List two positive and two negative
consequences of political satire/comedy shows. If you were a campaign
consultant, would you recommend that your candidate appear on one of these
shows? Explain your response. Use the readings assigned for this week to support your arguments.
By: Taylor Popielarz
ReplyDeletePolitical satire and comedy shows are iconic. These programs have grown from being attempts to make people laugh, into addictive shows that entertain and inform people. One of the biggest positives of any political satire or comedy show is that if successful, it develops what some may call a religious following. Viewers become obsessed with certain satire and comedy shows, and viewing these programs becomes a weekly, or nightly, routine. Viewers invest their time and attention into their favorite shows, and in turn, the impact each show has becomes stronger and stronger. A perfect example is Stephen Colbert’s The Colbert Report. “What has resulted since the show’s debut is that Colbert’s audiences have played along with gusto, assuming their role as an essential character on the show, becoming the worshipful followers that such a parody calls for” (Jones, 189). And because of this cult-like following, shows like The Colbert Report develop the chance to educate and inform its fans.
A second positive of political satire and comedy shows is that top-notch programs of this kind have mastered a new way of educating viewers beyond what general news programs can do. Many experts look at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart when proving how informative these satire, should-be comedy shows have become. “The Daily Show offers its viewers particular (and perhaps more useful) information about the campaign that is often missing from ‘real’ journalist reports on the news networks, and hence, informs its viewers in ways that mainstream journalism rarely does” (Jones, 168). On-air talents like Stewart and Colbert have taken comedic television and almost discreetly infused it with news, intellectual discussion, and informative meanings. Because of this, political satire and comedy shows not only draw large numbers of viewers and develop sincere followings, but the programs help inform and educate Americans who may not enjoy receiving news from outlets like CNN. “But it [The Daily Show] is a particular brand of ‘reporting’ that might illuminate for viewers the larger issues at stake beyond the isolated events that typically dominate news reporting” (Jones, 179).
In terms of negatives of political satire and comedy shows, I feel one of the biggest negatives is the impact one of these shows can have on the person or group the program is targeting. A perfect example is Saturday Night Live’s presidential mockeries. As discussed in John Matviko’s, “Television Satire and the Presidency,” SNL’s ability to project certain satirical images of presidents throughout the years has had some serious impacts on political careers. One example of a negative, or harsh outcome is the impersonation of former president Gerald Ford. “The Chase-Ford bits became a fixture on the program, and with the show’s improved ratings, the recurring bit as well as jokes about Ford in the ‘Weekend Update’ segment became a concern for the Ford reelection committee in 1976” (Matviko, 336).
(Cont'd: Taylor Popielarz)
ReplyDeleteA second negativity relating to political satire and comedy shows is the power of these programs to catapult scandalous behavior into spotlights far beyond what traditional news media can do. What I mean by this is that political satire and comedy shows live for political scandals and screw-ups to fill the rundowns, but once that information is satirized and made public, it could really misconstrue the public’s outlook on certain political figures or events. “By the end of the century, however, as the distinction between news and entertainment blurred, presidential scandals dominated the news, and titillation, rather than information, became the higher priority” (Matviko, 333). It is because of the media’s obsession with titillating events that a bulk of our population believes much of politics revolves around personal scandal as opposed to policy.
If I were a campaign consultant, I would highly recommend that my candidate appear on one of these shows, pending that my candidate had an expressible sense of humor. I think political satire and comedy shows are iconic, as stated at the beginning of this post. I also consider these shows to be very powerful in regard to political elections, public opinion, and determining society’s trust for a candidate. As Matviko writes, it is thanks to these types of programs that former president Bill Clinton got elected in 1992. “Clinton’s election to the presidency in 1992 was greatly aided by his appearance on the late-night Arsenio Hall Show…Clinton and Saturday Night Live were made for each other; it should not come as a surprise if, at some future point, the former president ends up a guest host or even a fixture on late-night television” (Matviko, 345). In situations like this, with a socialite candidate like Clinton, these types of shows are a gold mine for his image. The only reason I would not recommend my candidate to appear on one of these shows is if my candidate struggled with finding humor in his or her flaws. As seen with Gerald Ford’s squabble with these types of shows, programming like this can be very damaging if the people putting the programs together are not on your side. And as Jeffrey Jones writes in Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture, political satire and comedy shows have established themselves as popular programs, especially among youth, and they are not going anywhere. “If the myth of young citizens turning to comedians for news and information about politics ends up proving true, then as this analysis suggests, the fate of the republic doesn’t seem in jeopardy if a comedy program like The Daily Show is a source for their knowledge of public affairs” (Jones, 183-184).
Works Cited
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
I honestly don’t watch a lot of TV and the only time I watch the news is when I take my breaks at work. But if I were to watch news related television on a regular basis I would definitely watch political satire/comedy shows opposed to news packages. I believe that this is probably what most uninformed Americans also do. People don’t want to hear the scary truths that news stations share. They would much rather watch a comedy show such as Saturday Night Live, where they get some information while still enjoying what they’re watching. Jones confirms my idea in the very first sentence of chapter 8. “A recurrent claim about young Americans is that they increasingly get more of their news about politics and current events from late-night television comedians than they do from the news media.” (Jones, 167).
ReplyDeletePolitical comedy shows do have some positive aspects. Political comedy shows allow uninformed voters to get some political information without actually having to watch the news. For people that don’t follow the news very closely this is important. It will get people like me to get out and vote even if its just because I saw a funny skit about them on SNL. According to Jones many other young adults also do this, if there weren’t satire shows I’m sure that many young voters wouldn’t actually vote.
Another positive aspect of satire and comedy shows is that it allows us to bring humor to something serious. This is important for Americans especially when something bad happens. It also makes us feel that we can relate to politicians because they also can have fun and get a laugh out of being made fun of. When politicians are relatable they ultimately get more votes.
Although comedy and satire shows may be very positive to some they can also be negative. Comedy and satire shows sometimes skew the information to make a joke. For people that are uninformed they make not understand and take it seriously. Satire might also offend some people or comedy shows. Politics and news can be touchy subjects for some people so they can often be controversial or lead to negative votes for a candidate because of something that happened on the show.
