It’s the last leg of a political election. Candidates are tirelessly campaigning, television ads ring loudly in sets across America, and town halls will soon be busy with the activity of voters, but do we really know our Candidates? Many people say the 2008 election feels like the longest political processes in American history. But even with the extensive coverage it has attracted, I’m not convinced the average American is familiar with the candidate’s policy. Sure, people may know that McCain is old and Obama’s middle name is Hussein but what about their political views? It’s easy to know more about a candidate’s personal life than about how they would govern because these light hearted stories can be found everywhere. Personal information is entertaining, easy to understand, and draws in more viewers than stories about policy. But it’s the news media’s job to educate viewers, and quite frankly I feel they have dropped the ball. Just as an example- When I was interning at a news station over the summer I noticed the producers added a segment called “know your presidential candidate.” It was a 5 minute segment that focused on the difference in policy between McCain and Obama. I thought it was an interesting segment, and a refreshing change of pace for the news media. The point of this story is that I don’t think segments on policy should feel like a “refreshing change of pace”, they should be the norm. Turn to any news organizations political homepage and you will find very few stories about policy. I just clicked on the Fox News political page and learned that “Obama shattered another Record”, “Obama’s camp thinks election is just a formality”, and “Palin keeps mentioning Wardrobe Controversy” but none of these stories tell me anything about how they will lead. (http://elections.foxnews.com/.) Looking back on the past few months, do you think the media focused on stories unrelated to policy and if so, how do you feel this effects the viewing audience?
In Seducing America, Roderick P. Hart says, “Television has given the American people a “sense of knowing” that sustains them during the political blizzard. By making politics personal, television empowers the voter, encouraging him or her to use universal criteria when making political judgments, the same criteria used when choosing a spouse or a golfing partner (52). I agree with Hart. I believe person can feel the “know” a presidential candidate, without knowing a thing about why they are running. Throughout this blog, I have blamed the media for running these “fluff stories” to draw in more viewers, but candidates can take a piece of the blame as well. Presidential Candidates need to control their image very closely. Because of this, they may attack their opponent’s character- shedding negative attention on ‘the other guy’. In The Image is Everything Presidency, the authors Richard W. Waterman, Robert Wright and Gilbert St. Clair write “In [the election process], presidential candidates must control what the media writes about them. If they do not, they may lose control of their image and the way the public perceives them” (128). Although this is true, I feel these “image making stories” have taken over the media leaving people less informed about the issues that really matter. These stories can be very important. They can speak a great deal about a candidate’s character but I believe the media is lacking a balance in the amount of attention these stories receive.
Now that the presidential race is coming to an end, look back on the sort of information you received from the media. Do you think the average American knows more about a candidate’s favorite vacation spot, than about their opinion on healthcare? Also, Do you think image making stories are more popular than stories relating to policy? If so, why?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Backlash of a negative campaign has Powell endorsing Obama
In a surprising turn events that could prove exceptionally damaging for the GOP’s presidential ticket, former U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president. Although he relayed slight feelings of guilt for letting down his party and good friend John McCain to Tom Brokaw on this weekend’s edition of Meet The Press, Powell stressed that at this time in history, the country needs a ‘transformational figure’ much like Senator Obama; “He is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.”
Amidst praise for the Democratic candidate however, Powell listed several perceived downfalls of the Republican party as well as in the McCain campaign. Among others, Powell’s recent reservations included Senator McCain’s vice presidential selection of Sarah Palin, which has in his view demonstrated a considerable shift to the right for the Republican party, as well as the exceedingly negative tone of the McCain/Palin campaign. As seen in the available video (above), the former secretary of state takes great issue with the McCain campaign’s insistence on associating Senator Obama to Bill Ayers saying doing so has ‘gone too far.’ Now, as Obama holds a steady ten point lead nationally just a few weeks before election day, it looks as though all the negativity of the McCain campaign has worn thin on many Americans (not excluding higher up political figures such as Powell). Is it safe to say that old man McCain has fallen on his own sword in this election? Only a few more weeks to before we find out.
