Compare coverage of this year’s campaign/candidates by the news media to how
they are being presented on comedy programs.Drawing on the Jones or Matviko readings, what impact do you think these
satirical shows are having on this year’s election?
Comedy programs have adapted a new perspective in today’s world of political communication by displaying a twist of political news. Shows such as Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and the Colbert Report have helped inform, entertain, and satirically deliver topics and discussion about politics. Personally, up until now, these shows have been my own outlet of learning about politics because of the types of spins they express on their shows- that can be seen as more entertaining than typical news broadcasts. Some may argue that these shows are just “fake” and they are teaching [young] people the wrong ideals about politics. Yet, even though the journalistic approaches of these shows differ from an objective news report, they can still be informative. Similar to the beginnings of Saturday Night Live and the start of political satire during the 1970s, we have seen these shows taking advantage of the current presidential campaign and the candidates (Matviko). Since the current election started becoming one of the main focuses for news programs to cover, comedy shows such as SNL and the Daily Show as well began incorporating their own political satire for the 2012 election. For example, Saturday Night Live opened its 38th season with a new cast member, Jay Pharoah, playing the role of Barack Obama giving a speech about the advantages he will have for this election. As Alan Horowitz of The Huffington Post writes, “In the opening sketch, Pharaoh's Obama reminded voters that while he may have his flaws, the alternative — a Mitt Romney presidency — would be far worse” (Horowitz). On October 6th, SNL once again opened its 3rd episode of the season with a political parody of the first presidential debate. In comparison to the news programs that were broadcasting the debates live, SNL’s reenactment of the debate over exaggerated some aspects that were seen that night. For example, coincidentally, the first debate fell on the 20th wedding anniversary of Barack and Michelle Obama. Both news programs such as ABC and NBC aired the debate with Obama first wishing his wife a happy anniversary, but SNL went even further by having the “inside voice” of Barack, explaining a potentially distracted Barack Obama on debate night (Higgins). Barack Obama, played by Jay Pharoah, had his head voice saying he forgot to get an anniversary gift for Michelle and that could explain why he was not fully aware during the debate. SNL also exaggerated Romney’s use of numbers, which was evident during real debate since Romney explained many of his policies using numbers (Higgins). Therefore, SNL, along with other satirical programs, know how to take what the candidates say and make it more personable, human, and even imperfect. Agreeing to this aspect, Jones writes, “The rationality of political satire is that it ‘reminds of common values,’ and ‘in its negative response to political excess, it serves to restore equilibrium to politics” (Jones 183).
Even though these satires may exaggerate the impressions or comments made by the candidates, these programs do in fact inform people about politics and influence the opinions of audiences watching. As ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl states in his story, ‘’ 'SNL' Presidential Spoofs Defining the Elections”, “Sometimes [these parodies] have been more memorable than the debates themselves” (Karl). Therefore, since these scenes can become memorable for audiences watching, these programs informing people of who the candidates are can also give an impression of the candidates (whether it is through the humor or mimic of how the candidates represent themselves in the public eye). If these programs are the only shows audiences, especially young people, only watch for their political news, it still allows audiences to grow an opinion about the candidates and the election itself. According to Jones, “Twenty-one percent of people under the age of thirty reported learning something from programs such as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show…for Americans under 20, these comedy shows are not mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news” (Jones 169). In other words, another impact these shows are having are encouraging political communication and discussion amongst young people. So what if they are not watching objective news programs all the time to get their information about politics. Shows like the Daily Show bring another side of politics we do not see. As Jones writes, “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… [informing] its viewers in ways that mainstream journalism rarely does” (Jones 168). In short, we have seen programs such as SNL and The Daily Show expressing parodies about the 2012 election, as they have done for previous elections. Currently, they tend to exaggerate what news media reports because they can. Under journalism ethics and regulations, journalists must stay objective and just report facts. However, you can see someone like John Stewart poke fun at presidential Obama during his “Obama Where Art Thou” episode expressing Obama’s unpreparedness for the first presidential debate. Despite the types of approaches they use to satire political opinions, the impact of these shows are how much they can actually teach its viewers. For younger generations like my own, it is a good way to be introduced to politics through entertainment and allow viewers to grow opinions and discuss politics in their own lives.
Works Cited Higgins, Steve, and Erik Kenward. "October 10- Daniel Craig." Saturday Night Live. Dir. Don R. King. Prod. Lorne Michaels. NBC. New York City, New York, 06 Oct. 2012. Television. Horowitz, Alana. "SNL's New Obama: Jay Pharoah Debuts Impression In Season 38 Opener (VIDEO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 15 Sept. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2012. . Jones, Jeffrey P., Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009). Karl, Jonathan. "'SNL' Presidential Spoofs Defining the Elections?" ABC News. ABC News Network, 03 Oct. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2012. . Matviko, John, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
Throughout the current campaign, news media has been harsh in judging both the actions and the opinions of each candidate. From their accusations of Romney’s “empty promises,” to Obama’s accused unpreparedness, the news media does not leave much to the imagination of the viewer when it comes to their criticisms of the candidates. However, in tandem with the news media throughout the entire electoral process have been America’s satirical television productions. If one were to search for the correlations between news media coverage of this years campaign compared to satirical coverage of the campaign, one would be met with an immense number of similarities regarding the accuracy of information. So why should there be a difference in the way in which the two forms of media are received by the public? Why is it that the American public trusts the media and values most everything they say is cold, hard, fact? From where did this immense trust for American media accuracy evolve? Jeffery P. Jones suggests that Americans may be too trustful of the media’s political coverage in our current day in his article, Fake News vs. Real News, writing, “Just because CNN and other news organizations make claims of neutrality and objectivity doesn’t mean they aren’t being selective in what they report and how they report it” (Jones 180). Therefore, it is the true reality of the satirical pieces that make them as popular as they are. They present viewers with information that is both factual and entertaining, thus leading to their growing popularity. Todd Purdum addresses the issue in his article for Vanity Fair, writing, “It’s when a sketch crystallizes something real about the character or the situation—as when Fey’s Palin simply repeated verbatim the real Palin’s interview answers to Amy Poehler’s Katie Couric—that the humor works best of all” (Purdum). Throughout this year’s election, satire has played an immense part in the public’s perception of the candidates and their campaign happenings. Jones addresses the American public’s yearn for satirical media relating to the prominent political figures, stating, “’For Americans under 30, these comedy shows are now mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news’” (Jones 169). Because Americans are consuming such an immense amount of satirical political television, said consumption has come to play a significant role in the way in which Americans perceive specific political candidates. Adam Sorenson of TIME Magazine wrote of the impact that satirical media has had on many American voters’ perception of Mitt Romney, stating, “Most Americans don’t follow presidential primaries very closely. There’s a general awareness sure, but only the die hards tune in to daily minutiae in March… not too many day-to-day specifics have made it into mainstream consciousness just yet. Unfortunately for Romney, the caricature of him as an aloof corporatist really has” (Sorenson). Sorenson goes on to address Saturday Night Live’s portrayal of Romney as being out of touch with American blue collared workers, concluding that “Mitt Romney Is Losing the Pop-Culture Primary” (Sorenson). The way in which satirical television productions, including Saturday Night Live, are portraying the candidates, is, for many people, their only exposure to information regarding the politician’s plans and values. Therefore, for numerous American citizens, satirical television is the sole contributor of information regarding a candidate and thus is regarded as true. When comparing, one sees that there is no true difference between the information presented by the two forms of media for they both deliver news to the viewer in an entertaining and timely manner; the only difference lies in the way in which the two present the information. However, neither can guarantee full objectivity, thus ruling neither as the superior and more reliable form of media in our current society.
Purdum, Todd S. "S.N.L.: The Skyscraper of Satire." Vanity Fair. N.p., 29 Apr. 2011. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .
Sorensen, Adam. "Mitt Romney Is Losing the Pop-Culture Primary." TIME.com. N.p., 5 Mar. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .
John Matviko, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
The comedy shows play an important role in modern politics because in many cases they point out the ridiculousness of what a person has said in the political world. The Colbert Report and The Daily Show both succeed at being able to pull from previous clips of candidates in which they may contradict themselves, it is this pointing out of hypocrisy that the mainstream media is not able to pull off. Where the mainstream media will just report what a candidate said, without providing any sort of history on a topic, many times the political comedy shows can shine a light on the situation and make you see how ridiculous something is or how it is a misrepresentation. I think a prime example of this was when Obama was taking heat for the “you didn't build that comment” and John Stewart pointed out how out of context the clip was. The difference is that the nature of these programs allows them to have any bias they want and to say anything they please because it is under the guise of comedy, and so if anybody takes it too seriously, all they have to do is point out that it's comedy. At the same time, the interesting thing is that the shows are brutally honest. There is very little in terms of lies presented on the show, with most of it being satirical takes on issues which are true, which makes the shows brilliant as far as actually educating people.
The shows certainly provide a value, and it is not lost on the hosts what they are doing. In fact they were very clear with their purpose when Stewart and Colbert held the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” 2 years ago. The nature of these shows allows for them to really inform younger voters, who are generally less interested in politics. While other news media outlets may be seen as “too boring” these shows do not lack that because they contain a level of entertainment while providing information. According to a Pew Research Center study cited in the Jones reading, 47 percent of people under thirty years old are “informed at least occasionally” by late night talk shows. Jones also goes on to explain the same point which I made in the first paragraph (actually made before I took a look at this reading which is funny) that “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 (unless the reporting occurs in investigative or opinion-editorial pieces). The Daily Show, of course, is not limited by such professional constraints. Viewers are thus invited to focus on the most important aspect of this news event-- that this is not just another investigation proves the official reason for invading Iraq was misguided and wrong. Rather, the import is that the Bush administration repeatedly refuses to admit its mistake” (Jones, 173). I think that this is a very valid point and that the comedy shows are able to be slightly above average political pundits and news because they are able to be brutally honest in a funny way and have it be entertainment while still educating people on current events.
