Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, created waves when she decided to appear on NBC’s Saturday Night Live, sharing screen time with her impersonator Maya Rudolph. The decision drew criticism from a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission who cautioned the move as an evasion of the equal time rule of the commission. This rule is meant to prevent a bias or preferential usage of public broadcasting services towards one candidate on the eve of an election. The repercussions of the evasions were swiftly handled by NBC when they filed a FCC notice about Harris’ appearance almost immediately post her stint on SNL.
While Harris strutted through her brief appearance on SNL of a mere 90 seconds, the debate it stimulated online was disproportionate. The discussions revolved significantly around if NBC was obligated to offer Donald Trump, the former President, an equivalent time slot. While an ideal democratic scenario should observe parity between the presidiential candidates, it seems that in practice, it turned into a farce with major focus on key players, undermining the others.
The so called ‘equal time’ rule, despite its ambiguous interpretation, should ideally provide recourse when instances like these arise where a broadcast station accommodatively grants airtime to a candidate without extending the consideration to the others. However, the misinterpretation and exploitation of this loophole by influential candidates is not an alien phenomenon. Previously also, the show has only extended the courtesy to influential names like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin, among others, ignoring smaller, yet significant candidates.
However, it cannot be ignored that while NBC did facilitate Harris’ appearance on SNL, they also attempted to rectify this oversight in fair light. When Trump’s campaign pointed out the obliviousness of NBC towards the ‘equal time’ rule, the broadcaster complied with the rules and worked with Trump’s campaign to air a 60-second, direct-to-camera video message following his rally in Pennsylvania. NBC did make an effort to not let the situation blow out of proportion.
Though, it wasn’t for the first time that SNL was basking in the controversial limelight. Even in the past, candidate Trump himself had hosted the show in 2015 leading to a similar discussion around this rule. It seems the essence of the ‘equal time’ rule is lost in translation with key influential figures being provided with an undue advantage, overshadowing the rest.
While all the fuss was around the ‘equal time’ rule, let’s not forget the skit that sparked all this drama. To the amusement of some, Maya Rudolph, who has been impersonating Harris since 2019, started the skit by talking through her closing remarks directed at the mirror, with a wish to see a reflection of herself – a Black, South Asian woman, running for president. Soon after we could see, Harris emerging in the mirror, creating a rather compelled camaraderie between the two.
In this orchestrated sketch in SNL, Harris was seen assuming an overly optimistic tone, encouraging Rudolph’s impersonation of herself. She could be seen making sly gags at her opponent’s struggle to open a garbage truck door implying she was more capable. In their twinning black pantsuits, it’s questionable if this sort of iatrical performance endeared Harris to her audience; instead, it was seen coming across as somewhat condescending.
The ending escalated the level of mockery when Rudolph professed her vote for ‘them’ and Harris responded with an unfounded claim of her ‘great’ chances of being registered in Pennsylvania. It’s strange how this form of subtle mockery is allowed under the veil of humor. Perhaps, the efficacy of such skits could be better utilised in engaging viewers with significant political issues rather than becoming vehicles for presidential candidates to seemingly poke fun at each other.
Another sketch during the SNL episode also involved a candidate currently in the midst of running for re-election. However, the entire gag centered around the candidate’s national obscurity despite having run as a presidential nominee eight years back. Paired with the prior sketch, this heightened the ridicule faced by less-televised candidates in the political space.
It raises a question – Do these shows engage in spreading propaganda facilitating only celebrated candidates? While they seem to be innocuous spoofs that provide comic relief to many viewers, they serve as platforms for these famous candidates, sidelining the less recognized ones. The public, swept up in enjoyed, might overlook the fact that these shows compromise on the ‘equal time’ rule demonstrating a clear bias.
While the SNL sketch may seem funny on the outside, it exudes an inherent hegemony of the celebrated figures over obscure ones, thereby advancing the ubiquitous division between influential and non-influential candidates. It attempts to influence the viewers and sway public opinion significantly. The lens of comedy should not allow us to ignore the manipulative tendencies of such shows.
Moreover, one cannot overlook the spillover effects of this ‘equal-time’ controversy which radiates a misguided image among the viewers. The contentious issue of bias does not solely lie with SNL; it’s with every broadcasting channel that unduly favors one candidate over the other either because of their clout or the potential viewership they can garner. This sort of shortsightedness undermines the democratic fabric of a nation where every candidate, notwithstanding their prominence, should get equal airtime.
On a grander scale, the question of moral ethics surrounding the mockery of candidates reflected poorly on Harris, who wholeheartedly engaged in sharing laughs at the expense of her adversaries on SNL. Does it befit her stature as the Vice President to indulge in such practices that could possibly hinder the democratic process?
In conclusion, while the SNL episode undoubtedly was a source of amusement for many viewership, it inadvertently brought an under scrutiny the mechanism of ‘equal time’ rule when it comes to broadcasting. It exposed the biases and prejudices of broadcasters such as NBC favoring influential candidates while sidelining those with less clout. The incident serves as a harbinger for future broadcasting services to stay impartial and adhere to the ‘equal time’ rule in essence and not just legally.
Finally, let it serve as a reminder that while political satire and humor can be a powerful tool for drawing attention to important socio-political issues, it should not at the expense of diminishing other candidates or flipping the spirit of democratic processes. Humor should entertain, not unduly influence public opinion or steer demography, that too with a disguised manipulation enveloped in laughter.