On a Wednesday night in December, Rachel Maddow, in a toreador-style black jacket, waits for her show to start. She types last-minute notes on her computer with the intensity of a graduate student. At the 30 Rock news television studio, with its red, white, and blue décor, late-night assistants running about, and two dozen television screens on all around her, Maddow seems in her element. And when the show begins, perhaps unsurprisingly, it is devoted to “Blago”—the thoroughly and hilariously embarrassing (and now former) Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Maddow asks the “awkward question,” as she puts it: Is Blago not well? She riffs a bit and then concludes, with a sarcastic smile, “Illinois, you are getting almost as fun to cover as Alaska!”
MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show made its debut in the fall of 2008 and by October had grabbed 1.89 million viewers, beating CNN’s Larry King Live in the over-twenty-five and under-fifty-four demographic for that whole month. Maddow’s mocking on-air demeanor reminds many people of what they liked most about college. But she’s not just clever: she’s a tough-minded Rhodes Scholar, former aids activist, and an out lesbian. Her very existence as an anchor on cable television defies a number of different common wisdoms.
That’s all remarkable unto itself. But to my mind, what really makes the show special is how it embodies the rise of what I think of as sarcasm news. More and more news programs are likely to go absurdist in the coming months and years. As faith in and loyalty to traditional anchors wither, one can even hear ironic Maddowian intonations creeping into the delivery of CNN’s not-so-funny anchor Campbell Brown on her new show.
Now, you may be thinking, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert perfected comedy news a while back, no? But Maddow marks a watershed for a different sort of news comedy. Stewart (and Craig Kilborn before him) was a comic first and foremost—when The Daily Show started, the news was the surprising part. Maddow’s show works the opposite way: the news is the thing and the humor is the surprise. Along with her precursor, the five-year-old Countdown With Keith Olbermann, these are two “real” news programs permeated by parody.
What has caused sarcastic news to flower? For starters, today’s bloggers and YouTube snidesters see parody as information and information as parody. This is not entirely a mistake. Now, the news-with-satire approach can seem like the only thing that makes sense, since at least these shows are in on their own jokes. Even politicians sometimes embrace the idea of themselves as caricatures. They show up on Saturday Night Live to rap, or to meet their comedy doubles. They import self-parody into their own campaigns, as in Hillary Clinton’s faux Sopranos video on YouTube.
Also, the proliferation of niche audiences spurs sophisticated and partisan humor because these smaller groups of viewers have very particular tastes, identities, and affinities. They are thus more likely to share a sense of what’s funny. Critical verbal humor is a very specific thing—one reason that American film comedies struggle for viewers overseas. Sarcastic ripostes call for sarcastic viewers who know how, and when, to laugh. Simply put, Maddow is joking to the converted.
Finally, we have a far more sophisticated audience today than in the past, one that sees more clearly behind the manipulations and stagecraft of its political leaders. Two decades ago, Reagan got away with his spin, and his spinster, Michael Deaver, was and still is considered an untainted spokesman. Karl Rove, on the other hand, is widely seen as a vile little prince of handling. Yet Deaver, if we remember, was as much a master manipulator as Rove was; he got Reagan, you’ll recall, to gin up fake remorse during the Iran-Contra affair. Both the comedy and the news coverage of our decade and decades past reflect each era’s understanding of public relations and doublespeak. Now, news parody is truly a tool with which to strike back at political PR.

Rachel Rocks!
#1 Posted by Wayne from Fullerton, CA, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 12:20 AM
You imply that Maddow being a lesbian defies 'common wisdom'. Really? You folks, of all people, should be setting an example for responsible journalism that does not further ostracize the LGBT community and sustain heternormative ideologies.
#2 Posted by Marcos, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 11:53 AM
It is disturbing that, in the 21st century, that any description of a woman has to include how she looks, what she is wearing, and what her sexual preference is. Rachel Maddow is smart. funny, and oh, yeah, she's has the gay. Give me a break.
#3 Posted by dbrown, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 12:12 PM
Keith Olbermannnnn is not not five years old. He's 6 maybe going on 7.
#4 Posted by novotny ingersol, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 12:16 PM
Maybe it is some smart Conservative who will figure out how to become what Jon Stewart was to the Bush administration, for the Obama administration...
#5 Posted by François Villeneuve, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 05:54 PM
I'm sure it hasn't escaped notice that she has some of the most interesting guests on television. A minimum of the same old pundits and lot of folks who have new facts or opinions to contribute to a variety of issues. This is all pasted together with a little lefty snark. I just love her and the show PLUS, I learn something in the many non-snarky parts.