Compared to the coverage on my source, CBS, the political satire shows are very lively and fun to watch. Overall, I would say they are more enjoyable and provide plenty of analysis to help break down the importance of the issues which they discuss. I think that overall, the shows serve the purpose of bringing more young people to care about the political world, and thus, will help to increase voter turnout in the under-30 crowd by making them care about the issues. I think this is an important gap to be filled and it is a good thing that the comedy shows take it upon themselves to provide news in an educational and enjoyable manner.
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
During the presidential campaigns, satirical comedy programs such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report are direct reflections of everything going on in the media. They focus on the current campaigns and their strategies as well as the coverage the news media produces and put it all together to create an entertaining as well as informative program on current events in the election. What I have found interesting about these programs is how they cover the same current events in the news media, but gives it an entirely alternate presentation than traditional objective journalistic news media. Sometimes these programs can present more truth than the news outlets like CNN, Fox News, and NBC can offer. Journalists and satirical comedians in the media, have different assumed purposes, therefore different levels of constraint. “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) In essence, journalistic sources simply repeat administrations positions, not offering any connections or conclusions to what may really be happening in politics. The beauty of satire programs is that they aren’t trying to be objective, and they openly admit it. Jones quotes Jon Stewart in his critique of CNBC host Jim Cramer saying, “We are both snake oil salesmen to a certain extent, but we do label the show as snake oil here.” (Jones 184) When Stewart uses the term “snake oil salesmen” he is referring to news that is formulated to deceive or influence the audience in a given direction, basically stating facts that may not have relevance or illustrate a bigger picture in a political campaign. The fact that shows like The Daily Show acknowledge, and make sure their audiences know they are satirical, it allows for audience to not be deceived by the program, but to accept it for its comedic value, as well as illustrating important points and trends that are unseen or unspoken by traditional news sources. In that sense, comedy programs can offer more genuine insight into the current events of politics than other news outlets, in an entertaining and informative way. Since I am new to following politics and campaigns, it is hard for me to create a strong opinion on how these shows are influencing the current presidential campaign. From my personal experience though, these shows feel like relief from confusion. Following the traditional news outlets in the media can lead one to feel misguided, uninformed or just plain deceived. When watching these shows, the cloud of confusion and uncertainty on my interpretations of the medias coverage are released from me, as I sit back and enjoy funny television that as a follower of the campaign relates too and offers me new perspectives on how to digest the material the media presents us with. A recent focus of attention on the news coverage relating to the presidential campaigns is the skepticism about the Labor Department Report showing the jobs numbers. An article from ABC News says “Mitt Romney surprised President Obama with a dynamic debate performance Wednesday night, but he's been upstaged today by another October shocker as the unemployment rate plunged from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, it’s lowest since Obama took office in 2009.” Then the article later quotes a tweet from former General Electric CEO, “Unbelievable job numbers… These Chicago guys will do anything…Can’t debate so change numbers.” This idea of changing numbers, and convenient timing with the jobs report weren’t only from one source, but reoccurred throughout my browsing of many news outlets. For me, I was confused as too what to believe, if numbers really could be manipulated like that or if Republican supporters just started resorting to conspiracy as their case. The October 8th broadcast of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart confronted and made sense of the whole issue for me.
First the broadcast shows a clip of a newscast where they show the job unemployment rate and how it has dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. Jon Stewart then says “wouldn’t it seem we’re moving in the right direction?” From there a quick cut montage of multiple video news sources talking about how the numbers were changed and mention of how the numbers are a result of monkey business from Donald Trump. They even quoted the former CEO of GE as mentioned above by saying, “If Jack Welch, legendary former CEO if General Electric is alleging dishonesty of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you can be sure he’s got some hardcore evidence.” The show then cuts directly to a CNN interview where Jack Welch says, “I have no evidence to prove that.” and the show continues on about the subject. Ultimately, the show exploited this issue of conspiracy which had me very confused, confronted and addressed it, by showing many clips leading to a conclusion that it was all just a bunch of nonsense created by the media to make more media. Maybe the show is wrong, but at least they use logical argument in a clever and entertaining way to come to the conclusions that they present their audiences. Conclusively, these satirical shows are different in approach, but in no worse way than the news outlets. Sure these shows are biased, but they acknowledge their bias and it sways from side to side. As a follower of the campaign I have found comfort in the satirical comedy as well as conclusions and unspoken happenings in politics that can’t be obtained from traditional news.
Works Cited
Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
When some people hear the name Sarah Palin they think of Tina Fey first. America was obsessed with SNL during the last election. Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin became a frequently played clip on all Talk shows, late night shows, radio shows, even Howard Stern jumped into the action but most surprisingly even political shows were going to the clips weekly. In Matviko’s article he didn’t know who Tina Fey was and he didn’t know what was going to take over Americans televisions in the years to come but he still knew the impact that SNL had over Americans perception of candidates. In Matvikos conclusion he says that “this trend would likely continue with George W. Bush” little did he know that it has continued past Bush and has only gained steam. In the past election SNL was able to get whatever politician they wanted from Barack Obama to Senator John Mccain to Sarah Palin herself. They were the only ones able to have all the politicians on themselves to goof around. All other shows would love to write comedy bits with politicians but unless the President is at the Correspondents dinner he rarely gets roasted or pokes fun at himself in the public eye, they are trying to run the government not be comedians.
I am assigned to be covering MSNBC’s coverage of the Road leading up to the election. In the name is three of five letters NBC…this is very important to know what type of coverage you will be seeing because they are directly connected with NBC. So you know where their loyalties lie. People would say that their coverage is a lot more fair than say Fox News where one man can push his views all the way through the company on to the air. Fox News is notorious for being Conservative, no fun there…MSNBC is not just more likely to play a clip from a sister show of theirs because they are the same company but they would promote comedy in politics more than a very conservative station.
(Jay Tenem Contd) MSNBC isn’t above going below the belt at time in reporting. On the front page of their website (MSNBC.com) there is a large image of Jon Stewart on air with a Fox News Channel logo. The cover story was two about how two separate shows were making fun of their competitor Fox News. First Jon Stewart’s image mocking Fox News on the top of the page and a video of Stephen Colbert showing a medley of videos all of Fox News broadcasters and hosts making funny and foolish comments that were made to make the News channel look more incompetent than others. Colbert directly pokes fun at one commentator that said “quinkidink” instead of coincidence. Not only that but the cover story opens with “It was the first “Daily Show” for Jon Stewart since Saturday’s debate with Bill O’Reilly.”. The article continues on to say how Stewart came across better in his debate with the Fox News Host, it also says that they website had a hard time keeping up with the hosting of the downloads. MSNBC’s coverage has changed recently towards the end of the election and the final countdown. With last weeks debate, and a debate to come all the political news networks have plenty to talk about over the next month. This is when the race really heats up and the coverage is as intense as ever. It may be good to have a show like SNL break through on the political entertainment wall with this upcoming election. I know they have had a number of sketches this season that have made news but nothing as big and popular as the Fey/Palin Skits. If there is one thing you’ve learned it should be that if SNL is heating up with the political skits before the election MSNBC will be reporting it first.
Works Cited 1. Berman, Craig. "Jon Stewart Offers Directions to 'Patriot Street'; Stephen Colbert Creates the PITY Party." NBC News Entertainment. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. .
2. Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
2. John Matviko, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
Comedians, particularly those of a satirical nature, have a much larger responsibility than ever before. Going from funnymen to providers of the news for a healthy chunk of Americans isn’t a simple transition. But with Jon Stewart and many like him, the responsibility has come easy, save for the backlash from journalists and skeptics to deem them as purely entertainers. But as seen in numerous articles and simple comparison, these satirical attempts go beyond entertainment, and ultimately succeed as news sources in their own right.
The primary differences between political reporting and political satire are values and agenda. In Chapter 8 of the Jones reading titled “Fake News vs. Real News,” the author draws comparisons between The Daily Show and CNN by showing how they report the facts to their audiences. Although CNN begins by initially going more in depth with their reporting in their early morning segments, by the time the afternoon comes around, their clips become shortened. It was actually found that The Daily Show ultimately gave viewers more direct video, albeit cut and manipulated in a particular fashion. Unlike CNN, which objectively presented the clips and an official CIA report, The Daily Show goes further, pointing out the blatant idiocy and contradictions of the Bush administration. Although it is an obvious bias, it is a completely factual one.
Perhaps the scathing style that The Daily Show and shows like it provide to an audience is more effective than an actual news cast – not necessarily because of the humor appeal, but because of saying what news organizations won’t. By pointing out factors that news organizations avoid due to their definition of newsworthy, such as the pandering and potentially damaging political rhetoric that candidates use during campaigns, satirical commentary has the capacity to go beyond a normal newscast and dig deep into a politician’s true agenda.
Why is it so damning for The Daily Show to blend in subjectivity with factual reporting when it is in fact true? News outlets and organizations “continue to believe their claims to truth – and the authenticity of those claims – because of their authority to make them in the first place” (Jones 180). The war cries from news organizations that this satire is unreliable, at least when data originally emerged reporting that young people were gaining a healthy portion of news from these shows, has been systematically unproven. Perhaps it is a defense mechanism for a declining industry. We are now seeing news outlets in the internet age struggling to keep up with blogs and opinionated websites – sources that are surpassing traditional news outlets because of the journalism tendency towards objectivity.
