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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It is not irresponsible to get your politics from comedy show. I feel that comedy shows like The Daily Show go against Hart's idea that, "The viewer is rarely asked to think large thought - case transcendent thoughts" (109). John Stewart asks valid questions and poses competent criticism in an entertaining fashion. The only problem with being entertaining is that the valid points this show puts forward may not be taken seriously.
If Jon Stewart is talking about the campaign for a longer amount of time than the broadcast TV shows, then it does not matter if the coverage is funny. It's good exposure and it's clear that the candidates (Palin) appreciate it.
The lesser evil is becoming more aware through comedy and no coverage is accurate whether it is boring and straightforward or not. Just accept that it is the way to go because you're going to be misinformed one way or another. Why not do it while laughing?
Sort of contrary to my first statements, voters are more misinformed when their political ideas stem from “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report,” than from broadcast news shows. Though it's not directly related we can look straight back to the New Yorker cover with Obama as a "Muslim". People today still believe that he is Muslim even after the whole debacle with Rev. Wright. Just the other day my roommate asked me about Obama being muslim. It's kind of scary how much an image really does say and because of this I think a lot of misinformation can take place because of comedy shows. Just think about what impressions you would get if you turned the sound off and watched Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
To laugh or not to laugh, that is the question. My answer is to laugh. Over the years political coverage has reached numerous media sectors, one of these sectors is comedic political broadcasting. Several shows on television have become very well- known for their comedic political performances. Shows such as the “Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” have sprung up over the years and now have very strong followings. This makes me wonder if the viewers of these shows watch them just because they are funny and don’t take the information too seriously or if they are aware of politics just because of these broadcastings. I would like to hope people just watch them because they are funny but I do know from experience that people especially college students watch these shows and get information out of them. In Seducing America Hart states, “The casual interpretation that television makes the young stupid about politics must be resisted. Television does something far more profound, and unsettling. It redefines politics. Television makes politics more personal than economic.”(101-102). I don’t have a serious problem with people watching these shows on a consistent basis, I just wish these shows would excite people to want to be interested in politics. If only The Colbert Report could help college students become less apathetic then these shows would be amazing! I do not believe voters are completely misinformed when it comes to watching these shows, however I do think that these shows may be bias at times and can cause people to form their beliefs this way. I think people should form their own opinions and not use these television shows as a filter for information. If voters used this as background fun information rather than their primary source of political information then I do not see a problem with these shows.
i have no problem saying this but: i think getting our news from comedy shows is probably the best thing we can do. my reasoning behind this is because at least it is sparking a political interest in our generation. most news coverage of the elections is just horrible. first off, you are dealing with news that is already boring to our generation in the first place. it's horrible to say because as important as it is, we are dealing with a generation that has always been largely apathetic. second the information you get seems to be more star related then anything that actually helps, for example what do you know more about? Sarah Palin's views or Sarah Palin's daughter? and third and personally my biggest problem is trying to find an unbiased network would be like trying to find the fountain of youth, many have wished but none have succeeded. i feel like the journalist are trying to become the stars and show what they think rather then give me the facts that can help me make a vote that can change the US for years to come. Hart describes perfectly how our generation feels: "Each day, the nation's media drench them in politics: photographers popping flash bulbs, the president running from his helicopter, crowds milling about at abortion clinics, minicams waving unsteadily as the candidate jogs past, talk show guests ranting when they are not raving, U.N. diplomats scurrying away from over eager reporters, a new charismatic whipping up the crowds. here is energy aplenty. here is the stuff to quicken the pulse. even at home, in an overstuffed chair, watching politics can be draining" (Hart 105).
this is where comedy shows come in. it is almost like they feel our pain when it comes to how crazy politics are and how bad they can get. they talk about certain issues and let us laugh about them rather then yelling at us for not siding with them. i don't think they misinform us, because generally they don't give us too much information. comedy shows realize if they give us too much info, they will just be a normal news network. its imposable to misinform when you don't give enough information in the first place. however if they were to give all of the information in a comedic way, the information could be lost in all of the comedy
either way i think comedy shows are a nessesary evil if you can call it evil. they may not give us what we need, but at least they make us listen and start to think about politics. our generation has seen many tragedies. we have lived through 9/11, watched our friends go to war, and feared for our lives when we heard of anthrax scares. we've had to be serious for a very long time. comedy shows lighten our moods and make it acceptable to hear about politics, they may even spark an interest. a news network, talking to us in the same serious tone we have heard since 9/11 is not going to get to us, as hart says we are "drained". its the comedy shows that get to us, and while they may not be 100% accurate or informative, at least they have us talking about politics. i mean, look at this thread!