#6 Posted by rain39, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 08:15 PM
Really guys? Chaplin. Rachel Maddow is brilliant, smart and incredibly well informed. Her radio show was fantastic and did well when readers had no idea what her looks were. She was important in informing new voters while she guested on Dan Abrams show and many others during the recent election.
#7 Posted by tinywonders, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 09:35 PM
A few Republicans have come on Rachel's show, and when they have, it's been very interesting.
Rachel constantly complains that Republicans won't come on her show. Her brilliance, knowledge and fearlessness apparently makes her too scary for mere Republican talking points.
#8 Posted by IsistheCat, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 10:37 PM
I'm also exhausted by Maddow interviwers' fascination with her sexual orientation. From Leslie Stahl's sixth-grade-level questions, "Did you go to prom"? to the more subtle digs of this piece -- the Chaplin eyebrows, the "hated" makeup -- I wonder if the interviewers' jealousy at Maddow's success hasn't found its expression in homophobia. Rachel Maddow is a breath of beautiful fresh air. And if these folks aren't jealous, it makes me incredibly sad that after 40 years of GLBT activism, supposedly intelligent Americans remain so stupid about non-heterosexual people.
#9 Posted by Italiana, CJR on Sat 14 Mar 2009 at 11:31 AM
Don't you people ever comment about what's positive about a story? This one is full of insight. The few words about her appearance come at the end and are in context to the story.
#10 Posted by Rachel, CJR on Mon 16 Mar 2009 at 09:36 AM
People! Give Alissa Quart a break!! I found her thoughtfull, sensitive and enlightning! I believe she said no less than RM would say herself about her show and being a lesbian. It should be SHOUTED that RM is a witty, smart, lesbian who we need to listen to. My only regret is that it took sooo long for her to 'give me the truth'. Can we clone her?
#11 Posted by Robin Martinez, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 11:58 AM
I think Rachel is great, and more intelligent then most. Could people please get over the fact the lady is gay. I ware size 81/2 shoes, and have blue eyes, which has about the same significance as rachel's gayness. Lets get past it. She is great, and so refreshingly honest.John
#12 Posted by John Sumner, CJR on Wed 18 Mar 2009 at 12:13 PM
Rachel's show is indeed a watershed moment for television news.
What's brilliant about what the show does is that even when mocking it's still relating information; valid, accurate information.
I've never seen the combination melded so well.
And she comes across as remarkably genuine, as in yesterday's piece on the subway hero Craig Lindsey.
http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junkie_a_blog_f/2009/03/maddow-video-nyc-subway-hero-craig-lindsey-get-this-guy-a-series-now.html
Like Redford in that baseball movie, she is a "Natural."
#13 Posted by Joe Bua, CJR on Thu 19 Mar 2009 at 12:28 PM
Enjoyed the story, but tend to think the author overlooked the true influence for the trend in comic/parody/witty/irony news. It lies with "NBC News Overnight."
It ran in 1982-83 around the midnight time slot. Linda Ellerbee hosted, along with a couple of male co-anchors. There are a few clips on Youtube. Give them a look, you'll see the genesis.
#14 Posted by Kent, CJR on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 12:02 AM
This is one of the most serious and insightful articles I have read this year. The carping criticisms based on its mention of Rachel's sexual preference are juvenile. Rachel is an American treasure.
Can anyone really believe that her lesbian preference is entirely irrelevant to this piece. This is about a changing of the guard in television, and Rachel's position in the new alignment. It is about the shift from faux seriousness to ironic distance, from incorporation in the mainstream fantasy to a stance outside of it that enables its deconstruction.
This is all of a piece with the shift from compulsory heterosexism to sexual and personal freedom.
The critics might do well to step outside of their own blinders and see the world in a fresh and often funny light.
#15 Posted by Lenard Waks, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 12:06 PM
This is one of the most serious and insightful articles I have read this year. The carping criticisms based on its mention of Rachel's sexual preference are juvenile. Rachel is an American treasure.
Can anyone really believe that her lesbian preference is entirely irrelevant to this piece. This is about a changing of the guard in television, and Rachel's position in the new alignment. It is about the shift from faux seriousness to ironic distance, from incorporation in the mainstream fantasy to a stance outside of it that enables its deconstruction.
This is all of a piece with the shift from compulsory heterosexism to sexual and personal freedom.
The critics might do well to step outside of their own blinders and see the world in a fresh and often funny light.
#16 Posted by Leonard Waks, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 12:08 PM