Questioning in Political Comedy Talk Shows -Term Paper-

Sociolinguistics

by

Katherine Ceballos Global Cultural Contents

Spring Semester 2014 Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

2.1. Definition and function of questions 2.2. Face threatening acts

3. Methods 3.1. Research Questions 3.2. Approaches 3.3. Talk Shows to be Analyzed

4. Analysis and Findings

4.1.

5. Conclusion

6. References

7. Appendix

7.1. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Transcript #1 7.2. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Transcript #2 7.3. The Colbert Report Transcript #1 7.4. The Colbert Report Transcript #2 7.5. The Colbert Report Transcript #3 7.6. Real Time with Bill Maher Transcript #1 7.7. Real Time with Bill Maher Transcript #2

1. Introduction

Late-night talk shows are specifically a kind of comedy-oriented talk and variety

show that airs late at night, in time slots considered to be prime-time. Characteristics of the genre

include topical monologues in which the host makes fun of the day's news, comedy sketches,

celebrity interviews, and musical performances. The host’s personality also plays a huge role on

the format and contents of the program.

Political comedy shows are a sub-genre of late-night talk shows. In this kind of program

the hosts take shots at leaders and bureaucrats for whom the public at large already have a

healthy dose of cynical mistrust, interview professionals of different areas of interest and deal

with controversial topics in a very humorous way. The best political comedians, however, do

more than just taking shots; they shape the discussion and become part of the process through the

act of telling jokes. They can be more than simple commentators; they can be voices that discuss

topics of great relevance to society. Though the majority of political comedians do tend to lean

left, there are those who speak to conservatives and others who elect not to choose sides.

These kinds of shows have proven to be greatly popular on recent years, not only as a

form of entertainment, but also as a reliable source of information1. Satire has made politics

more accessible, leading to more informed viewers who have the potential to form more

educated opinions and discuss those views with others. So we can argue that even if they’re

treated in a comical manner, the topics discussed are still very much relevant for the audience.

The present research aims to find a direct justification for specific questioning formats, if

present, in Political Comedy talk shows interviews and the function they are given by the hosts.

And also argue if face-threatening acts are made less pertinent because of their humorous nature.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Definition and Function of Questions

In her book Language and Control in American TV Talk Shows, Penz argues that the

occurrence of questions including their form and function indicates the authority relationships

and control in talk shows. The host will represent the institution, in this case the show, and will 1 Thai, Anthony. “Political Satire: Beyond the Humor.” The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved from: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/2/6/harvard-political-satire/

have the prerogative to ask questions2. Questions can be defined as an utterance that causes a

verbal or other semiotic response. Indicators of questions can be then summarized into three:

grammar, prosody and epistemic asymmetries. Grammatical markings are present in many

languages and they distinguish polar (yes-no) questions from assertions, which can be in the

form of question particles or a dedicated word. Prosody in the form of rising intonation can also

be an indicative of questioning in some languages, although utterances without it can also be

considered questions. Finally, there is epistemic asymmetry which refers to the domain of

knowledge. The speaker makes a statement that fall into the domain of knowledge of the listener,

thus earning a confirmation or disconfirmation3.

Nevertheless, questions do not only request information, and they can be used as a tool to

place limitations on answerers. First, we have presuppositions which convey and impose the

questioner’s beliefs on the recipient and any direct answer in this case, accepts the

presupposition as valid and it takes interactional work to refute them. When asked this kind of

questions, answerers face the choice between providing the answer and accepting the

presupposition or rejecting them but not answering the question and potentially seem evasive.

Secondly, questions can set up agendas that can either be topical, what is being talked about, or

of action, what the speaker is doing with the question. While answers can resist agendas set by

questions, doing so can also seem evasive and provide a setting for renewal of the question by

the questioner. Finally, there is the matter of preference: answers over non-answers responses,

affirmation over disaffirmation, type-conformity over nonconformity, and preference for selected

speakers to answer over non-selected speakers4.

Questions can also be recognized as a challenge or criticism. Regarding this Steensig and

Drew argue the following: “asking a question is not an innocent thing to do; when a question is

asked about what its recipient has said or done, it carries a possible implication of disaffiliation.”

In short, questions can create confrontational actions or, in the case of negative interrogatives,

serve as positive assertions that can challenge the recipient’s position5.

2 Penz, Hermine. Language and Control in American TV Talk Shows. Page 102. 3 Hayano, Kaoru. Question Design in Conversation. 4 Hayano, Kaoru. Question Design in Conversation. 5 Hayano, Kaoru. Question Design in Conversation.

Different question types can exert various degrees of control in relation to what choices

they give the answerer. Yes-no questions are pretty straightforward in that they require an either

positive or negative reply, denial or confirmation of the proposition. Declarative questions are

very similar to the above mentioned, as they restrict the respondent to confirming or denying

what is suggested. They also tend to be answered affirmatively, as they are often asked when the

speaker wants to confirm information they already possess. They can also be used to highlight

certain points for the audience, in the specific setting of talk shows. Tag-questions often seek

confirmation or agreement with the content of the statement. Wh-questions are used to extract

information from respondents, they can do so in different ways: asking for factual information,

giving information and asking for new elements afterwards (so called echo-questions) or used as

directives to take further actions. There are also multiple questions, which can tackle the same

topic but referring to different aspects of it or addressing different topics that are closely related

in terms of contents. Lastly there is the use of questions combined with imperatives and need

statements, which can be an indication of authority position in the speaker.