Throughout this semester, we have talked at length about the overall effects of negatively run campaigns - mainly in the form of political advertisements. As many of us are aware, while a vast amount of the existing political communication research suggests negative ads and new coverage results in higher levels of of voter recall, they can have a number of detrimental effects to the democratic process. Concerns of growing feelings cynicism and political apathy as discussed by Hart, as well as noticeable decreases in political efficacy and consequently, voter turn out. Many have suggested that the “very existence of negative advertising has negative consequences in the form of lower voter turn out and an increase in voter alienation and cynicism” (Kaid 174). Further, research also indicates that viewing negative ads puts a dent on citizen’s feelings of efficacy (399). In regards to the potential backlash effects of political advertisements, a large body of research indicates that “candidates who sponsor negative ads my be subject to negative responses themselves-i.e., the negative ads my backfire on them, leading to more negative views of the sponsoring candidate” (Kaid 172). Given the latter revelation, one gains a sense that in recent weeks McCain has taken the proverbial hatchet (no, not a scalpel) to the Republican ticket.
The early media firestorm that resulted from Powell’s Saturday morning endorsement has brought mixed feelings and speculation. While some reports are claiming that Powell's endorsement severely undermines the McCain campaign’s inexperience argument, adding to Obama's image as a man who is in actuality, ready to run the country, others have naturally (and quite obnoxiously) thrown all 52 race cards into the air. Hart would suggest that the successive commentary throughout the media world (especially on television) serves as perfect examples as to why citizens feel "busy" and even "clever" when it comes to the political round-table. "Television," he claims "superintends these ceremonies of cynicism" (Hart 82). Here, on must ask themselves: What would have been the cynical topic of day had not Powell endorsed a man of the same minority race? Additional articles covering the big story can be found here and here. Note that both articles have suggestions of race nicely placed in the center of each piece.
What does the endorsement of Colin Powell do for Obama? How do you think it hurts McCain and company? Is race really a factor here - is it wrong to even suggest it? How much of a backlash effect do you think McCain has suffered in light of his negative campaign and advertisements? Feel free to sound off on any of these important topics and expand on how the negative tone on the campaign has effected your own political feelings.
Amidst praise for the Democratic candidate however, Powell listed several perceived downfalls of the Republican party as well as in the McCain campaign. Among others, Powell’s recent reservations included Senator McCain’s vice presidential selection of Sarah Palin, which has in his view demonstrated a considerable shift to the right for the Republican party, as well as the exceedingly negative tone of the McCain/Palin campaign. As seen in the available video (above), the former secretary of state takes great issue with the McCain campaign’s insistence on associating Senator Obama to Bill Ayers saying doing so has ‘gone too far.’ Now, as Obama holds a steady ten point lead nationally just a few weeks before election day, it looks as though all the negativity of the McCain campaign has worn thin on many Americans (not excluding higher up political figures such as Powell). Is it safe to say that old man McCain has fallen on his own sword in this election? Only a few more weeks to before we find out.
Throughout this semester, we have talked at length about the overall effects of negatively run campaigns - mainly in the form of political advertisements. As many of us are aware, while a vast amount of the existing political communication research suggests negative ads and new coverage results in higher levels of of voter recall, they can have a number of detrimental effects to the democratic process. Concerns of growing feelings cynicism and political apathy as discussed by Hart, as well as noticeable decreases in political efficacy and consequently, voter turn out. Many have suggested that the “very existence of negative advertising has negative consequences in the form of lower voter turn out and an increase in voter alienation and cynicism” (Kaid 174). Further, research also indicates that viewing negative ads puts a dent on citizen’s feelings of efficacy (399). In regards to the potential backlash effects of political advertisements, a large body of research indicates that “candidates who sponsor negative ads my be subject to negative responses themselves-i.e., the negative ads my backfire on them, leading to more negative views of the sponsoring candidate” (Kaid 172). Given the latter revelation, one gains a sense that in recent weeks McCain has taken the proverbial hatchet (no, not a scalpel) to the Republican ticket.
