
Partisan podcasts are failing at comedy
Comedy has long been one of our most effective tools for speaking truth to power. The weapon of satire is capable of humbling even the revered and the royal, when wielded effectively. Wit and insight combined have the unique capacity for cutting through dogma, laying bare the truth that humans are preening primates who take the social mores we have contrived for ourselves far too seriously.
So it has been a grating experience to witness the rise of the podcast bro edgelord as a strain of popular comedy — exemplified by the extended Joe Rogan cinematic universe, including figures like Andrew Schulz, Tim Dillon and the rest of their clones.
Not only have they lost the plot when it comes to comedy, there is also much to be said about their shortcomings as interviewers when they stray into the territory of journalists. The way they are always 'just asking questions' while conveniently evading information which might lead them to real answers.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this was when the Canadian podcasters known as the Nelk Boys recently interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The hosts of this supposed comedy podcast acknowledged that they had little understanding of the conflict in the Middle East and were ill-equipped to conduct such an interview. Yet they proceeded on the weak premise that somehow speaking with Netanyahu personally would provide some sort of clarity, as if conversing directly with a propagandist is an avenue to truth.
Unsurprisingly, the result was an unchallenged Netanyahu selling his war in Gaza to an audience of millions. The only pushback he received from his interviewers was when he contended that Burger King is better than McDonald's. This, the Nelk Boys contended, was Netanyahu's 'worst take' of the interview. Never mind being effective journalists, I'm not sure the Nelk Boys can be trusted near stairs unless there's a baby gate in place.
But what all these podcasters will tell you is that they aren't trying to be journalists or pundits. They are, first and foremost, comedians. It's an excuse that was weak when Jon Stewart first contended it decades ago, but has grown fully laughable when these podcast bros push it. Because while Stewart undeniably strays into the territory of punditry, he remembers a rule of comedy that these podcasters have seemingly never learned.
George Carlin was master of this lesson. Carlin understood that comedy suffers when you allow yourself to become a partisan. During this past American election cycle, many of these podcasters conducted interviewers with members of Donald Trump's political team, including Trump himself. These were uncritical interviews, entirely credulous of everything the Trump team said, and in many cases ended with outright endorsements from the podcasters for Trump's presidency.
Carlin was the greatest satirist of his age because he understood all the things wrong with this. Firstly, he understood that as soon as you throw your lot in with a politician or a political party, you can never be taken seriously again as a pure comedian. Many of these podcasters are understanding this now, far too late, and speaking out against Trump's brutal policies. Somehow they had failed to foresee what a Trump term would bring, astute social analysts that they are.
But even if Trump had been having an unlikely milquetoast term, think of the corner these comedians had painted themselves into through their sycophancy. For years they had established themselves as edgy truth-sayers as they mocked the Democrats in power, cultivating an audience of aggrieved Republicans. But now their guy is in power. What were they going to do on their edgy truth-saying podcast, talk about what a good job the president is doing for an hour?
But even beyond the simple tenuous nature of their partisan branding, Carlin understood that most of the problems our society faces are systemic. His greatest bits were all about breaking down institutional power and traditional hierarchies. Subverting cultural norms and poking fun at our sacred cows.
Did he have jokes about specific politicians and culture figures? Sure, tons of them. But he never fell into the trap of letting the news cycle du jour run his entire analysis. He satirized everyone who held power in a fashion that always let you know that the power itself was the target, leaving himself credible to go on the attack again when a new hand took the reins. And he would certainly never let himself become what these podcasters have become: at best duped mouthpieces for partisan propaganda, and at worst propagandists themselves.
Distinctly choosing a side and selling yourself out to become a champion for one brand of institutional power effectively reduces you to a proponent of the system that satire is meant to undermine. A disastrous position for a would-be comedian.
I think we have come to an impasse though. In our current political climate, the lines of morality and power have grown stark enough that even the typically wilfully blind are being forced to see light.
And so I have hope the blueprint for effective satire will become the norm again as well, and that we will remember there is more to good comedy than making a room full of fools fawn over how politically incorrect one can be.
Maybe we can even turf all these partisan mouthpieces for the hacks that they are.
Alex Passey is a Winnipeg writer.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Star
21 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Doug Ford heading to Ottawa for a ‘heart to heart' with Mark Carney
Premier Doug Ford, right, speaks while Prime Minister Mark Carney listens on as they address the 2025 summer meeting of Canada's premiers at Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville, Ont., on July 22, 2025. Nathan Denette THE CANADIAN PRES


Global News
21 minutes ago
- Global News
Ford heading to Ottawa to meet with Carney, urge lower taxes
Prime Minister Mark Carney is set to meet Monday with Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who says he plans to urge the prime minister to lower taxes in order to stimulate the economy. Ford says he'll travel to Ottawa for what he calls a 'heart-to-heart' meeting with Carney, who he says is doing a good job. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The premier says Carney already knows where he stands, as this is not the first time he has called for measures to lower both personal and corporate taxes. Ford says in the face of American tariffs, the country needs to do what it can to create an environment that will attract businesses and encourage growth. He is also suggesting that he wants to work with Carney to lower taxes on home purchases for a period of two years. Story continues below advertisement Speaking at an unrelated announcement today in Windsor, Ont., Ford also urged the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates.