I personally think that political comedy and satire shows are great. They’re more entertaining than news and they still inform uneducated voters. I think that is very important to politicians. Even for people that watch the news, this gives them a chance to get a laugh and enjoy some political jokes. Because of shows like SNL many politicians popularity has grown including Ronald Reagans. Without these shows we wouldn’t be able to relate to candidate ultimately making it harder for us to choose whom to vote for.
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
Cable political comedy shows have continued to grow in popularity over the years and arguably these programs now have an effect on the political process. As a result political comedy shows have both positive and negative consequences.
ReplyDeletePolitical comedy shows can be positive because they can encourage more attention being given to politics and provide an entertaining perspective on news issues. As is true with political talk shows, people seem to be more inclined to pay attention to politics when they are presented in a more entertaining fashion. Jeffery Jones in his chapter Fake News vs. Real News shows that in a study from the Pew Center that many adults under 30 get some news from political comedy shows. Jones goes on to suggest that because comedy shows use of spin they can reveal “information about the campaign that is often missing from “real” journalist reports on the news networks, and hence, informs its viewers in ways that mainstream journalism rarely does.” (Jones, 168) In other words, political comedy shows can be more in depth and can be news worthy like traditional news outlets.
However, while informing a younger demographic may be a positive thing, it can also be seen as potentially troubling as well. In many cases political comedy shows are presented as legitimate newscasts and practical sources of news. Jones, while describing younger people turning away from traditional news sources, states: “It also addresses journalistic concerns that audiences are attracted more to entertainment than serious public affairs reporting, and what’s worse, that they may not even be able to distinguish between the two.” (Jones, 167)
Historically, political comedy has often been highly exaggerated to appear very satirical and separate itself from reality. In Television, Satire and the Presidency John Matviko asserts Chevy Chase’s impersonation of Gerald Ford on SNL was highly satirical and played on Ford’s clumsy nature. (Matviko,336) The sketch was even entitled “This is not a good impression of President Gerald Ford” (Matviko, 335) Uses of comedy here seem to be done in an over-the-top manner, giving clear cues to the audience that the writers are joking around. However, today there is less and less separation between what is being presented as comedy and what is real news. Today’s political comedy shows are presented as actual news and the audience may interpret it as such. Furthermore, these political comedy shows can be very biased. After watching shows such as Bill Maher, it is apparent that many hosts of political comedy shows lean towards a particular ideology.
If I was a political consultant I would advise my candidate whether to appear on a show or not depending on their political ideology, party they are running for and how that particular comedy host has treated similar guests in the past. Last week when discussing political news shows, it was clear there was difference between how candidates John McCain and Barack Obama were treated on the Ellen DeGeneres show when running for president in 2008. The same can be expected on political comedy shows. For example programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show show it is apparent that they lean left so therefore if I was advising a candidate who is a republican or conservative I may discourage them from appearing on the show. It could give a politician more exposure but not necessarily in a positive or beneficial way for the campaign if they appear on a show which makes them look bad.
Works Cited
•Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
•Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
A negative aspect of political satire comedy shows is when the show does target an individual or a group in one of their lead stories, although they offer facts, they really emphasize one point to make their claim. Prior to Gerald Ford’s 1976 election, Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live had been doing satirical impressions of the president. The impressions on SNL really attempted to drive home the point that Ford was a “befuddled klutz”. And with the shows high ratings and growing audience, the general population most likely believed the president was a true klutz at all times. Dick Cheney, Ford’s Chief of Staff said of political satire shows effect in the 1976 elections, “Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live didn’t help, either. Once you get to the point at which something becomes a stock gag on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show or one of those kinds of t.v shows, that label sticks and you can’t get rid of it” (Matviko, 339). You obviously can’t specifically blame Chevy Chase for Ford losing the 1976 election, but perhaps Chase shifted the opinion of SNL’s audience (voters) on the president’s character.
ReplyDeleteAn additional negative characteristic of these shows is that in order to get the parody and the satire included in the show, the audience needs to be knowledgeable of the politicians or current events the hosts are talking about. In Matviko’s article, which discussed the possibility of presidential satire airing on prime time network television, Matviko writes, “the minimum required level of knowledge about its subject that satire requires would seemingly rule out such likelihood” (Matviko, 347). If an individual isn’t aware of the topics being discussed, they might not get the parody and satire involved with the report and come away with a misunderstanding of the segment.
If I was a campaign consultant, I would recommend that my candidate did an interview on either The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, or Saturday Night Live. For one, by doing an interview the candidate will target the younger voters who are the shows target audience as well, typically under 30 years old. Secondly, by performing on this platform the candidate humanizes him or herself with the audience, as it is a comedy show after all. Although it takes a certain personality to thrive in this type of atmosphere, anyone can benefit from the airtime as long as they handle the situation correctly. If the host endorses the candidate, it is a no brainer to go on and just roll with the questions being asked because if the host endorses you, so will the audience. Whereas if the host may have taken stabs at your candidate previously, the candidate can go on and defend his policies in a light manner and/or turn the table and go along with the host’s humor and make fun of themselves per se. With either situation, the candidate will benefit from the free air time that these shows offer.
Works Cited:
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
**Thompson continued, part 1***
ReplyDeletePolitical comedic satire shows like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report have increased their influence on the public opinion over the years. There are many pros and cons to these types of shows, but nevertheless, they entertain and to some degree inform their audiences on the political landscape of the day.