To compare current campaign coverage in both mediums of political reporting, I chose to pick a certain topical issue – Romney’s foreign policy speech – and view how the news site Politico covered it versus how The Daily Show covered it. In a Politico article titled “Mitt Romney foreign policy speech called vague” on Oct. 8, author Josh Gerstein acknowledges the fact that the speech Romney gave was ambiguous, but never is the one to say anything critical himself. He leaves it up to quoting other analysts, officials and pundits, such as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright saying she’d give Romney’s op-ed in The Wall Street Journal a “C, because he gave absolutely no specifics.”
Its solid journalism on Politico’s end: never being subjective themselves, but instead allowing others to do the talking. The Daily Show’s broadcast on Oct. 9, however, proved to be much blunter. Using puns like “Vague Against The Machine” and other clever quips, Jon Stewart and his writing staff present the news of Romney’s speech, but for entertainment value sugarcoat it with comedy. For example, Stewart compares Romney’s declaration of trillion dollar debt as “immoral,” then compares it to the Mormon view that substances like coffee are immoral. It is jokes like these that keep the viewer entertained enough to see the news value of the program, and also Stewart’s ultimate points during his lengthy diatribes.
Gerstein, Josh. "Mitt Romney foreign policy speech called vague." politico.com. Politico, October 8 2012. Web. 10 Oct 2012. .
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Stewart, Jon, dir. "Vague Against The Machine." The Daily Show. Comedy Central: October 9 2012. Television. .
There have been several comedic programs that have taken the time to cover the presidential election. These comedic programs include Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show. It has been put into question whether these comedic shows misinform their viewers on the presidential election, compared to real news sources such as CNN. Although, it has been argued that even real news has taken on more of an entertainment standpoint in presenting its news to the people, “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). News stations such as CNN, Fox New, MSNBC and others are considered to be reliable news stations, but the fact of the matter is, they are competing with other satirical shows for viewers and ratings. This has caused these main real news stations to show more attention grabbing stories to their viewers to compete with other programs. In this election Satirical shows are affecting many different aspects of the campaign such as real news stations, and the viewers who are watching these programs. Saturday Night Live produced a few skits on the election. One in particular shows the first presidential debate. The skit showed President Obama forgetting to get his wife, Michelle Obama, and anniversary gift and while it shows Obama thinking about what he should get her, it shows Governor Romney in the background discussing his 50-point plan. While this skit does not show the viewer exactly what each candidate stands for it does bring awareness of the debate forward. It did also criticize each candidate’s appearance during the debate, which was not necessarily discussed in real news. In order to really understand and find the jokes stated on these satirical shows funny, one first must know what actually happened. This can make satirical shows such
as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show useful. They can cause their viewers to look up the news to see what happened so as to understand the jokes being said during the show. It may also cause the viewer to go check the news after the show to see if what they found so funny to have really happened. Watching these satirical shows may also give the viewer a different view on what is going on in the presidential campaign. Jones stated; “By actually showing the high levels of spin and rhetoric produces by the candidates and their campaigns, then offering humorous reports 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, inform its viewers in ways the mainstream journalism rarely does” (Jones 168). In order for many news stations on television to remain professional they are unable to state things in a manner that satirical shows can. These shows have the opportunity to speak more freely because they are not a real news source. Saturday Night Live in their skit previously mentioned, showed Romney discussing a plan that was much longer than his real 5-point plan. By making his point plan longer on their show it was making fun of how boring the show thinks it is. A news station such as CNN would be unable to do this because it would be seen as misinforming their viewers while Saturday Night Live was simply seen as being funny. Many individuals often prefer to watch entertainment than that of the news on television. With this said, it appears that having satirical shows discussing the election is a good way to draw people into the election by entertaining them about what is going on in it. I do not find that these comedic shows give the best news for the viewers but it does bring about an awareness of what is going on in politics. These satirical shows may even interest some of their viewers to watch a news station so that they can get the jokes that are being said on the show, which does help to educate the viewer on the issues. Satirical shows are a good way of exposing individuals to what is going on in the news.
Works Cited
Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
John Matviko, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348
Comedy programs are becoming a staple in election coverage. In some ways they are more anticipated than the election itself. For example on the day of the first Presidential Debate a sports reporter I follow on Twitter who often has quirky insights into pop culture tweeted, “Everyone: Please watch the presidential debate tonight and GET EDUCATED, because otherwise you won't fully appreciate the SNL debate” (Bean). Comedy programs are increasingly the go to place for teenagers and young adults alike to seek out election coverage. With the increase of talking heads in the news who, besides the actual news of the day, present their own agenda to the public, people are becoming more wary of some current news programs. The comedy programs seek to provide what these talking heads are not: news without the, for lack of better word , crap. They will take an event in politics that is rather ridiculous and attempt to show the public the ridiculousness of the event. Not only are the comedy programs such as The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and Saturday Night Live looking to provide an unpartisan look at the news, but also to critique the reporters themselves. As Jones says when speaking of The Colbert Report, “the satiric twist, though, comes through the parody of how the host handles or interprets the news” (Jones, 191). Many times it is not the event itself that is ridiculous, but the news coverage of the event.
The coverage after the presidential debate in the news showcases this notion. It was deemed by the media that President Obama had a rather poor performance during the debate. Many reporters took it upon themselves to figure out why he performed so poorly and expressed disappointment in his performance. First Read on NBCNews.com expressed how Obama was outperformed by Romney and that it was now crucial for Biden to do well in the Vice Presidential Debate. In their article they compare Obama current road on the campaign to the MLB playoffs saying, “Indeed, what the Obama campaign faces is akin to a baseball team who loses the first playoff game with its ace, and now needs its somewhat inconsistent No. 2 pitcher to step up” (Todd). Just as baseball fans feel unease and disappointment in the playoffs, it appeared that was the feeling surrounding Obama.
Many of the talking heads lamented at Obama’s poor performance and grappled for answers, just as baseball fans do after a losing game. Saturday Night Live this week sought to answer their questions. In the their Cold Opening: Debate sketch from this past Saturday October 6 they focused on reasons explaining why Obama was quiet during the debate. Listening to a voiceover of Obama’s thoughts, the SNL audience learned that Obama had forgotten his anniversary and was trying to think of a last minute gift to get Michelle. Played by Jay Pharoah, he then went on to say that the high altitude of the Denver, Colorado was getting to him. The Cold Opening is known for its hilarious insights into presidential poltiicals, and this one was spot on. It even went on to explain why the moderator, Jim Lehrer was also quiet during the debate. He was thinking of what would happen if PBS was shut down as Romney mentioned. In another sketch called MSNBC Debate Fallout, it features known commentators for MSNBC discussing Obama’s performance. Amongst a slew of unfathomable suggestions, the Reverend Al Sharpton played by Kenan Thompson says that perhaps Obama and Romney switched places in a Freaky Friday scenario and that is why Romney performed well and Obama did not. Both sketches showcased the ridiculous of the media coverage of Obama’s debate performance. The cold opening seemed to indicate that Obama is just like everyone else and he is not always going to the perfect, ideal figure that many want him to be; his image does not always match up with who he actually is. The MSNBC sketched made fun of the pundits uproar about Obama’s performance, as the senseless and ridiculous reasons that they have been using to excuse or understand the weak performance by the President. In my opinion both sketches were laugh out loud funny and well done.
These Saturday Night Live sketches are just an example of how comedy can be a successful critical tool of politicians, the political system and most importantly the media. The media critiques seemingly everything in our lives, but does not always get the same treatment in return. Comedy programs a quite powerful form of entertainment in that way. They are able to be critical of things often ignored and able to reach a wide audience. For this reason, they are an important piece of election coverage.
Works Cited
Bean, DJ. ““Everyone: Please watch the presidential debate tonight and GET EDUCATED, because otherwise you won't fully appreciate the SNL debate”. 3 Oct 2012, 6:29 p.m. Tweet.
Jones, Jeffrey P., Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Myers, Seth, and Colin Jost. "Saturday Night Live." Saturday Night Live: Season 38 Episode 3. NBC. 6 Oct. 2012. Television.
Todd, Chuck, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower. "First Thoughts: Romney Helps Himself." First Read. NBC News, 3 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .
The use of comedy and satire has become a big part of the presidential campaigns. While it boosts the morale of a comedy show, it can have a negative impact on the candidates. By using satire, the hosts are able to highlight a fault of the candidates and project it to the world. Although they are poking fun at the candidates or campaign, the shows are also used to inform. Skewed information can be delivered, but it helps to give the audience a sense of what is going on in the political world. Hosts might pull clips from the candidates’ speeches that allow them to prove a point. This means that that particular information might be true, but they are presenting it in a way that humors the audience.
This year, the presidential candidates are most likely to be seen on any comedy show after an appearance. Hosts and comedy networks have been able to analyze the candidate and their words and create a skit to make the audience laugh. Saturday Night Live started the trend, and other shows such as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show emerged. “Television Satire and the Presidency” gives us a background as to when and how the parodies and satire started on SNL. Matviko says: Skits about presidents, as well as comments about them on the show’s mock newscast “Weekend Update,” would soon become fixtures on the program as Richard Nixon (1969-1974), Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), George Bush (1989-1993), and William Clinton would all become targets (334).
Although comedy shows are entertaining to watch, it can become an issue when young people rely solely on these shows for political information. In “Fake News vs. Real News”, Jones confesses his worry for young people and their addiction to political satire. He says, “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). Political satire may make politics more interesting to watch, but people can become misinformed if they only rely on these shows.
