There is relatively little critical discussion of politics on American network television except late at night when Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and many others perform in the guise of comedians. Comedy’s twin is irony, a mocking form of discourse that tempts the practitioners to say the opposite of what they mean. Academics consider irony an aspect of postmodernism. It is a secret language that flatters those who understand it.
In China, the situation is different. It is universally understood that the government will not tolerate straightforward criticism. So, naturally, irony has come to the rescue. As Eric Abrahamsen pointed out in the Salon Newsletter of January 12, “five years ago, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo wrote an article on political humour in which he wrote that after the government crackdown on the Tiananmen protests of 1989, ‘the central government’s fight against Westernization and a peaceful transition meant that serious topics could no longer be discussed within civil society, and people could only relieve their oppression by turning to entertainment.’ He noted that many intellectuals were afraid that the spread of political humor might defuse the sense of anger that could lead to real reforms.”
On American network television – not on cable – leaving the discussion of serious matters to late-night television comedians is not likely to have the same effect. There are so many other outlets – including an infinity of blogs – for political discussion. The reason why networks schedule the comedians late at night is that earlier in the day they can make more money presenting more profitable programs and because late at night there are fewer taboos.
But surely Chinese scholars studying the American networks would conclude that the ruling classes in the United States do not allow any criticism of their system in prime time and leave this task to late-night comedians when most people are asleep. Some would probably go further and say that the American entertainment industry is actually intended to drug the masses with frivolous escapist entertainment to defuse the sense of anger that might lead to revolution.
Could they be right?
Eric Koch’s book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
Michele Landsberg said, when her husband was ambassador to the United Nations, that the U.S. media were ‘voluntary TASS’. Readers of this blog will remember the acronym of the Soviet’s lapdog press agency. It was a good point then and probably even more accurate now, though maybe it would have to be rephrased as ‘voluntary Xinhua’.
No doubt lapdog for the military-industrial complex. See my blog on January 17th.