One positive characteristic to political satire is when compared to cable news channels, they paint the whole picture for their audience on a subject. In Jeffrey Jones’ chapter 8 readings, the author writes, “He [Jon Stewart] is constantly keeping score, adding it all up, reminding the viewer of what this says about the candidates and the larger terms upon which they should be evaluated” (Jones, 179). Although Stewart and cable news may edit clips of politician’s speeches to help make their point, while the news stations do it to “parrot the messages that political campaigns want reported” (Jones, 174), Stewart does this to bring to light the whole picture of a politician/candidate. In the example given, CNN edited clips of a George Bush speech in 2004 to drive home the highlights of the aired speech. Stewart edited clips from the speech to bring to light a broader picture of the president and his policies to the audience’s attention. When Bush was defending his policy to invade Iraq, he said, “We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons and one regime stood out” (Jones, 176). Stewart responded with, “It would be Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the nineteen terrorists were actually from there” and “Oh. It was Iran—proven al-Qaeda ties, building up the nukes program, I think it was them” (Jones, 176). Stewart points out that while Bush firmly believes “the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein” and Iraq is worth invading, there were/are multiple countries, regimes that have the same or better nuclear capabilities than Saddam Hussein. Stewart, compared to cable news, goes more into depth of what Bush had said and provides factual insight to what it meant in the broader scope of world affairs and foreign policy.
Another positive influence of satirical political shows is that they give their audience the notion that, “‘fake’ is more real than the ‘real’” (Jones, 184). It could be argued that it is common knowledge that public artifice exists within cable news. The way news stories are reported to the public audience and how clips are edited, are all part of the whole image that the cable news stations want to project to the general public. So how ‘real’ is this real news if they too, like satire political shows, create an image and do not provide objective reporting? Michel Foucault believes, “’truth’ is a type of discourse that societies accept and make function as true” (Jones, 182). And when the mainstream cable news believe their claims are true and have the authority to claim their reports as “truth” through, “their title, special status, institutional-based legitimacy, access to power, and the means of production” (Jones, 182), who is to challenge the news being reported? That is what talents like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do so well. “A program like The Daily Show refuses to sit idly by while political lies and manipulative rhetoric go unchallenged” (Jones, 183). Political satirical comedians are simply offering discussions about what the public is being fed as the “truth” by mainstream media. What is the harm in that? CNBC host Jim Cramer draws a comparison between mainstream media and satirical media, “we are both snake oil salesmen to a certain extent, but we do label the show as snail oil here” (Jones, 184).
Lindsay Goldstein
ReplyDeleteMedia has become an increasingly important aspect of politics, and television is no exception. Satirical and comedy shows especially have become extremely popular, as many are turning to them for their news, as opposed to traditional news outlets. These shows don’t pretend to be something that they are not, which is why I believe they have become so popular and successful. People know that they can turn to them for the news, but in a more relatable, amusing way. This tactic in and of itself makes politics more entertaining and interesting to the average American.
While these shows have found loyal audiences, some believe that they simply report inaccurate news, which contributes to an uninformed society, which is one obvious negative. For many political comedians, the comedy is much more important than the factual news, which results in perhaps funnier jokes, but also ones that are less accurate or important.
In the same regard, another seemingly negative consequence of these shows is that they make politics seem like a joke, which makes society take them less seriously. More and more often, comedians have begun to focus on a politicians appearance or habits then their politics, reporting on and joking about the color suit that President Obama wore or the way he held his coffee cup. We live in a fairly uninformed society, and when those people who already don’t know much about politics see these skits, it does not make them take politics seriously.
Lindsay Goldstein, continued
ReplyDeleteWhile some may question the accuracy of political and satirical political television shows, there are positive consequences of these comedic shows. For one, shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report help keep society informed, especially younger generations or those that avoid politics all together. Not only do these shows keep people informed, but they do so in a way that is often more honest than actual politics. Jeffry Jones, in Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture, writes, “By actually showing the high levels of spin and rhetoric produced by the candidates and their campaigns, then offering humorous retorts that cut to the heart of the matter, The Daily Show offers its viewers particular (and perhaps more useful) information about the campaign that is often missing from ‘real’ journalist reports on the news networks, and hence, informs its viewers in ways that mainstream journalism rarely does,” (Jones 168). The comedy mentioned also helps keep the information more relatable and easier to understand.
Another positive of these satirical shows is the hosts. From Jon Stewart to Stephen Colbert, these hosts are often well knowledgeable, and are able to successfully share the news and politics with their public. They don’t just regurgitate what CNN or Fox News reported, they take it a step further, adding their knowledge of the subject to their shows. “There is a very serious critique of the politics at work directly in these pundit shows, as well as a challenge to the broader social and ideological grounding upon which these show’s stand,” (Jones 186). By doing so, they are able to
If I were a campaign manager, I would definitely have my candidate participate in satirical and comedic shows, especially given how popular they are today. John Matviko writes of the success that satire programs have had on past politicians, writing, for example, “Late night television and especially Saturday Night Live were given credit for playing an important role in the 2000 election,” (346). One of the most important aspects of campaigns is getting the politician’s name out there, and what better way is there to do this than to have them on a popular and successful television show? Furthermore, the public wants a politician that they can relate to, which these shows can definitely help do. Of course, it would help if my candidate had a sense of humor and would be able to poke fun of themselves, because that would make them seem even more relatable and like the fit in, as opposed to trying too hard.
Works Cited:
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
ReplyDeleteAnne Noordsy
In a political nation where we seem so focused on news and daily occurrences, we find it difficult to seek comic relief when it comes to news programming. Sometimes, people do not want to hear about politicians attacking each other or terrorism in the Middle East, for example.
This is where political satire and comedy shows come into play. There are several positive and negative consequences of these shows and satire. However, one positive consequence is that shows like the Colbert report for example, “show viewers the way, the truth, and the light out of the cloud of idiocy that so often substitutes for rational and deliberative thought on prime-time cable television” (Jones 185). To put it simply, these shows do what the evening news sometimes tend not to do which is provide their own meaning of truth. This can be beneficial for viewers. Viewers can also receive comic relief from these shows. Sometimes, viewers are more likely to seek truth as opposed to just the facts.
In fact, Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, one of these political satire shows, said himself, “These are all personality shows. It doesn’t matter what they’re saying. Doesn’t matter what the news is, it’s how this person feels about the news, and how you should feel about the news” (Jones 186). This is a positive aspect for those who enjoy the personality of the show host as well as their opinions, but it can turn negative in terms of show hosts and/or viewers becoming politically biased.
