Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States

by Dannagal Goldthwaite Young

For almost a decade, journalists and pundits have been asking why we don't see successful examples of political satire from conservatives or of opinion talk radio from liberals. This book turns that question on its head to argue that opinion talk is the political satire of the right and political satire is the opinion programming of the left. They look and feel like two different animals because their audiences are literally, two different animals.

In Irony and Outrage, political and media psychologist Dannagal Goldthwaite Young explores the aesthetics, underlying logics, and histories of these two seemingly distinct genres, making the case that they should be thought of as the logical extensions of the psychology of the left and right, respectively. One genre is guided by ambiguity, play, deliberation, and openness, while the other is guided by certainty, vigilance, instinct, and boundaries. While the audiences for Sean Hannity and John Oliver come from opposing political ideologies, both are high in political interest, knowledge, and engagement, and both lack faith in many of our core democratic institutions. Young argues that the roles that these two genres play for their viewers are strikingly similar: galvanizing the opinion of the left or the right, mobilizing citizens around certain causes, and expressing a frustration with traditional news coverage while offering alternative sources of information and meaning. One key way in which they differ, however, concludes Young, is in their capacity to be exploited by special interests and political elites.

Drawing on decades of research on political and media psychology and media effects, as well as historical accounts and interviews with comedians and comedy writers, Young unpacks satire's liberal "bias" and juxtaposes it with that of outrage's conservative "bias." She details how traits like tolerance for ambiguity and the motivation to engage with complex ideas shape our preferences for art, music, and literature; and how those same traits correlate with political ideology. In turn, she illustrates how these traits help explain why liberals and conservatives vary in the genres of political information they prefer to create and consume.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, Audiobook

281 pages, Kindle Edition

Published November 1, 2019

About the author

Dannagal Goldthwaite Young is Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Delaware and the Center for Political Communication, a Distinguished Research Fellow with the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, and member of the National Institute for Civil Discourse Research Network. Her research on the psychology, content, and effects of political entertainment has been widely published in academic journals and media outlets, including The Atlantic, The New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, Variety, and National Public Radio. She has also been an improvisational comedian with ComedySportz Philadelphia since 1999, and is the creator and host of Dr. Young Unpacks, a playful deep dive into the psychology of media, politics, and pop culture.

Reviews

[Joe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Driving to work the other day, I listened to a radio interview with the author by Marty Moss-Coane on WHYY's Radio Times. I thought Dana Young was very smart and funny, and upon reaching my office, I downloaded her book on Kindle and read it over the next few days.

Danna Young clearly has a lively mind and many things to say about the current perilous situation of our political discourse. Her basic argument is that the forms of irony and outrage tend to appeal, respectively, to the differing sensibilities of liberals and conservatives. It’s a persuasive argument that reminds me of the one George Lakoff makes in Moral Politics. What Young adds to Lakoff is a historical view that shows how the economic pressures and technological changes that have driven the field of journalism over the past several decades have increasingly separated the audiences for irony and outrage into opposing, niche markets (or echo chambers).

It's smart stuff, but I have to say that I found Young's book less engaging than her interview. I suspect it's a problem with genre—that her book, although briskly and clearly written, remains an academic study addressed to other scholars of humor and communications. And while we all know the perils of explaining a joke, ones of the principal aims of her subfield seems to be to do exactly that.

[Andrea Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

As always, when I repeatedly reference the book in conversations with others, it warrants 5 stars :-)

Ive been very interested in the author's work, having watched a video interview online before getting this audiobook. Although I remain slightly skeptical that liberals and conservatives are fundamentally different at a psychological level, there is a lot of compelling information in this book.

I was particularly interested in the mention of aesthetic preferences, need for closure, comfort with ambiguity and high need for cognition as being associated with political leanings. And the comment that Donald Trump is really bad at jokes, and never seems to laugh? Fascinating!

This book is dense and it took me awhile to get through (I received the audiobook from a Twitter giveaway), but it was very interesting and I'm glad I read it!

[Kurt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a clear explanation of personality attributes and how they drive media choices, with great references. I'm getting so much value from what I learned from this book. I think it's the most useful and interesting book I've read this year.

[Benjamin Fort · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a comedy performer/teacher, this book was scientifically designed for me and it did not disappoint. Irony and Outrage tackles two giant comedy questions: Why doesn't conservative satire work? Why has Trump been such a problem for comedy? Young proposes that the same psychological traits that nudge us liberal or conservative also affect our preferred media genres. Having wrestled with these questions myself, Young's conclusions, based on decades of research, are the most satisfying answers I've found.

What's clear in this book (as well as in her interviews) is that Dr. Young gets comedy. Her examples and observations from late-night are relevant and her "under-the-hood" explanations make sense on a comedy level. She's a local improv veteran, making for an inspired combination of academic research and creative passion. I'll definitely be incorporating some of her insights into my writing classes.