2.2 Face-threatening acts

Polite behavior is concerned with what authors refer to as ‘face’, defined as an

individual’s self-esteem or the public self –image that every member wants to claim for

themselves. There can be two kinds of face-wants: positive or negative. Positive face-wants refer

to the desire to be approved of, in some respects, while negative face-wants denote to the desire

to be unimpeded in one’s actions. Author Nancy Bonvillain goes even further, arguing that while

these wants are universal they are subject to cultural specifications: what kinds of acts threaten

face, what sorts of persons have special rights to face-protection, and what kinds of personal

styles are appreciated6.

In social interactions, face-threatening acts are at times inevitable based on the terms of

the conversation. A face threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of the

addressee or the speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Most of

these acts are verbal; however, they can also be conveyed in the characteristics of speech (such

as tone, inflection, etc.) or in non-verbal forms of communication. Negative face is threatened

6 Bonvillain, Nancy. Language Culture and Communication. Page 127.

when an individual does not avoid or intend to avoid the obstruction of their interlocutor's

freedom of action. It can cause damage to either the speaker or the hearer, and makes one of the

interlocutors submit their will to the other. Positive face is threatened when the speaker or hearer

does not care about their counterpart’s feelings, wants, or does not want what the other wants.

Positive face threatening acts can also cause damage to the speaker or the hearer. The more

threatening the act is, the more polite and indirect the means to accomplish it are. The most

imposing requests are usually expressed through indirection and hints.

Figure 2.1 Communication Strategies7

3. Methods

The purpose of this research is to answer the following questions:

i. Is there specific question formats that relate directly to political comedy talk shows and

what are their functions?

ii. Is face-threat mitigated, and thus, less relevant, due to the comic nature of the shows and

the hosts personas?

In order to do this, data will be gathered and analyzed, findings will be gathered and

conclusions will be made. The particular data consist of selected episodes from three different

7 Bonvillain, Nancy. Language Culture and Communication. Page 128.

estimation of risk of face loss

do the fta

on record

without redressive action,

baldly

with redressive action

positive politeness

negative politeness off record

don't do the fta

political comedy talk shows from the United States which are The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,

The Colbert Report and Real Time with Bill Maher. As one cannot understand the nature of the

shows without knowing about the hosts, we will describe them briefly.

a. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart took over The Daily Show in 1999, quickly becoming one of the country's

go-to comics for political comedy. The genius of Jon Stewart isn't just his quick wit or sharp

writing; what makes him great is that he is truly passionate about the political problems

Americans face today. Stewart is more than the class smart-ass; underneath the political

commentary and jokes is the distinct feeling of understanding the issues he deals with in his

show. Describing itself as a fake news program, The Daily Show draws its comedy and satire

from recent news stories, political figures, media organizations, and often, aspects of the show

itself8.

b. The Colbert Report

As host of his own show, Colbert, known for being a sly satirist, criticizes right-wing

commentators four nights a week. He has even used his status as a political comedian to enter the

realm of politics; speaking at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2006 and even

entertaining a brief run for the White House in the 2008 election. The Stephen Colbert character

is a fictional character that is a caricature of news experts such as Bill O'Reilly or Geraldo Rivera,

whose shows focus on "bluster and personality”. Colbert's character, a "well-intentioned, poorly

informed, high-status idiot", is right-wing, egomaniacal, fact-averse ("factose intolerant"), God-

fearing, and hyper-patriotic9.

c. Real Time with Bill Maher

Bill Maher was a stand-up comic for almost 15 years, before becoming host of the show

Politically Incorrect in 1993. On that show and its follow-up, the HBO talk show Real Time with

Bill Maher, he regularly engages in discussions with politicians, specialists and celebrities on a

wide range of issues. A self-described "libertarian," Maher is an equal-opportunity offender,

8 Wikipedia: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show 9 Wikipedia: The Colbert Report. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report

willing to make fun of all political parties. Since the show airs on HBO, the participants do not

have to restrict their language to conform to the broadcast standards that existed on Politically

Incorrect or that exist in other shows10.

4. Analysis and Findings

As mentioned on the literature review, questioning can serve as a mean of control and

also have other purposes in talk shows. We will further analyze the role and function they can

serve specifically on Political Comedy Talk Shows. Moreover, we will also pay attention to the

parts played by comedy and audience.

The first show analyzed was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. At first sight we can see

that the host is very passionate about the topics he deals with in the show, and this is clearly

represented by the types of questions used. The following excerpt from the interview with

Kathleen Sebelius on topics related to Obamacare shows a great deal of repetition in the

questions, which in this case have the intention of the guest clarifying any information that may

not have been clear to the public and television audience. This is a device that we could find in

the majority if the interviews.

10 Wikipedia: Real Time with Bill Maher. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_with_Bill_Maher

Excerpt from appendix 7.1

Also, there is the use of follow-up questions to statements that may have left relevant

information out of it. As we stated, the main goal of Political Comedy talk shows is to inform on

relevant issues to the viewers, as such they need to extract as much information as possible from

the guests that are invited to deal with these topics.

Excerpt from appendix 7.1

S: What’s going on with this? Is this working? Is this not working?