In addition to the skewed news we put ourselves at risk of obtaining, comedy and satire negatively attack a candidate. With Mitt Romney’s statement about wanting to cut funding for PBS, but love of Big Bird, many shows had skits relating to that this past week. The Wall Street Journal online says, “In the wake of Mitt Romney turning government subsidies to PBS into a presidential campaign issue, Jon Stewart and his “Daily Show” colleagues took on Muppet form to defend Big Bird and company” (Farley). With the attack of the children’s show, The Daily Show jumped on the opportunity to defend the innocent characters in a humorous way, while giving ridiculous reasons as to why Sesame Street is an issue.
The Daily Show indirectly attacked Romney and the Republicans, even saying that Patriot Street would be a better name for the show. Saturday Night Live, on the other hand, used Big Bird as a guest. While this would set up Big Bird to directly attack Romney, the opposite happened. In the article “Big Bird wings it to ‘Saturday Night Live’,” they talk about Big Bird’s fight to stay neutral. “The popular “Sesame Street” character declined to comment on presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s vow to cut federal funding for PBS. Explaining why, Big Bird said he didn’t want to ‘ruffle any feathers’” (Associated Press). Although many feel that Romney was wrong, the neutral Big Bird on SNL was able to provide pure comedy. This type of satire pokes fun at the situation, without giving negativity to a specific candidate.
Works Cited
Associated Press, “Big Bird wings it to ‘Saturday Night Live’”, Wall Street Journal Online, 7 Oct. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2012
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Farley, Christopher John. “This Week with George Snuffleupagus: Jon Stewart Defends Big Bird” Wall Street Journal Online, 9 Oct. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/10/09/this-week-with-george-snuffleupagus-jon-stewart-defends-big-bird/?KEYWORDS=comedy+and+politics
Matviko, John. “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
Satirical comedy has been known to influence elections. Comedy within the major presidential elections brings light to often serious topics. The use of satirical comedy start first within the program “60 Minutes” but was then later adopted and made popular by the late night comedy program ‘Saturday Night Live.” (Matviko 333) The use of satirical comedy within the media has become, in my opinion an essential aspect of presidential campaigns and election. While we are seeing this in the 2012 presidential election, an election in the past that was known to be influenced by the media and these comedy programs was the 2008 presidential election between Obama and McCain. After Senator John McCain selected his running mate, Sarah Palin, Saturday Night Live truly began in impact the remainder of the election was sure to look like. Sarah Palin was somewhat unknown in the political world where most of her experience came from her time as the governor of Alaska. “Saturday Night Live,” in the same way that they are known for took the aspects of the politician that people already tended to notice. In an interview with Charlie Gibson, Sarah Palin told Gibson where she was from. She later described that from some parts of Alaska you can see the country of Russia. Later that week on Saturday Night Live the phrase, Tina Fey coined “I can see Russia from my house.” This is a problem I see with the media often playing the role of the 4th branch of government. (Matviko 333) When it comes to ill informed and young voters, people begin to misunderstand the candidate’s words for the candidate’s doppelganger’s words. “Twenty-one percent of people under the age of thirty reported learning something from programs such as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show…for Americans under 20, these comedy shows are not mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news” (Jones 169) A positive to this is that young Americans are beginning to be informed about as aspects of the election, but how objective is the information that they are receiving? While I believe the impact that this has had on the election definitely exists I cannot say if this is positive or negative.
An example in this years election where satirical shows have impacted the election is being known as the “Big Bird Incident.” “I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not gonna keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it,” said Romney. This is something that, in my opinion, without the media and satirical comedy would not have been made such a big deal. From “The Conan O’Brien Show” to Saturday Night Live comedians have been addressing the fact the Big Bird is now feeling personally victimized. Last week during the “Conan O’Brien Show” they depicted Mitt Romney “gunning down” Big Bird which symbolized the presidential candidate targeting PBS and public television.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGSJCDw3ZBw
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).'
Matviko, John. “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
www.teamcoco.com
Bond, PAul. "It's Official: Big Bird Was the Star of the First Presidential Debate (Video)." The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. .
Today, comedy shows play an important role in politics. With the birth of political satire in the 1970s on Saturday Night Live, the era of political satire has risen (Mativiko). Researchers have found that the people under the age of thirty have turned to political comedies, such as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, as there main source of news (Jones 167). While finding these shows amusing and hysterical, they also supply the youths means of information. Critics often condemn our generation for this, however there can be much to learn from these programs. Late night comedy has truly earned an important place in politics. The satirical hosts do not have to worry about being within the constraints of journalism and can freely broadcast there opinions. In an article titled “The Impact of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert” by The Wall Street Journal, we see how these hosts can truly create a difference. By looking at who watches these shows through Patchwork Nation’s demography and geographic county breakdown a definite pattern is shown. Each of the shows do very well where the vote is mostly “Democratic, college campuses and big city industrial metropolis counties” (Chinni 1). However, both shows do not do well in small-town Republican counties and “socially conservative Evangelical Epicenters” (Chinni 1). According to data from Experian Simmons, the Daily Show and Colbert Report also have strong followings in the politically crucial, swing-voting “Monified Burbs” (Chinni 2). Although each of the shows like to poke fun at the candidates and create laughter among the viewers, there is no doubt that the information provided is relevant and important. For instance, in both shows Colbert and Stewart devoted numerous time to being openly critical of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that to the creation of Super PACS. “Colbert went so far as to create his own Super PAC (Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow) to illustrate the conundrums those entities create” (Chinni 4). Many critics, such as Jason Zinoman of the New York Times, believe that comedy is harmful to politics and creates a negative impact. In his article titled “Late at Night, Comedy Gets Pointed and Political”, he criticizes many popular hosts blaming them for “infiltrating politics” (Zinoman 1). He condemns the shows for “harshly” satirizing political leaders and being politically biased. Zinoman finds proof through his convictions by stating evidence from “Real Time” with Bill Maher, who “attacked Mr. Stewart’s speech in his march on Washington for false equivalency (Zinoman 3). Even though comedians like Colbert and Stewart place there humor with strong point of views’, late-night TV is not going to make or break this campaign. Although the programs are extremely popular for people under thirty, only 10% of adults tuned into The Daily Show or Colbert Report in a four-week period in county types with highest viewership (Chinni 5).
Personally, I receive most of my information through these kinds of media outlets. Not only is it more entertaining to watch, but I truly feel they touch upon important issues. Through my three years in watching these shows, not once have I felt persuaded or led in a direction. Each of the parties are criticized in these shows using humor. The comedians do a great job at displaying a liberal stance on politics and silencing their views. One must remember that the information provided is purely comedy and have an idea what they are poking fun at through official political sources.
Works Cited
Chinni, Dante. "The Impact of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert." The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. .
Jones, Jeffrey P., Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009). Matviko, John, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348. Zinoman, Jason. "Late at Night, Comedy Gets Pointed and Political." The New York Times. N.p., 3 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. .
Comedy programs tend to present the campaign the way the nation feels about it. The country really doesn’t like either candidate to run the country so Comedy Central entitled the basis of their political satirical shows; The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, “Indecision 2012.” A quote from Comedy Central about election season states “As America prepares to downgrade its status from Greatest Nation on Earth to Pretty Cool Nation Considering, only one question remains: who will make the speeches? This election season, let Comedy Central’s “Indecision 2012″ be your leader through every twist and turn in what promises to be one election in American history.” Comedy Central created fake political ads that instead of focusing on the candidates, they focus on the major news sources that provide voters with political coverage. For example, an ad about CNN states that they use a “magic wall” to determine election outcomes in different states. The ad asks “if they use a magic wall then they must be witches, would you trust your news to witches?” (http://www.colbertnewshub.com/2012/09/08/comedy-central-launches-indecision-2012-campaign-ads/) Though the ads are clearly satirical, not only do they poke fun at the news sources, they are also satirizing political campaigns in general. It makes you think twice about trusting a political ad because of all of the outlandish statements that they use. Satirical comedy shows are very similar to regular news programs in that they both discuss the headlines of the day and both bring on different guests to discuss different issues. However, satirical comedy shows tend to play into a younger demographic that is lost to regular forms of news media. Rachel Larris explains that “In 2004, The Pew Research Center for People and the Press released a survey containing a widely reported fact that 21% of people ages 18 to 29 reported they regularly learned some news about political candidates or the 2004 presidential campaign from “comedy TV shows” and 13% reported the same of “late-night TV shows.” (Larris, 8) Satirical comedy shows also tend to bias towards one party, however it is much less obvious because they tend to equally criticize members of both parties. Personally, I’d rather receive my news from this type of media outlet because I think that they way that they frame news stories is completely different from how new stories are frame in traditional forms of media. In satirical comedy shows, they will take a headline and discuss it in a way that both gets the messages across and does so in a humorous way so that it’s demographic that it caters to can understand the message and form their own opinion on it.
Sources Larris, Rachel, Joy. B.A., The Daily Show Effect: Humor, News, Knowledge and Viewers . May 2005 http://www.colbertnewshub.com/2012/09/08/comedy-central-launches-indecision-2012-campaign-ads/
Stephanie Griffin
ReplyDeleteComedy programs have adapted a new perspective in today’s world of political communication by displaying a twist of political news. Shows such as Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and the Colbert Report have helped inform, entertain, and satirically deliver topics and discussion about politics. Personally, up until now, these shows have been my own outlet of learning about politics because of the types of spins they express on their shows- that can be seen as more entertaining than typical news broadcasts. Some may argue that these shows are just “fake” and they are teaching [young] people the wrong ideals about politics. Yet, even though the journalistic approaches of these shows differ from an objective news report, they can still be informative. Similar to the beginnings of Saturday Night Live and the start of political satire during the 1970s, we have seen these shows taking advantage of the current presidential campaign and the candidates (Matviko).
