Political caricatures have been an American staple since the Colonial period. In the late nineteenth century, these sorts of illustrations tended to be scathing social critiques. In the twentieth century, though, news parodies were a bit more milquetoast. This was true even thirty-three years ago, when Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update” kicked off the modern form of news parody. Back then, of course, real anchors exuded TV’s version of gravitas and solidity. The SNL Update was just milking anchors’ self-seriousness for laughs.
In the 1990s and 2000s, this satirical mode built up a head of laughing gas with The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Air America’s Al Franken. Comic news has become so popular that it even saved the career of a louche pothead named Bill Maher, who in a few short years went from comic outlier to éminence gris.
According to Bill Wolff, executive producer of The Rachel Maddow Show and vice president of msnbc’s primetime programming, nothing less than George W. Bush has paved the way for his programs, as well as the others. “The funnier side of the political spectrum is the one where your enemies are most ridiculous,” says Wolff.
Maybe, but I think it has more to do with a shift in how people like information conveyed. Bush perhaps accelerated the process. So many felt degraded by the Bush era that they wished to degrade him back, on television. And then there are liberals who are now recalling their long-forgotten weapon: wit. As Jackson Lears, a professor of American history at Rutgers University, says of Maddow and the rest, “After decades of being mocked for excessive earnestness, the Left is remembering what the [1960s] counterculture knew: flagrant lies demand absurdist responses; they deserve to be not merely refuted but laughed to scorn.”
Still, MSNBC’s Wolff admits his network has gone in this direction partly due to the success of its rival network, Fox. A decade ago, Fox was established and MSNBC was just starting to brand itself as a distinct network. After Olbermann’s show became a hit, one might hypothesize that msnbc thought it could go for broke by doubling down on Maddow.
Wolff ties the rise of Maddow and Olbermann to their ability to bring analysis to news audiences. “With information becoming cheap, the success of Rachel and Keith is because people want someone collating or commenting on information,” says Wolff.
A lot of Maddow’s success derives from her taste for the absurd. At one point during the night of my visit, I watched from the sidelines as she showed a Christmas ad made by the coal industry, starring pieces of coal with bulging eyes and green and red carol books. “Anthropomorphic lumps of carbon singing,” Maddow hooted. Three cameras swung around her, using the in-your-face-and-out-of-our-minds technique so beloved by Olbermann. She then went further into the comedy ether: “The earth’s rotation is slowing down . . . that’s fodder for your next existential crisis.”
Throughout her show, Maddow’s bookishness comes through her wit. Early in the fall, she had a field day with Sarah Palin’s penchant for falsehoods, but in a very particular way. On one show around the election, she called Palin “a prevaricating, mendacious truth-stretcher or whatever other thesaurus words we can come up with for lying, is just far less efficient than calling a lie a lie, and a liar a liar.” I realized that in order to find this fully funny, you had to like jokes about abusing the thesaurus.
In October, Maddow’s wit became the accidental subject of one of her shows: a tormented-looking David Frum complained on-air that her humor was juvenile. “Making jokes about it is part of the way that I am talking about it,” Maddow fired back. “I don’t necessarily agree with you on ‘grown up.’ I think there’s room for all sorts of different kinds of discourse, including satire, including teasing, including humor. There’s a lot of different ways to talk about stuff, and Americans absorb information in a lot of different ways.”

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