humor. As Graber (2008) notes, many
average citizens, along with large numbers of social scientists, still believe that humor is
politically unimportant: : : : Their widely shared assumption is that comedy is an inappropriate
and ineffectual format for conveying serious political messages (p. 336). It is notable, for
instance, that a presidential appearance on a program such as The View or The Daily Show
continues to make major news headlinesthough not all would agree that the critical issue is
whether or not such a visit is unbecoming of a president. For instance, The New York Times
Alessandro Stanley (2010) claimed that the country

268

PEIFER

long ago stopped wondering whether a president demeans his office by appearing on a late-night
comedy show. The more immediate question : : : is whether a political satirist loses credibility
when hobnobbing with a sitting president. ( 1)

In any case, political humor is a crucial part of societys political discourse. Basu (1999)
defends the virtue of humor in the political domain, arguing that liberal democracies need
citizens possessed of a good sense of humor (p. 386). Basu explains that humor can act as a
social lubricant in political discoursea sphere that is too often marked by contentiousness and
gridlock. Humor can suspend decorum, putting the mind at liberty to hear all sides. It allows
one to temporarily suspend ones cherished beliefs and contemplate the implications without
treachery (p. 388). Graber (2008) also extols the virtues of comedy, noting that political humor
alerts inattentive publics to the foibles, inanities, and failures of their political leaders in a way
that delights audiences and motivates some members to action (p. 333). Painter and Hodges
(2010) argue that a comedy program such as The Daily Show helps provide accountability for
traditional broadcast media. In short, the political comedy that is showcased on programs such
as SNL or The Daily Show can be thought of as a powerful mechanism for packaging critiques
and alternative viewpoints in a serious political landscape.
While humor in the political sphere may have enthusiastic proponents, others suggest
that humor can powerfully operate in ways that discourage political engagement, ultimately
undermining democracy. For instance, Baumgartner and Morris (2006) designed an experiment
to study how The Daily Show framed characterizations of politicians. Their study found that the
humor of The Daily Show can have a negative influence, driving down political participation and
cultivating cynicism toward the electoral system and political leaders. During a mock trial
of Jon Stewart during the 2006 National Communication Association Conference, Hart and
Hartelius (2007) charged that Jon Stewart [engages] in unbridled political cynicism (p. 263).
Critics of comedy programs such as The Daily Show contend that an overarching tenor of
ridicule and mockery can undermine the publics respect for and trust of political leaders and
institutions, discouraging constructive political engagement.
It is true that political humor often lacks a constructive dynamic. Borden and Tew (2007) note
that political humor tend[s] to cast stones rather than to build bridges, to point out problems
rather than to craft solutions, to interrupt discussion with laughter rather than to sustain it by
articulating common values (p. 312). (It is worth noting that scholars such as Borden and
Tew do not see the deconstructive nature of political humor as being problematic.) Skeptics
contend that political humor, such as when Stephen Colbert testified before a congressional
subcommittee about migrant farm workers, can serve to trivialize and debase political discourse.
Regardless of how one values the influence of political humor, it is clear that political
comedy is anything but impotent and neutral. As Graber (2008) observes, political comedy can
appropriately be thought of as a sign of both political health and political malaise. Based on the
intuition that political humor can cut both ways and is an unmistakable component in todays
media environment, society has an important stake in how political humor is conducted.
THE COMMON SENSE OF HUMOR
In approaching a consideration of the boundaries of political humor, it is fair to ask: why go
to the trouble of articulating what, to many people, is probably common sense? After all,

CAN WE BE FUNNY?