This book is academically robust, but the writing is clear and Young is not afraid to let her personality shine through. Much of the book summarizes research, which I found fascinating, but I could see someone getting bogged down in those chapters. That's not a knock, just a caution that despite this book being accessible, it's not purely a popular work.

I highly recommend this book for anyone wrestling with those same comedy questions: Why is satire so liberal? What happened to comedy under Trump? You'll get compelling answers, and as a bonus will have better handles for understanding your friends and family across the political aisle.

[Irene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, Dr. Young’s thesis is compelling, and the book supports it with a broad array of original and consulted recent research from political and social psychology, as well as a solid grounding in the history of satire and “outrage” from the mid-20th century through the present. It makes that case solidly. For all of that, I recommend it.

But I do wish that her argument — and thus, this book — could have contended with two potential complications from other viewpoints. The first is that Dr. Young, like many US commentators and academics, uses the term “liberal” to mean (seemingly) both “social liberals/cultural cosmopolitans” and “everyone to the left of the mildest movement conservative”. That is, left-liberals are both “liberals” and “the Left” in this argument. But do social liberals, the Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas and Nancy Pelosi of the US, really have the same psychological and physiological reactions as Bhaskar Sunkara and Corey Robin?

Is a Marxist (or a Cultural Leftist!) drawn to satire in the way a left-liberal is? Or are they drawn to their flavor of outrage?

The other complication to Dr. Young’s case can be summarized as “Americans don’t get irony/Americans aren’t funny”, and variations thereof. That is, there is a common view that the psychology of appreciating irony/satire is a characteristic of entire cultures, not a psychological variation *within* cultures. There is no “liberal appreciation of irony”, in this viewpoint, only “the British sense of humor based on irony” while the American sense of humor is held to be not based on irony. Dr. Young makes a very convincing case for psychological variation in irony vs. outrage within American culture itself, but there is little transcultural analysis of the dynamic.

[John Gastil]

This book pulls together a ton of research by the author and colleagues across the social sciences. The thesis is quite straightforward: liberals excel at ironic humor, whereas conservatives rely on outrage. Dr. Young makes the strongest case for this distinction, from the psychological underpinnings of left and right ideology to the cultural traditions that these warring camps have established, with a focus on the USA.

Dr. Young shows that things get more complicated in the Age of Trump, with liberal comics falling into outrage and enterprising (esp. young) conservatives trying their hand at comedy. Neither goes especially well. The liberal comics often fall flat when anger overtakes their ironic stance (see: Stewart, Bee, Colbert, etc.), and conservative efforts to create comedy programming fail basic tests for what's good comedy (i.e., they neither get laughs nor critical praise).

Readers will find that Dr. Young's own politics don't shape the narrative. I find in her a kindered spirit--someone who recognizes the power of outrage (esp. as a mobilizer) and the value of comedy, even amidst tragedy. The overall style of the book is compelling, with a mix of social psychology and spicy anecdotes (e.g., the failures of Air America and the bit about when John Stewart leaves his show because he can't find the funny any longer).

It will be interesting to see what transpires after 2020. Will the liberal outrage that's built up during the Trump presidency will crest and break like a wave if Biden wins? If Trump gets a second term, what space will be left for ironic commentary on the left? In either scenario, the author's model suggests that conservatives will continue to generate outrage more than laughs.

[David Lazarus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to a couple of interviews she did before getting the book. I like the thesis she presents. However, she said in an interview that she made a big effort to learn the ways of writing for a public audience, and for me, she didn't quite achieve that well. I found it more academic than it needed to be, with lots and lots of explanations of academic studies and with notable repetition. Yes, of course, it's all about having the facts, but the way it was done made the reading a slight chore.

I found the section culminating on page 132 to be a very useful, revealing analysis and comparison of liberalism and conservativism. Liberals tend to favour ambiguity and have a high need for comparison, whilst conservatives have need for clarity, directness, efficiency, and closure. But liberals also have low general threat perception whilst conservatives have high mortality salience:
"As conservatives might say, "of course you liberals can joke around all the time. You've got us conservatives doing the hard work to keep society safe and free from harm. This gives you the luxury of creating and enjoying abstract art, ambiguous sci-fi films, and ironic TV shows. So, sure... go have fun with your silly jokes."

There was also the briefest mention on page 134 of an apparent crackpot priest named Pat Robertson and his explanation for the September 11 attacks. Given with no explanation and little context, I found this so jarring, seemingly random, and baffling. Not being familiar with such references must have something to do with it, but it at least points to how a lot of assumptions about the cultural references are taken for granted.