As you mentioned in your piece, I think its far more important we be engaged or potentially informed to some extent through alternative forms of media, mainly comedy programs or other forms of satire, than run the risk of turning our backs completely to the democratic process of our country. To be engaged or at least remotely interested can go a long way towards furthering our over all political environment - mainly by establishing a platform for political discussion and the exchange of ideas among citizens. As college students (assumedly avid consumers of The Daily show or Late Night TV) I feel we are far more apt to discuss the political mutterings of Conan or Stewart than we are of Wolf or Matthews. Given this new comedic 'agenda,'
younger voters are able to extend their views to the political round table in their own ways. If 'hard' news retained even the remotest form of legitimacy it once had in the past, one might find the lure of political comedy a detriment to political learning and engagement. As such is clearly far from the case, whose to say we are (the youth) doing ourselves a disservice in choosing our political media preferences. It would seem as though a sufficient amount of existing evidence suggests that more often than not, the political information we obtain from these type of shows is of more value than one may initially believe. Here, what becomes especially important to consider here is whether or not consuming 'entertainment' news is any more or less damaging than true 'news' (as it shamefully exists today). To this degree, I think a case can easily be made for the importance of these comedy in modern politics. We should worry less about the lesser evil and concern ourselves with the greatest evil - submitting entirely to feelings of cynicism and apathy.
I think one only need to look at the overdramatic and sensationalized news reports seen on Fox, MSNBC and CNN to see that all media corporations are doing their best to obtain ratings by ditching the boring and seemingly straightforward approach to political reporting. Thus considered, it is clear that political coverage need not be boring nor straight to the point. With these changes and modern trends in the newsroom, I think it goes right back to the initial question: how much worse off are we if we put so much faith in our chosen political comedy shows? Accuracy should be based on the validity of information and factual evidence rather than the form and manner by which it is disseminated to the public,
I do not necessarily feel that the electorate are any less informed when their political ideas derive from "The Daily Show" or the "Colbert Report," but clearly the vast amounts of editing and production on these nightly pieces paints a partial, and seemingly desired picture of political realities. What becomes most important, as our readings have suggested, is that both forms, or rather a number forms of political news media is consumed as to assist in our overall construction of the political world around us. A culmination of voices, opinions, and ideas taking any number of forms proves most important in ensuring we are as informed as humanly possible. This idea is talked about at length in this week's reading. In chapter 2, Jones states "media are our primary points of access to politics [...] the place for political encounters that precede, shape, and at times determine further bodily participation[...] Furthermore, those encounters occur through a panoply of media forms [...] and across numerous fictional and nonfictional genres and comprise what communications scholars call out 'media ensemble' " (17). In order to enhance said ensemble it is imperative that the nations youths do not continually rely solely on one 'type' of political media. While we cannot deny how effective it is in presenting current issues and concerns in a language the modern public understands and relates to, we cannot lose sight of how limiting a view it truly presents. It is in the public's hands (both young and old) to obtain as much information as possible in order to make the right decision. We must fulfill these obligations as citizens in order to further our own political knowledge base and engage more effectively in our democracy.
First off... no it is not irresponsible to be informed by comedy shows of current politics. There are a lot of people in the US who do not have the desire to turn to local or national news sources of the campaign coverage. People like that often associate politics with boredom and it does not spark their interest to say the least. Comedic performances of the late night show or SNL give viewers who may not watch coverage of Election 08 a handle on current politics without the school house lecture. Through comedic performances viewers become aware of the current status of politics. Comedy and politics may be the only way some people get informed of what is happening in the political system and that is OK because really what is worse not knowing who is running for president of your country or watching Tina Fey mock Sarah Palin? At least politics mixed with comedy give those viewers who are less inclined to watch the debates or election coverage a sense of what is going on in the political system.
To answer your second question... Must all political coverage be boring and straightforward in order to be considered accurate?
Definitely not. Especially when the youth vote can really decide this election. Hart said in Seducing America regarding young voters, "They hold politicians in contempt; having little or no connection to the political parties; are not excited by the candidates" (101). If this is true then we cannot assume every twenty- something year old voter is interested in politics but may be interested in a late night comedy show that interprets politics on a different level.
