Study of the Uses and Gratifications model clearly states that when it comes to most media texts an audience will make decisions on what they want to see based on their own needs. The audience that watch this show would most likely be looking to it as a source of ‘infotainment’. Where they can be informed of current affairs but in a light hearted way. With this in consideration, we can start to get an idea of how the genre is successful, the format itself is not particularly important, however the content and how it is presented satirically is its main attraction to its audience.
Although none of the current affairs shows that I analysed held strong political views, the interpretations of recent events often allowed humorous excerpts against the government. Have I Got News For You has a strong reputation for being quite risqué and biased in its content, and in Transcript C they give the comedians small clips based on a topic and they must guess what it is and, of course, make it funny in the process. In this case it is over a report presented by the government as a serious discussion into the damaging effects of climate change. Interestingly, the comedians stylize the STERN report as a belittling humorous device against the government. The cast makes the situation funny by undermining its serious aspect and instead personalising it to the clips shown. Even as Ian Hislop (A famous political satirist and editor for the publication Private Eye) explains the subject, he makes clear his negativity to the event with some hilarity. In forms of satire this way of undermining the government is humorous to the audience but also perhaps influences their views on the subject.
Humour Theory
Satirical content is achieved by taking current affairs, sometimes within a political context, and giving them an element of hilarity. This is demonstrated constantly in the panel shows that I have studied by proving that their content can also be approached from a theoretical perspective; the methods of delivery and the types of humour used all relating to their success. In Transcript A Reginal Hunter develops a humorous concept around Valentine’s day. The content is clearly aimed at men since it uses a negative gender specific cliché towards women, in this case ‘Does my bum look big in this?’. The audience needs to understand this assumed concept to understand the joke.
As previously mentioned, Transcript C’s interpretation of the STERN report was made funny through the undermining of the authority which the publication was presented with. As well as doing this though, by default, the appealing element for the audience may also contribute to the cast themselves. A theory held in high regard with humour in language is the Superiority Theory by Thomas Hobbes. Although available in several different interpretations, Hobbes is the most well known. It basically theorises the use of humour devices in social interaction as ‘eminency in us in comparison to the infirmity of others’. The theory suggests that being humorous relies on us seeming superior to others, and in the case of Have I Got News For You to suggest the inefficiency of the government. So by default, this means that the comedians themselves, by making the audience laugh are trying to establish positions of superiority. For a point of view to be taken in by the audience, even in a humorous form, is noticeably reliant on this theory.
An important perception about the humour used in these contexts is that it is usually more intellectual than slapstick. Current events and assumed understanding from the audience provides its basis and the comedian’s wit is usually pivotal to its effect. In Transcript A Sean Lock says that when he was at the supermarket he noticed that a Valentine’s Day card was eight pence. The relevance is not supposed to be that important but the interpretation by the audience is. By suggesting that this is a cheap gift for your partner he assumes the audience will think the same. This view is then voiced by a guest on the show, but to deviate from the purpose he continues by saying that if you waited until closing time you could get it for six pence. Now although this could be perceived as a device to undermine the other guest it is also an example of the comedian’s shared wittiness with the audience, another effective humour strategy.
Discourse
The spontaneity of these shows is questionable at best. It certainly seems that the comedians do run from a loose script; however the environment does still allow for a moderately improvised form of stand-up comedy. In other words, it is more likely that the comedians are given a preliminary look at what the topics will be, and from there they are given the opportunity to pre-empt some of their material. There are no visible notes or an autocue that they read from, a lot of prosodic features and interruptions from comedians are used to try and retain some of the spontaneity. The comedians are also therefore more reactive to what the others say, often giving funny feedback to comments. This would be difficult to script; therefore we can assume that despite some guidance, the shows are in part spontaneous.
Idiolect
The individual comic style of each comedian in a panel show also plays a crucial part. The personal idiolect of an individual comedian is one of the features which makes him unique. But in order to underline the uniqueness and originality, and also to create a sense of continuity for the audience, leading comedians build up a repertoire of personally tinged catchphrases. These are perhaps amongst the most salient features of idiolect; the tendency of certain phrases to be employed, the choice of certain words, such fixed expressions may become the linguistic equivalent of musical signature tune. This is true of current affair panel shows, further analysis of which presents comedians with the chance to exercise their own personal talents. This adds to the spontaneity and conversational tone associated with these types of shows. In the three transcripts although we're not presented with phrases we do come across specific lexis that suggests an individual style of each character for example Hugh Dennis’ use of ‘bugger’ in Transcript B must be considered archaic in some circumstances however his own personal idiolect means he employs a decidedly standard english tone when delivering his humour. This unusually elevated form of lexis is single example as every other comedian to can have traits like this identified from within the transcripts.
It is also apparent that idiolect can be interpreted less literally simply by the context of which the comedians are basing their material. For example in Transcript C we can hear Reginal Hunter moving the topic of conversation on the contextually relevant subject of Valentine's Day to a more sexist angle, after using taboo humour, using a term that in many circles is considered racist, ‘nigger’. Now, the reason he can say this, and that the audience can take it to be amusing is that he himself is a black male. This therefore removes the negative connotations and allows the subject to be expressing a comic view, whilst not actually insulting anyone. This can be considered a feature of idiolect since if it was expressed by any other comedian it probably would have been interpreted differently.
Another example can make a fellow actor on the show the subject of the humour, in the case of Transcript B this being Jade Gooding who’s reputation is a powerful pretext to how she will be interpreted on the show. The media’s stereotype of her being a common, working class citizen and associated to fame through the television show Big Brother. The effect this has on how the comedians relate to her and in turn the audience means that an ironic form of humour is used at her expense by Sean Lock, not only degrading her but playing into the stereotype that she already has.
Results
The results of my investigation have bought up several key frameworks that can be explained in terms of spoken English. I have found that the genre itself relies on a conversational tone whilst its foundations are clearly scripted. Interruptions and prosodic features are frequent enough to suggest dialogue being at least partially impulsive. The spontaneity is therefore in this case unique, where the comedians are treated individually but are in fact part of an overall structure. The purpose of this is to present to the audience a show based on the concept of current affairs whilst giving an interpretation that allows them to be shown in an entertaining format. I have further been able to apply humour theory to this genre and its possible implications. This includes the type of humour used in this context and features of the Superiority Theory by Thomas Hobbes.
Conclusion
My findings suggest that a Current affairs panel show does have a distinct language form which means that it can be described in a variety of Spoken English. Also, I have observed the contextual humour that takes place on the show, and how it relates to the audience’s needs.
Current affair panel shows have a variety of features which allow it to convey a sense of comedy to its audience. This genre does not use a formulaic language; use of a common lexis and varying register makes this fairly evident. The content is controlled by what is funny often rather than what is relevant; however for the shows purpose this is totally acceptable. Also, although attention is played to structure there is not a high degree of fluency present in the dialogue.
By taking detailed transcripts of each example I have been able to examine features of discourse portrayed in the genre. However since the visual elements of the medium cannot be accurately recreated through a transcription it is also appropriate to point out that some of the comic content is outside the scope of this investigation. The use of body language is an integral part of each comedian’s comic style.
However, the most significant finding from this investigation from my point of view was that the genre is the way in which the principles of conversational spontaneity are modified to suit the purpose of the show. The structured approach to the spontaneous participation of each comedian is a foundation on which the comedians build from, yet it does not restrict their creative input in ways that may be seen on for example, comedy sketch shows. These are always thoroughly scripted and therefore replace the role of comedians as actors.
Word Count: 2, 348 words (Counted by Word Processing Software, excludes title page and transcripts)