K: well, the great news is, we have a terrific market and for the first time people are gonna have a chance to compare plans, figure out what they qualify for. Insurance companies have to play by new rules and for about 85 percent of us, we don’t have to sign up for anything …[because we have insurance that works...

S: [Wait, we don’t? Oh, I see. This Obamacare is for the fifteen percent first…

K: It’s for the fifteen that have no insurance at all or ah…

S: How many have signed up thus far?

K: Fully enrolled?

S: [ Yeah

K: [ I can’t tell you. Because I don’t know. We are taking applications on the web, on the phone, we’ll be giving monthly reports but I can tell you we’ve had not only lots of web pits, hundreds of thousands of accounts created, [ we have lots of interested…

S: [ So it’s been hundreds of thousands people signed up?

K: Of accounts created. Which means that then they are gonna go shopping. Jon, this is like…

K: Under fifty full-time employees. So, the new market gives them some additional shopping tools, we have a small business market, and [we have for…

S: [Although that now, only has the one option.

K: No, it has aah…business owners will be able to have choices. What doesn’t happen this year is then employees at a small mom and pop shop can choose from fourteen different plans. That happens next year.

S: Right. They get one.

K: But that is if you run…

S: But would you say that’s a legitimate criticism though that an individual doesn’t get to delay it, but a business does. Is that not legitimate.

K: I don’t…I…because nothing that helps an individual get health insurance has been delayed at all. They can …and they’ll get the tax credit this year, they have plans to choose from, and the amazing [thing is that…

On the previous excerpt we can notice the use of quotation, and this is also a device that

is used throughout the other interviews and it can be a confrontational tool as well. What this

quotation does if attribute statements to the other parties, or jump to conclusions that may or not

be wrong and in the end also look to clarify information or provoke laughter from the audience.

With the host saying: “so would you say…” and then adding a presupposition he’s forcing, to a

certain extent, the guest to state their point of view in this specific matter. So, even if it’s not an

explicit question, it does request for more information to be provided.

Excerpt from appendix 7.2

The same holds true for what is found in this excerpt from the interview to Senator

Bonilla, although in this case it is asked in the form of a wh-question. The host is providing

background information on what the guest or his party have previously stated and seeking to

extract more information.

The second show analyzed, The Colbert Report, has the particularity in that the host is

playing a character who is misinformed most of the time, or whose beliefs and opinions are

contrary to those of the guest. In this we find the comical element, as the questions can be of the

multiple kind, or asking questions with the certainty that the guest is wrong. The first interview

was to Fareed Zakaria, relating to the United States economic crisis. Colbert has the special

characteristic that the way in which the questions are formulated can be summarized into “Yes, I

get this. But what about…?” The conversation never stops going and it can very be amusing to

watch for the audience, while also expanding more and more in the information being provided

by the guests.

S: But which group says they're the most liberal? Which-- you know, because the one-- that is a point that you guys make. This is the first and the fourth.

B: The liberal groups do, and the conservative groups do. Both of them do.

S: No no no, I know that, but you know how like when you guys go on the show and you go, he's the first most liberal and the fourth most liberal, which group is that? The one that you guys are quoting?

B: It's a group that does it, it's a group on each side. It's not one individual, um, it's not just the trial laywers, it's not just the small business group, it's not just the [corporate...

Excerpt from appendix 7.3

Now, the following is an example of the use of presuppositions. However, in the case of

Political Comedy talk shows, presuppositions tend to be used mostly for the sake of humor and

provoking comical situations or even confrontation. In this interview, Colbert is interviewing

author Richard Dawkins about his book The God Delusion, while maintaining the character of a

very religious person who is completely against anything he says.

Excerpt from appendix 7.4

C: Ok, but you say the bright side. What’s so bright about what’s happening right now?

F: Look. The bright side is…we’ve been kicking the can down the road for twenty years. We’ve been spending money we didn’t have , we’ve been buying things we couldn’t afford, and it’s not just us, it’s the government. Every state government, every city, the federal government was basically doing stuff it couldn’t do…it couldn’t ask people to fund the government that they wanted, so they said fine, we’ll go out and raise money, we’ll go out and borrow money and [after a while

C: [So what’s wrong with that? It’s just like a credit card. It’s a government credit card. What’s so wrong with that? [laughter]

F: You know the average American now has thirteen credit cards?! I have two, so that probably means you have twenty-two. [ laughter] Right? [laughter] Ah…now, at some point you can’t keep doing that because you will…the only way people will continue lending you money if your balance sheet looks worse and worse is you have to pay a lot of interest. You have to pay higher and higher interest rates which means your growth goes down, your stock market portfolio will go down...[you have lower standards

C: [ But, again, the question was what’s the bright side. This is the bright side?! [laughter]..the portfolio goes down, the stock …that’s the good. You are saying the good part is it’s going to be so painful that we’re gonna have to change

C: Okay, alright. Um… Now, obviously I've already played my hand here. I believe in god and you don't believe in god, so I've got that on you. So um... this is kind of unfair, 'cause god's on my side in this argument um… But 95 percent of Americans believe that there is a god, ok? So, doesn't that disprove... your argument… or else, ah, you don't believe in democracy.

