SNL And The Irrelevance Of Legacy Media
Two different Kamala Harris impressions perfectly sum up the whole situation
During this election season, I keep seeing a Kamala Harris impression pop up on my phone. It’s done by New York comedian Sienna Hubert-Ross, and it’s pretty damn good.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Hubert-Ross flawlessly executes on what an impression is supposed to do: Take the subject’s real, noticeable quirks and foibles and blow them out for comedic effect. She nails Harris’s vocal fry, mannerisms, laugh, propensity for word salad, and overall flinchy energy. Here’s another one.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Compare that with Maya Rudolph’s Kamala impression, which she does weekly on Saturday Night Live, one of the most venerated entertainment institutions in American history.
It’s flat, empty, and completely toothless. It practically doubles as an ad for the Harris campaign. An impression is supposed to satirize its subject, not regurgitate its talking points to bolster their public image. Nothing against Maya Rudolph, who is obviously a skilled comedic actor. This impression is more of a philosophical failure than a technical one.1
Rudolph’s impression is effective in one way, however, although its effectiveness is unintended. It’s a perfect example of the irrelevance of legacy media in 2024.2
Is there anything else that could sum it up better? One of the most famous sketch comedy performers in the country - with an entire hair, makeup and wardrobe department, on national broadcast TV, under the banner of an iconic brand - is being outperformed by an unknown comedian with a cheap wig and a cell phone.
There are other examples of this phenomenon where the elite are shown up by talented, independent underdogs. Alec Baldwin’s Trump impression was horrible. It was an impression done by someone who clearly lives in a bubble and refuses to relate to his subject in any meaningful way. I’ve heard the voicemail Baldwin left for his daughter. That man has way more in common with Trump than he will ever admit to himself.
James Austin Johnson’s current iteration is better. He does a solid job emulating Trump’s discursive “Weave.” But for my money, there’s no Trump impression out there that can, uh, trump Shane Gillis’.
Gillis’ impression is so excellent because you can tell he spends time around Trump supporters. Legacy media impressions take Trump’s absurdity and use it as a point of attack. A common impressionist tactic for sure, but in their hands it comes off cold and condescending. It explicitly says to the viewer, “Look at this idiot. What moron could possibly vote for him?” Well, a lot of people can and did, so you’re satirizing them along with Trump.
It’s different with Shane’s impression. Trump’s absurdity is on full display with Shane as well, but that absurdity is presented through the lens of how most people see it. They think it’s absolutely hilarious. Everyone is in on the joke here.
Even the most liberal people I know will privately admit that Trump is objectively funny. I think it’s the one thing we should all be able to collectively agree on. No matter what you think of his policies or what you believe will happen to the country if he’s elected again, in a vacuum that man is a natural born comedian and entertainer. It’s how he’s managed to stay at the forefront of the national consciousness for so long. But legacy media institutions refuse to admit this.
It’s why, just to use a couple of examples from this past week, they rage against his McDonald’s appearance and act incredulous when he offhandedly talks about Arnold Palmer’s huge dick. They don’t want to understand what makes him so appealing to over 70 million voters. If they did that, they’d lose their sense of superiority. But by rejecting a reality that so many Americans believe to be true, they lose credibility. And when they lose credibility, people look to other sources for their news and entertainment. This is how creators like Sienna Hubert-Ross rack up tens of millions of views and hundreds of thousands of followers with what are essentially home videos.
It’s truly mind boggling to me how, nine years into this whole thing, after all of the lip service that was paid to understanding the mindset of Trump voters, legacy media is trotting out the same playbook from 2016 and thinking it’s going to work this time.
That’s the real problem with legacy media. They will not outwardly admit the reality of the year we’re living in. Make no mistake about it, they know the reality. They see the viewership numbers. They know that much of the country does not care what they think or say, but they carry on like we do. According to them it’s always 2008, and a well-written article, an explosive interview, or a fine-tuned impression have the power to change public perception.
That world is dead and gone. The legacy institutions are running on the fumes of their former status and name recognition, and their patrician act is wearing thin with the general public. Everyday people recognize their worldview and feel seen via the Internet, not CBS. And yes, Kamala’s team is certainly leaning into the online space. We all know about coconut trees and what is or isn’t “brat.” The main difference is that her online efforts are propped up and promoted by legacy media, whereas Trump exists completely outside of it. Collaborating with these massive, historic institutions actually hurts Kamala’s chances of getting elected. In 2024, going on 60 Minutes is a liability.
This is why a TikTok of Trump serving french fries was deeply impactful, and Kamala cracking a beer with Stephen Colbert was deeply cringe. One feels natural and in line with a campaign strategy based on guerrilla tactics and humorous trolling, and the other feels manufactured and cynical. It’s like a liberal Boomer’s fever dream of what they think voters want to see. And don’t even get me started on that pre-taped “sketch” Kamala did for the Al Smith dinner. Who could they possibly have thought they were winning over with that one?
It’s readily apparent that the legacy media will never learn their lesson. They’re going to hold out to the end, unwavering in their beliefs, until their business model collapses and every channel gets bought up by Netflix, Amazon and Meta. They’ll have no one to blame but themselves. They’ve had every opportunity to course correct and regain the trust of the public, to drop their holier-than-thou act and open disdain for much of the country, but they wanted to be “right” instead of being good. Best of luck to them in their new roles.
Since I’m a comedian that never made it, you might read this and think “Who the hell is this loser to talk about what is or isn’t funny?” Fair point! But because I’m obviously not a peer, I’m coming at this from the perspective of an audience member, as someone who wants to laugh and be entertained. I hope this adds some validity to the points I’m trying to make.
By legacy media, I mean all the major news networks, papers, journalists, and entertainers that aren’t originally rooted in the Internet.
This is an incredibly astute writeup. Sienna Hubert-Ross's Kamala impression is unbelievably ballsy. The way she prances out of the McDonalds or introduces herself as Kamala is so (socially) risky. She's not afraid to put herself out there and take these big risks, and they're hilarious. Meanwhile, a Kamala impression on SNL is safe behind network TV cameras.
Great points! I’m reading after the election but the parodies are an interesting angle to dissect.
To me I always like Maya’s impersonation was fake in the sense that she played a much more coherent and competent version of the real Kamala.
They almost wanted their audiences to see Maya as accurate - less word salads, better speaking, less frequent shrill laughing. It was a way to improve Kamala’s perception almost vs accurately and comedically satirize her.
That makes the impression both less funny and also less truthful, which people can see right through for the most part.