Original Research
Kreisler is a political comedian and author. He was the 2006 winner of the Bill Hicks Spirit Award for Tought Provoking Comedy.
Me: What made you get into political comedy?
Jeff: Well, it was kind of an interest in politics and comedy separately that got me into it. I went to Princeton and studied the emergence of Russia and the fall of the Soviet Union. As far as the media, I went to law school and studied law and politics. At the same time I was getting into comedy. The great comedies, the classics like the court jester, like in a Shakespearean play, showed that you can speak truth to power as long as you’re funny. A court jester can dance around and say, “Hey, you’re screwing up” but he’s got on funny clothes and a funny hat. You can see that even in modern times. The past couple of years have been difficult, like back in 2002 and 2003 no one was speaking out against anything happening in the world because they were afraid to, and comedy is the only way to do that. So I thought that comedy was a good way to talk about what I wanted to talk about and at the same time have fun.
Me: So in a way does comedy free you from the usual rules of journalism and still let you get heard?
Jeff: Absolutely. I wish I had the quote…I read in a book once about Bill Hicks…well it doesn’t really matter who its about. But if a political comic really wants to be heard, like wants people to really hear what he’s saying, like the message behind it, but at the same time doesn’t want them to look too closely and hold them to the standards of journalism. Or like getting the facts right. I was never really a fact person. I was more about the ideas and drawing conclusions. So I can talk about things like the pharmaciudical industry without having all the information in my back pocket.
Me: So what do you think it is that attracts people to hearing people make fun of their government and their politicians?
Jeff: I think people like to hear people take down the people in power. A lot of people like to hear people make fun of Paris Hilton because, you know, she’s out there. A comedy club is a good place for two reasons. For one, it’s the only place where people really speak the truth about things, like what’s happening. At the same time its not overwhelming, it’s not depressing, it’s still light-hearted. It can bring up issues without droning about it. In America people don’t like to go to lectures from big authors, they like to go to like get entertained, see movies and see comedy. Because they don’t really want to deal with all this crap, and comedy makes it kind of easy.
Me: You say that this is one of the few places that the truth is actually heard. Why don’t you think that CNN or Fox News ever portray the “real” truth like comics do?
Jeff: Well, I think that they present the information, but they are hindered by journalistic needs to present the facts and let people draw their own conclusions. Ideological commentating: you can argue whether Fox News is really presenting the facts or if they’re adding their own spin. Essentially they are just presenting the news, whereas in comedy you can put your opinion behind it. You can say what you think and what you feel about this, and you’re not supposed to do that on the news. At the same time, and I don’t have the facts and figures to back it up, but news journalism has changed. Advertising dollars matter. They follow, you know, Natalie Halloway and Jon Benet Ramsey like TV shows, when there are more important things to pay attention to. I don’t really turn to broadcast news for information, I mean I’ll read the papers, but that’s because I can pick the stories I want. If something big is happening I’ll turn to CNN because they provide instant coverage, but on a day-to-day basis you won’t turn it on and see the news that’s important to you. You’ll see the news that’s important to the producers or the advertisers.
Me: I actually read that someone did a second-by-second study of The Daily Show, some nightly news broadcasts and 24 hour news networks as well, and it turns out that The Daily Show has just as much actual news as the “real” news does.
Jeff: It’s interesting about The Daily Show. Actually part of the reason I moved to New York was because that’s where the show is produced. I saw that, and I have a couple of friends who are writers for the show, and I actually got past the first couple of levels of review but the head writer told me there isn’t an opening now. I think it’s a great show. The idea behind The Daily Show initially, and it’s still there, isn’t so much to make fun of politics but more to make fun of news, making fun of the media and how they cover these stories. They end up in a way doing a better job than the media because they draw conclusions that aren’t that hard to see, but sometimes the news media are afraid to say it. There’s been a campaign for the past 40 years trying to discredit the media. You hear the term “liberal media” all the time, when the truth is that the media isn’t that liberal. And then you have Fox News on the other extreme which is fairly conservative. Then you have things like the Dan Rather episode, which was a minor mistake in a minor part of another story, but it got blown up. The media itself ends up being very discredited. Now whenever people watch the news, if they believe Fox News that’s what they watch. If they believe something else they go to something else, there’s no looking at the other stuff.