269

most reasonable people seem to know that it is in poor taste to joke about tragedies, rape,
the Holocaust, and overt racial stereotypes. People intuitively sense that comedy should show
respect for topics such as patriotism, tragedy, pain, disability, and peoples privacyespecially
children and those who do not seek to put themselves in the public spotlight.
There are also gray areas of political humor that elude common sense altogether. While
endorsing sexism and racism is taboo in the realm of serious discourse, comedians commonly
use racist and sexist stereotypes as comedy fodder. This was famously the case with the
1970s CBS television show All in the Family. The shows main character, Archie Bunker, was
portrayed as an unapologetic bigot, frequently at odds with the liberal values of his son-in-law,
Mike. Producer Norman Lear hoped that the show would expose and undermine the irrational
logic of Archies prejudices, but not everyone interpreted it as such. Vidmar and Rokeach
(1974) found that the program [was] not uniformly seen as satire (p. 45). Reactions to
the program were varied, and these reactions were related to or a function of prior attitudes
(p. 44).
Socially constructed boundaries in dominant cultures are often vague and continually shifting. As a result, comedians and entertainers sometimes struggle to know when or if a boundary
is being crosseduntil it is too late. Instead of just relying on a visceral, common-sense gut
check for guiding humor, ethical political comedy would be better served by heeding a more
precise sense of duty and responsibility. To this end, social responsibility theory proves useful.

GLOBAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY THEORY

The origins of social responsibility theory (SRT) can largely be traced to the formation of
the Commission on Freedom of the Press, also known as the Hutchins Commission, in 1942.
Funded by Time and Life magazine publisher Henry Luce, the commission was formed to
investigate and report on the proper role of media in a democratic society. After four years
of research and deliberation, the commission published a report that emphasized the presss
responsibility to serve society, forming the foundation of SRT. Peterson (1963) explains that
at the core of the theory is the premise that freedom carries concomitant obligations; and the
press, which enjoys a privileged position under our government, is obliged to be responsible
to society for carrying out certain essential functions of mass communication in contemporary
society (p. 74). Social responsibility theory counters the notion that the free press, protected
by the First Amendment, merely possesses the negative liberty of freedom from restraint
and compulsion. Instead, the theory privileges the positive liberty of freedom forfreedom
for achieving the goals defined by its ethical sense and by societys needs (Peterson, p. 94).
According to Nerone (1995), social responsibility theory proposes that the media take it upon
themselves to elevate their standards, providing citizens with the sort of raw material and
disinterested guidance they need to govern themselves (p. 75). Though scholars view social
responsibility theory as originally conceived as largely outdated (see Nerone, 1995), it still
plays a foundational role in the realm of media ethics.
Of course, the press and those who produce political humor should not be conflated. Society
does not assume political humor has the onus of providing the public with a broad range of
information to govern itself. Political humor is not constrained by journalistic norms of serious

270

PEIFER

analysis, factuality, and objectivity. At least at first blush, the press and political humor are
clearly bound by different expectations.
Deeper consideration, however, reveals that news media and various forms of political humor
actually share many commonalities. Through the form of political cartoons, the commentary
of The Daily Show, Dave Chappelles satirical sketches, the monologues of Jay Leno, or
the parodies of SNL, political humor is disseminated to large audiences via mass media
the same far-reaching mediums utilized by news outlets. Like journalistic reportage, political
humor plays a role in shaping how society understands political matters and social issues.
Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between serious news and political
comedy programming. For example, John Edwards announced his run for the 2004 presidential
nomination not in a press conference but on The Daily Show. SNL parodies of politicians are
often rebroadcast on well-respected news shows such as Meet the Press during a campaign
season, and Jon Stewart is sometimes a guest on news programs such as The OReilly Factor
and The Rachel Maddow Show.
In light of the wealth of shared ground between political humorists and the press, the fundamentals of social responsibility can be fruitfully resuscitated and applied to political humor.
Like journalism, political humor operates best with freedom to explore ideas, to question and
critique powerful leaders and social conventions without fear of reprisal. Political humor, like
the press, usually suffers when it is censored or suppressed by government institutions and other
special interests. Beyond the issue of political humors freedom from, however, it is important
to note that applying SRT to political humor also implies political humors freedom for social
responsibility. If political humor is to help sustain a healthy democracy by humorously raising
questions, offering incisive observations, and voicing marginalized perspectives, then comedians
need more than a negative code of conduct, setting minimum standards of decency. They can
benefit by an articulation of aspirations, duties and responsibilities to guide the general tenor
of political humor.
The overlapping freedoms and responsibilities for both political humor and the press can be
accommodated by Christians and Nordenstrengs (2004) global paradigm of SRT. Christians and
Nordenstreng explain that though social responsibility was originally the product of American
intellectuals, parallel philosophies of the press have long existed in democracies around the
world. Christians and Nordenstreng note that great ideas are seldom unique; they surface in
several places, triggered by similar conditions and needs (p. 4). Contending the traditional
model of SRT is outdated, based on Americas parochial professional ethics engendered by
the Hutchins Commission (p. 4), Christians and Nordenstreng argue that social responsibility
needs to be better articulated in global terms. Accordingly, the scholars posit that several
universal ethical principles can serve as a frame of reference for critiquing news media
practices and codes of ethics (p. 25). This universal modelherein, referred to as global social
responsibility theoryentails three basic ethical principles or masternorms: respect for
human dignity, truthtelling, and nonviolence. These three principles, which will be expounded
upon in a moment, are all bound together by a veneration of human life (p. 21). In articulating
a global model of social responsibility, Christians and Nordenstreng clarify that they do not put
forward an objectivist absolute that connotes epistemological certainty and a refusal to debate
ideas. Instead, their theory of social responsibility centers on a commitment to cross-culturally
agreed upon ideals. Moreover, they note, a commitment to universals does not eliminate all
differences in what we think and believe (p. 24).

