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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I do believe that it is a positive thing for there to be political comedy shows such as the Daily Show, Colbert Report and even Saturday Night Live. It allows for an outlet of opinion that many people may share with the writers and actors of these shows.
It does not mean that these shows are right, per say, however there are many truths which the comedy is basing itself in. Such as Saturday Night Live's opening this past week:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/
In that video, there were some points which were taken directly from the debate. Although it was said in a funny manner, the fact that, in real life, Palin meant for it to be serious.
The reading, Chapter 3, touched on something like this, however they were speaking more about the Daily Show and Dennis Miller, "Sometimes the guest is related to the topic -- for instance, Miller had Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders on the same show as has rant on teenage pregnancy, and Stewart has had Madeleine Albright on the show to discuss Middle East diplomacy. But again, this need not always be the case, for Stewart is just as likely to discuss the war in Iraq in the first part of the show, then bring on (as he says) "the girl from Felicity" for a fawning celebrity chat. The point here is that these shows have no problem balancing politics and entertainment in the same half-hour of programming".
These shows are able to touch on the real issues going on in the world, while making them seem light-hearted and off setting them with celebrity gossip. Many people, especially college and high school aged people, are getting their political news from these types of shows and sometimes they are not entirely serious.
I agree, I think a lot of people focus more upon the latest comedy routine about the candidates than talking over the issues themselves. Almost everytime after SNL releases a new skit making fun of Sarah Palin, my friends and I are discussing it the next day. But real conversations about the issues? That only happened once. I think that there are as many political spoofs this election year compared to the last few. Although it is very easy to make fun of Palin, it was (and is) also almost too easy to make fun of George W. Bush. I think that the spoofs seem so popular in this election because Obama’s candidacy has drawn more attention from a younger voting block, who are more apt to be watching comedy spoofs on TV or online.
True, the candidates have not said some very smart things (cue Joe Biden’s comments about Quickiemarts and Sarah Palin’s cluelessness about the Bush Doctrine) but political comedy is beneficial in a way that it keeps the candidates on their toes. Hart states that “Television does something far more profound and unsettling. It redefines politics” (102). Television, including comedy shows such as John Stewart and Colbert do have a positive effect upon politics. They don’t want to see themselves as the next opening skit on SNL, so political comedy can work as an encouragement to keep some candidates better informed about pre-existing policies (Sarah Palin) and others from making politically incorrect comments (Joe Biden). Now I am sure that Sarah Palin could recite the Bush Doctrine word for word. And Joe Biden certainly did not have to shove his foot in his mouth over some thoughtless comment he made during the debate.
People such as John Stewart who make biased comments should be allowed to do so, not only because of free speech but because they are entertainment figures that host a TV show that happens to focus on politics. The reason why people tune into their show is to hear the whole shtick, which of course will include some biased commentary. Hart states that “The American people seem attracted to and yet repelled by politics. Television, I think, contributes to both feelings” (118). While people find the commentary amusing, the same commentary is also disturbing in the sense that it reveals negative aspects of politics and politicians that eventually will turn people off. Since political mishaps are so often in the news, it is no wonder why people are so disenchanted with politics; they never really hear about the positive things that some politicians are able to do.
The Sarah Palin comment about watching Biden speak when she was in second grade was ironic since her running mate is the oldest man to ever run for president. Not a well thought-out jab. But a comment like this does not mean that the election is becoming a joke. This is typical presidential politics during campaign season. Every candidate wishes that she/he could come up with a good one liner that people will be talking about for a month. Palin’s comment just fell flat; although people are still talking about it weeks later, it certainly didn’t have a positive effect for Palin: it made her look like an idiot.
Obama’s status as a celebrity, according to McCain, could draw some similarities to Ronald Reagan and the 1980 election. However, I think that Obama draws more similarities with JFK. JFK was a celebrity in his own right, with a quick rise to fame in the political arena, not much experience at all as a legislator (actually I think both Obama and Kennedy had only six years in the Senate before they ran for presidential office), not much of a political record, generally good looks and that certain mystique that drew people to him. Obama has all of these qualities. In fact, I believe that both Obama and Kennedy had books released before they ran for office (Kennedy had one, for which he won some sort of award, and Obama of course has two).