R: Well… C: Really? I mean, the people have spoken. R: Democracy is fine for policy. But democracy is no good for science, you

would never- C: Oh, I disagree. I'll say that the President will disagree also. [laughter]

[clapping] R: Well, you've got a point there; I have to give you that. You are right there C: Now, you are not a big fan of Intelligent Design either, I am imagining. R: I am a very big fan of intelligent design for man-made things. But I am not

a big fan of intelligent design for natural things.

This example works, again, in creating the environment for amusing the audience, while

also continuing with the next topic in line. It is a case of topical agenda, being set by a statement

that functions as a question. “What do you think about intelligent design?” would be another way

to present it, and moving the conversation towards that topic as well. We can now see, that

statements functioning as questions or questions are also used by hosts of Political Comedy talk

shows to transition from one line of topic to the other. Sometimes they do not even have to relate

directly to what is currently being talked about, as we will show with the next excerpt.

Excerpt from appendix 7.5

Here the host changes abruptly the subject, in order to bring attention to the outfit being

worn by the guest, Sister Campbell, and setting the topical agenda in order while also providing

the opportunity to create a comical moment. In this case, we can argue that agendas are also an

important part of the role questioning has in these types of talk shows.

Finally, we have even more controversial Bill Maher, from his show Real Time. This

host in particular is well known for being very provocative with his questions, bordering on

hostile. His questions are usually very direct and rely as well on the use of quotations to create

room for argument. In the first interview we will present next, the guest is a very religious man

who will discuss the topics in his new book: Awakening. Now, it is important to note that Bill

Maher is an atheist who is constantly attacking the decisions and arguments done by the church

and religious groups in the United States.

S.C.: We’re certainly oriented towards the needs of women and responding to their needs — if that’s radical, I guess we are. But actually –

C: Yes, yes — that’s radical feminism! S.C.: I don’t think so. C: And by the way sister, where’s the outfit? Did you burn it at one of those wimple burning parties? You radical

nuns? [laughter] S.C.: We returned to our roots. And in our history, what we dressed in was the dress of the day, in simple dress. So that’s

what we do now, we dress in the simple dress of the day in order to touch people more directly. People used to get intimidated by those big habits and all that, and we could not really walk with them in their life [experience.

Excerpt from appendix 7.6

Here we can see that after the first question which mixes quotation and presupposition,

and after the guest denies the supposition, the host goes back to reformulating his question while

still giving the same message. It could be considered as an attack, but because the whole time the

audience is laughing with him, the harshness is diminished to a degree. The example below

shows another instance where he gives a statement, followed by a question that seeks to create

controversy, with the host himself stating: “I haven’t said anything controversial yet,” which we

can argue to be another aim of Political Comedy talk shows.

Excerpt from appendix 7.6

5. Conclusion

After analyzing various extracts of questioning performed in interviews of Political

Comedy Talk Shows we can argue that the three goals of these shows are to inform, to entertain

and create controversy through the questions asked. The most important role in how questions

are performed can be said to be played by humor. Humor, in this case, can be utilized as both a

tool and as a weapon by the hosts of the shows. Comedy gives them an edge, as it allows hosts to

ask questions without regards for face-threat, as their role of comedian makes it irrelevant to a

B: Hey Ralph, how are you, sir? Thank you for coming on. You say America needs to go back to greatness. What are you saying, America is shitty now? [laughter]

R: Um, no, that's not really my message. B: Sounds like America’s bad now? R: No, I think we can do better. When you have a $17 trillion national debt, when you have

$65 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations- Social Security, Medicare etc.

B: Exactly, So? No, ok. I want to thank you for being here because a lot of people who are people of faith don't want to, you know, even be seen with me because I am the opposite of a person with faith. So I appreciate your courage and I want to ask you right off the bat -- faith, the purposeful suspension of critical thinking. [laughter] [applauses]I'm just defining it. I haven't said anything controversial yet. My question is why is faith a good thing? Why is that a good thing?

R: Well, speaking for myself, faith gives me a sense of purpose. It gives me a moral compass. It’s a relationship. It's not a set of rules. I understand that some people look at it and say well, you're not really thinking for yourself. That's not really true. I do think critically. I study things but I believe my destiny is resolved and when you feel that your eternal destiny is resolved you have a peace and a comfort and a freedom and a liberty to do the right thing and not care what other people think.

certain extent. Also, comments or questions that could be considered rude in any other setting

can be softened by immediate laughter from the host’s part or from the audience, who also plays

a very important role in this kind of talk show. As seen here, audience often participates by

laughing, applauding or booing and these actions can help the host in his questioning or even

push the guest to respond or act in a certain way.

Due to all of these, questions in Political Comedy talk shows can be very challenging and

controversial, but disregarded as such precisely because the environment of the show is

entertaining and comical. Nonetheless, they are still used by the host to extract, clarify and even

amplify the information that is available for viewers, and as such, they are very effective in

turning political comedy talk shows into very reliable, and very amusing, sources of information.

6. References

Bonvillain, Nancy. Language, Culture and Communication. Fourth Edition Prentice Hall. New York: 2003

Hayano, Kaoru. Question Design in Conversation. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, First Edition. Blackwell Publishing. 2013.

Penz, Hermine. Language and Control in American TV Talk Shows. Gunter Narr. Germany: 1996.

Tolston, Andrew. Media Talk. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh: 2006.

