1. Late night television has become a major component of American politics. This has occurred for various reasons. One reason is that presenting the candidate or political figure head in a comedic light adds a sense of humanism to the person. Its gives the illusion to the public that that particular figure head is just like us. Second, it allows comic relief for the political figure. It gives them the platform to make fun of themselves in some aspects and dispel negative connotations. Third, it’s just a form of entertainment. When political figures grace our late night television screens, we find it more interesting to watch these episodes then a more conservative show such as Face the Nation on CBS.
Providing a sense of humanism for a political
…show more content…
Television comedy is fair toward politicians. After watching shows featuring democratic candidate Bernie Sanders and shows featuring Donald Trump for example, you can see that those shows poke an even amount of fun toward both candidates. I do however notice that the more popular the candidate gets while running and the more dominant they are in the poetical race they are often than not seen on comedy television channels more. While interviews featuring Sanders, often asked about his views on his opponents, we still see an even amount of reference between both parties in regard to their rival political candidates. Creating an image that unfairly helps or hurts the political candidates is not something I see. Jokes created around political figures all contain negative aspects circulating in popular culture such as Obama and his huge ears. A good example of this is when, Trevor Noah, did an interview, turned the stage setting into a bar and brought up several political issues with a candidate. One of the issues was drugs. It was known in popular culture that this particular candidate did not like to speak on the aspect of drugs but, he brought it up anyway out of humor. The view and responses expressed on these shows are not to be taken seriously. There are some politicians that might incorporate some political statements just to express their personal views on the given topics but overall, I would not choose my next presidential or government representative based off scenarios and answers given on a comedic showcase. Regardless of the political orientation, for entertainment purposes, whoever is in power will come under these circumstances and it does not define the true credibility of the candidate nor does it discredit
If you are able to stoop to there level just enough that they look at you as more of a relatable person than a politician then the stakes of them voting for you over another candidate will go way up. George bush took this into consideration after he made his first mistake of making fun of letterman. He Made the trip to not only "SNL" to recover from his failure but also appeared on "The Tonight Show". " By 2000, network news viewership had dropped to twenty-nine million, while the total audience continued to increase, to a hundred and one million households" (Kolbert, 71). This spike in views and the avilability for poloticans to go on Talk-Shows that the younger generation watched gave politicians the ability to connect with the younger generation unlike what was ever possible. This helped give the polotians the ability to become popular in the younger generations that don’t have a interest or desire in politics. The result of Bush and other politicians like Nixon going on these shows is the ability to relate with a younger audience, but other than that they are also able to stoop to the level of the average American by making fun of themselves and getting off their political
For example, the comedy shows The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon expresses satirical humor concerning politics. His show also demonstrates political satire by telling jokes and even impersonating political figures for the audience. He creates humor through sarcasm that focuses on real issues. His sarcastic humor causes others to feel more confident in their criticism toward politicians. For example, “Jimmy Fallon expresses his humor about Donald Trump, impersonating his appearance and imitating his voice while talking about politics. He uses his humor by impersonating Donald Trump and his sweeping generalizations with Madea (Rogo).” Jimmy Fallon shows people his views through humor and it creates a sense of community to express their agreeable and disagreeable views. As we discussed some ideas about satirical humor that affects political changes, it was important to reveal their feelings about changes in life and drove them to look upon their society or government more
Rush Limbaugh has shaped himself, intentionally or not, into quite a controversial political entertainer. The mere subject of what he speaks on creates an obvious divide in the politically interested population. The subjects of his radio show, his newsletter, and formerly his TV show, can be labeled as political interests. That is, absolutely anything the federal government, as a political entity, involves itself and/or the country in. For the most part though, Rush would likely say to this last statement that the government and the country (the people) are virtually on in the same; one body works for the other. But back to the question at hand—why do people like or dislike Rush Limbaugh and what has brought on this phenomenon?
Popular culture also plays a role in why Americans do not trust politicians. Late-night television shows use politicians in their comedy skits, where their mistakes are punch lines for comedians. A study produced by Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris found that people who view late-night television shows have a more negative view of candidates, (Medvic p. 5). In particular, people who view The Daily Show have drastically less faith in the electoral process, (Medvic p. 5). Russell Peterson argues that these jokes as “implicitly anti-democratic” because they declare the entire system as fraudulent, (Medvic p. 5).
Individuals may believe this new exposure of political debates and facts about the candidates would help the public make an educated decision of their president. However, all of that television has done is turn the presidential debates into a popularity contest. Elections were based on image, charm and how the networks wish to have the candidates perceived. Televisions’ contribution to political debates only emphasized personality, visual image and emotion rather than ideas, issues and reason.
Satire is the most powerful democratic weapon in the arsenal of modern media. Sophia McClennen, the author of America According to Colbert: Satire as Public Pedagogy, describes it as the modern form of public pedagogy, as it helps to educate the masses about current issues (73). In fact, ”a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey in 2004 found that 61 percent of people under the age of thirty got some of their political news from late-night comedy shows” (McClennen 73). This statistic shows how influential satirical shows such as The Colbert Report or South Park can be.