The early media firestorm that resulted from Powell’s Saturday morning endorsement has brought mixed feelings and speculation. While some reports are claiming that Powell's endorsement severely undermines the McCain campaign’s inexperience argument, adding to Obama's image as a man who is in actuality, ready to run the country, others have naturally (and quite obnoxiously) thrown all 52 race cards into the air. Hart would suggest that the successive commentary throughout the media world (especially on television) serves as perfect examples as to why citizens feel "busy" and even "clever" when it comes to the political round-table. "Television," he claims "superintends these ceremonies of cynicism" (Hart 82). Here, on must ask themselves: What would have been the cynical topic of day had not Powell endorsed a man of the same minority race? Additional articles covering the big story can be found here and here. Note that both articles have suggestions of race nicely placed in the center of each piece.
What does the endorsement of Colin Powell do for Obama? How do you think it hurts McCain and company? Is race really a factor here - is it wrong to even suggest it? How much of a backlash effect do you think McCain has suffered in light of his negative campaign and advertisements? Feel free to sound off on any of these important topics and expand on how the negative tone on the campaign has effected your own political feelings.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Media and Politics- Best Friends?
“The media plays a substantial role in the development of government. The media gives people access to be able to choose a political party, devise attitudes on government parties and government decisions, and manage their own interests. From newspapers to television to radio to the Internet, the media is the leading factor in political communication and fund-raising. (Media Influence on Politics and Government by Tatum Wilcox)” http://www.helium.com/items/745081-media-influence-on-politics-and-government Wilcox is obviously in favor of the media when it comes to politics- arguing it is imperative to politics. The media is the foundation of political communication and without it there would be very little awareness with regard to politics. Throughout his article Wilcox argues the many importance’s of media but recognizes its bias. “The media remains important since they are the means by which people obtain current affairs both inside and outside of the United States- however bias it may be. (Wilcox 1)” Can the media still be credible even if there is a bias?
There is no argument as to whether the media play a role in the political field, but rather what type of role does the media play? Do you feel it is more positive or negative? “Over the years, some authors have complained that the media’s effects on campaign scheduling and financing have given them an unseemly amount of influence over political affairs. Others argue that television’s modes of visual presentation produce cognitive laziness among voters and thus guarantee information loss in a campaign. (Hart 53)” Do you think that television is important with regard to political awareness? How informed do you think you would be (with regard to politics) if the TV were not invented? Also, What do you feel is the most influential form of medium right now vs. in the 1960s?
Kaid says in the Handbook of Political Communication Research, “All news is a construction of reality. (237)” Do you agree with Kaid? Is all news a construction of reality, or has some forms of medium taken the political game so far that somewhere in between the truth just got lost. Between media bias and truth- bending, how informed do you really feel about politics through the media?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Is nonverbal communication influencing your vote?
“No matter what a correspondent said about the president, if the visuals were positive then the viewers perception of the president was also likely to be positive” (Waterman et al. 147). This quote explains how President Clinton retained a positive impression on the general public even as the media scrutinized his, at the time, alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Today we consume visuals of presidential hopefuls Senator Obama and Senator McCain almost if not daily. Somewhat recently we watched the two interact with one another at the 3rd and final presidential debate. But what did you really consume, what they said or what they did? Business Week’s William A. Gentry took a look at what they did in Verdict: The Final Presidential Debate.
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2008/ca20081016_103550.htm
According to Gentry nonverbal communication can make up 93% of the message actually received by viewers and the candidates communicated a variety of things throughout the debate. For instance, McCain’s nonverbal response to the first question conveyed passion, but his lack of eye contact at times showed that he wasn’t listening to Obama’s responses (Gentry 1). Obama eye contact and head nodding showed respect, but he also shook his head no at points of disagreement with McCain’s implying disdain or condescension (Gentry 2). I found the negative nonverbal communication disheartening and even upsetting. At many points during the third debate, you could have cut the tension with a knife. It goes against all the candidates have said about “stepping across the aisle” and respecting each other. I feel this is especially true on McCain’s part. Do you feel the candidates have shown each other respect or disrespect? Why or why not?? How does this impact your opinion of each candidate? What kinds of nonverbal communication would you prefer to see from each candidate? Most importantly, if you turned down the audio on your TV set, which debate was the most interesting? Why?
