With the recent election of Democratic candidate Barack Obama, hailed by many as ushering in an era of change in a new political paradigm, are The Daily Show and Colbert Report really the saviours of American media? Theodore Hamm almost claims as much in his book, The New Blue Media. This is Hamm’s label not only for these fake news shows, but also other anti-Bush media movers of recent times, including MoveOn.org, Michael Moore’s output and The Onion among others.

He does well to document the impact of the netroots, sites like MoveOn and the Daily Kos, on the Democratic Party. It is clearly Hamm’s view that this activist base, eventually, kept the party honest when it came to articulating its opposition to the Republicans on core issues, most notably the war on Iraq. This is seen in the rise of successful Democrat politicians like Howard Dean, who captured this enthusiasm for his initial surge in the 2004 Democratic primaries and went on to take the chair of the Democratic National Congress.

Michael Moore, too, set himself against the caution and conservatism of the party’s leadership. His film, Fahrenheit 911, seemed to be a successful polemic, with its passionate attack on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy richly rewarded at the box office. But despite some bold boasts from Moore, his political impact was far more limited. This goes to show that, while rallying cries of Moore’s kind do enthuse their audience, they do nothing to engage people who don’t already share the same outlook. Hamm recognises the limitations of Moore’s approach, though he still applauds the effort, writing, ‘Michael Moore may often seem like an outsized presence on the American political landscape, and the left’s version of Bill O’Reilly, in the final analysis, only one of these figures is creating propaganda calling for a more egalitarian world’.

Hamm may like Moore because he works on the right kind of propaganda but really it is debate and engagement that solve political struggles, not preaching. What his book crucially lacks is an analysis of the other side, the rightwing radio talk shows, Fox news and the previously mentioned Bill O’Reilly. Especially as many of Hamm’s heroes are reacting to their success. Air America was an attempt to create a Democrat-leaning talk radio station. This might not sound too fun, even to those who share its politics, and the station failed to attract audiences anywhere near the size of the Rush Limbaughs of this world. But Hamm is not interested in trying to explain why his enemies on the right are so popular with their audience.

The subjects of The New Blue Media are interesting, particularly The Onion and other fake news shows. But Hamm writes from the background of his accepted demonology. Bush is an evil, destructive fool snuck into power by the machinations of the rightwing hate leaders and compliance of the MSM. Tempting though this view may be, it still needs an argument to back it up. For instance, is the rightwing media really that powerful, in a way its leftwing counterparts, like Air America, manifestly failed to be; or do they just understand their audience better? Their success may be based on an ability to follow popular trends rather than lead them. Hamm may be crediting his enemies with too much influence, whilst merely trying to imitate the opposition is an unimaginative effort, unsurprisingly doomed to failure.

The crucial thing about The Onion, The Daily Show and Colbert is that they are funny, and stinging towards the Democrats on occasion, though perhaps not with the same venom they direct at Bush and his fans. Because of this, Hamm co opts them into his ‘new blue’ alliance. But he has to argue against their own professed characterisations. The staff of The Onion say of themselves, ‘We’re not anti-Left, we’re not anti-Right, we’re anti-dumb’. Hamm has eight years of attacks on the madness of President Bush to draw on but he himself fairly concludes that ‘its comedic brilliance owed much to the necessary scepticism the paper held regarding the statements made by those in power’. But now, or at least by the start of next year, the Democrats are in charge and it is reasonable to expect sharper eyes to turn on them.

Hamm looks closely at The Daily Show, seeing it as more than just fake news. It brilliantly cuts together the real words, and frequent hypocrisies and contradictions, of politicians and highlight the insane inanity of mainstream news programmes. The book incisively describes The Daily Show as one of the premiere sources of criticism on politics and the media, all the more effective because it is indeed funny.

Hamm is also intrigued by what proportion of its audience get their news from The Daily Show. This is a good thing, if it manages to engage the previously disengaged, and it is certainly worth noting how the reality can often be funny enough itself, with no need for fiction. But we can’t rely on The Daily Show. Its role is important, casting a quizzical eye on the powerful, but we still need normal news, something dedicated to finding out the truth, rather than simply being amusing. It’s when the real news fails that we need the likes of The Daily Show to highlight its follies. But it would be worrying if we relied on the jokers to supply the facts.