Canada News.Net
25 minutes ago
- Canada News.Net
Canada and the U.K.'s conditional recognition of Palestine reveal the uneven rules of statehood
Canada and the United Kingdom have said they will recognize Palestinian statehood during the United Nations General Assembly in September, provided certain conditions are met. Canada's position is premised on seeing political and military reform from the Palestinian Authority, the governing body responsible for the autonomous Palestinian territories. The U.K., responding to a severe food crisis in Gaza, said it would extend recognition unless the Israeli government agrees to a ceasefire, takes steps to "end the appalling situation in Gaza" and commits to a "long-term, sustainable peace." These cautious, conditional endorsements reflect the workings of a dated international system that governs the birth of states. France, by contrast, has opted to recognize Palestine without conditions. What explains these different approaches? Officially, state recognition is governed by international law. In practice, it is subject to a complex mix of national, global and moral considerations. This process grants existing states significant discretion in recognizing new ones, with the expectation that such decisions serve international peace. But this can result in an uneven statehood process for aspiring nations. The 1933 Montevideo Convention outlines the core criteria for statehood recognition: a permanent population, control over a defined territory, a functioning government and the capacity to open relations with other states. When recognition is given on this basis, it is essentially acknowledging that these qualities are already in place. Yet these requirements are not iron clad, and some experts have argued that recognition can also be extended on humanitarian or moral grounds, such as in response to human rights violations. In such cases, recognition becomes more of a statement that a state should have the opportunity to exist, rather than a confirmation that it already does. The classic case would be a group facing colonial domination. The American colonies appealed to this principle in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, for example. Because individual states decide when such exceptions apply, these measures provide uncertain relief for aspiring nations. As a final step, new states can apply for membership in the UN. This application is first considered by the UN Security Council. If nine states agree, and none of the council's permanent members object, the application continues to the UN General Assembly for approval. But a single veto from any of the five permanent members - China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the United States - can paralyze statehood at the start. In 2024, for example, the U.S. vetoed Palestine's request for full UN membership. To date, 147 of 193 states in the United Nations recognize Palestinian statehood. Palestine has also had special observer status at the UN since 2012, and before that it had limited standing before international courts typically reserved for states. But Palestine is not the only instance where the international system has struggled to address atypical or contested statehood. After a wave of recognitions in post-colonial Africa and post-Second World War Europe, the recognition of new states slowed to a crawl toward the end of the 20th century. This trend suggests there is a conservative quality to the recognition system. Wary of rewarding violent separatism, international bodies have traditionally favoured negotiated solutions for state birth, including upholding a parent-state veto over any independence efforts. This principle was most clearly articulated by the Canadian Supreme Court in a 1998 advisory opinion. It warned that an independent Quebec, without first agreeing on terms of exit with the rest of Canada, was unlikely to gain international recognition. There is wisdom to this approach, but such rules cannot prevent political breakdown in every case. A growing number of unrecognized states have left millions stranded in political limbo. This includes Somaliland, which split from Somalia in 1991 and has been operating as a de facto state ever since without receiving formal recognition from any other country. Palestine is not an instance of state breakup, but rather an unresolved case of colonization and occupation. Decades of negotiations with Israel, the occupying power, have failed. Yet formal statehood has still proven elusive. A cumbersome recognition system may be helping to keep the problem alive. Even when recognition occurs, the results can be disappointing. South Sudan, the UN's newest member, was universally recognized in 2011 under close UN supervision and with the consent of its parent state, Sudan. Yet it quickly descended into civil war - a conflict it has yet to fully emerged from. Kosovo was recognized by states like the U.S. and Canada when it declared independence in 2008 following the breakup of Yugoslavia, but it still has fewer recognitions than Palestine. A handful of states like Togo and Sierra Leone even began de-recognizing it under pressure from Kosovo's one-time parent state, Serbia, although there is a broadly accepted principle that once a state is recognized, barring any complete disaster, it should remain recognized. Meanwhile, rising sea levels threaten to leave some island states like Tuvalu without the territorial requirements for normal statehood. The International Court of Justice has signalled the statehood of such nations should survive, but has not said how. These examples suggest the current state recognition system is ill equipped to face today's changing world. Allowing established states to set the rules for who qualifies is unlikely to solve these current problems. While setting special terms for new entrants may have value in the short term, the longer term need is for a more fair and transparent system. Experts are working on ways to make the system more inclusive for aspiring states and unrepresented peoples, including by opening up access to diplomatic venues. If successful, these measures could change the way future states are born.