A debate is about responding to your opponent’s assertions and making your own for them to respond to. That means the candidates spent the majority of the debate responding to one another and the moderator not just verbally, but nonverbally as well. If Gentry is correct in saying that 93% of what came across the TV screen was nonverbal, then debates support Hart’s claim that, “candidates now talk more about their opponents talk more than about their nation’s destiny” (86). I believe this was definitely true in regards to their verbal interaction. What do you think? How about their nonverbal interaction? What impressions did you get about our nation’s destiny from the candidate’s nonverbal communication? What impressions did you get about each senator from his opponent’s nonverbal responses?
Lastly (maybe not importantly), would your vote be different if you only perceived the candidates nonverbal messages? Why or why not?
The 3rd presidential debate can be found in sections on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOhtn0SreV8
Today we consume visuals of presidential hopefuls Senator Obama and Senator McCain almost if not daily. Somewhat recently we watched the two interact with one another at the 3rd and final presidential debate. But what did you really consume, what they said or what they did? Business Week’s William A. Gentry took a look at what they did in Verdict: The Final Presidential Debate.
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2008/ca20081016_103550.htm
According to Gentry nonverbal communication can make up 93% of the message actually received by viewers and the candidates communicated a variety of things throughout the debate. For instance, McCain’s nonverbal response to the first question conveyed passion, but his lack of eye contact at times showed that he wasn’t listening to Obama’s responses (Gentry 1). Obama eye contact and head nodding showed respect, but he also shook his head no at points of disagreement with McCain’s implying disdain or condescension (Gentry 2). I found the negative nonverbal communication disheartening and even upsetting. At many points during the third debate, you could have cut the tension with a knife. It goes against all the candidates have said about “stepping across the aisle” and respecting each other. I feel this is especially true on McCain’s part. Do you feel the candidates have shown each other respect or disrespect? Why or why not?? How does this impact your opinion of each candidate? What kinds of nonverbal communication would you prefer to see from each candidate? Most importantly, if you turned down the audio on your TV set, which debate was the most interesting? Why?
A debate is about responding to your opponent’s assertions and making your own for them to respond to. That means the candidates spent the majority of the debate responding to one another and the moderator not just verbally, but nonverbally as well. If Gentry is correct in saying that 93% of what came across the TV screen was nonverbal, then debates support Hart’s claim that, “candidates now talk more about their opponents talk more than about their nation’s destiny” (86). I believe this was definitely true in regards to their verbal interaction. What do you think? How about their nonverbal interaction? What impressions did you get about our nation’s destiny from the candidate’s nonverbal communication? What impressions did you get about each senator from his opponent’s nonverbal responses?
Lastly (maybe not importantly), would your vote be different if you only perceived the candidates nonverbal messages? Why or why not?
The 3rd presidential debate can be found in sections on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOhtn0SreV8
Monday, October 6, 2008
Comedy & Politics - Crossing the line?
Using politics as a source of humor is detrimental to the democratic process, and during the presidential campaign, political comedy has become very main stream. There are many people that actually believe shows like The Daily Show and Colbert Report are actual journalism that is intended to inform the viewer, not entertain them. Even when the hosts address important topics such as the economy or foreign relations, the issue is put aside to make a funny comment about the politician’s age or race.
In the digital age, any mistake or flaw can make it to the web in a matter of minutes and ruin a career just as fast. Politicians must be on guard at all times to not say or do something that would hurt their campaign. While both presidential candidates have said little about the jokes directed at them, Palin has accepted the humor, specifically by Tina Fey of SNL and it seems to have helped her. Several times during the vice presidential debate she made jokes and gave off a more casual feeling. Despite what people say about her inexperience or opinions on issues, many people think she is funny and she is more widely known than her opponent Joe Biden especially with a younger audience.