Another positive consequence of political satire and comedy shows involves the relationship the host can build with their viewers. “The talk show host must create a special relationship to his audience, binding them together in agreement and shared feelings, garnering their trust by flattering and seducing them, and then joining together to attack their common enemies or perceived opposition (real or imaginary)” (Jones 187). This is positive because it allows for viewers to feel a sense of belonging as well as their thoughts and opinions mattering. For example, if Stephen Colbert feels a certain way on a particular issue, this can make viewers of his show feel like it’s okay that they feel that way, too.
Alternatively, there are negative consequences associated with political satire and comedy shows. It is known that a majority of Americans acquire information about politics and current events from late-night television comedians more often than they do from the news. This “addresses journalistic concerns that audiences are attracted more to entertainment than serious public affairs reporting, and what’s worse, that they may not even be able to distinguish between the two” (Jones 167). This is problematic if viewers cannot differentiate between real, factual news and blatant opinion.
If I was a campaign consultant, I do not think that I would have my candidate appear on one of these shows. There is potential for the candidate’s image to be tarnished. For example, the satire that was present on Saturday Night Live mocking Gerald
Ford “became a concern for the Ford reelection committee in 1976. In an effort to defuse the negative image, Gerald Ford’s press secretary, Ron Nessen, suggested that Nessen guest-host the program. Nessen’s strategy was to play along with the gag, suggesting that President Ford could laugh at himself” (Matviko 336). While it is good for a candidate’s campaign staff to attempt to fix a candidate’s image, this should not be a concern in the first place for the candidate’s image to be in peril. This is another negative consequence of political satire and comedy shows. First and foremost, the candidate’s main purpose is to act like a politician.
Sources:
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348
There are both positive and negative consequences of political satire and comedy shows, for politicians. In this day and age, television and political shows are becoming more relevant to the political process.
ReplyDeleteA positive consequence is that politicians can reach a large audience while using these shows as outlets and channels of communication. More and more people are getting their information from late night television, “This claims began with a statistic that appeared in a 2000 survey of the electorate conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press which reported that 47 percent of people under thirty years old were informed at least occasionally about the presidential campaign by late night talk shows” (Jones 167) This is the chance candidates get to reach out to Americans; the audience that will go out and vote. Communication with the general public is important because it keeps people engaged, which is necessary to get them to vote.
Another positive consequence of these shows is that they create necessary alliance between opinion leaders and candidates. It is important that the public and the average American see people they have loyalty to support a particular candidate. Many host of these late night shows endorse certain candidates. This provides a competitive edge to the election process. This is also important because it sways the undecided voter, which can be seen as good or bad.
A negative consequence that these shows have is that they blur the line between politician and celebrity. Shows with celebrities have become crucial to the election process. It is a given that a candidate is going to appear on a show that is entertainment television, in the 21st century, due to the increased importance of television. This is because candidates have to shape their image to the American public during election time and the most efficient way to do so is by going on popular television. This is where the line is blurred between celebrity and politician. Currently, politicians are often seen and treated as celebrities because people are more worried about what they are wearing and their personal lives rather than their political platform. Political television has evolved into something that no longer provides information but simply provides entertainment, John Matviko states, “…television news as given up its provider of necessary information for democracy function to concentrate on it more profitable entertainment function…” (Matviko 347). In this age, where image is increasingly more important, politicians have entered the dangerous realm of becoming not just public figure but celebrities. These comedic show add to this dilemma, which is bad because American often lose sight of the true issues they should be voting on and they are persuaded by things that are insignificant.
Another negative consequence these shows have is that they have such power to persuade voters. This can be negative because the things they report on are bias and not actual news. The purpose of these shows is for entertainment and people might look at it for information. These comedic shows point out things about candidate that people dislike. They often exaggerate these traits for comic relief. They also sometimes talk about issue not important to the political process. But, the general public may often take these things seriously. The hosts of these shows are seen as opinion leaders and have power over a constituency which is important to politicians. These shows unstable information to the political process and this is negative because they have so much power. Television has evolved to focus on less important news to simply providing entertainment. These shows take part in the political system and can affect it in a negative way because of the way Americans view it.
Personally, I think these shows are important to a campaign because you have to shape the image of your candidate. But, you also have to know your candidate well and advise them on what shows to go on and what shows not to go on because one mistake and that can leave a great dent in their political career. A candidate like McCain shouldn’t be on Ellen DeGeneres’ show because one he is stiff and that isn’t the atmosphere of the shows and also because of the clear ideological disagreement on gay marriage. This is why consultants have to know their candidates well and know what will help their image and not hurt it.
ReplyDeleteJones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
Sarah Faidell
ReplyDeleteComedy and late night shows can be incredibly dangerous for a candidate. They can turn them into a running joke, and exploit their political agendas as being illogical and ill informed. However, they can also give a candidate some needed face time with voters, and if a candidate has the right personality they can humanize them and make them pop culture without making them a joke. Matviko gives an example that Clinton’s success shows how a person with the right personality can thrive on shows like SNL. If my candidate was young, attractive and had charisma, the firs thing I would do would be to get them on a late night show. It highlights their vitality and sense of humor. Like Clinton, a candidate with charisma and humor could even a popular guest on a show like SNL. Were a candidate to have something that could be parodied on a late night show, I think appearing on one can help quell that.
However, another negative aspect is that some ticks, or scandals, or odd behaviors that can be satirized become mainstream and cannot be overcome. In my research on the Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, I found that this can often happen. A candidate can be so parodied or satirized that they become a joke. In an excerpt from Matviko, Dick Cheney says that this happened with Gerald Ford during his election: “Once you get to the point at which something becomes a stock gag on Johnny Carson’s Tonight show or one of those kinds of shows, that label sticks and you can’t get rid of it.’” (Matviko 337) Cheney even said he believed that this lost Gerald Ford the election. Therefore, if my candidate had something that was easy to make fun of and ran the risk of becoming a running joke, I would not put him on a late night talk show. This happened with Rob Ford, and he even appeared on Jimmy Kimmel to do an interview, but really what it came across as was Kimmel making fun of him the whole time and Rob Ford being too oblivious to realize it.