CAN WE BE FUNNY?

271

According to Christians and Nordenstreng (2004), the universal ethical principle of respect
for human dignity is based on the fundamental premise that humans are a unique species,
requiring within itself respect for its members as a whole (p. 21). Accordingly, the principle
insists that all human beings have sacred status without exception (p. 21). A commitment
to respecting the dignity and equal rights of all people is the foundation from which we
can begin to generate notions of a just society (p. 22). A global social responsibility also
underscores a commitment to truthtellingto present truthful accounts of the world, eschewing
deception and falsehood. Christians and Nordenstreng assert that truthtelling is integral to
human consciousness and social formation (p. 23). They note that living with others is
inconceivable if we cannot tacitly assume that people are speaking truthfully (p. 22). Finally,
the global paradigm of SRT includes a commitment to nonviolence or nonmaleficence. This
ethical principle entails the negative duty of not harming the innocent, an obligation that
is cosmic and irrespective of our roles or ethnic origin (p. 23). The reach of this principle
undoubtedly relates to physical harm and abuse, but it can also be extended as a positive duty
such as seeking to foster civility among the citizenry.

HUMAN DIGNITY
The strength of Christians and Nordenstrengs conception of social responsibility resides in
its ability to function broadly as a frame of reference for diverse media practices, including political humor practices. The overarching responsibility to respect human dignity is a
potentially puzzling but crucial obligation for ethical political humor. Comedy, of course,
so often hinges on the ridicule and mockery of people and institutions. As the superiority
theory of humor demonstrates, humor can inherently be aggressive and harsh. One might
argue that establishing a normative comedy ethic of respecting human dignity knocks out
the crux of most jokes. However, the principle of respecting human dignity need not be
applied so narrowly as to disqualify humor that pokes fun at peoples unique shortcomings,
foibles, quirks, and hypocrisies. More often than not, people can benefit by taking themselves
less seriously. A few comedic jabs do not necessarily undermine a persons dignity. Instead,
they can often offer valuable perspective and accountability. Ethical problems in comedy,
however, surface when humor recklessly plays on stereotypes, exhibits condescension toward
ethnic groups and minorities, and ridicules those who are somehow different from oneself.
As Hansen and Cooke-Jackson (2010) explain, while there are some circumstances in which
satirical media producers may use stereotypes without necessarily acting unethically (p. 272),
it does not follow that all humor gets a free pass to employ stereotypes, ridiculing some
group or culture. In a similar vein, Christians et al. (2005) suggest that comedians should
not
ask us to laugh at someone elses pain or ethnic background when that someone cannot laugh
with us. Well : : : grant an exception for certain persons such as campaigning politicians who
must expect the rough and tumble of caustic humor as part of public debate. But we wont grant
exceptions for classes of people, and especially for classes with lesser political clout and thus little
opportunity for public rejoinder: : : : We want to laugh at our dignified pretenses, but not at our
dignity per se. We want humor to help us see more clearly who we are. (p. 277)