Young voters will be vital in this election more than ever. Despite low turnouts in previous elections, voters under 30 are expected to be much more active this year. With many sources of media targeting this young audience, it is crucial that there is information available that is coming from a reliable and unbiased source. Comedy is a great way to get people to know that issues and problems facing the country exist, but there is no one bridging the gap between comedy and information. This is probably why myself and many friends find informational political news such as the debates or various speeches by candidates to be uninteresting.
While looking for videos to use for this class on youtube every search about a serious topic would have one or two videos of the actual event and thousands of spoofs or clips of a funny section. Elections of the past have had their humor, with nicknames and slogans being commonplace, but it seems that since the 2000 election, comedy has overshadowed everything else. This may be due in part to President Bush, who has had more slip ups and mistakes in 8 years than most people do in a lifetime. Everyone knows about “strategery” and “misunderstimated”, but who knows what he was speaking about when he slipped up on one word? It is because of this that an entire generation only knows their political leaders from what they see on youtube or comedy central.
Comedy & Politics
Posted on behalf of Ian O'Connor:
Over the past ’08 election there have been more than enough political spoofs. We have all seen John Stewart, Conan O’Brien and Maher. I believe that although they are funny and very true for the most part, it is turning everyone away from the real issues that real people have to deal with. People are so wrapped up in the, did you hear what he said? She said? Kind of deal when I feel like with a lot of things candidates are just being so cautious about saying dumb things, that they bounce around real issues that are at hand.
Why this year more than others have these political spoofs been such a big issue? Is it because more young people have been involved with the election or is it because the candidates and their VP’s are easy to make fun of? For the most part I believe that the candidates have said some pretty unintelligent statements i.e.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM
But once again, political comedy is such a big issue at hand, people are so quick to jump to make fun of a candidate that it is such a blown out of proportion deal. After giving that interview with Katie Couric, the only thing that a lot of people get out of that was the fact that Joe Biden thought that there was television in 1929. Although, he had given a very good interview, the only clip that you find when typing in, “Biden and Couric Interview,” on YouTube, all you get is a little clip of his slip of the tongue. I just feel like that sort of political comedy is not needed.
On October 2, John Stewart made a comment about John McCain looking like Galin from Lord of The Rings and saying that he is, “an old man corrupted by his quest for ultimate power.” (5:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0_e-1QZOBs
Comments like these I believe are funny and they have no real outcome to the election. Do you believe people should be able to speak their mind like this? And have certain biases, like Fox does?
Most people would agree that both candidates are actually easy to make fun of, Palin specifically in many ways more than Obama. All eyes seem to be on her lately. People coming to the realization, that she does not have the credentials that most Vice Presidents have. In a specific case Palin makes a joke about the age of Joe Biden, stating, “I remember watching him speak when I was like in second grade.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-65FW9mNc
What is her reason for stating something like this? Is the election becoming somewhat of a joke? Did she say it just because she wants to magnify the fact that Joe Biden is so old and worn out, and she is an up and coming star with a lot of spunk and energy?
In one political campaign ad McCain supported a message stating that Barack Obama was pretty much just looked at as a celebrity, and was compared to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. In the Comedy and Political readings in Chapter 3, page 40 stated that Ronald Reagan was looked at as a celebrity. Would this election and Obama being viewed as a celebrity be comparable to the election in the 1980’s?
In the Comedy and Political readings in Chapter 3, page 56, it stated that the first feature that are shared by all late night political shows, like John Stewart, is that they are all unafraid to say what they want to say. Do you think there should be some sort of limitation on what they are allowed and not allowed to say? Or, is it a positive thing for the election to have comedy shows such as this.
Over the past ’08 election there have been more than enough political spoofs. We have all seen John Stewart, Conan O’Brien and Maher. I believe that although they are funny and very true for the most part, it is turning everyone away from the real issues that real people have to deal with. People are so wrapped up in the, did you hear what he said? She said? Kind of deal when I feel like with a lot of things candidates are just being so cautious about saying dumb things, that they bounce around real issues that are at hand.
