Comedy has been ubiquitous in American politics since the first time a person with power was able to do something stupid. It has evolved from satirical comics to television segments to people taking to social media to give their finest quips for all of us to enjoy. In the modern era, social media has transformed the political landscape into a fast-paced, emotionally charged and often incorrect flood of information at the fingertips of anyone with a device. 

In spite of the trend towards a fasterced-paced, one-liner-dominated future, comedy has moved to what should have been a surprising direction, one whose success defies modern notions of limited attention spans: the deep dive segment.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

This format has seen immense success, with “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” having won the last seven straight Emmys for “Outstanding Variety Talk Series,” until the category was split into “Outstanding Talk Series” and “Outstanding Scripted Variety Series,” presumably to give other shows a shot at winning. “Last Week Tonight”’s nearly decade of acclaim speaks to the success of the comedic deep-dive format; however, it ultimately falls victim to the fact that comedy is not a suitable medium for informative journalism.

There are countless theories that seek to explain the psychology of humor. But at their core, jokes are the reductions of complex thought to simpler ideas. What is so persuasive and captivating about humor is its ability to hit an immediate shared understanding. It’s why political comedy has always been popular: It cuts through the crap. There is an instant resolution of thought that occurs when a joke is concluded.

But therein lies the issue of combining comedy with a thoroughly researched segment meant to inform: It does not allow for any of the loose ends and nuance required for a complete story. The goal of these segments is still entertainment, with information being relegated to secondary importance. Such reduction and fat-cutting for laughs is not suitable for topics that are nationally or internationally relevant — by their very nature, they are too complex for a simplified narrative.

“Last Week Tonight”’s relatively recent segment on freight trains is exemplary of this issue. In it, John Oliver delivered appropriately curated and relevant commentary on the danger of unregulated railways, advocating for more government intervention in an increasingly hazardous industry. Without further thought, this seemingly satisfying and logical conclusion would leave a viewer feeling informed and content. However, the argument falls apart when the initial basis for the deregulation of rail is scrutinized, since it was an industry being out-competed by trucks after the advent of the national highway system. One would wonder why even advocate for these trains in the first place if they are so dangerous and unprofitable. John Oliver’s reasoning: “They are still safer than trucking, and as we have already established: Chug-a-chug-a-choo-choo, ding-ding-ding trains are fun.” 

But not once were statistics compared between deaths by train versus by truck per capita, nor were we given any kind of economic analysis to support the continued usage of trains. While John Oliver provides the viewer with the tidy solution of more regulation, no numbers are given to support retaining trains in the first place. Just as much emphasis is quite literally given to statistics as fun train noises to support the freight industry. I do not claim to be an expert in freight, but reasoning that is 50% fluff cannot be presented as enough to sustain an argument.

This segment and others like it become a kind of journalistic trail mix — viewers are lured in with the candy of comedy, fooled into feeling informed with the factual nuts and raisins, and are left convinced that they are full enough to not consume the salad of the real story. They’re fun, but they’re not genuine journalistic presentations.

And viewers are susceptible to this mode of presentation. Inkoo Kang, writing for The Washington Post, said that these deep dives can shape younger audiences’ worldviews. While her own opinion spun this idea positively, people should not be taught that all issues can be summarized neatly and conclusively, nor should ad hominem or silly jabs be woven into one’s understanding of an issue. Plato warned that comedy was a politically manipulative tool over two millennia ago — that it so easily cut to the heart that logic would be overridden. He has a point: Comedy strengthens arguments without adding genuine substance.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Late night comedy should not be a primary source of news.