272

PEIFER

In the realm of political parody, the issue of human dignity, that is, respecting the sacredness and
rights of all individuals, is undoubtedly relevant to how imitations and spoofs of public figures
are conducted. SNL, for instance, has generated controversy in the past over Fred Armisens
parody of New York Governor David Paterson, who is blind. Armisen appeared as Paterson
in one Weekend Update segment to talk about filling New Yorks senate seat. Much of the
sketchs humor was centered on the governors blindness. For example, Armisen pulled out a
graph of unemployment numbers and held it upside downto the studio audiences delight.
However, The New York Times Clyde Haberman (2009) wrote that many people, including the
National Federation of the Blind, felt that SNL crossed a line of decency : : : when [Armisen]
made repeated fun of Mr. Patersons blindness. As Paterson, he : : : rolled around aimlessly
in a chair and wandered cluelessly into a cameras path. The level of humor might fairly
be described as sophomoric were that not an insult to sophomores ( 9). To SNLs credit,
the program later demonstrated some degree of remorse when inviting Governor Paterson
on the show. After Paterson played along for a few laughs, he lightheartedly scolded SNL:
While I have a good sense of humor, jokes that degrade people just for their disabilities are
sophomoric and stupid (Schapiro, 2010, 5). Weekend Update host Seth Meyers followed
up Patersons remarks by promising, I think I speak for everyone here, that well be more
respectful of the blind (Baranauckas, 2010, 16). At least publicly, all involved came to agree
that SNL should have higher standards. Though the sincerity of SNLs apology is questionable
and the controversy may now be essentially resolved anyway, SNL might have avoided the
perceived offense by taking the principle of respecting human dignity more seriously in the
first place.

TRUTHTELLING
The global social responsibility ethic of truthtelling is another principle that may not initially
seem directly relevant to the realm of political humor. Political comedy, after all, is heavily
based on hyperbole and exaggeration, which may only include a partial presentation of the
facts. For instance, after SNL aired a sketch on October 3, 2009, about President Obama not
accomplishing anything during this first year in office, CNN conducted a fact check of the
sketch jokes. Reporter Kareen Wynter ultimately concluded that this is not a fair portrayal of
: : : how Obamas done. But its comedyit doesnt have to be fair (McKinley, 2009).
As highlighted by Wynter, people do not expect a literal representation of truth from
political comedy. Its comedy, after all. In this regard, there is a sharp distinction between
conventional news media and political humor. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and one-sided accounts
are typically frowned upon in news coverage. Yet boundaries of truthtelling can be crossed
in political comedy. An example of such a transgression was when Jon Stewart referred to
President Harry Truman as a war criminal during an interview discussion with Cliff May
(Stewart, 2009). A few days later Stewart apologized for the comment, stating I dont believe
that to be the case. He added it was stupid of him to say that.
In this incident, Stewart exhibited a recognition that though news and comedy are not
necessarily held to the exact same standards of truthtelling, a political humor show nonetheless
presents a version of truth in its own right. Comedy is commonly based on some actual event,
occurrence, or personal trait. In fact, the audiences recognition of that which is being ridiculed

CAN WE BE FUNNY?