7. Appendix

7.1 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 10/07/2013 Guest: Kathleen Sebelius Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9A9VE-NH0w

Starts 0:29

S: Nice to see you.

K: Nice to see you.

S: We are gonna do a challenge. I’m gonna try and download every movie ever made [laughter] and you are gonna try and sign up for Obamacare. We’ll see which one happens first.

K: Ok. Ok.

S: What’s going on with this? Is this working? Is this not working?

K: well, the great news is, we have a terrific market and for the first time people are gonna have a chance to compare plans, figure out what they qualify for. Insurance companies have to play by new rules and for about 85 percent of us, we don’t have to sign up for anything …

[because we have insurance that works...

S: [Wait, we don’t? Oh, I see. This Obamacare is for the fifteen percent first…

K: It’s for the fifteen that have no insurance at all or ah…

S: How many have signed up thus far?

K: Fully enrolled?

S: [ Yeah

K: [ I can’t tell you. Because I don’t know. We are taking applications on the web, on the phone, we’ll be giving monthly reports but I can tell you we’ve had not only lots of web pits, hundreds of thousands of accounts created, [ we have lots of interested…

S: [ So it’s been hundreds of thousands people signed up?

K: Of accounts created. Which means that then they are gonna go shopping. Jon, this is like…

S: [What?

K: […a kayak site, where you might check out what plane you wanna get on …the good news is, you don’t have to buy it today. You have to have insurance by the fifteenth of December to have a plan that starts in January

S: These are individuals. Now…there is very legitimate criticism of this…is that businesses were given a delay of a year, but that individuals were not. Given that option. Why is that?

K: Well, business owners who have more than fifty employees, and that’s the only business employers who have any responsibility. 95 percent of them are in the market right now. So, a delay does not change the market numbers. Individuals have tax credits coming their way, they have financial help coming for the first time and the market that we are now running is available for them. So, that didn’t delay, that didn’t stop, we’ve got plans that …we know about six out of ten people will get a policy for under a hundred bucks a month…never happened before. Insurance companies can’t turn anyone away with a preexisting condition…

S: But if I’m an individual,…

K: yeah…

S: I’m wondering…well…an individual who doesn’t want this, cause there are clearly individuals who want this, but if I’m an individual who doesn’t want this, it would be hard for me to look at a big business getting a waver and not having to do it and me having to, cause I would think…well, jeez, it looks like, because I don’t have lobbying group…not that I don’t have a lobbying group, believe me I have a lobbying group. [laughter] But I, I would feel like you were favoring big business because they lobbied you to delay it, because they did not want to do it this year, but you are not allowing individuals that same courtesy.

K: I’ll again…big businesses are already in the health market, that’s [where…

S: [..but 85 percent of people are. Yes?

K: That’s where 85 percent of people get their insurance right now. They work for a government, they work for a big business, they work….those employers are in. Small employers are no mandate, at all, in the law. Not now, not in the future…

S: Underneath fifty employees?]

K: Under fifty full-time employees. So, the new market gives them some additional shopping tools, we have a small business market, and [we have for…

S: [Although that now, only has the one option.

K: No, it has aah…business owners will be able to have choices. What doesn’t happen this year is then employees at a small mom and pop shop can choose from fourteen different plans. That happens next year.

S: Right. They get one.

K: But that is if you run…

S: But would you say that’s a legitimate criticism though that an individual doesn’t get to delay it, but a business does. Is that not legitimate.

K: I don’t…I…because nothing that helps an individual get health insurance has been delayed at all. They can …and they’ll get the tax credit this year, they have plans to choose from, and the amazing [thing is that…

S: [Oh, so you are doing it because you haven’t been ready to get the subsidies ready for the businesses? Or businesses don’t get subsidies?

K: Well, businesses don’t get subsidies, they are just gonna [exchange…

S: [ Oh…so they get to delay, because they are not getting any extra money, but individuals don’t cause they will?

K: Again, they are in the market already. [laughter]

S: Let me ask you this…am I a stupid man? [laughter]

K: I don’t think so. I don’t think so. But people who have been waiting for a long time, finally have a market to choose from. That’s the good news.

S: Yes, that’s the good news. The people that want this, finally have the chance to get it. And it seems like it could be a good thing. Although, if you are someone like me, you might think…well, healthcare shouldn’t be necessarily in a market based solution anyway because healthcare doesn’t lend itself to market based solutions, because people can’t shop for [hospitals…

K: [Well…they can now

S: Well, they can shop for insurance.

K: Well, except that you can also then figure out if your doctor is in the plan that you want, if the network of hospitals is in the plan you want, what kinda drugs you take, is that in the plan you want. You’ve never been able to do that before. I’m a covering insurance commissioner….

Ends 5:21

7.2 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 02/06/2004 Guest: Henry Bonilla Source: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/6jgqdg/henry-bonilla

Starts 05:38

S: It's coming, it's starting to come. I just want to know, like, alright. What is the group that--

B: These groups have lists of votes that we take.

S: But which group says they're the most liberal? Which-- you know, because the one-- that is a point that you guys make. This is the first and the fourth.

B: The liberal groups do, and the conservative groups do. Both of them do.

S: No no no, I know that, but you know how like when you guys go on the show and you go, he's the first most liberal and the fourth most liberal, which group is that? The one that you guys are quoting?

