The glitz and glamour of the Academy Awards have long been a stage where entertainment meets a healthy dose of political commentary. This year’s ceremony was no different, with hosts and presenters weaving in pointed jabs at then-President Donald Trump and his administration. Moments like these, often delivered by figures like Conan O’Brien and Jimmy Kimmel, quickly ricocheted across social media, igniting discussions about the intersection of politics and the entertainment industry.
However, psychologists suggest that the impact of political humour at such high-profile events is frequently a subject of misunderstanding. While these jokes might dominate online conversations and headlines, their true psychological effect often lies beneath the surface.
Conan O’Brien Sets the Stage for Political Satire
Early in the evening, host Conan O’Brien didn’t shy away from injecting some sharp political observations into his opening monologue. His humour, often more reserved than some of his late-night counterparts, made his political asides particularly noticeable.
One notable moment saw O’Brien referencing a controversial renaming of a prominent arts centre under the Trump administration. He quipped that the ceremony was being broadcast from the “Has A Small P—- Theater,” adding a playful challenge, “Let’s see him put his name in front of that.”
O’Brien also playfully teased the idea of alternative viewing experiences for those who might find the show too politically charged. “I should warn you, tonight could get political,” he jested. “If that makes you uncomfortable, there’s an alternate Oscars being hosted by Kid Rock at the Dave & Busters down the street.” These remarks, coming from a host generally known for a less overtly partisan comedic style compared to figures like Stephen Colbert or Seth Meyers, garnered significant attention.
Jimmy Kimmel Delivers Late-Night Style Punchlines
Later in the broadcast, Jimmy Kimmel, a seasoned late-night host with a well-established rapport for political satire, continued the trend with his own brand of punchy commentary while presenting awards.
Referencing a documentary that had drawn criticism for its focus on Melania Trump, Kimmel remarked before presenting the Best Documentary Feature award, “Oh man, is he going to be mad his wife wasn’t nominated for this.”
Kimmel also touched upon the sensitive topic of free speech when introducing the Best Documentary Short category. “There are some countries whose leaders don’t support free speech,” Kimmel stated. “I’m not at liberty to say which. Let’s just leave it at North Korea and CBS.” This remark added another layer to Kimmel’s ongoing, public exchanges with Trump, which have frequently played out across television and social media platforms.
The Viral Nature of Political Humour
Moments like these often become the dominant talking points long after the credits roll. However, experts argue that the rapid spread of these jokes online stems less from their persuasive power and more from their function as cultural signallers.
“Political humour at award shows and on late-night television rarely changes people’s minds,” explains psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert, author of the forthcoming book Therapy Nation. “Psychologically, it tends to reinforce attitudes audiences already hold. Viewers who agree with the joke feel validated, while those who disagree often feel mocked or attacked.”
Alpert elaborates that this pattern of reaction is a key reason why political jokes frequently elicit intense responses online. This dynamic, he notes, is “well documented in research on media and persuasion.”
“Humour lowers people’s defenses, but it also works as a social signal,” Alpert continues. “When celebrities make political jokes, audiences often interpret them less as arguments and more as cues about which side they’re supposed to be on.”
Entertainment or a Cultural Rallying Cry?
Because these jokes tap into deeply held social identities, political humour at events like the Oscars often functions less as a debate and more as a form of cultural rallying.
“Political comedy at events like the Oscars often functions less like persuasion and more like a kind of cultural rally,” Alpert observes. “It energizes supporters, irritates critics, and keeps the political conversation going long after the show ends. But that rallying effect doesn’t always go the way the joker thinks it will.”
He further points out the potential for unintended consequences. “There can also be backlash effects,” Alpert cautions. “When audiences feel that celebrities are lecturing them politically, the reaction can actually strengthen the opposing viewpoint rather than weaken it.” This highlights the complex and sometimes unpredictable nature of using humour to engage with political discourse in the public arena.