Me: And another part of what I think The Daily Show does better than other sources is, instead of the debate style where you take two sides and pit them against each other and let them go at it, and you don’t really go anywhere, Stewart will have an intelligent discussion. He keeps it light and keeps it interesting, and in a way I think that does more justice to the issue by actually talking it through instead of having two sides scream at each other.
Jeff: Well, I mean the truth is, as I’m sure you know, is that there’s no right or wrong. There are people who I don’t agree with. I would align myself as a progressive person and I disagree with some of the policies of the far right, but I wouldn’t say they are purely evil or that they have malicious intent. It’s just a different perspective they have. When Jon Stewart sits down with Ralph Reed, or what’s his name Bennett you know that gambling guy, he may disagree with them but he lets them speak. He lets them say what their piece is and show that they’re human. You have to respect that. As I say in my act, I don’t think there’s a red and blue America. We just get caught up in these labels, and red states and blue states and that’s only perpetuated again by the media, so we don’t hear what the other side has to say. The Daily Show is probably more of a left-leaning show if you had to say so, but Stewart looks for people on the other side to come and say their piece, and they’re not mocked on that show. They might be mocked the next day, but not on that show. He lets them say what they want to say.
Me: Exactly. Do you think soft news like The Daily Show does justice to the issues? It might not cover them in as much detail as opposed to the analysis on like CNN, but does it do them justice?
Jeff: Um, I don’t think so. In an ideal world, people would see The Daily Show and see an issue like healthcare in Massachusetts, and they might go do more research on their own. I do think what The Daily Show does better than real news is point out hypocrisies and fallacies. A lot of times they will show a clip of a politician saying I never said that followed by a clip of him saying that. I remember in the vice presidential debates when Cheney said I’ve never met John Edwards before, it wasn’t just the news that didn’t call him out, but even Edwards knew it was a lie and didn’t say anything. The Daily Show, in some way, just by juxtaposing the meeting before with that statement, said that. I don’t think on the big issues you should go to The Daily Show, like to figure out how you feel about like abortion or healthcare, but I think it does a good job of enlightening people to the hypocrisies of politics and the failings of the media.
Me: You mentioned juxtaposition. I’ve been doing some research about satire just to know what I’m talking about in my paper. I feel like The Daily Show does a good job of that especially when Stewart is doing his news thing, switching between the clips and his commentary. Can you talk about juxtaposition a little and how that works?
Jeff: I just think The Daily Show or anything that can you use video clips is very convincing. If you look at The Daily Show, the time that Jon Stewart is actually on camera as opposed to the visual media is not that much. And, you know, that’s a great way to show juxtaposition. It’s through showing, not telling. It’s easy to say someone lied, but it’s better to show them lying.
Me: Another interesting part of that is the soundbites that Stewart uses. They aren’t the ones you would usually see on CNN. In a way they are more truthful because they aren’t the little 8 second clips that the politicians want you to hear. It’s like them screwing up or slipping their tongue.
Jeff: Well there’s a couple of reasons for that. I think one is that, and I was trying to get at it before, I don’t know if I got it out, is the whole discrediting of the media. It’s like the media is afraid of being labeled. They’re afraid of being the next Dan Rather. If they show a politician in a bad light they’re afraid of being accused of having bias from all these groups on each side. The other problem is that news reporting has become very sanitized. There was this whole scandal, and I forget the name of it, but the Bush administration basically producing news segments that they gave the local news stations to play. That’s not news reporting, that’s propaganda. The Daily Show shows the whole thing that people are saying. It humanizes it. It’s like watching the State of the Union or watching CNN for five minutes afterwards. Seeing the President speak for a whole 45 minutes, and speak at his best, is a whole charade. It’s pageantry. If you look at CNN or Fox News, they’ll say he said this and this and this and people liked it.