B: It's a group that does it, it's a group on each side. It's not one individual, um, it's not just the trial laywers, it's not just the small business group, it's not just the [corporate...

S: [You're making this up. [laughter]

B: No, I'm not! And they--

S: Okay, I'll tell you who it is. It's actually called the National Journal. And what they do is--

B: Well, that's a magazine!

S: But they're the ones that put it together.

B: Right, they actually compile all this stuff.

S: Right. But is that over their career, or over just...

B: Over their career.

S: But see, no!

B: But they'll do it every year as well.

Ends: 6:24

7.3 Colbert Report 10/20/2008

Guest: Fareed Zakaria Source: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/m2bwgq/fareed-zakaria

Starts at 0:41

C: Please welcome Fareed Zakaria. Fareed, thank you so much for joining us. First of all, welcome back. Thank you so much for coming.

F: It’s my pleasure. [Good to be here

C: [I love the color, I love the color of this right here…

F: It was a big debate about it, so I’m glad you liked it.

C: I loved it. I believe this color is called solar flare. [laughter ] Now, you say in this article there is a bright side in it, but the bright side is that we will stop spending money.

F: […that’s right…

C: [… Isn’t that the bright side of America that we just keep spending money. We can have anything we want. [ laughter] [cheers]

F: Well…you can, but if you actually not making the money, and you are spending it, [laughter] you’re borrowing. And we are borrowing money from the Chinese, and the Saudis, and the Japanese. So, if we keep doing that, over time, you have to charge higher and higher interest rates because people won’t lend us money, because…

C: …yeah, but we’ve been saying that for years that we got this big deficit, and we just keep going and everything is fine

F: You noticed the last three weeks it’s kinda…it didn’t work out so well…and aah…

C: It’s because doom-criers like you keep saying there is a problem. If we just …[ laughter ]

F: [..if we just keep spending]

C: […drop our way out of this problem then we [laughter] …we shopped our way out of 9/11 [laughter] can’t we shop out of this one, too? [laughter]

F: Well, if we …in a sense…short term you are probably right. [The government…

C: [I’m right? You are saying I’m right?] [laughter]

F: Yes. Yes.

C: The editor of Newsweek International’s saying I’m right] [cheers]

F: Yes.

C: [Somebody write that down] [applause]

F: Like the broken plug, twice a day.[ booing]…but in the short term, in the short term you are gonna have to spend more money ,the government is basically saying go out and spend money, here’s tax cuts. It’s spending money for us. It’s sort of like a drunk who is being told …look, enroll in AA but not yet, first keep drink, drink for a while… In the short term

C: You wanna brace yourself with a couple of shots before you go to the meeting. [laughter]

F: Exactly. The hair of the dog that bit you, as they say. But you know…that’s a short term solution that can get the economy moving, but in the long run, you can’t keep spending more than you make.

C: Ok, but you say the bright side. What’s so bright about what’s happening right now?

F: Look. The bright side is…we’ve been kicking the can down the road for twenty years. We’ve been spending money we didn’t have , we’ve been buying things we couldn’t afford, and it’s not just us, it’s the government. Every state government, every city, the federal government was basically doing stuff it couldn’t do…it couldn’t ask people to fund the government that they wanted, so they said fine, we’ll go out and raise money, we’ll go out and borrow money and [after a while

C: [So what’s wrong with that? It’s just like a credit card. It’s a government credit card. What’s so wrong with that? [laughter]

F: You know the average American now has thirteen credit cards?! I have two, so that probably means you have twenty-two. [ laughter] Right? [laughter] Ah…now, at some point you can’t keep doing that because you will…the only way people will continue lending you money if your balance sheet looks worse and worse is you have to pay a lot of interest. You have to pay higher and higher interest rates which means your growth goes down, your stock market portfolio will go down...[you have lower standards

C: [ But, again, the question was what’s the bright side. This is the bright side?! [laughter]..the portfolio goes down, the stock …that’s the good. You are saying the good part is it’s going to be so painful that we’re gonna have to change.

F: We will have to change. The last few month you see a sharp change…maybe cause we stopped spending[laughs]…but the result is that American savings is going up and it will have to keep going up .

C: So it hurts so much that we do the right thing.

F: Exactly.

C: [So that’s like saying…

F: [You are right again. [laughter]

C: [laughs] So that’s like saying…you know like…it’s great that I caught my wife cheating on me, cause it made me start going to the gym. [loud laughter] [applause]

F: I..I...[laughs]

[applause]

C: Fareed, thank you so much for joining us.

7.4 Colbert Report 10/17/2006 Guest: Richard Dawkins Source: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/7fe2ut/richard-dawkins

Starts: 0:22 C: Thank you for coming on. Mhm I am so excited to have you though I have

to admit, I thought I was getting Darryl Dawkins. R: ha ha C: argh… Chocolate Thunder, I am not sure if it's a term you are familiar with. no? ok Um. R: Usually they say they were expecting a man in a wheelchair who can't talk… C: Oh… R: They confuse me with Stephen Hawking. C: Oh, stephen hawking… ok, is he going to hell, too? R: I reckon so. C: Yeah, maybe so, maybe so. yeah, god doesn't like black holes. Alright, um

[laughter] Your book started off great, okay? It's got a shiny silver cover and I can see my face in it [laughter] But after that I got pretty upset, okay. You say that god is... it's

called "The God Delusion", alright and you say that there is no god, that god is a myth, and that religion is corrosive.