Since the current election started becoming one of the main focuses for news programs to cover, comedy shows such as SNL and the Daily Show as well began incorporating their own political satire for the 2012 election. For example, Saturday Night Live opened its 38th season with a new cast member, Jay Pharoah, playing the role of Barack Obama giving a speech about the advantages he will have for this election. As Alan Horowitz of The Huffington Post writes, “In the opening sketch, Pharaoh's Obama reminded voters that while he may have his flaws, the alternative — a Mitt Romney presidency — would be far worse” (Horowitz). On October 6th, SNL once again opened its 3rd episode of the season with a political parody of the first presidential debate. In comparison to the news programs that were broadcasting the debates live, SNL’s reenactment of the debate over exaggerated some aspects that were seen that night. For example, coincidentally, the first debate fell on the 20th wedding anniversary of Barack and Michelle Obama. Both news programs such as ABC and NBC aired the debate with Obama first wishing his wife a happy anniversary, but SNL went even further by having the “inside voice” of Barack, explaining a potentially distracted Barack Obama on debate night (Higgins). Barack Obama, played by Jay Pharoah, had his head voice saying he forgot to get an anniversary gift for Michelle and that could explain why he was not fully aware during the debate. SNL also exaggerated Romney’s use of numbers, which was evident during real debate since Romney explained many of his policies using numbers (Higgins). Therefore, SNL, along with other satirical programs, know how to take what the candidates say and make it more personable, human, and even imperfect. Agreeing to this aspect, Jones writes, “The rationality of political satire is that it ‘reminds of common values,’ and ‘in its negative response to political excess, it serves to restore equilibrium to politics” (Jones 183).
Griffin, part 2
ReplyDeleteEven though these satires may exaggerate the impressions or comments made by the candidates, these programs do in fact inform people about politics and influence the opinions of audiences watching. As ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl states in his story, ‘’ 'SNL' Presidential Spoofs Defining the Elections”, “Sometimes [these parodies] have been more memorable than the debates themselves” (Karl). Therefore, since these scenes can become memorable for audiences watching, these programs informing people of who the candidates are can also give an impression of the candidates (whether it is through the humor or mimic of how the candidates represent themselves in the public eye). If these programs are the only shows audiences, especially young people, only watch for their political news, it still allows audiences to grow an opinion about the candidates and the election itself. According to Jones, “Twenty-one percent of people under the age of thirty reported learning something from programs such as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show…for Americans under 20, these comedy shows are not mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news” (Jones 169). In other words, another impact these shows are having are encouraging political communication and discussion amongst young people. So what if they are not watching objective news programs all the time to get their information about politics. Shows like the Daily Show bring another side of politics we do not see. As Jones writes, “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… [informing] its viewers in ways that mainstream journalism rarely does” (Jones 168). In short, we have seen programs such as SNL and The Daily Show expressing parodies about the 2012 election, as they have done for previous elections. Currently, they tend to exaggerate what news media reports because they can. Under journalism ethics and regulations, journalists must stay objective and just report facts. However, you can see someone like John Stewart poke fun at presidential Obama during his “Obama Where Art Thou” episode expressing Obama’s unpreparedness for the first presidential debate. Despite the types of approaches they use to satire political opinions, the impact of these shows are how much they can actually teach its viewers. For younger generations like my own, it is a good way to be introduced to politics through entertainment and allow viewers to grow opinions and discuss politics in their own lives.
Works Cited
Higgins, Steve, and Erik Kenward. "October 10- Daniel Craig." Saturday Night Live. Dir. Don R. King. Prod. Lorne Michaels. NBC. New York City, New York, 06 Oct. 2012. Television.
Horowitz, Alana. "SNL's New Obama: Jay Pharoah Debuts Impression In Season 38 Opener (VIDEO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 15 Sept. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2012. .
Jones, Jeffrey P., Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Karl, Jonathan. "'SNL' Presidential Spoofs Defining the Elections?" ABC News. ABC News Network, 03 Oct. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2012. .
Matviko, John, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
Throughout the current campaign, news media has been harsh in judging both the actions and the opinions of each candidate. From their accusations of Romney’s “empty promises,” to Obama’s accused unpreparedness, the news media does not leave much to the imagination of the viewer when it comes to their criticisms of the candidates. However, in tandem with the news media throughout the entire electoral process have been America’s satirical television productions.
ReplyDeleteIf one were to search for the correlations between news media coverage of this years campaign compared to satirical coverage of the campaign, one would be met with an immense number of similarities regarding the accuracy of information. So why should there be a difference in the way in which the two forms of media are received by the public? Why is it that the American public trusts the media and values most everything they say is cold, hard, fact? From where did this immense trust for American media accuracy evolve? Jeffery P. Jones suggests that Americans may be too trustful of the media’s political coverage in our current day in his article, Fake News vs. Real News, writing, “Just because CNN and other news organizations make claims of neutrality and objectivity doesn’t mean they aren’t being selective in what they report and how they report it” (Jones 180). Therefore, it is the true reality of the satirical pieces that make them as popular as they are. They present viewers with information that is both factual and entertaining, thus leading to their growing popularity. Todd Purdum addresses the issue in his article for Vanity Fair, writing, “It’s when a sketch crystallizes something real about the character or the situation—as when Fey’s Palin simply repeated verbatim the real Palin’s interview answers to Amy Poehler’s Katie Couric—that the humor works best of all” (Purdum).
Throughout this year’s election, satire has played an immense part in the public’s perception of the candidates and their campaign happenings. Jones addresses the American public’s yearn for satirical media relating to the prominent political figures, stating, “’For Americans under 30, these comedy shows are now mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news’” (Jones 169). Because Americans are consuming such an immense amount of satirical political television, said consumption has come to play a significant role in the way in which Americans perceive specific political candidates.
Adam Sorenson of TIME Magazine wrote of the impact that satirical media has had on many American voters’ perception of Mitt Romney, stating, “Most Americans don’t follow presidential primaries very closely. There’s a general awareness sure, but only the die hards tune in to daily minutiae in March… not too many day-to-day specifics have made it into mainstream consciousness just yet. Unfortunately for Romney, the caricature of him as an aloof corporatist really has” (Sorenson). Sorenson goes on to address Saturday Night Live’s portrayal of Romney as being out of touch with American blue collared workers, concluding that “Mitt Romney Is Losing the Pop-Culture Primary” (Sorenson).
The way in which satirical television productions, including Saturday Night Live, are portraying the candidates, is, for many people, their only exposure to information regarding the politician’s plans and values. Therefore, for numerous American citizens, satirical television is the sole contributor of information regarding a candidate and thus is regarded as true.
When comparing, one sees that there is no true difference between the information presented by the two forms of media for they both deliver news to the viewer in an entertaining and timely manner; the only difference lies in the way in which the two present the information. However, neither can guarantee full objectivity, thus ruling neither as the superior and more reliable form of media in our current society.
Work Cited
DeletePurdum, Todd S. "S.N.L.: The Skyscraper of Satire." Vanity Fair. N.p., 29 Apr. 2011. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .
Sorensen, Adam. "Mitt Romney Is Losing the Pop-Culture Primary." TIME.com. N.p., 5 Mar. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .
John Matviko, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
The comedy shows play an important role in modern politics because in many cases they point out the ridiculousness of what a person has said in the political world. The Colbert Report and The Daily Show both succeed at being able to pull from previous clips of candidates in which they may contradict themselves, it is this pointing out of hypocrisy that the mainstream media is not able to pull off. Where the mainstream media will just report what a candidate said, without providing any sort of history on a topic, many times the political comedy shows can shine a light on the situation and make you see how ridiculous something is or how it is a misrepresentation. I think a prime example of this was when Obama was taking heat for the “you didn't build that comment” and John Stewart pointed out how out of context the clip was. The difference is that the nature of these programs allows them to have any bias they want and to say anything they please because it is under the guise of comedy, and so if anybody takes it too seriously, all they have to do is point out that it's comedy. At the same time, the interesting thing is that the shows are brutally honest. There is very little in terms of lies presented on the show, with most of it being satirical takes on issues which are true, which makes the shows brilliant as far as actually educating people.
ReplyDeleteThe shows certainly provide a value, and it is not lost on the hosts what they are doing. In fact they were very clear with their purpose when Stewart and Colbert held the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” 2 years ago. The nature of these shows allows for them to really inform younger voters, who are generally less interested in politics. While other news media outlets may be seen as “too boring” these shows do not lack that because they contain a level of entertainment while providing information. According to a Pew Research Center study cited in the Jones reading, 47 percent of people under thirty years old are “informed at least occasionally” by late night talk shows. Jones also goes on to explain the same point which I made in the first paragraph (actually made before I took a look at this reading which is funny) that “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 (unless the reporting occurs in investigative or opinion-editorial pieces). The Daily Show, of course, is not limited by such professional constraints. Viewers are thus invited to focus on the most important aspect of this news event-- that this is not just another investigation proves the official reason for invading Iraq was misguided and wrong. Rather, the import is that the Bush administration repeatedly refuses to admit its mistake” (Jones, 173). I think that this is a very valid point and that the comedy shows are able to be slightly above average political pundits and news because they are able to be brutally honest in a funny way and have it be entertainment while still educating people on current events.
Compared to the coverage on my source, CBS, the political satire shows are very lively and fun to watch. Overall, I would say they are more enjoyable and provide plenty of analysis to help break down the importance of the issues which they discuss. I think that overall, the shows serve the purpose of bringing more young people to care about the political world, and thus, will help to increase voter turnout in the under-30 crowd by making them care about the issues. I think this is an important gap to be filled and it is a good thing that the comedy shows take it upon themselves to provide news in an educational and enjoyable manner.
DeleteChapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-25-2012/democalypse-2012---do-we-look-stupid--don-t-answer-that-edition---grammatical-gaffes
Matthew Harkins
ReplyDeleteDuring the presidential campaigns, satirical comedy programs such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report are direct reflections of everything going on in the media. They focus on the current campaigns and their strategies as well as the coverage the news media produces and put it all together to create an entertaining as well as informative program on current events in the election. What I have found interesting about these programs is how they cover the same current events in the news media, but gives it an entirely alternate presentation than traditional objective journalistic news media. Sometimes these programs can present more truth than the news outlets like CNN, Fox News, and NBC can offer.
Journalists and satirical comedians in the media, have different assumed purposes, therefore different levels of constraint. “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) In essence, journalistic sources simply repeat administrations positions, not offering any connections or conclusions to what may really be happening in politics. The beauty of satire programs is that they aren’t trying to be objective, and they openly admit it. Jones quotes Jon Stewart in his critique of CNBC host Jim Cramer saying, “We are both snake oil salesmen to a certain extent, but we do label the show as snake oil here.” (Jones 184) When Stewart uses the term “snake oil salesmen” he is referring to news that is formulated to deceive or influence the audience in a given direction, basically stating facts that may not have relevance or illustrate a bigger picture in a political campaign. The fact that shows like The Daily Show acknowledge, and make sure their audiences know they are satirical, it allows for audience to not be deceived by the program, but to accept it for its comedic value, as well as illustrating important points and trends that are unseen or unspoken by traditional news sources. In that sense, comedy programs can offer more genuine insight into the current events of politics than other news outlets, in an entertaining and informative way.
Since I am new to following politics and campaigns, it is hard for me to create a strong opinion on how these shows are influencing the current presidential campaign. From my personal experience though, these shows feel like relief from confusion. Following the traditional news outlets in the media can lead one to feel misguided, uninformed or just plain deceived. When watching these shows, the cloud of confusion and uncertainty on my interpretations of the medias coverage are released from me, as I sit back and enjoy funny television that as a follower of the campaign relates too and offers me new perspectives on how to digest the material the media presents us with.
A recent focus of attention on the news coverage relating to the presidential campaigns is the skepticism about the Labor Department Report showing the jobs numbers. An article from ABC News says “Mitt Romney surprised President Obama with a dynamic debate performance Wednesday night, but he's been upstaged today by another October shocker as the unemployment rate plunged from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, it’s lowest since Obama took office in 2009.” Then the article later quotes a tweet from former General Electric CEO, “Unbelievable job numbers… These Chicago guys will do anything…Can’t debate so change numbers.” This idea of changing numbers, and convenient timing with the jobs report weren’t only from one source, but reoccurred throughout my browsing of many news outlets. For me, I was confused as too what to believe, if numbers really could be manipulated like that or if Republican supporters just started resorting to conspiracy as their case. The October 8th broadcast of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart confronted and made sense of the whole issue for me.
Matthew Harkins cont.
ReplyDeleteFirst the broadcast shows a clip of a newscast where they show the job unemployment rate and how it has dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. Jon Stewart then says “wouldn’t it seem we’re moving in the right direction?” From there a quick cut montage of multiple video news sources talking about how the numbers were changed and mention of how the numbers are a result of monkey business from Donald Trump. They even quoted the former CEO of GE as mentioned above by saying, “If Jack Welch, legendary former CEO if General Electric is alleging dishonesty of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you can be sure he’s got some hardcore evidence.” The show then cuts directly to a CNN interview where Jack Welch says, “I have no evidence to prove that.” and the show continues on about the subject.
Ultimately, the show exploited this issue of conspiracy which had me very confused, confronted and addressed it, by showing many clips leading to a conclusion that it was all just a bunch of nonsense created by the media to make more media. Maybe the show is wrong, but at least they use logical argument in a clever and entertaining way to come to the conclusions that they present their audiences.
Conclusively, these satirical shows are different in approach, but in no worse way than the news outlets. Sure these shows are biased, but they acknowledge their bias and it sways from side to side. As a follower of the campaign I have found comfort in the satirical comedy as well as conclusions and unspoken happenings in politics that can’t be obtained from traditional news.
Works Cited
Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
KRIEG, GREGORY J. "October Surprise Job Numbers Draw Republican Skepticism." ABC News. ABC News Network, 05 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .
"October 08, 2012 - Pete Townshend." The Daily Show. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2012..
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJay Tenem
ReplyDeleteMSNBC
When some people hear the name Sarah Palin they think of Tina Fey first. America was obsessed with SNL during the last election. Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin became a frequently played clip on all Talk shows, late night shows, radio shows, even Howard Stern jumped into the action but most surprisingly even political shows were going to the clips weekly. In Matviko’s article he didn’t know who Tina Fey was and he didn’t know what was going to take over Americans televisions in the years to come but he still knew the impact that SNL had over Americans perception of candidates. In Matvikos conclusion he says that “this trend would likely continue with George W. Bush” little did he know that it has continued past Bush and has only gained steam. In the past election SNL was able to get whatever politician they wanted from Barack Obama to Senator John Mccain to Sarah Palin herself. They were the only ones able to have all the politicians on themselves to goof around. All other shows would love to write comedy bits with politicians but unless the President is at the Correspondents dinner he rarely gets roasted or pokes fun at himself in the public eye, they are trying to run the government not be comedians.
I am assigned to be covering MSNBC’s coverage of the Road leading up to the election. In the name is three of five letters NBC…this is very important to know what type of coverage you will be seeing because they are directly connected with NBC. So you know where their loyalties lie. People would say that their coverage is a lot more fair than say Fox News where one man can push his views all the way through the company on to the air. Fox News is notorious for being Conservative, no fun there…MSNBC is not just more likely to play a clip from a sister show of theirs because they are the same company but they would promote comedy in politics more than a very conservative station.
(Jay Tenem Contd)
ReplyDeleteMSNBC isn’t above going below the belt at time in reporting. On the front page of their website (MSNBC.com) there is a large image of Jon Stewart on air with a Fox News Channel logo. The cover story was two about how two separate shows were making fun of their competitor Fox News. First Jon Stewart’s image mocking Fox News on the top of the page and a video of Stephen Colbert showing a medley of videos all of Fox News broadcasters and hosts making funny and foolish comments that were made to make the News channel look more incompetent than others. Colbert directly pokes fun at one commentator that said “quinkidink” instead of coincidence. Not only that but the cover story opens with “It was the first “Daily Show” for Jon Stewart since Saturday’s debate with Bill O’Reilly.”. The article continues on to say how Stewart came across better in his debate with the Fox News Host, it also says that they website had a hard time keeping up with the hosting of the downloads.
MSNBC’s coverage has changed recently towards the end of the election and the final countdown. With last weeks debate, and a debate to come all the political news networks have plenty to talk about over the next month. This is when the race really heats up and the coverage is as intense as ever. It may be good to have a show like SNL break through on the political entertainment wall with this upcoming election. I know they have had a number of sketches this season that have made news but nothing as big and popular as the Fey/Palin Skits. If there is one thing you’ve learned it should be that if SNL is heating up with the political skits before the election MSNBC will be reporting it first.
Works Cited
1. Berman, Craig. "Jon Stewart Offers Directions to 'Patriot Street'; Stephen Colbert Creates the PITY Party." NBC News Entertainment. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. .
2. Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
2. John Matviko, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
3. “Http://www.msnbc.msn.com." MSNBC/Politics. N.p., 6 Oct. 2012. Web. .
Phil Nobile - Blog Post #4 (1 of 2):
ReplyDeleteComedians, particularly those of a satirical nature, have a much larger responsibility than ever before. Going from funnymen to providers of the news for a healthy chunk of Americans isn’t a simple transition. But with Jon Stewart and many like him, the responsibility has come easy, save for the backlash from journalists and skeptics to deem them as purely entertainers. But as seen in numerous articles and simple comparison, these satirical attempts go beyond entertainment, and ultimately succeed as news sources in their own right.
The primary differences between political reporting and political satire are values and agenda. In Chapter 8 of the Jones reading titled “Fake News vs. Real News,” the author draws comparisons between The Daily Show and CNN by showing how they report the facts to their audiences. Although CNN begins by initially going more in depth with their reporting in their early morning segments, by the time the afternoon comes around, their clips become shortened. It was actually found that The Daily Show ultimately gave viewers more direct video, albeit cut and manipulated in a particular fashion. Unlike CNN, which objectively presented the clips and an official CIA report, The Daily Show goes further, pointing out the blatant idiocy and contradictions of the Bush administration. Although it is an obvious bias, it is a completely factual one.
Perhaps the scathing style that The Daily Show and shows like it provide to an audience is more effective than an actual news cast – not necessarily because of the humor appeal, but because of saying what news organizations won’t. By pointing out factors that news organizations avoid due to their definition of newsworthy, such as the pandering and potentially damaging political rhetoric that candidates use during campaigns, satirical commentary has the capacity to go beyond a normal newscast and dig deep into a politician’s true agenda.
Why is it so damning for The Daily Show to blend in subjectivity with factual reporting when it is in fact true? News outlets and organizations “continue to believe their claims to truth – and the authenticity of those claims – because of their authority to make them in the first place” (Jones 180). The war cries from news organizations that this satire is unreliable, at least when data originally emerged reporting that young people were gaining a healthy portion of news from these shows, has been systematically unproven. Perhaps it is a defense mechanism for a declining industry. We are now seeing news outlets in the internet age struggling to keep up with blogs and opinionated websites – sources that are surpassing traditional news outlets because of the journalism tendency towards objectivity.