Why this year more than others have these political spoofs been such a big issue? Is it because more young people have been involved with the election or is it because the candidates and their VP’s are easy to make fun of? For the most part I believe that the candidates have said some pretty unintelligent statements i.e.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM
But once again, political comedy is such a big issue at hand, people are so quick to jump to make fun of a candidate that it is such a blown out of proportion deal. After giving that interview with Katie Couric, the only thing that a lot of people get out of that was the fact that Joe Biden thought that there was television in 1929. Although, he had given a very good interview, the only clip that you find when typing in, “Biden and Couric Interview,” on YouTube, all you get is a little clip of his slip of the tongue. I just feel like that sort of political comedy is not needed.
On October 2, John Stewart made a comment about John McCain looking like Galin from Lord of The Rings and saying that he is, “an old man corrupted by his quest for ultimate power.” (5:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0_e-1QZOBs
Comments like these I believe are funny and they have no real outcome to the election. Do you believe people should be able to speak their mind like this? And have certain biases, like Fox does?
Most people would agree that both candidates are actually easy to make fun of, Palin specifically in many ways more than Obama. All eyes seem to be on her lately. People coming to the realization, that she does not have the credentials that most Vice Presidents have. In a specific case Palin makes a joke about the age of Joe Biden, stating, “I remember watching him speak when I was like in second grade.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-65FW9mNc
What is her reason for stating something like this? Is the election becoming somewhat of a joke? Did she say it just because she wants to magnify the fact that Joe Biden is so old and worn out, and she is an up and coming star with a lot of spunk and energy?
In one political campaign ad McCain supported a message stating that Barack Obama was pretty much just looked at as a celebrity, and was compared to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. In the Comedy and Political readings in Chapter 3, page 40 stated that Ronald Reagan was looked at as a celebrity. Would this election and Obama being viewed as a celebrity be comparable to the election in the 1980’s?
In the Comedy and Political readings in Chapter 3, page 56, it stated that the first feature that are shared by all late night political shows, like John Stewart, is that they are all unafraid to say what they want to say. Do you think there should be some sort of limitation on what they are allowed and not allowed to say? Or, is it a positive thing for the election to have comedy shows such as this.
Comedy and Politics: A Perfect Match?
Posted on behalf of Adrienne Moesel:
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were recognizable names long before Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. The humor they bring to the governmental news of the day make politics practically bearable. But nowadays I can’t seem to enjoy it as much, and it’s mostly because I’m distracted by the same thought—is it irresponsible to be getting my politics through comedy shows?
The fact of the matter is that comedy coverage is hard to escape. As one article relates it (found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27007475/), the vice-presidential picks for both sides have become, as the AP calls it, “the toast—make that roast— of late night television” (1). This includes references to the VP candidates on shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” “The Late Show with David Letterman,” “The Colbert Report,” “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” (“VP Candidates the Toast, er Roast, of Late Night”). With all of this comedic coverage on numerous television networks, I think it’s a good thing that so many audiences can be reached on politics, and people in general really react to humor.
More than just people in general, however, youth voters seem to prefer the comedy coverage. The Pew Research Center, 2004a, discovered from the 2004 presidential election that “young voters are turning to comedic sources for campaign information, rather than more traditional news formats” (Fox, Koloen, and Sahin 213). My position is that it doesn’t matter where the information comes from, as long as we (the youth vote) can receive it. And in the findings of Fox et al., they found little difference between the amount of political substance in broadcast news coverage of the presidential election and the amount of substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (221). Even more than that, “the proportion of stories per half hour program devoted to the election campaign was greater in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart than in the broadcast network newscasts” (Fox et al. 221). So, if Jon Stewart is talking about the campaign for a longer amount of time than the broadcast TV shows, does it matter if the coverage is funny?
As research by Morin and Balz found in Chapter 5 of “Seducing America,” says, “Members of the group [of young potential voters] said that they get almost all of their political information from television” (Hart 101). Now granted, this idea may have evolved a little with the capabilities of the Internet, but there is definitely still truth in it.