“ Television often provides politicians with more attention turning them into more celebrity than politician” (Hart). This holds some truths in some situations television does over publicize some politicians , but this always is not a bad thing. The modern day politician is suppose to receive a plethora of attention due to their important public figure. Some television networks do sway towards parties , but not all of them. If anything a viewer can watch the network that reports exclusively on his or her interest rather than the interests of the people from another political party. When placed under this public spotlight the true character of the politician is revealed , and the public can get to know them in depth. “Politicians have the choice to abuse their public figure to derive attention or use it for acts of good” (Bazalgette) . This ultimately comes down to the morals of who we chose to represent us. Television plays an important part but at the end of the day if a politician is gonna mislead the public he will do it. Television acts as a checker to make sure the public cannot be fooled so easily. Above all television has helped propel our modern day society into realms that were before thought to be impossible to
Many politically based talk shows focus on controversial topics. Their shows aim to cause discussion over many politically controversial topics. The shows cause people from both sides of politics to argue over topics that usually both sides strongly believe in their opinion. The shows begin to turn into a screaming fest, where one side, of the argument, tries to talk over the other side, while the other does the same thing. It shows that without humor or something else being there to lighten the mood a small debate can turn into a fully heated argument. This shows the power of context and diction. Through the use of a humorful tone, when used in the right time and place, people are able to calmly talk about topics that without it would be a full on argument. Through a comedian’s humorful word choice, he is able to make his points usually without completely enraging his audience. Those who don’t use humor or something else to lighten the mood, end up creating an argument that just grows and grows until both sides are screaming at and denying everything the other side says. However, eventually something is said that lightens the mood. This is usually something somewhat comical that both sides can relate to. Whatever it was that was said becomes the thing that both sides can agrees on, and as a result makes the argument
The ratings for the presidential debates have decreased significantly from 1960 to 1996. Since the 1960s, television has served as both a positive and negative influence on presidential elections. Television enables a greater connection between the American public and its presidential candidates; it allows candidates to appear more human in the eyes of the public and makes candidates more accountable for their actions. It has made television fairer and more accessible, but has also indirectly forced candidates to move from pursuing issues to pursuing image.
James Conroy argues that laughter in serious topics has been regarded through the ages as dangerous, deviant, and subversive; yet equally as refreshing, challenging, and constructive. Political humor is extensively used in almost all countries, but political satire is perceived differently from one country to another. The research question is as follows: what factors make political satire an effective tool that affects politics and policy? I argue that humor is more influential when blended with serious topics, such as international relations or politics. Laughter is a great means to put serious topics under the lenses of critical thinking. The use of humor, and political satire specifically can bring about serious political change. Humor can play all sorts of roles in the political process through being informative, educational and influential while keeping its captive entertaining
Real and the satiric are interwoven in a tangible way. The ability to manipulate and alienate the real gives the satire a great deal of power and appeal. As Amber Day opines, “One of the primary factors that set these shows apart from other examples of political satire is this weaving of real news footage or the actions of real public figures into the satirist’s narrative” (54). The satiric programmes dissect the politicians and we could see a ‘political autopsy’ which often puts the politicians under tremendous pressure to perform well.
Television network Comedy Central, obviously known for their comedy programs, has a show called the Daily Show which doubles as a news broadcasting program of sorts. The broadcast is hosted by a South African comedian and actor named Trevor Noah. During the episode of the Daily Show following the democratic debate in Las Vegas, Noah and his news team did a post debate analysis where they presented a few of the main topics of the debate as well as their own remarks on each of the five individual candidates. While the Daily Show focused primarily on the satirical commentary of the top news headlines, the content and presentation can be analyzed through Nosich’s Standards of Reasoning to determine if the comedy show could be considered a reliable news source.
There are many ways to define popular culture. Many individuals have grappled with the question what is popular culture? And how to critically analyze and deconstruct the meanings. Looking at the root words of popular culture is where to begin. Raymond Williams states ‘popular’ means: “well liked by many people" or “culture actually made for the people themselves (Storey, p.5). This is part with the word ‘culture’ combine to look at how the two words have been connect by theoretical work within social and historical context. John Storey approaches popular culture in six categories, they are as followed: “Popular culture is simply culture that is widely favoured or well liked by many people”, Popular culture is “the culture that is left over after we have decided what is high culture”, Popular culture is “mass culture”, “Popular culture is the culture that originates from ‘the people.” and “Popular culture as a site of struggle
From the beginning days of the printing press to the always evolving internet of present day, the media has greatly evolved and changed over the years. No one can possibly overstate the influential power of the new media of television on the rest of the industry. Television continues to influence the media, which recently an era of comedic television shows that specialize in providing “fake news” has captivated. The groundbreaking The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and its spin-off The Colbert Report have successfully attracted the youth demographic and have become the new era’s leading political news source. By parodying news companies and satirizing the government, “fake news” has affected the media, the government, and its audience in such a way that Bill Moyers has claimed “you simply can’t understand American politics in the new millennium without The Daily Show,” that started it all (PBS).
Writers at the time such as Aristophanes and Menander wrote comedy similarly to how we do today, mocking politicians, fellow writers, and Greek philosophers (Mark Cartwright). The word ‘comedy’ is derived from Middle English, from Medieval Latin comoedia, from Latin, ‘drama with a happy ending’ (Merriam-Webster). This joyful type of performance may be why we commonly use the word ‘comedy’ to talk about jokes, humor, and hilarious performers. Comedy is meant to bring us joy and relief from reality’s negativity. Mary O’Hara wrote about comedy for a BBC article titled “How Comedy Makes us Better People”: “Comedy is more than just a pleasant way to pass an evening, humour more than something to amuse. They’re interwoven into the fabric of our everyday existence. Whether you’re sharing an amusing story down the pub, making a self-deprecating joke after someone pays you a compliment or telling a dark joke at a funeral, humour is everywhere. (O’Hara)” This is certainly an accurate statement about modern comedy. Comedy is not sadness, but rather a way to forget the woes of everyday life. What is the point in humorous incidents and ridiculous jokes if they do not make a person smile or laugh so hard their gut