Personally I feel that comedy shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report provide voters and the viewers a great escape from the formality of politics. These shows are both entertaining and also give people a view of what is going on with politics. Especially during election time everything is so serious when it comes to politics and these shows give an escape from that. Comedy shows are a great way for people (especially young people) to get involved in the election and form an opinion. Now OF COURSE I am not saying that comedy shows should be their only source of recieving news. If you are going to be involved you need to listen to as many news outlets as you can and that means CNN, Fox, the radio, any credible source. But why not kick back and listen to people make fun of the candidates? Who is it really hurting? Personally I want a President that had a little personality and is able to laugh at themselves once in a while. Of course I also want a President that is good for the job and knows what they are doing and when to be serious also. On page 52 in chapter 3 of our reading it states “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”. And what better way to attract young voters? Politicians have been trying to gain the youth vote for years, and now that there is a way to get the youth vote, why would you take it away? Unless politicians are lying when they say they want the youth vote because they know that we could easily sway the election. In our reading Hart states that "The American people seem to be attracted to and yet repelled by poltics. Television, I think, contributes to both feelings". But what better way to attract someone to something than to use comedy? Maybe I am just a person with a big sense of humor but I think that life is too short to keep everything to serious all of the time. Polticians I hope feel the same way but they have to keep their image of being serious. Hopefully they share some laughs behind closed doors.
I believe comedy has become such a large part of the 2008 election, because of the extensive coverage this election is getting. I, for one, feel like this race has been going on for about 8 years. November can’t come soon enough! Also- the news media tends to report on the unimportant issue- the “cute” comments one campaign says about the another- like Palin saying she has been listening to Biden speak since she was in 2nd grade. (Watch it Palin. If you can recall, the guy who chose you is the oldest man ever to run for the Presidency.) These types of comments lend themselves well to comedy. I believe the material comedy shows use has been appropriate during this election process, (of course there are lines that should not be crossed, bud I don’t believe anyone has gone there yet). After all, political comedy shows are just that- about political comedy. At least they are providing information to young viewers who are not typically news consumers. In Seducing America, Roderick P Hart makes this point clear when he says, “Although television keeps people from voting, it offers people two things in return, a sense of participation and a sense of completeness” (106). Political comedy shows, despite their light hearted nature, provide viewers with information. I believe these [show hosts] are allowed to speak their mind and give their opinion to the public because it is all in the name of fun. However, to answer the second part of the question, I do not believe any news organization (including fox) should report with a bias (and, if I might add, I don’t believe fox is as biased as people make it out to be). But news bias is an entirely different issue than the segments on political comedy shows. Like I stated earlier- I see nothing wrong with them!
I believe that comedy can have a very positive outcome for the politicians themselves. As described in chapter one, all types of media coverage, “provide a reservoir of images and voices, heroes and villains, sayings and slogans, facts and ideas that we draw upon in making sense of politics. They provide the constituent components of the narratives we construct for organizing, interpreting, explaining, understanding, and adjudicating the realities and illusions we find within the media, but also within our lives." I think that all kinds of media, especially political comedy allows the public to better understand and identify with the candidates. Although we may see these kinds of stereotypes and associations as a distraction from the real issues, I’m sure that it does not hurt their campaigns, especially with Palin’s case. Sarah Palin has made a statement saying that she thinks Tina Fey’s impersonation of her is very funny and spot on, and that she has even dressed as her for Halloween. Although I do not agree with Sarah Palin’s ideas at all, I do respect her a bit more for being able to laugh at herself. There is also a very small part of me that wants this campaigning season to continue just so SNL can keep doing spoofs of her!
i do believe that political comedy shows are somewhat useful in ways. While it may not be the best and most factual source it's the only way some people do obtain their information on the elections. It was stated in the reserved reading in chapter two, Kevin Barnhurst found that "generally [college] disdain the displays of political opinion on television news programs, considering them little more than "reality-based variety shows" and something not to be taken seriously. (chapter 2). I have to be honest that if you tuning in to a television show such as Daily show with John Stewart or the Colbert Report on Comedy Central and are expecting to get nothing but seriousness and professional journalism then you are clearly tuning into the wrong channel.
however, with the increase of things such as youtbue, the comedy shows, and snl skits it does make the candidates have to "stay on their toes" because with one slip of the tongue it will be uploaded, posted, or spoofed before their speech is even over with. Which can make it hard for a candidate to feel comfortable enough to loosen up while making a speech which could allow for word slippage.