A show like The Colbert Report is an example of show that I feel like has a negative effect on my candidate when he is talked about on it, but getting him there for an interview might be beneficial. Again, it all depends on whether or not the candidate is charismatic, and in the case of The Colbert Report, liberal. I would not put a conservative or republican candidate on that show because of his satirizing of conservatives in the news. Although, some times any face time can be good face time: “Some viewers and fans may choose not to see the political in what Colbert is doing, focusing instead on the play and enjoyment, while others enthusiastically embrace the political critique,” (Faux Real and Faux Play, 203). It can be a dangerous game to play, but I think in the long run it can shape a candidates image positively with the right coaching.
Works Cited
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture. "Chapter 9: Faux Real and Faux Play", 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
Emily Fagan
ReplyDeletePolitical satire and comedy shows can be a great way for a politician to address the public in an informal setting. But it can also hurt them if they do not handle it the right way.
When you put a political figure on a political satire or comedy show, it can really help improve their ratings. Bill Clinton was portrayed on SNL quite often during his presidency. And although most of the coverage was about the Lewinsky scandal, most of the skits that were about him helped his career. “Even at the end of his house vote on impeachment, as members of his own party were expressing doubts about his character, his approval rating not only remained high, but it actually jumped from 61 percent to 71 percent. Clinton and Saturday Night Live were made for each other…”(Matviko 345). Having himself criticized on SNL actually helped his career in the long run, because he didn’t try to defend himself, he just went with the flow.
Going on these shows can also make the candidate seem more approachable and voters will learn more about them. When a candidate goes on the Colbert Report or the Daily Show, they become a different person. They become someone who can talk in a natural setting without feeling pressure of the press or reporters, it makes more people want to watch it, and then they will learn more about them. “Viewers of late night comedy programs, especially The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, are more likely to know the issue positions and backgrounds of presidential candidates than people who do not watch late-night comedy” (Jones 170).
Fagan contin...
ReplyDeleteAlthough these shows can be good for a politicians image there are also come negatives to them. Presidential candidates are criticized all the time on SNL, and with all the negativity they are spitting out it make the candidate look bad. And even if they did do bad things, they have also done good things that are not being talked about, which gives the voter a false light on them. In the early days on SNL, Chevy Chase would imitate Gerald Ford, and he made Ford look incredible stupid. “Chase-Ford then sneezed into his tie and stumbled over the text. After the phone rings Chase-Ford tried to answer it by picking up a glass full of water and putting it to his ear…The president then knocked over his visual aid and then fell over his desk” (Matviko 336). Even though Ford was not like that at all, the viewers only saw what was on TV and it lead them to believe that Ford was actually stupid.
Also, a lot of people watch shows like The Colbert Report, but what they do not understand is that it is not real news, but they treat it like real news. So they will be getting the wrong information that they think is right. It is all opinionated, which is fine, but it does not give the viewer accurate news. “Colbert argues, ‘these are all personality shows. It doesn’t matter what they’re saying. Doesn’t matter what the news is, it’s how this person feels about the news, and how you should feel about the news.’” (Jones 186).
I would definitely persuade my candidate to appear on one of these shows. What America needs to see is that they can be approachable and not be so serious all of the time. They need to see that their next president or governor can just hang out for a couple hours and talk to other people besides the press. It can either make or break they candidates approval rating; it all depends on how well he handles himself in whatever situation he gets put in.
Political satire and Comedy shows can either make or break a politicians career. It all depends on how they are portrayed, and how they are able to handle any situation that is thrown at them.
Work Cited
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
Political satire is about as American as apple pie. Shows such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, and Saturday Night live are just a few programs that take the concept of parody news and bring it the center stage of American politics. It is important however, to understand exactly what parody is.
ReplyDelete“In parody, two languages are crossed with each other, as well as two styles, two linguistic points of view, and the final analysis, two speaking subjects. It is true that only one of these languages (the one that is parodied) is present in its own right; the other is present invisibly, as an actualizing background for creating and perceiving” (Jones 192). Parody and satirical shows can in many ways help a candidates stock during an election, but without the proper due diligence significantly hurt someone’s reputation.
The biggest advantage that any of the political satire programs have for a candidate is the fact that they reach a large amount of the American public that may not be informed as in depth about political issues. This means that the majority of the people tuning into these shows aren’t political experts, but at the same time know some information about politics. When a candidate makes an appearance on one of these shows, their platforms and opinions can be expressed to an audience it typically wouldn’t hit, making these appearances very valuable for a candidates future. One glaring disadvantage to these shows however is that it could be very easy for a candidate to make an appearance on a program and significantly hurt their stock as a candidate and future politician. For example, if Mitt Romney were to appear on the Ellen DeGeneres show, the likelihood of him facing questions opposing his view points and positions would be more than likely. This counter point can significantly damage a politician’s reputation and standing. It is up to the politicians campaign manager to strategically pick the correct programs in which his client should make and appearance. Therefore, I would recommend my client to go on these shows and make appearances, but only go on programs that would guarantee to help their stock.
In my humble opinion, Saturday Night live is an incredibly important fixture in politics, specifically during a presidential election year. “Late night television and especially Saturday Night Live were given credit for playing an important role in the 2000 election. After the third Bush-Gore debate, Peter Jennings asked Cokie Roberts to judge who won and who lost. Roberts answered that, “We have to see what the late night comedians say” “ (Matviko 346). The biggest advantage SNL has to offer politicians is the ability to make a politician seem relatable. When a candidate gets on that stage on Saturday night, they aren’t viewed as a politician, but as a venerable person attempting to make us laugh. If done correctly, the public embraces this and the population can swing heavily in their favor. The disadvantage the Saturday Night live though is if a politician screws up at any point, SNL will harp on their faults until the next mishap occurs. The most famous of course being the Sarah Palin interviews of 2008. After Sarah gave several less than stellar interviews, Tina Fay decided to portray her and absolutely crush and momentum Palin had moving forward. Many believe that the SNL skits were so well done that they themselves could have cost McCain the election that year. The public power of the show is tremendous, making or breaking politicians for decades.