So if the choice is between being apathetic towards politics and becoming more aware through comedy, which is the lesser evil? Must all political coverage be boring and straightforward in order to be considered accurate? Do you think that voters are any more misinformed when their political ideas stem from “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report,” than from broadcast news shows?
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were recognizable names long before Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. The humor they bring to the governmental news of the day make politics practically bearable. But nowadays I can’t seem to enjoy it as much, and it’s mostly because I’m distracted by the same thought—is it irresponsible to be getting my politics through comedy shows?
The fact of the matter is that comedy coverage is hard to escape. As one article relates it (found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27007475/), the vice-presidential picks for both sides have become, as the AP calls it, “the toast—make that roast— of late night television” (1). This includes references to the VP candidates on shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” “The Late Show with David Letterman,” “The Colbert Report,” “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” (“VP Candidates the Toast, er Roast, of Late Night”). With all of this comedic coverage on numerous television networks, I think it’s a good thing that so many audiences can be reached on politics, and people in general really react to humor.
More than just people in general, however, youth voters seem to prefer the comedy coverage. The Pew Research Center, 2004a, discovered from the 2004 presidential election that “young voters are turning to comedic sources for campaign information, rather than more traditional news formats” (Fox, Koloen, and Sahin 213). My position is that it doesn’t matter where the information comes from, as long as we (the youth vote) can receive it. And in the findings of Fox et al., they found little difference between the amount of political substance in broadcast news coverage of the presidential election and the amount of substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (221). Even more than that, “the proportion of stories per half hour program devoted to the election campaign was greater in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart than in the broadcast network newscasts” (Fox et al. 221). So, if Jon Stewart is talking about the campaign for a longer amount of time than the broadcast TV shows, does it matter if the coverage is funny?
As research by Morin and Balz found in Chapter 5 of “Seducing America,” says, “Members of the group [of young potential voters] said that they get almost all of their political information from television” (Hart 101). Now granted, this idea may have evolved a little with the capabilities of the Internet, but there is definitely still truth in it.
So if the choice is between being apathetic towards politics and becoming more aware through comedy, which is the lesser evil? Must all political coverage be boring and straightforward in order to be considered accurate? Do you think that voters are any more misinformed when their political ideas stem from “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report,” than from broadcast news shows?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Whats so funny?
Since today is Sunday, I bet everyone has already watched, and is now laughing at Tina Fey’s latest impression of Sarah Palin. Discussions have been had over Sunday dinners as to who is better, the person impersonating Obama, or McCain. Comments will be had as to how Jon Stewart did in his comedic recap of the vice presidential debates last week, and Conan will have made one ( or one hundred) jokes at some candidates expense. But has anyone stopped to question, when did politics become a laughing matter?
At least Palin can take a joke. Recently, she reacted positively to Tina Fey’s portrayl of her in Saturday Night Live. http://omg.yahoo.com/news/sarah-palin-responds-to-tina-feys-snl-spoof/13137 So if she can laugh it off, why does political comedy have so many critics? While it isn’t news that any public figure can become comedic fodder, what is it about politicians that get the country so wrapped up, and in a sense brings us all together with laughter? And how potentially dangerous is it that mass media consumers could base their votes on jokes?
According to Chapter 2, Rethinking Civic Engagement in the Age of Popular Culture, political scientist Norman Nie is quoted saying, “ If citizens are home watching television or its future counterpart, they can not be out participating in politics.” How true is this statement? With the flooding of political information found in television these days ( and popularly in a comedic manner) does it go to say that those who engage in political humor are not engaging in politics? How can one divide a media category, from a genre.
While the integral part television plays in most peoples everyday lives is apparent, is it a horrible notion that politics is being incorporated into peoples daily doses of entertainment? I like to think that if comedy is an aid into getting people to think politically – then more power to it!