I think it is important to have these shows and allow them to say what they want and not restrict what they are spoofing. It is up to the viewer who is tuning into the show to realize that if they are watching something on Comedy Central versus watching something on CNN that the factual evidence may not be as strong as the other. But that is no need to limited what is said on these shows. In some cases i think it's great to make skits about the candidates and i think it's a great quality when the candidate being spoofed doesn't get mad but embraces it and finds humor in it. It shows that they aren't just a political machine but they too can find humor in politics.
While I could see how people would discount the merit of political comedy shows, I believe that these comedy news shoes serve a purpose, especially during the period of election coverage, just like “real” news does. Shows like Jon Stewart’s bring a sense of humor to the elections, which are much needed especially since it seems as though Obama and McCain have been running for President for years. Instead of just hearing about polls and where each candidate has been in the past week, comedy shows allot viewers a different view of the campaign and also a bit more insight into the candidates’ personalities. The elections have turned into media circuses, so why not have a comedian narrating the show? Hart states in chapter 5 of Seducing America, that the younger generation “hold[s] politicians in contempt; have little or no connection to the political parties; [and] are not excited by [the candidates]” (101). Therefore, if members of the younger generation are gaining any kind of related information from the sometimes brash commentary of comedians, it serves a useful purpose. The fact that these commentators are unafraid to voice their opinions on air fills the void for unfiltered information.
In regard to the second part of this question, I believe there should only be limitations if something completely offensive or out of line is said. There is no reason for below the belt comments. These shows definitely serve a positive purpose. The longer the election goes on and the more intense it gets, the more the public needs a reason to laugh.
While I could see how people would discount the merit of political comedy shows, I believe that these comedy news shoes serve a purpose, especially during the period of election coverage, just like “real” news does. Shows like Jon Stewart’s bring a sense of humor to the elections, which are much needed especially since it seems as though Obama and McCain have been running for President for years. Instead of just hearing about polls and where each candidate has been in the past week, comedy shows allot viewers a different view of the campaign and also a bit more insight into the candidates’ personalities. The elections have turned into media circuses, so why not have a comedian narrating the show? Hart states in chapter 5 of Seducing America, that the younger generation “hold[s] politicians in contempt; have little or no connection to the political parties; [and] are not excited by [the candidates]” (101). Therefore, if members of the younger generation are gaining any kind of related information from the sometimes brash commentary of comedians, it serves a useful purpose. The fact that these commentators are unafraid to voice their opinions on air fills the void for unfiltered information.
In regard to the second part of this question, I believe there should only be limitations if something completely offensive or out of line is said. There is no reason for below the belt comments. These shows definitely serve a positive purpose. The longer the election goes on and the more intense it gets, the more the public needs a reason to laugh.
I think it’s important that humorous political talk shows, such as the Daily Show, exist because many, especially the youth of this country, get their news only from those kinds of shows. Whether that is good or not is another issue, but I feel that it is better for people to get to hear what Obama or McCain are doing on the Daily Show, then to not know what they are doing at all. The youth of today for whatever reason just don’t seem drawn to watching the news. They find it boring and not something they can relate to. When they watch Jon Stewart, they find someone they relate to and someone who makes the news interesting through the use of humor. It becomes a natural match then for the youth of this country to be drawn to the Daily Show. In Entertaining Politics, it’s stated that, “the entertaining politics offered by new political television is not just a product of popular culture, but also a contributor to the ever-shifting shape and form of our political culture.(196)” The success of the Daily Show lead to the emergence of Steven Colbert, another humor driven news host, and the emergence of Keith Olberman on MSNBC, who also uses humor in his displaying of the news. I feel there is nothing wrong with using humor in the news, as long as the news is told in an accurate manner, as that is the most important thing. So if the youth of this country are only getting their news from Jon Stewart, I feel that is a positive, as at least they are getting some sort of daily knowledge of what is going on in the world.
Good words.
Post a Comment