Work Cited
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd
ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
Satirical and comedic political shows have become a part of politics that they now have both positive and negative effects on the entire political process. For someone like me, who isn’t that big into politics, comedic political shows such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report are the main mediums I obtain my political information from. One positive I can point out about these shows is the style and delivery of the news. Although the opinions coming from these shows are biased, because they are the opinions of the host, I find it easier to get myself involved in politics when someone like Jon Stewart is presenting facts and opinions to me. I feel this is the way a lot of people my age are now getting their political information. According to Jones, “47% of people under the age of thirty years old were informed at least occasionally about the presidential campaign by late night talks shows.” (Jones, 167) These shows offer a larger audience for politicians to reach out to and allows for people like me to learn at least a little bit about what’s going on in the political world. I understand that these shows may not be entirely accurate because the goal is to ultimately be funny, but if I can learn something and be slightly more informed than I was before watching it than I think the show does its job, and If I laugh along the way, even better.
ReplyDeleteAnother positive consequence of comedic television is that the most successful of these shows begin to attract a larger and dedicated fan base. This is extremely important on the political side of things though. Jon Stewart seems like a very smart man, and because he’s funny it makes him relatable. Because of that I’m more inclined to start agreeing with his views and opinions he presents during the shows. Which eventually, when the time to vote comes around, will influence me greatly. Therefore, for a politician, getting on one of these shows and being supported by one of these hosts like Colbert or Stewart would be extremely beneficial to ones campaign.
One negative consequence that comes along with these comedic shows is that these large groups are people watching are watching because it is entertaining and not necessarily serious. Jones pointed out concern in the younger demographics inability to point out the difference between “entertainment” and “public affairs reporting”. (Jones 167) Many times shows try to over exaggerate someone or something in politics, which could lead to not just now a uniformed America, but a misinformed America. Because of the comedic aspect, another negative about these shows is that it makes politics seem a lot less serious. Society is already uniformed but joking about politics could effect different people in different ways making the general public find politics to be a joke.
Because of how popular the satirical and comedic shows are today I would definitely have my candidate participate on one of them. I think SNL would be perfect because it reaches such a larger audience. It would also allow for my candidate’s names to get out there and be heard while also showing how relatable and humorous one can be. I think I would avoid talk shows though because I wouldn’t want my candidate to be put into an awkward position like we saw with John McCain on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. Overall, I think these shows can do equally as much good as they can do harm and it really just matters on the politician’s team to make sure that everything happening on the show has been discussed that there are no surprises that will happen in front of an audience or on live camera.
Sources: Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348
Jack Holiver
ReplyDeleteBlog 7
10/21/14
It was about sophomore year I became interested in politics. My history teacher told me in order to learn more about the different parties it would be beneficial to watch shows such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. Both shows are informative but they are also comical. They “dumb down” current events for people who want to be informed without having to interpret the hard news given by networks such as Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. I quickly fell became fascinated and learned a lot from the content of both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has been on T.V. for several years. It was the starting point for stars such as Steve Carrel, Stephen Colbert, and most recently John Oliver. It can be a powerful tool to keep informed about current events. Jones went as far as to compare The Daily Show with CNN during the time of the 2004 Presidential campaign: “Stewart provides roughly the same amount and type of information provided by CNN, but then goes out of his way to establish that despite clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Bush and Cheney continue their act as either liars or highly delusional people” (Jones 172). This is where I find there to be a negative side of watching The Daily Show. As much as I enjoyed the show, I became frustrated with Jon Stewart. Although he made clear that he was generally a Democrat, with the exception of voting for George H. W. Bush, I admired his ability to remain neutral on topics. He mocked candidates regardless of their political affiliation. However, as the 2012 election neared, Stewart shifted towards attacking Republicans rather than Democrats not only in his show, but when he was a guest on other programs.
Rather than choosing Saturday Night Live, which was highlighted in “Television Satire and the President,” I chose The Colbert Report. However, like SNL, The Colbert Report poses a potential detrimental outcome. “Saturday Night Live [or The Colbert Report for this purpose] has attempted to satirize the president” (Matviko 346). I immediately noticed was Stephen Colbert’s character. People tend to either forget or not realize that on T.V., he is an alter ego that was created for the show. This alter ego represents a Republican who is very stereotypical on his views and resembles much of what most people associate with Fox News political commentator and host of The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly. It should be obvious to most politically informed Americans that Colbert’s character is just a representation of a stereotype that is intended for laughs by both sides of the isle. However, the benefits of The Colbert Report far outweigh the detriments.
Back in 2011 and 2012, Colbert began a Super Pac and was allowed to receive an unlimited amount of donations but more importantly, to also receive an unlimited amount of money. Every time he talked addressed his audience about the Super Pac, he would bring out his lawyer and stretch the definition of the legality of the situation. Eventually, he decided to run for President of the United States in South Carolina but was too late to enter into the ballot and ran under the name Herman Cain, who recently suspended his campaign. However, because he could not manage his own Super Pac and be a candidate for President, he gave it to his best friend, Jon Stewart and remained it “The Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super Pac.” After the election, Colbert donated what was left of the $1.2 million originally raised to various charities and gave interviews on his experience.
Everyone that followed the progress of Colbert’s Super Pac became informed of how the system works, how political candidates are potentially using it, and the absurdity of the amount of loop holes in the system.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited:
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
Thomas Chamoun
ReplyDeleteThe first positive of comedy news show is the ability to point out the spin of news and candidates. Many times the funniest lines are the ridiculous ones that the host repeats, mimicking the candidate. “ I argue that The Daily Show is a fake news show, it’s faux journalism style allows the show’s writers and host to question, dispel, and critique the manipulative language and symbolizations coming from the presidential campaign while simultaneously opening up deeper truths about politics than that offered by “objective” reporting of mainstream journalism,”(Jones,189). This ability to get right at the heart of the matter, by mocking the spin is one thing comedy shows are beneficial for. The second part of this benefit is that the comedy shows are able to draw conclusions, whereas the traditional news standard is to repeat the position of the party. “ Journalistic adherence to norms of objectivity generally prevents many reporters and anchors from looking across specific events to point out repeated patterns of deception or misjudgment by politicians and government officials,”(Jones, 172). The way that these two points tie together into one point is because the spin is what annoys people about the regular news, it is used as a forum for PR, where you can put an official statement out there and anchors will not challenge it. The comedy show makes its living off of calling out ridiculous official statements.
