I read or heard somewhere that political satire isn’t necessarily that effective at changing someone’s perspective. There was some study where people were shown a political satire show (specifically The Colbert Report). In this case the dividing line was between “liberal” and “conservative,” though I use those terms in the most general sense—in the study, the participants were self-reported liberal and conservative. Colbert’s “ambiguous deadpan satire” was interpreted differently depending on a person’s already-held perspectives. Self-reported liberals tended to view Colbert as satirizing conservative perspectives by taking on the persona of a hyper-conservative speaker. Self-reported conservatives tended to view Colbert’s statements as beliefs he really did hold. Both groups found the show just as funny as the other—the only difference, to paraphrase, was the perception of who was the intended butt of the joke (broadly speaking, whether it was “liberals” or “conservatives”). (Summary of study)
It’s just one study of one particular show, so it certainly doesn’t condemn all satire as ineffective, but I think it’s worth keeping in mind. Also important to note, the study is not demonstrating that one group of people is better at “getting” the jokes Colbert made—he definitely intended the show to be interpreted one way, but that doesn’t mean the show is effective at conveying that intention. Instead, the study seems to simply show that our already-held beliefs and perspectives influence the way we interpret and understand satire (or at least this particular version of satire).
Looking for a link to a summary of the study, I came across this article from Brown Political Review. I thought it offered an interesting perspective on this topic. Near/at the end the writer says: “comedy like Colbert’s can be an anesthetic. It’s a distraction that both perpetuates political polarization and undercuts critical reflections. . . . Comedians do not have to change the world; they cannot replace mainstream news, and should not attempt to do so. But the power and influence of late-night mean that Colbert, and other comedians, may not be able to afford to simply ‘make people feel better’ anymore. They may need to hold themselves to a higher standard and shoulder more responsibility. Malcolm Gladwell was right when he said, ‘Satire works best when the satirist has the courage not just to go for the joke.’ When that courage fails, the laughs can continue, but hosts and audiences pay by letting principles become punchlines.”
I don’t think writers should necessarily stop using satire, they just might have to be smarter about the way they do it, and/or more cognizant of the effect their satire actually has, rather than the effect they hope it has.