http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQDnXpSJQtA
The two actors in this clip are handing out an award for best reality/competition show. It seems that Colbert is going to hit on a controversial topic: people of Hollywood and the reality of reality TV. I don’t believe that the meaning would change unless the audience was a group of reality TV “actors” who didn’t realize it was a skit. It seems the argument is about how silly Hollywood, reality TV, and handing out golden statues is, but Stewart alerts the audience that this is much more than a rant about this. Colbert has a hidden agenda. He is angry that Barry Manilow won the Emmy for outstanding individual performance in a musical, variety or comedy over him. You can sense through Colbert’s tone that he is upset about something. While I think that Colbert could be a tad serious about being angry I don’t think that is the effect he wants to pass on to the audience. The audience is supposed to be amused and at the climax, highly entertained. It helps that Stewart acts like a puppet of the awards and continues to go against what Colbert is “preaching” about. Colbert’s argument is pretty specific, but doesn’t stick to one topic. Of course he is using a lot of sarcasm, which is typical of his acts. The arguments Colbert brings up are very extreme and use language that perhaps would be used during religious persecutions. So while Colbert uses this technique, even with a very stern demeanor, the audience must know that if the venue is not serious and he is a comedian they can laugh at this. This is pretty typical of an award show, but I think it that it makes it hard for someone to truly be serious about a cause or issue related to the business when the Discourse is comedy and humor most of the time.
The general subject of this cartoon is the spreading wildfires in California. This is a something that is being shown on local and national news daily and nightly. The piece seems to be addressing the general public. Because this is a highly publicized issue it would seem that most people know about it. The meaning would probably change if the audience were the people who are having their homes destroyed by the fires. The idea here is that people really get into halloween with costumes, parties and decorating and sometimes it's hard to tell if their houses are really haunted or if their characters are really fake and it's as if California is putting on the costume of a burning state. In reality this isn't true but it is true that these wild fires are really going too far and destroying much of southern California. The tone of the text isn't exactly serious but I don't think it is laugh-out-loud funny either. It seems more like a relief piece. So while having your house burned down is not funny, seeing trick-or-treaters who think this is part of halloween might be. The visual of the large fire in the background is hard to not notice. That is why I assume it is the problem with fire (more specifically fire in California as mentioned in the caption) that is the context for this cartoon. To understand the meaning of this cartoon the audience has to be in a Discourse that is knowledgeable about halloween, the annual occurrence of wildfires and the huge problem with combating the fires at this time.