The second positive is simple, people actually watch it, specifically young people. I don’t have to give you stats and figures. Just from my small amount of social interaction I can tell you that young adults like myself do not like traditional news. I can also tell you that I have come across many more people that like TCS and TDS. If more young people are interested in politics due to these shows it is a good thing.
The first disadvantage of the comedy news shows is that it is adding to a trend that viewers are moving away from the traditional top down, gatekeeping news organizations and on to a world of blogs and other forms of new media. This has led to decreased advertising revenue for professional news organizations, which leads to even more celebrity style, hollywoodinization of the regular news. (Jones, 181).
Part of this is that people like Colbert have mimicked talk show anchors and dropped the creditability of people like Hannity ect… Young adults are being taught to not trust traditional news institutions.
The second disadvantage of the comedy news shows are how people can watch just the comedy shows and think that they have a handle on the news. Lets take The Letterman Show , many people watch this show for the comedy and music acts alone. When Letterman makes political jokes the audience is consuming that as well, if the jokes are degrading some figure it will have a large effect on the politically uninformed in the audience.
If I were a campaign manager I would choose not to put my candidate on the comedy shows. The case I made for the advantages of comedy news shows explains that the reason for their popularity, their calling card is to cut through the spin and BS of politicians, institutions and other hosts. I would not want my candidates bogus positions being called out by the host. Even if the host didn’t call them out, the audience has been conditioned to see through the bullshit and I think it would have a bad effect on my candidate.
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Political satire and comedy shows have become something of a mainstream facet in today’s political campaigns. It is nearly impossible to get through a presidential election cycle without seeing at least one parody skit on Saturday Night Live or to see a candidate get torn apart by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report. However, as with any resource candidates can utilize there are both positive and negative consequences of this genre of television during an election cycle.
ReplyDeleteA huge benefit is that a higher portion of the general public is turning to these shows now more than ever to get informed and keep up to date with the “news”. Many citizens do feel that these shows are credible news sources, failing to realize that they are laden with sarcasm and misconstrued information. Regardless, these shows have huge followings. As Jones mentioned, a survey conducted in 2000, “…reported that 47 percent of people under thirty years old were “informed at least occasionally” about the presidential campaign by late-night talk shows” (Jones 167). Candidates can play this to their advantage by going on these shows as they can reach out to a large audience and thus reach huge numbers of potential voters. Additionally there is immense potential for a candidate to push the issues they feel are important during an appearance on one of these shows.
Additionally, the hosts of these shows are very intelligent, even if they may come across differently. For example, the text referenced how Stephen Colbert portrays himself as something of an idiot for his show, but that is quite far from the truth (Jones 185). Hosts such as Colbert or Jon Stewart are able to convey their opinions by utilizing this element of satire while also remaining steadfast in what they deem important. By adding in the humor or the satire they are able to present the news in a way that may very well be much more engaging to the general public than traditional evening news. They know what they are talking about, and as such can ensure that the important facts are being dispersed in one way or another.
Rowe Continued:
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, these shows come with negative consequences as a result of the inherent nature of satire. Depending on the way in which certain issues are presented, an appearance or a skit mocking a candidate can absolutely destroy credibility or even a solid following by potential voters. For example, oftentimes skits will appear on Saturday Night Live mocking candidates. In the 2008 election we saw this frequently with Sarah Palin. These skits on SNL damaged her credibility because it highlighted the things she had done wrong thus far in the election cycle. As the reading on satire and the presidency mentioned, “…television’s increased role in our democracy certainly makes it a worthy subject for satire” (Matviko 346). Additionally, because of this popular role, appearances on these late-night talk shows have become increasingly more common as well. This has the potential to be negative as well. If candidates are either not well versed in the mannerisms the host utilizes or are inadequately prepared to face the questions that may be brought up, it can have disastrous consequences. It runs the risk of the candidate looking unintelligent and not prepared to take on public office which can harm their chances of winning an election. For example, Herman Cain appeared on Jimmy Kimmel after the sexual harassment claims broke, but he came across poorly and it ultimately did very little to help him.
If I was a political consultant I would definitely recommend that my candidate appear on one of these shows, but I would have some stipulations attached. The most important thing would be to ensure that the candidate has a sense of humor, because otherwise it isn’t going to work and the candidate will look terrible. A sense of humor is crucial for appearances on these types of television shows. Additionally, I would want to ensure that the candidate appears on a show that is ideologically similar to their views, as you wouldn’t want them to get completely torn apart by the host. I think overall the benefits outweigh the risks as long as you are smart about your application and plan out what you would like to achieve by appearing on one of these shows.
Sources
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
Two positives of comedy in politics include that they sometimes provide the public with lesser-known stories or a different spin on stories they know. The talk shows focus on hot and trendy topics, whereas comedy just looks to find the funniest. A good example of this is the HBO shows “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.” Coming from “The Daily Show with John Stewart”, John Oliver established a style where he takes a story and looks at the larger issue. An example of this is a segment he did on the issues in Ferguson, Missouri. Rather than analyzing what he believed happened, he brought up the police reaction to the people protesting and used it a s a jumping off point to discuss whether law enforcement go overboard in handling issues in the country. Both these stories were not topics I had heard often discussed on the main networks so the comedy show provided me with a different look at politics while also making me laugh. Jeffrey Jones analyzed “The Daily Show” in comparison to CNN saying, “Perhaps this is simply an entertainmentized version of a ‘news analysis’ or ‘op-ed’ journalism. But it is a particular brand of ‘reporting that might illuminate for viewers the larger issues at stake beyond the isolated events that typically dominate news reporting.” (Jones, 179) Another positive is what it can do for candidates. It is for this reason that I believe consultants should have their candidates appear on these shows. Comedy humanizes candidates, which, in this age of the Internet, is so important to winning elections. It makes the candidates more likeable. John Matviko analyzed SNL with the Presidency. He mentioned that Clinton was the country’s first “late-night president.” He says, “Clinton’s election to the presidency in 1992 was greatly aided by his appearance on the ‘Arsenio Hall Show’. On that show, Clinton played his saxophone and claimed (wink-wink) that he never inhaled. Through two terms in office, Clinton sort of ‘felt our pain’ and tested the limits of what is considered acceptable presidential behavior. His popularity, through it all, remained high with the young.”(Matkivo, 345) Candidates have to go on these shows because it makes them more appealing to the younger audience. However, they must be prepared to be lighter and less serious than usual so they don’t come off as stiff and uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteSome negatives of comedy in journalism is that it must be taken with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, the goal is to make you laugh and to entertain you. It is a similar problem as with talk show hosts on cable networks. These hosts are entertainers or pundits. They are not journalists and the same goes for hosts of comedy news shows. They are comedians and entertainers, not journalists. And so, all the news given should be taken with a grain of salt in that the point of it is to make you laugh and provide entertainment. Another negative is that the comedians poking fun at certain candidates can give voters negative views towards that candidate. Voters should be able to make their own decisions on the candidates based on facts rather than having their view created by a comedians humorous spin on the facts.