Phil Nobile - Blog Post #4 (2 of 2):
DeleteTo compare current campaign coverage in both mediums of political reporting, I chose to pick a certain topical issue – Romney’s foreign policy speech – and view how the news site Politico covered it versus how The Daily Show covered it. In a Politico article titled “Mitt Romney foreign policy speech called vague” on Oct. 8, author Josh Gerstein acknowledges the fact that the speech Romney gave was ambiguous, but never is the one to say anything critical himself. He leaves it up to quoting other analysts, officials and pundits, such as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright saying she’d give Romney’s op-ed in The Wall Street Journal a “C, because he gave absolutely no specifics.”
Its solid journalism on Politico’s end: never being subjective themselves, but instead allowing others to do the talking. The Daily Show’s broadcast on Oct. 9, however, proved to be much blunter. Using puns like “Vague Against The Machine” and other clever quips, Jon Stewart and his writing staff present the news of Romney’s speech, but for entertainment value sugarcoat it with comedy. For example, Stewart compares Romney’s declaration of trillion dollar debt as “immoral,” then compares it to the Mormon view that substances like coffee are immoral. It is jokes like these that keep the viewer entertained enough to see the news value of the program, and also Stewart’s ultimate points during his lengthy diatribes.
Gerstein, Josh. "Mitt Romney foreign policy speech called vague." politico.com. Politico, October 8 2012. Web. 10 Oct 2012. .
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Stewart, Jon, dir. "Vague Against The Machine." The Daily Show. Comedy Central: October 9 2012. Television. .
ReplyDeleteThere have been several comedic programs that have taken the time to cover the presidential election. These comedic programs include Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show. It has been put into question whether these comedic shows misinform their viewers on the presidential election, compared to real news sources such as CNN. Although, it has been argued that even real news has taken on more of an entertainment standpoint in presenting its news to the people, “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). News stations such as CNN, Fox New, MSNBC and others are considered to be reliable news stations, but the fact of the matter is, they are competing with other satirical shows for viewers and ratings. This has caused these main real news stations to show more attention grabbing stories to their viewers to compete with other programs. In this election Satirical shows are affecting many different aspects of the campaign such as real news stations, and the viewers who are watching these programs.
Saturday Night Live produced a few skits on the election. One in particular shows the first presidential debate. The skit showed President Obama forgetting to get his wife, Michelle Obama, and anniversary gift and while it shows Obama thinking about what he should get her, it shows Governor Romney in the background discussing his 50-point plan. While this skit does not show the viewer exactly what each candidate stands for it does bring awareness of the debate forward. It did also criticize each candidate’s appearance during the debate, which was not necessarily discussed in real news.
In order to really understand and find the jokes stated on these satirical shows funny, one first must know what actually happened. This can make satirical shows such
as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show useful. They can cause their viewers to look up the news to see what happened so as to understand the jokes being said during the show. It may also cause the viewer to go check the news after the show to see if what they found so funny to have really happened.
ReplyDeleteWatching these satirical shows may also give the viewer a different view on what is going on in the presidential campaign. Jones stated; “By actually showing the high levels of spin and rhetoric produces by the candidates and their campaigns, then offering humorous reports 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, inform its viewers in ways the mainstream journalism rarely does” (Jones 168). In order for many news stations on television to remain professional they are unable to state things in a manner that satirical shows can. These shows have the opportunity to speak more freely because they are not a real news source. Saturday Night Live in their skit previously mentioned, showed Romney discussing a plan that was much longer than his real 5-point plan. By making his point plan longer on their show it was making fun of how boring the show thinks it is. A news station such as CNN would be unable to do this because it would be seen as misinforming their viewers while Saturday Night Live was simply seen as being funny.
Many individuals often prefer to watch entertainment than that of the news on television. With this said, it appears that having satirical shows discussing the election is a good way to draw people into the election by entertaining them about what is going on in it. I do not find that these comedic shows give the best news for the viewers but it does bring about an awareness of what is going on in politics. These satirical shows may even interest some of their viewers to watch a news station so that they can get the jokes that are being said on the show, which does help to educate the viewer on the issues. Satirical shows are a good way of exposing individuals to what is going on in the news.
Works Cited
Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
John Matviko, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348
"Saturday Night Live." NBC.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. .
Comedy programs are becoming a staple in election coverage. In some ways they are more anticipated than the election itself. For example on the day of the first Presidential Debate a sports reporter I follow on Twitter who often has quirky insights into pop culture tweeted, “Everyone: Please watch the presidential debate tonight and GET EDUCATED, because otherwise you won't fully appreciate the SNL debate” (Bean). Comedy programs are increasingly the go to place for teenagers and young adults alike to seek out election coverage. With the increase of talking heads in the news who, besides the actual news of the day, present their own agenda to the public, people are becoming more wary of some current news programs. The comedy programs seek to provide what these talking heads are not: news without the, for lack of better word , crap. They will take an event in politics that is rather ridiculous and attempt to show the public the ridiculousness of the event. Not only are the comedy programs such as The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and Saturday Night Live looking to provide an unpartisan look at the news, but also to critique the reporters themselves. As Jones says when speaking of The Colbert Report, “the satiric twist, though, comes through the parody of how the host handles or interprets the news” (Jones, 191). Many times it is not the event itself that is ridiculous, but the news coverage of the event.
ReplyDeleteThe coverage after the presidential debate in the news showcases this notion. It was deemed by the media that President Obama had a rather poor performance during the debate. Many reporters took it upon themselves to figure out why he performed so poorly and expressed disappointment in his performance. First Read on NBCNews.com expressed how Obama was outperformed by Romney and that it was now crucial for Biden to do well in the Vice Presidential Debate. In their article they compare Obama current road on the campaign to the MLB playoffs saying, “Indeed, what the Obama campaign faces is akin to a baseball team who loses the first playoff game with its ace, and now needs its somewhat inconsistent No. 2 pitcher to step up” (Todd). Just as baseball fans feel unease and disappointment in the playoffs, it appeared that was the feeling surrounding Obama.
Many of the talking heads lamented at Obama’s poor performance and grappled for answers, just as baseball fans do after a losing game. Saturday Night Live this week sought to answer their questions. In the their Cold Opening: Debate sketch from this past Saturday October 6 they focused on reasons explaining why Obama was quiet during the debate. Listening to a voiceover of Obama’s thoughts, the SNL audience learned that Obama had forgotten his anniversary and was trying to think of a last minute gift to get Michelle. Played by Jay Pharoah, he then went on to say that the high altitude of the Denver, Colorado was getting to him. The Cold Opening is known for its hilarious insights into presidential poltiicals, and this one was spot on. It even went on to explain why the moderator, Jim Lehrer was also quiet during the debate. He was thinking of what would happen if PBS was shut down as Romney mentioned. In another sketch called MSNBC Debate Fallout, it features known commentators for MSNBC discussing Obama’s performance. Amongst a slew of unfathomable suggestions, the Reverend Al Sharpton played by Kenan Thompson says that perhaps Obama and Romney switched places in a Freaky Friday scenario and that is why Romney performed well and Obama did not. Both sketches showcased the ridiculous of the media coverage of Obama’s debate performance. The cold opening seemed to indicate that Obama is just like everyone else and he is not always going to the perfect, ideal figure that many want him to be; his image does not always match up with who he actually is. The MSNBC sketched made fun of the pundits uproar about Obama’s performance, as the senseless and ridiculous reasons that they have been using to excuse or understand the weak performance by the President. In my opinion both sketches were laugh out loud funny and well done.
DeleteThese Saturday Night Live sketches are just an example of how comedy can be a successful critical tool of politicians, the political system and most importantly the media. The media critiques seemingly everything in our lives, but does not always get the same treatment in return. Comedy programs a quite powerful form of entertainment in that way. They are able to be critical of things often ignored and able to reach a wide audience. For this reason, they are an important piece of election coverage.
Works Cited
Bean, DJ. ““Everyone: Please watch the presidential debate tonight and GET EDUCATED, because otherwise you won't fully appreciate the SNL debate”. 3 Oct 2012, 6:29 p.m. Tweet.
Jones, Jeffrey P., Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Myers, Seth, and Colin Jost. "Saturday Night Live." Saturday Night Live: Season 38 Episode 3. NBC. 6 Oct. 2012. Television.
Todd, Chuck, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower. "First Thoughts: Romney Helps Himself." First Read. NBC News, 3 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. .
The use of comedy and satire has become a big part of the presidential campaigns. While it boosts the morale of a comedy show, it can have a negative impact on the candidates. By using satire, the hosts are able to highlight a fault of the candidates and project it to the world. Although they are poking fun at the candidates or campaign, the shows are also used to inform. Skewed information can be delivered, but it helps to give the audience a sense of what is going on in the political world. Hosts might pull clips from the candidates’ speeches that allow them to prove a point. This means that that particular information might be true, but they are presenting it in a way that humors the audience.
ReplyDeleteThis year, the presidential candidates are most likely to be seen on any comedy show after an appearance. Hosts and comedy networks have been able to analyze the candidate and their words and create a skit to make the audience laugh. Saturday Night Live started the trend, and other shows such as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show emerged. “Television Satire and the Presidency” gives us a background as to when and how the parodies and satire started on SNL. Matviko says:
Skits about presidents, as well as comments about them on the show’s mock newscast “Weekend Update,” would soon become fixtures on the program as Richard Nixon (1969-1974), Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), George Bush (1989-1993), and William Clinton would all become targets (334).