273

and twisted in a surprising way, even if only faintly recognizable, is part of what makes comedy
enjoyable. During an interview with Rachel Maddow, Stewart claimed that the content of his
show is largely based on factual occurrences, by necessity. He says his viewers would not
find The Daily Show funny if it were otherwise because untrue things stand out like a sore
thumb (Maddow, 2010). This basic principle holds true for other comedy shows. Even though
satire and parody should not be taken at face value, political humor is nonetheless presenting
some refracted version of reality. Accordingly, producers of comedy have a responsibility to
carefully use their creative liberty. Under the guidance of a truthfulness ethic, it is not justifiable
to consciously mislead viewers or maliciously distort facts.
Admittedly, it is difficult to decipher whether or not a piece of humor is blatantly and
irresponsibly misleading. If audiences always knew the intentions of comedians, evaluating the
truthfulness of a piece of humor might be a simple matter. If the humor is mean-spirited, with
the intent to distort truth for the sake of sabotaging an institution or leader, the humor would
perhaps violate the truth ethic. But audiences are often not privy to a political comedians
intent. Because political humor is experienced in diverse ways, producing diverse outcomes
(Graber, 2008, p. 340), different people attribute different intentions to a humorous text. Thus,
while many people enjoyed the SNL parodies of Sarah Palin in 2008 and perceived SNL to
be an equal-opportunity offender, others viewed the frequency of sketches centered on Palin
as evidence of a liberal SNL bias against Palin, for instance, intent on representing Palin as
unintelligent.
Despite the near impossibility of audiences conclusively determining a humorists intentions,
the principle of truthfulness is nonetheless valuable for guiding the creation and performance
of political humor. While comedians should have freedom to exaggerate and hyperbolize the
political scene, a global social responsibility urges the humorist to consider the responsibility to
represent the essence of truth in the given situation. The comedian might examine if he or she is
responsibly handling the known facts of a situation, mindful of not misleading audiences with
dishonest characterizations. A commitment to being truthfulagain, with creative license
might orient our humor in an ethical direction and support a democratic system in which people
are presented with truth-based entertainment.

NONMALEFICENCE
Finally, global SRTs commitment to nonmaleficence also finds strong resonance in the political
humor domain. On one level, there may seem to be a disconnect between the ethic of doing
no harm to the innocent and political humor. Much humor can be viewed as rather innocuous,
hardly capable of inflicting substantive abuse and pain on others. Yet, as noted before, humor
can produce detrimental outcomes. Aggressive humor can damage reputations and causes. At
the very least, humor can create hurt feelings. This was the case when 12-year-old Chelsea
Clinton was the subject of an SNL Waynes World sketch in 1992. The comedy act joked
that the first-daughter did not make men go schwing! Clinton was reportedly so hurt by
the sketch that Waynes World actor Mike Meyers felt obliged to send an apology to the
White House (Nevius, 2004). As another example, Dave Chappelle said that he came to feel
that some of the humor in his former Comedy Central program, Chappelles Show, might be
socially irresponsible (Cooper, 2006). Specifically, Chappelle recalled an incident in which

274

PEIFER

he overheard the laughter of a white employee on his shows set while filming a satirical sketch
with Chappelle in blackface. Chappelle interpreted the laughter as more about enjoying racist
stereotypes than demonstrating an appreciation of the sketch as satire and social commentary.
This prompted Chappelle to pull back and reconsider his comedic work. Describing the incident
as a complete moral dilemma, he said, I dont want black people to be disappointed in me
for putting that [message] out there (Winfrey, 2006).
As yet another example, in an interview with NPRs Terry Gross, Tina Fey admitted some
discomfort in using Bristol Palin as fodder for her political comedy. During an SNL sketch, Feyas-Sarah Palin had made reference to Palins daughter, Bristol, as an unwed mother, joking that
Governor Palin believes marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling
teenagers (Gross, 2008). Fey later told Gross, Its one of those [sketches that gave me] a
little tinge of like, oh, did we just do that? But at the same time, this is a person who is trying
to, you know, who is talking about the issue of marriage and whos allowed to get married
and whos not, and it seemed to me to be an interesting connection to make (Gross). Thus
while Fey stood by her comedic choices, sensing ethical latitude when addressing an issue of
hypocrisy, Fey also acknowledged the power of her comedic choices to do harm.
In the examples above, each comedian sensed unease about crossing a line and effectively
doing harm to others. Here again, we find comedians and culture at large possessing an instinct
that humor is bounded by certain standards of decency. As Christians et al. (2005) note, we
might grant an exception for humor that targets people in power; that comes with the territory
of governance. However, needlessly ridiculing innocent people, such as children of politicians,
violates the ethic of nonmaleficence. Granted, it is not always clear what constitutes harm
and who is innocent or truly off limits. For this reason, the nonmaleficence value is perhaps
the most difficult of the social responsibility masternorms to discern. Different humorists may
reach different conclusions, based on contrasting priorities and contexts. But honestly engaging
with the nonmaleficence value is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.