[Jeremy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book started strong. It makes a powerful argument, and answers a question that has occurred to many, actually a two part question you often see separately--why do liberals fail at talk radio and why do conservatives suck at satire? She links both forms of expression to psychological dispositions of conservatives and liberals, and their parallel rise to alterations in culture and technology. So her core argument is fascinating and worth pondering. Also great in this book is the deep dive into the roots of conservative outrage media, all the way back to the 1950s and 1960s, and the roots of political comedy, with Lenny Bruce and 1960s iconoclasts like the Committee.

However, the writing quality drops as the book goes on, and the repetition gets a bit annoying. Also, I've seldom read a book I liked as much with a conclusion that fell so short of the mark. She really struggled to end the book well, and the ultimate final 4 paragraphs are very unsatisfying.

Also--there was a real need for a copy editor (although she thanks one in the acknowledgements!). First, she identifies Adlai Stevenson 2nd as VP in 1963!!! His Dad was VP decades prior, although Stevenson WAS in Dallas a few weeks before JFK and warned the WH about the radicalism. Also, she quotes Cronkite as ending every broadcast as "This is the way it is"--uh, you mean "That's the way it is" perhaps the most famous 5 words in broadcast journalism?

Still, a very worthwhile read.

[Beverly Diehl · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look about how the two different kinds of viewpoints - liberal & conservative - veer in different directions when it comes to choosing types of media.

Conservatives tend to be inflexible; they prefer stories/outlooks that are stark, black-or-white, with firm outlines. For infotainment, they can best appreciate anger programming that doesn't ask them to handle complicated concepts. Think Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly.

Liberals are more comfortable with ambiguity, with the concept that the world is rarely black-or-white, and enjoy comedy where the audience has to provide, in their heads, the backstory for the jokes. Think Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert.

The author argues that there are inherent differences in the "wiring" of liberal and conservative brains that make the attempts at cross-over of infotainment: outrage shows on the left, and comedy on the right, mostly a fail. In fact, the Stephen Colbert Show was popular on both the left and the right, because the left understood the parody nature of the show, and the right thought it was a straight talk show, missing the comedy element altogether.

It was an interesting and sometimes sad read. Because I feel like we (liberals) need to find ways to reach the angry folks on the right, and I had no fresh ideas, upon finishing this work, with how best we can reach them.

[Trudie Barreras · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was suggested to me by my daughter, who had heard it discussed on NPR. She thought it might appeal to my quirky, somewhat scientific, quasi-political current obsession. It is absolutely true that I am intrigued and mystified by our political polarization in this era, and although I hadn’t quite articulated it in the terms this excellent psychological, sociological and linguistic study uses, included in my interest is the extreme dichotomy between the “shock jock” tone of the conservative media and the extreme satire of comedic shows on the other side. This study investigates such aspects as a possible genetic disposition to the different psychologies represented by these two brands of analysis and presentation of opinion and belief, and analyzes the different types of “joke” and how they engage different levels and skills of mental processing. This is not a book to be read casually; it lends itself to reflection on the concepts involved, and encourages analysis of one’s own experiences of humor or its lack, as well broader sociological reflections on the importance of the comedic perspective in balance with negativity.

[David Pepin · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who has written and performed satire and always wondered what the right has against comedy, I find Professor Goldthwaite Young (who has also long performed in an improv revue) does a pretty good job of explaining it. It's not that conservatives aren't inherently funny (intentionally or otherwise), but she makes a convincing argument, without getting overwhelmingly academic, that cons and libs have different aesthetics, both in how they view the arts and how they express themselves (liberal irony in comedy shows vs. conservative outrage on talk radio and TV opinion shows), and how each failed when they tried to work the other's turf. Now if we can just figure out why Rush Limbaugh was such a success on radio but crashed and burned on TV (McLuhan hot/cool media theory?).

[Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful and very well researched with an excellent deconstruction of political satire. Strikes just the right balance between chatty and scholarly. Wears its politics like a lapel pin, which is to say transparently but not overbearingly. Good read.

[Matt Ely · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of how psychological predispositions are reflected both in political affiliation and news consumption habits. It helped me put plenty of confusing interactions over the years into better context. It also made me slightly less elitist, which is always good.

[Stephen Markacs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kind of dry, and I almost stopped a couple of chapters in, but I'm glad I didn't. I found it actually really interesting, and fair to both sides.

[Keith Conrad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Heard about the book on Andrew Heaton's podcast The Political Orphanage. I thought it was great, with a lot of insight about how the media and political worlds work.

[Ruth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This skews more academic, but I enjoyed a few lightbulb moments. I found the dive into satire especially helpful.

[Anna Van · Rating 4 out of 5]

who knew colbert and stewart were so integral in american democracy maybe ill start a late night show

[Octinary · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's based on the author's academic study on how different mindsets (specifically left-wing vs. right-wing Americans) prefer to consume news media and how that has led to the spread of right-wing outrage programming vs. left-wing political satire. It does a really good job of keeping a fairly neutral tone (the author does lean notably left) and talking about the benefits/pit-falls of both.