Pundit television should also be given attention in terms of “irresponsible” political media. Defined in Chapter 3 as, “having grown from the roots of journalism, in particular the practices of interviewing and op-ed writing” ( 28 ) pundit tv is not comedic television, it is still also essential to following the latest news in politics/campaigns. It also should be scrutinized equally to comedic broadcasts, as a lot presented in pundit tv is opinion, or bias.
Chapter 3 states that, “ The local and national broadcast and cable news is also decifient, offering “news” that is manipulative, trivial, and fatuous, so much that reporters have turned reporting into entertainment.” ( 52) I disagree.
What is wrong with that? It is my belief that people are not stupid my nature. One can know very well the difference between comedy, exaggeration, and fact. With these three distinctive definitions in mind, one is then enabled to make educated decisions.
Anyone that will base their vote upon something Jon Stweart made fun of needs to do a lot more than just watch the news. In a still semi-politically apathetic environment – If it takes a few laughs and jokes ( in good faith) to get people interested or involved, I see nothing wrong. In fact, I can not wait until the next SNL episode.
The conclusion in chapter 9 states that “ Reliable information in this era of hyper reality is hard to establish and new political television programs ( through both humor and serious discussions) are just as involved in trying to establish knowledge from what is true and accurate as any other televisual construction of reality.” ( 192) That is all it really comes down to, breaking down fact from fiction, humor from reality, and taking it all from there.
It is true that we live in an age where politics is entertaining. But it is still strange when, all things considered, politics are entertainment. Either way, I cant keep my eyes off of it.
At least Palin can take a joke. Recently, she reacted positively to Tina Fey’s portrayl of her in Saturday Night Live. http://omg.yahoo.com/news/sarah-palin-responds-to-tina-feys-snl-spoof/13137 So if she can laugh it off, why does political comedy have so many critics? While it isn’t news that any public figure can become comedic fodder, what is it about politicians that get the country so wrapped up, and in a sense brings us all together with laughter? And how potentially dangerous is it that mass media consumers could base their votes on jokes?
According to Chapter 2, Rethinking Civic Engagement in the Age of Popular Culture, political scientist Norman Nie is quoted saying, “ If citizens are home watching television or its future counterpart, they can not be out participating in politics.” How true is this statement? With the flooding of political information found in television these days ( and popularly in a comedic manner) does it go to say that those who engage in political humor are not engaging in politics? How can one divide a media category, from a genre.
While the integral part television plays in most peoples everyday lives is apparent, is it a horrible notion that politics is being incorporated into peoples daily doses of entertainment? I like to think that if comedy is an aid into getting people to think politically – then more power to it!
Pundit television should also be given attention in terms of “irresponsible” political media. Defined in Chapter 3 as, “having grown from the roots of journalism, in particular the practices of interviewing and op-ed writing” ( 28 ) pundit tv is not comedic television, it is still also essential to following the latest news in politics/campaigns. It also should be scrutinized equally to comedic broadcasts, as a lot presented in pundit tv is opinion, or bias.
Chapter 3 states that, “ The local and national broadcast and cable news is also decifient, offering “news” that is manipulative, trivial, and fatuous, so much that reporters have turned reporting into entertainment.” ( 52) I disagree.
What is wrong with that? It is my belief that people are not stupid my nature. One can know very well the difference between comedy, exaggeration, and fact. With these three distinctive definitions in mind, one is then enabled to make educated decisions.
Anyone that will base their vote upon something Jon Stweart made fun of needs to do a lot more than just watch the news. In a still semi-politically apathetic environment – If it takes a few laughs and jokes ( in good faith) to get people interested or involved, I see nothing wrong. In fact, I can not wait until the next SNL episode.
The conclusion in chapter 9 states that “ Reliable information in this era of hyper reality is hard to establish and new political television programs ( through both humor and serious discussions) are just as involved in trying to establish knowledge from what is true and accurate as any other televisual construction of reality.” ( 192) That is all it really comes down to, breaking down fact from fiction, humor from reality, and taking it all from there.
It is true that we live in an age where politics is entertaining. But it is still strange when, all things considered, politics are entertainment. Either way, I cant keep my eyes off of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)