R: Well, I say that god is very very improbable, you can't actually disprove god… C: Right! 'cause he exists! No matter how much you fight, there is still a little

bit of him left. R: You can't disprove anything. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti

Monster, you can't disprove Thor with his hammer, you can't dispro- disprove Zeus or Poseidon.

C: Well, those are pagan gods, they don't exist. R: Yeah, that's right. They don't exist. You're an atheist about all those gods.

Everybody here's an atheist about all those gods; some of us just go one god further. C: Wow, okay, bold. [Booing]Alright, so let's hear it. There is no god, uh our

belief in him is a delusion… The world and the whole universe is created by a series of random acts...

R: [oh, no, no C: [We're all just monkeys and we should fornicate and throw our feces [laughter] Those are your greatest hits, right? R: You're right. [That's up to you C: [I've encapsulated the book basically right there, right? R: That's up to you. But, you mustn't say that it's all due to random chance.

That's the one thing it isn't because the Darwinian natural selection is the exact opposite of random chance. It's a highly non-random process. The big thing that everybody misunderstand about Darwinism is that they think it's chance. They think it's an accident and, it’s not an accident.

C: Well, that's too complex for us to perceive, you know? It's like… I know a

Pachinko machine isn't an accident either. There is a reason why it bounces from nail to nail but it looks random to me, right? [laughter]

R: Nothing, nothing in nature looks random. Nothing in nature looks random. C: I want you to address my Pachinko analogy. [laughter] R: I've never even heard of it. What is that?

C: Never heard of Pachinko? Oh, it's like Japanese Pinball R: Okay. [bagatelle… C: [They're great. They make a… They make, um, pornographic

versions of it over there. R: We call it bagatelle. C: Bagatelle. Who, who is we? Biologist or English people? [laughter] R: English people. C: Okay, alright. Um… Now, obviously I've already played my hand here. I

believe in god and you don't believe in god, so I've got that on you. So um... this is kind of unfair, 'cause god's on my side in this argument um… But 95 percent of Americans believe that there is a god, ok? So, doesn't that disprove... your argument… or else, ah, you don't believe in democracy.

R: Well… C: Really? I mean, the people have spoken. R: Democracy is fine for policy. But democracy is no good for science, you

would never- C: Oh, I disagree. I'll say that the President will disagree also. [laughter]

[clapping] R: Well, you've got a point there; I have to give you that. You are right there C: Now, you are not a big fan of Intelligent Design either, I am imagining. R: I am a very big fan of intelligent design for man-made things. But I am not

a big fan of intelligent design for natural things. C: No, what do you mean? What's the difference between those things? I

mean, aren't we natural? We are part of… We are part of the natural order of things. R: That's right. There is no intelligent design in the natural order of things.

There is plenty of intelligent design in computers and cars and telephones. They are all intelligently designed and we are so stupid that we think that just because telephones and computers and cars are intelligently design that means we are, too. Well, we're not and...

C: But I am more complex than my computer.

R: You certainly are. C: Right, so how can I be here? I mean... It... it's either it's either...I’m...I lost... I’m lost. Ends 4:39

7.5 Colbert Report 06/11/2012 Guest: Sister Simone Campbell Source: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/u1f5qa/radical-feminist-nuns---simone-campbell

Starts 0:00 C: The bottom line is these nuns need to learn their place, which is at my desk. Please

welcome the head of NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice lobby, Sister Simone S.C.. Sister S.C., thank you so much for being here. Now sister, you and your fellow nuns have clearly gone rogue, okay? You’re radical feminists.

S.C.: We’re certainly oriented towards the needs of women and responding to their needs — if

that’s radical, I guess we are. But actually – C: Yes, yes — that’s radical feminism! S.C.: I don’t think so. C: And by the way sister, where’s the outfit? Did you burn it at one of those wimple burning

parties? You radical nuns? [laughter] S.C.: We returned to our roots. And in our history, what we dressed in was the dress of the day,

in simple dress. So that’s what we do now, we dress in the simple dress of the day in order to touch people more directly. People used to get intimidated by those big habits and all that, and we could not really walk with them in their life [experience.

C: [Church should be

intimidating a little bit. Actually I think you nuns should be intimidated a little bit more. The Pope and the Vatican has said knock it off with the social liberalism. You’re not socially conservative enough. You’ll admit that.

S.C.: Well, actually what I’ll admit is that we’re faithful to the gospel. We work every day to live as Jesus did in relationship with people at the margins of our society. That’s all we do. [applause]

C: That’s a cheap applause line: Jesus. [laughter] You can throw Jesus into anything and

people are going to applaud. You’ve got a bus tour coming up this Thursday. You guys, you and other nuns are getting on a bus — that’s a movie right there. [laughter] Nuns on

a bus. And you guys are gonna go to 9 different states to different places where nuns are doing…

S.C.: Doing great work, we’re going to lift up their work but we’re also stopping at

Congressional offices, especially of Congress people who voted for the House budget proposed by Congressman Ryan, and that budget undermines the whole fabric of our society. And people don’t know it. We want to educate people about what’s going on in Congress and make sure that they push back against hijacking our nation.[applauses] It’s the least we can do for the people suffering in our society that are left out, that pushed to the margins.