Works Cited:
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency," in Hollywood's White House, Peter C. Rollins and John O'Connor, eds. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2003: 333 - 348.
Among the many forces that go into shaping a campaign – from speeches to advertisements – late-night comedy has earned a special place. It’s where narratives about candidates can be created and grow free of the constraints of regular journalism, for better or worse.
ReplyDeleteNot all late-night shows are the same. For some, politics is more than just the stuff of monologue one-liners; it’s a critical element to the program. Take, for instance, the late-night shows on Comedy Central, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. They thrive on politics. The main goal for both shows is comedy, of course. No laughs equals no audience. But there is a political focus to their humor.
Political comedy shows have become extremely popular ever since the launch the SNL in 1975. (Matviko 334) In fact, during the first quarter of 2013 The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report were the two most watched late night talk show hosts among adults 18-49. “The Daily Show” averages 2.5 million total viewers and the “The Colbert Report” averages an audience of 1.9 million total viewers both shows also dominate social media with more Facebook fans than any other late night talk show. (Moraes)
The incredible popularity of these shows has forced some critics to wonder if these shows have become the main source of news for young people. A 2004 A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 21 percent of people aged 18 to 29 cited "The Daily Show" and "Saturday Night Live" as a place where they regularly learned presidential campaign news. (Cosgrove-Mather) In addition, when Americans were asked in a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center to name the journalist they most admired, John Stewart, the fake news anchor, came in at No. 4, tied with the real news anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokawin. (Today's Journalists Less Prominent)
Critics worry that these shows are not the most reliable or informative source of news. But, a recent study done by The Annenberg Public Policy Center found that fans of The Colbert Report were more knowledgeable about campaign finance, even more so than viewers of MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. (Wilstein)
But how can this be? How can a fake, satirical, comedic, broadcast like John Stewart be more informative than a traditional broadcast? Jeffery Jones explains in “Fake News vs. Real News” that, “Stewart offers not just the facts but also draws conclusions form these facts. Journalistic adherence to norms of objectivity generally prevents many reporters and anchors from looking across specific events to explicitly point out repeated patterns of deception or misjudgment by politicians and government officials” (Jones, 172)
Jones says that the format of the daily show offers them several unique advantages over traditional news networks. For example, its faux journalistic style allows the show’s writers and host to, “question, dispel, and critique the manipulative language and symbolizations coming from the presidential campaign while simultaneously opening up deeper truths about politics than that offered by the “objective” reporting or mainstream journalism” (Jones, 168)
Analyzing the motives behind the political rhetoric of politicians and political pundits is crucial to understanding politics a broader context. Jones says that this sort of analysis is something you will only find with the daily show or programs like it, “The daily show offers particular information about the campaign that is often missing from “real” journalist reports on the news networks, and hence, informs its viewers in ways that mainstream journalism rarely does.” (Jones, 168)
ReplyDeleteStewart Maintains that his goal is to entertain, not inform. Still, he and his writers have energetically tackled the big issues of the day — And they’ve done so in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking in bluntly, in sometimes profane language, while using satire and foolishness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious. “The Daily Show” resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because its keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era when politics are more polarized than ever.
One disadvantage of political satire shows is like most shows sometimes they make mistakes. For example in February of 2013 Mississippi formally ratified the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery John Stewart ran a segment making fun of Mississippi for their 147 year late adoption of the law and in the process made fun of Mississippi’s Secretary of state Dick Molpus solely because of his name. In fact, Molpus had been a long-time civil rights activist who in 1989 gave a speech at a 25th anniversary memorial for three civil rights activists murdered outside Philadelphia Mississippi a speech that earned Molpus death threats. Due to the increased viewership and trust in these shows a small mistake like starts could ruin someone’s reputation. It should be noted that Stewart apologized before he was contacted by anyone representing Molpus. (Hartsell)
I think it would be a smart of all democratic candidates to make an appearance on at the daily show Newsweek has called it “the coolest pit stop on television,” with presidential candidates, former presidents, world leaders and administration officials signing on as guests.
Works Cited
Cosgrove-Mather, Booty. "Young Get News From Comedy Central."CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 1 Mar. 2004. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
Hartsell, Carol. "Jon Stewart Apologizes To Dick Molpus For Mississippi Slavery Ban Segment (VIDEO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
Jones, Jeffrey. Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture., 2nd ed Lamham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
Matviko, John. "Television Satire and the Presidency." Hollywood's White House: The American Presidency in Film and History. Ed. Peter C. Rollins and John E. O'Connor. Lexington: U of Kentucky, 2005. 334-35. Print.
Moraes, Lisa De. "Comedy Central Boasts about ‘Daily Show,’ ‘Colbert Report’ Ratings in 18-to-49-year-old Category." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 04 Apr. 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
"Today's Journalists Less Prominent." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. N.p., 8 Mar. 2007. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
Wilstein, Matt. "Colbert’s Audience Knows Way More About Super PACs than Cable News Viewers Do." Mediaite. N.p., 2 June 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.