Me: About the media’s fear of being discredited…why is it that Stewart has no fear? Is it because labels himself as being “fake”? He’s pretty adamant about being fake and he never claims to be real news or anything of the sort.
Jeff: I think so. I think its because there’s no risk. The bottom line for him is “be funny” not make a difference. He’s on Comedy Central, not CSPAN or CNN. All he has to do is be funny. And he himself is a great comedian. He uses self-deprecation very well and when he maybe does get in a hot spot with someone he doesn’t let it show. And I know, as far as fearlessness, when you do stand-up comedy you have to overcome your fear or overcome your self-doubt. We stand in front of 10 people or hundreds of people or even thousands of people and we believe we can make them laugh. And you can’t do that if you have any fear or doubt. Then you have in Jon Stewart, having had that training if you will, that translates. What’s the worst the happens, you know? He doesn’t get a laugh? His show bombs that night? Or what’s the worst that happens, his show gets cancelled? Comedians, I feel, have a great perspective on life in general, especially ones who do more socially conscious kinds of stuff. Like what’s the big deal. Wolf Blitzer, if he lost his job on CNN, his life would fall apart. Jon Stewart, if he lost his job on Comedy Central, you know what, he had a good run. He would just find something else to do, like go back to doing stand-up. And I would take over The Daily Show.
Me: Yeah you’re the next Stephen Colbert. I have a quote from Jon Stewart. He said, “For some reason, people think that solid, good, in-depth all equals dull, low ratings, low profitability. I don’t think that’s the case. I think you can make really exciting, interesting television news that could become the medium of record for reasonable, moderate people.” Do you think that’s true and do you think that’s what he’s doing?
Jeff: I don’t think that’s what he’s doing. I think he’s starting to push the pendulum towards that. I think that Jim Lehrer’s News Hour is a pretty good news show. It’s an hour, no commercials, and so any topic they get into they’re going to get into it deep. I think it can be done. But I think the problem nowadays is money because anything that’s on TV needs to support itself through advertising or sponsorship. You would have to find someone like a George Soros or someone who’s willing to support it just for the good it would do. I think that a news show can be done well. I think a 24 hour news network has the problem of oversaturation and deletion and when is the news that you want to see. Headline News I think is an interesting idea, you know repeating every half hour, but I think it’s too surface. If Headline News were every hour, hour and a half or two hours maybe it would be real coverage. I definitely think it’s possible but again I don’t think he’s doing it. I think he’s pushing it towards there. The people who host a news show have to be entertaining, you know they have to be people you want to see, and it’s a hard thing to do. I haven’t really watched Anderson Cooper but I always feel like he’s being pushed to be that kind of guy.
Me: Do you think that the way that the news media is today, and the way that The Daily Show counters that is detrimental to politics in general? Does it make people too cynical?
Jeff: I think that’s a risk, but I think all politicians, regardless of their popularity, don’t want us to look too closely at what they’re doing because we’d see that what they’re doing is, for lack of a better word, crap. It’s like the Wizard of Oz, they don’t want us to look behind the curtain. And comedy and satire lift up that curtain a little bit. And yes there’s a chance that people become cynical, but at the same time there’s a message in what people are saying in comedy and satire. There is truth behind, to use the vocabulary, the juxtaposition that people may not have seen otherwise. And they’ll see the truth about a personality or about an issue in politics, and I think that’s a good thing. Now when they see a politician speak on TV they have in the back of their mind what satire is, which “what’s he really doing?”, “what’s really going on?”. Satire takes the packaged 10 second clip of a shiny politician and says “what’s really behind that?”. If having The Daily Show out there makes people do that exercise on their own, I think it’s only going to help.