C: If we’re just concentrating on the poor, helping the poor, that leaves the rich out, guys

like me – S.C.: That’s what the rich should be doing. C: We need more help, the poor shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, the camel can get

through the eye of a needle more than a rich man can get into heaven — I need help more than a poor person does.

S.C.: You need help to respond, to be generous, because you know there’s enough to go around

if we would only share. It’s this American idea that we should just hoard and hold onto the individual things that we have –

C: Jesus himself said, “I’ve got mine, Jack.” S.C.: Jesus broke the bread and gave it to everybody and said, “Eat and be fill,” and there was

enough if you share. C: Well I’m not gonna debate the gospel with a nun, [laughter] it’s not fair. Sister, thank you

so much for joining me.

Ends 3:32

7.6 Real Time With Bill Maher 6/6/2014 Guest: Ralph Reed Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFkzD-O4ZNk

Starts 0:00 B: But first up, he is the former executive director of the Christian coalition, my old job, and

the current chairman of the of the Faith and Freedom Coalition whose new book is Awakening: How America Can Turn From Economic and Moral Destruction Back to Greatness Ralph Reed everybody! Ralph Reed. Hey Ralph, how are you, sir? Thank you

for coming on. You say America needs to go back to greatness. What are you saying, America is shitty now? [laughter]

R: Um, no, that's not really my message. B: Sounds like America’s bad now? R: No, I think we can do better. When you have a $17 trillion national debt, when you have

$65 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations- Social Security, Medicare etc. When you got 40 percent of the children, Bill, who will be born in America the year will be born out of wedlock and we know the consequences of that for those kids. All I'm saying is that there are some things we have to get back in order. I don't think you can do it by electing another politician, I don’t think you can do it by passing a law. I think you need a moral, and a cultural, and a spiritual renewal.

B: I think higher numbers of kids are born out of wedlock in Europe and they don't seem to

be going to hell in a handcart. But, we’ll leave that aside. R: Well, in America, the social science is very clear, that they're more likely to drop out of

high school, more likely to be chemically dependent, they’re more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.

B: Marriage isn't the key thing. People don't have to be married. They have to be there. [applause]

R: That's true. That’s true.

B: Doesn’t matter if you get married.

R: But Bill, they're more likely to be there if they've made a lifelong commitment. G.K. Chesterton called the mother, the father, and the child the Trinity of truisms. It’s an eternal truth that, that unit has been the most successful department of health, education, and welfare ever conceived. There's no check out of Washington or Sacramento that can replace it, there’s no government program that can replace it and we need to rebuild that unit.

B: I think Chesterton was a Fag. [laughter] R: So? B: Exactly, So? No, ok. I want to thank you for being here because a lot of people who are

people of faith don't want to, you know, even be seen with me because I am the opposite of a person with faith. So I appreciate your courage and I want to ask you right off the bat -- faith, the purposeful suspension of critical thinking. [laughter] [applauses]I'm just defining it. I haven't said anything controversial yet. My question is why is faith a good

thing? Why is that a good thing?

R: Well, speaking for myself, faith gives me a sense of purpose. It gives me a moral compass. It’s a relationship. It's not a set of rules. I understand that some people look at it and say well, you're not really thinking for yourself. That's not really true. I do think critically. I study things but I believe my destiny is resolved and when you feel that your eternal destiny is resolved you have a peace and a comfort and a freedom and a liberty to do the right thing and not care what other people think.

B: I'll give you comfort. [applauses] I'll give you that one. Because when you've convinced yourself that there is this place you're going to go for which there is absolutely no evidence [laughter] it is something people pulled right out of their ass… I'm sure it is easier at night to lay your head on the pillow and think oh, this is good. Because if I die in my sleep it's only going to get better.

R: Well, but it’s also, it's also the fact, Bill that it leads to-- you don't have to have faith to be a good person.

B: Thank you. Ends 3:37

7.7 Real Time with Bill Maher 5/23/2014 Guest: Jose Antonio Vargas Source: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/bill-maher-attempts-defend-obama-immigration-reform

Starts 0:00 B: And you're brave because you purposely came out. You didn't have to. You could have

stayed in the shadows. You made yourself, as they say, the face of this movement…

AV: But there's a lot more people. B: By purposely outing yourself in 2011 and saying I’m here and I’m not really legal. AV: What do you want to do with us? What do you want to do with us? [We can't all B: [Well some

Republicans said you should be deported. AV: Again. I'm right here. It’s not like I'm not hiding from them. All I know is I'm the most

privileged undocumented immigrant in America. The Obama administration is deporting-what?- 1.2 million people. And what am I doing? I’m talking to you.

B: Now they call Obama the Deporter-in-Chief. But that's not really fair, is it? Because I feel like in so many issues people scream at him and then he just calmly does the right thing, which in this case, he's not sending back families. What he's doing is sending back criminals.

AV: Actually he is sending back families [laughs] B: Like I said sending back families-- Really? AV: Yeah, he's deporting -- right now here in America, right, there are American citizen kids

whose parents are getting deported. Like this is a moral crisis we're having in this country. And you're right, by the way. We can't place the blame solely on the president because we have a Congress that doesn't want to do anything. But what is the president going to do? He's the same president who by the way has his own immigration background, right, the father from Kenya on a student visa getting to the United States. And we never hear about that.