CONCLUSION
In the final analysis, global social responsibility theory emerges as one of the strongest models
for strengthening political humor and societys political discourse as a whole. Although the
global social responsibility framework does not provide cut-and-dried answers for all the ethical
dilemmas of political humor, it serves society much more effectively than a common sense
approach to identifying the boundaries of political humor. The social responsibility framework
provides orientation and tools for making a strong rationale for comedic choicesregardless of
whether or not a critical mass of people perceive the humor as crossing a socially constructed
boundary. The strength of this model largely resides in its simplicity.
Employing the core principles of global social responsibility to guide ethically oriented
political humor is justified when recognizing that there is an ethical dimension to comedy and
that political humor plays an important role in society, both uniting and dividing people.
Political humor, in one form or another, has a long traditionfrom the court jesters of
monarchies to Benjamin Franklins political cartoons. Jon Stewart echoed this sentiment in
an interview with MSNBCs Rachel Maddow (2010), noting that theres been a form of me
around : : : forever, a comedian who, with political and social concepts, criticizes them from a

CAN WE BE FUNNY?

275

haughty yet ultimately feckless perch, throwing things (p. 22). With a historic perspective of
political humor, then, it becomes evident that it is not the responsibility and duty of a humorist
to be a cheerleader for the powerful or that which is deemed socially acceptable. As Borden
and Tew (2007) note, political humor is better suited to point out problems rather than to
craft solutions (p. 312). Though humor has the potential to perpetuate destructive stereotypes
and divide people, comedy also has the power to foster fresh and surprising insights. Political
humor can also serve society by prompting healthy skepticism and keeping the powerful honest.
It can defuse harsh discourse in society by making palatable what is hard to swallow in the
often-contentious political sphere. While we can easily identify distinctions between political
humor and conventional news media, political humor nonetheless has a social responsibility
like the traditional pressto honor values of human dignity, truthfulness, and nonmaleficence,
even while gently ribbing our institutions, our leaders, and ourselves. In this way, political
humor strengthens democracy.
Navigating the terrain of political humor is a complicated endeavor, akin to making sense
of reality in a fun house of mirrors, where nothing is quite as it seems. But as todays media
landscape continues to evolve and the line between news and entertainment becomes more
vague, it is imperative to grapple with the complexities of this domain. In proposing the broad
framework of global social responsibility as a normative guide of political humor, I place faith
in the historic traditions of humorists to perform their comedy with freedom, creativity, and
responsibility. To that end, perhaps the ethical model constructed within this essay can provide
a useful conception of political comedy boundaries the next time an entertainer feels obliged
to ask, can we be funny?

REFERENCES
Aristotle. (1910). Rhetoric (W. Rhys Roberts, Trans.). New York, NY: Cosimo.
Bakhtin, M. (1968). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Baranauckas, C. (2010, September 26). New York Governor and Saturday Night Live finally see eye to eye.
PoliticsDaily.com. Retrieved from http://www.politicsdaily.com
Basu, S. (1999). Dialogic ethics and the virtue of humor. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 7, 378403.
Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth.
American Politics Research, 34(3), 341367. doi:10.1177/1532673X05280074
Berger, A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Borden, S. L., & Tew, C. (2007). The role of journalist and the performance of journalism: Ethical lessons from fake
news (seriously). Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 300314. doi:10.1080/08900520701583586
Christians, C. G., Rotzoll, K. B., Fackler, M., McKee, K. B., & Woods, Jr., R. H. (Eds.). (2005). Media ethics: Cases
and moral reasoning (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Christians, C. G., & Nordenstreng, K. (2004). Social responsibility worldwide. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 19,
328.
Conolly, O., & Haydar, B. (2005). The good, the bad and the funny. The Monist, 88(1), 121134.
Cooper, A. (2006, July 7). Interview with Dave Chappelle. Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees. Retrieved from http://
transcripts.cnn.com
DeSousa, R. (1987). When is it wrong to laugh? In R. DeSousa (Ed.), The rationality of emotion. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Gaut, B. (1998). Just joking: The ethics and aesthetics of humor. Philosophy and Literature, 22, 5168. Retrieved
from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ philosophy_and_literature
Graber, D. (2008). Why political humor is serious business. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing
matters: Humor and American politics in the media age. New York, NY: Routledge.