Although comedy shows are entertaining to watch, it can become an issue when young people rely solely on these shows for political information. In “Fake News vs. Real News”, Jones confesses his worry for young people and their addiction to political satire. He says, “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). Political satire may make politics more interesting to watch, but people can become misinformed if they only rely on these shows.
In addition to the skewed news we put ourselves at risk of obtaining, comedy and satire negatively attack a candidate. With Mitt Romney’s statement about wanting to cut funding for PBS, but love of Big Bird, many shows had skits relating to that this past week. The Wall Street Journal online says, “In the wake of Mitt Romney turning government subsidies to PBS into a presidential campaign issue, Jon Stewart and his “Daily Show” colleagues took on Muppet form to defend Big Bird and company” (Farley). With the attack of the children’s show, The Daily Show jumped on the opportunity to defend the innocent characters in a humorous way, while giving ridiculous reasons as to why Sesame Street is an issue.
The Daily Show indirectly attacked Romney and the Republicans, even saying that Patriot Street would be a better name for the show. Saturday Night Live, on the other hand, used Big Bird as a guest. While this would set up Big Bird to directly attack Romney, the opposite happened. In the article “Big Bird wings it to ‘Saturday Night Live’,” they talk about Big Bird’s fight to stay neutral. “The popular “Sesame Street” character declined to comment on presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s vow to cut federal funding for PBS. Explaining why, Big Bird said he didn’t want to ‘ruffle any feathers’” (Associated Press). Although many feel that Romney was wrong, the neutral Big Bird on SNL was able to provide pure comedy. This type of satire pokes fun at the situation, without giving negativity to a specific candidate.
DeleteWorks Cited
Associated Press, “Big Bird wings it to ‘Saturday Night Live’”, Wall Street Journal Online, 7 Oct. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2012
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Farley, Christopher John. “This Week with George Snuffleupagus: Jon Stewart Defends Big Bird” Wall Street Journal Online, 9 Oct. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2012.
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/10/09/this-week-with-george-snuffleupagus-jon-stewart-defends-big-bird/?KEYWORDS=comedy+and+politics
Matviko, John. “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
Satirical comedy has been known to influence elections. Comedy within the major presidential elections brings light to often serious topics. The use of satirical comedy start first within the program “60 Minutes” but was then later adopted and made popular by the late night comedy program ‘Saturday Night Live.” (Matviko 333) The use of satirical comedy within the media has become, in my opinion an essential aspect of presidential campaigns and election.
ReplyDeleteWhile we are seeing this in the 2012 presidential election, an election in the past that was known to be influenced by the media and these comedy programs was the 2008 presidential election between Obama and McCain. After Senator John McCain selected his running mate, Sarah Palin, Saturday Night Live truly began in impact the remainder of the election was sure to look like. Sarah Palin was somewhat unknown in the political world where most of her experience came from her time as the governor of Alaska. “Saturday Night Live,” in the same way that they are known for took the aspects of the politician that people already tended to notice. In an interview with Charlie Gibson, Sarah Palin told Gibson where she was from. She later described that from some parts of Alaska you can see the country of Russia. Later that week on Saturday Night Live the phrase, Tina Fey coined “I can see Russia from my house.” This is a problem I see with the media often playing the role of the 4th branch of government. (Matviko 333)
When it comes to ill informed and young voters, people begin to misunderstand the candidate’s words for the candidate’s doppelganger’s words. “Twenty-one percent of people under the age of thirty reported learning something from programs such as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show…for Americans under 20, these comedy shows are not mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news” (Jones 169) A positive to this is that young Americans are beginning to be informed about as aspects of the election, but how objective is the information that they are receiving? While I believe the impact that this has had on the election definitely exists I cannot say if this is positive or negative.
An example in this years election where satirical shows have impacted the election is being known as the “Big Bird Incident.” “I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not gonna keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it,” said Romney. This is something that, in my opinion, without the media and satirical comedy would not have been made such a big deal. From “The Conan O’Brien Show” to Saturday Night Live comedians have been addressing the fact the Big Bird is now feeling personally victimized. Last week during the “Conan O’Brien Show” they depicted Mitt Romney “gunning down” Big Bird which symbolized the presidential candidate targeting PBS and public television.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=iGSJCDw3ZBw
Chapters 8 & 9 from Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).'
Matviko, John. “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
www.teamcoco.com
Bond, PAul. "It's Official: Big Bird Was the Star of the First Presidential Debate (Video)." The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. .
Today, comedy shows play an important role in politics. With the birth of political satire in the 1970s on Saturday Night Live, the era of political satire has risen (Mativiko). Researchers have found that the people under the age of thirty have turned to political comedies, such as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, as there main source of news (Jones 167). While finding these shows amusing and hysterical, they also supply the youths means of information. Critics often condemn our generation for this, however there can be much to learn from these programs.
ReplyDeleteLate night comedy has truly earned an important place in politics. The satirical hosts do not have to worry about being within the constraints of journalism and can freely broadcast there opinions. In an article titled “The Impact of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert” by The Wall Street Journal, we see how these hosts can truly create a difference. By looking at who watches these shows through Patchwork Nation’s demography and geographic county breakdown a definite pattern is shown. Each of the shows do very well where the vote is mostly “Democratic, college campuses and big city industrial metropolis counties” (Chinni 1). However, both shows do not do well in small-town Republican counties and “socially conservative Evangelical Epicenters” (Chinni 1). According to data from Experian Simmons, the Daily Show and Colbert Report also have strong followings in the politically crucial, swing-voting “Monified Burbs” (Chinni 2).
Although each of the shows like to poke fun at the candidates and create laughter among the viewers, there is no doubt that the information provided is relevant and important. For instance, in both shows Colbert and Stewart devoted numerous time to being openly critical of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that to the creation of Super PACS. “Colbert went so far as to create his own Super PAC (Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow) to illustrate the conundrums those entities create” (Chinni 4). Many critics, such as Jason Zinoman of the New York Times, believe that comedy is harmful to politics and creates a negative impact. In his article titled “Late at Night, Comedy Gets Pointed and Political”, he criticizes many popular hosts blaming them for “infiltrating politics” (Zinoman 1). He condemns the shows for “harshly” satirizing political leaders and being politically biased. Zinoman finds proof through his convictions by stating evidence from “Real Time” with Bill Maher, who “attacked Mr. Stewart’s speech in his march on Washington for false equivalency (Zinoman 3). Even though comedians like Colbert and Stewart place there humor with strong point of views’, late-night TV is not going to make or break this campaign. Although the programs are extremely popular for people under thirty, only 10% of adults tuned into The Daily Show or Colbert Report in a four-week period in county types with highest viewership (Chinni 5).
Personally, I receive most of my information through these kinds of media outlets. Not only is it more entertaining to watch, but I truly feel they touch upon important issues. Through my three years in watching these shows, not once have I felt persuaded or led in a direction. Each of the parties are criticized in these shows using humor. The comedians do a great job at displaying a liberal stance on politics and silencing their views. One must remember that the information provided is purely comedy and have an idea what they are poking fun at through official political sources.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Chinni, Dante. "The Impact of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert." The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. .
Jones, Jeffrey P., Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
Matviko, John, “Television Satire and the Presidency: The Case of Saturday Night Live,” in Hollywood’s White House, Peter C. Rollins & John O’Connor, eds. (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 333 – 348.
Zinoman, Jason. "Late at Night, Comedy Gets Pointed and Political." The New York Times. N.p., 3 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. .
Comedy programs tend to present the campaign the way the nation feels about it. The country really doesn’t like either candidate to run the country so Comedy Central entitled the basis of their political satirical shows; The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, “Indecision 2012.” A quote from Comedy Central about election season states “As America prepares to downgrade its status from Greatest Nation on Earth to Pretty Cool Nation Considering, only one question remains: who will make the speeches? This election season, let Comedy Central’s “Indecision 2012″ be your leader through every twist and turn in what promises to be one election in American history.” Comedy Central created fake political ads that instead of focusing on the candidates, they focus on the major news sources that provide voters with political coverage. For example, an ad about CNN states that they use a “magic wall” to determine election outcomes in different states. The ad asks “if they use a magic wall then they must be witches, would you trust your news to witches?” (http://www.colbertnewshub.com/2012/09/08/comedy-central-launches-indecision-2012-campaign-ads/) Though the ads are clearly satirical, not only do they poke fun at the news sources, they are also satirizing political campaigns in general. It makes you think twice about trusting a political ad because of all of the outlandish statements that they use.
ReplyDeleteSatirical comedy shows are very similar to regular news programs in that they both discuss the headlines of the day and both bring on different guests to discuss different issues. However, satirical comedy shows tend to play into a younger demographic that is lost to regular forms of news media. Rachel Larris explains that “In 2004, The Pew Research Center for People and the Press released a survey containing a widely reported fact that 21% of people ages 18 to 29 reported they regularly learned some news about political candidates or the 2004 presidential campaign from “comedy TV shows” and 13% reported the same of “late-night TV shows.” (Larris, 8) Satirical comedy shows also tend to bias towards one party, however it is much less obvious because they tend to equally criticize members of both parties.
Personally, I’d rather receive my news from this type of media outlet because I think that they way that they frame news stories is completely different from how new stories are frame in traditional forms of media. In satirical comedy shows, they will take a headline and discuss it in a way that both gets the messages across and does so in a humorous way so that it’s demographic that it caters to can understand the message and form their own opinion on it.
Sources
Larris, Rachel, Joy. B.A., The Daily Show Effect: Humor, News, Knowledge and Viewers . May 2005
http://www.colbertnewshub.com/2012/09/08/comedy-central-launches-indecision-2012-campaign-ads/