To answer your last question, no I do not think voters are any more misinformed when their political ideas stem from comedic performances opposed to broadcast news shows. Who is to say just because something is hilariously funny then it is not accurate because so far the majority of what I have seen on The Daily Show or SNL was indeed funny but more importantly accurate (to a point). All the performers do is put a bit of exaggeration on the truth and that is the same thing broadcast news shows do- whether you notice it or not.
I also think that comedy has become a big part of this election. The younger generation would rather watch shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report than watch the regular news. And even though shows like these are not 100% serious all the time they still give people information that can help make decisions about elections. People who watch these shows know to take the information with a grain of salt, so hopefully they will research the issues themselves after watching. With the internet it’s become a lot easier to learn about the issues.
Not only are people getting information from other sources but they are also using the election for their own amusement. A big part of this election has been making fun of what’s going on. I have a feeling that a lot of people were looking forward to the vice presidential debate more so they could compare Tina Fey’s impression on Saturday Night Live, than they did to actually watch the debate. I think that if it gets people more involved in the election and encourages people to vote than it’s not really a bad thing. Sometimes politics can get too serious so it’s good to be a little less serious from time to time.
I'm always torn about the question of political comedy shows. On one hand, it is bad to be politcally apathetic. On the other hand, though, it's bad to be misinformed. I'm not saying that all comedy shows are inaccurate, but they are meant to be a parody of the truth, thus often enhancing or contorting the facts for the sake of humor. A person that relies solely on political comedy for their information has a good chance of being misinformed, and Hart does mention on page 101, as Adrienne said, that the youth gets almost all of their information from TV. If this is the case, young voters that tune into political comedy shows should also occassionally flip to hard news.
The topics on the comedies should spark their interest to find out the real story, as is the case with the Tina Fey impressions of Sarah Palin. That is how comedy can help the political process and get people to do their homework.
Hart also says that "Americans are among the most opinionated people in the world and yet they do not vote" (103)...so GO VOTE! Watch the political comedies AND the news and make sure you get all the information. We all know that we should be critical of the media, and that includes being critical even of the shows that we love, like the Daily Show.
We show in our class every week that we can supplement our need for laughs with a little dull news. But it's not all dull- look at Bill O'Reilly!!
I believe that shows like the Colbert Report and The Daily Show help the youth not hurt the youth. In read in Chapter 3 of the Blackboard reading, Jon Stewart stated, "I mean, news and information surround you almost on a molecular level these days… And if you don't inform your self, or have some sense of what's going on, our show won't even make sense to you (p. 60). So, although their show may influence young people, the only young people it could possibly influence, are those who already have heard these topics and situations and dissected them themselves. People who watch these shows have most likely already generated an opinion prior and are definitely knowledgeable about the topics. The show will not be able to generate information from the show if they have not already gained information from another source. The information they are getting is adding to information they already have or else they wont even understand it. Also, in the Article No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign, written by Julia R. Fox, Glory Koloen, and Volkan Sahin; the similarities and differences of the network television shows is examined. The study found that networks’ coverage is more hype than substance and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart’s coverage is more humor than substance. However, the amount of substantive information is the same. Therefore, it should not matter where the information is coming from, as long as people are getting it.
I believe that shows like the Colbert Report and The Daily Show help the youth not hurt the youth. In read in Chapter 3 of the Blackboard reading, Jon Stewart stated, "I mean, news and information surround you almost on a molecular level these days… And if you don't inform your self, or have some sense of what's going on, our show won't even make sense to you (p. 60). So, although their show may influence young people, the only young people it could possibly influence, are those who already have heard these topics and situations and dissected them themselves. People who watch these shows have most likely already generated an opinion prior and are definitely knowledgeable about the topics. The show will not be able to generate information from the show if they have not already gained information from another source. The information they are getting is adding to information they already have or else they wont even understand it. Also, in the Article No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign, written by Julia R. Fox, Glory Koloen, and Volkan Sahin; the similarities and differences of the network television shows is examined. The study found that networks’ coverage is more hype than substance and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart’s coverage is more humor than substance. However, the amount of substantive information is the same. Therefore, it should not matter where the information is coming from, as long as people are getting it.
Post a Comment