276

PEIFER

Gross, T. (2008, November 3). Tina Fey: Sarah Palin and Saturday Night satire. Fresh Air. Retrieved from http://
www.npr.org
Gruner, C. R. (1997). The game of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Haberman, C. (2009, February 6). A governors sense of humor is put to a rigorous test. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/ nyregion/06nyc.html
Hansen, E. K., & Cooke-Jackson, A. F. (2010). Hillbilly stereotypes and humor: Entertaining ourselves at the expense
of the other. In H. Good & S. L. Borden (Eds.), Ethics and entertainment: Essays on media culture and media
morality. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Hart, R., & Hartelius, E. (2007). The political sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24(3),
263272. doi:10.1080/07393180701520991
Kelshaw, T. (2006). Communication as political participation. In G. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T. Striphas (Eds.),
Communication as : : : perspectives on theory (pp. 155163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lynch, O. H. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication research. Communication
Theory, 12(4), 423445.
Maddow, R. (2010, November 11). Interview transcript. The Rachel Maddow Show. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.
msn.com
McKinley, K. (2009, October 6). CNN fact checks last Saturdays SNL Obama-razzing skit. Newsbusters. Retrieved
from, http://newsbusters.org
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication
Theory, 10, 310331.
Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nerone, J. (Ed.). (1995). Last rights: Revisiting four theories of the press. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Nevius, C. W. (2004, January 22). Just ask Chelsea, Jenna and Barbara: Escaping the glare of the spotlight isnt easy
for kids whose dads work in the Oval Office. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com
Painter, C., & Hodges, L. (2010). Mocking the news: How The Daily Show with Jon Stewart holds traditional broadcast
news accountable. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(4), 257274.
Peterson, T. (1963). The social responsibility theory of the press. In F. S. Siebert, T. Peterson, & W. Schramm (Eds.),
Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility and Soviet communist concepts of
what the press should be and do. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Schapiro, R. (2010, September 26). Gov. David Paterson makes surprise Saturday Night Live visit to mock himself,
Albany. New York Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/fdcp?1292352476027
Seabrook, A. (2010, October 31). Sanity/fear rally a protest of the absurd. Vermont Public Radio News. Retrieved
from http://www.vpr.net/npr/130952931/
Season 27, Episode 1. (2001, September 29). Saturday Night Live transcripts. Retrieved from http://snltranscripts.jt.org/
01/01atribute.phtml
Smuts, A. (2010). The ethics of humor: Can your sense of humor be wrong? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,
13(3), 333347. doi:10.1007/s10677-009-9203-5
Stanley, A. (2010, October 29). Dude, can I have my parody back? The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.
com
Stewart, J. (2009, April 30). Daily Show: April 30, 2009. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Retrieved from http://www.
thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/harry-truman-was-not-a-war-criminal
Vidmar, N., & Rokeach, M. (1974). Archie Bunkers bigotry: A study in selective perception and exposure. Journal
of Communication, 24, 3647.
Williams, B. A., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2011). Real ethical concerns and fake news: The Daily Show and the challenge
of the new media environment. In A. Amarasingam (Ed.), The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impact of
fake news. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Winfrey, O. (2006, February 3). Chappelles Story. Oprah.com. Retrieved from http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/
Chappelles-Story/print/1/?slideD5

Copyright of Journal of Mass Media Ethics is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.