The shift from traditional news to satire is changing the way in which people are obtaining news. It is safe to assume that most people have heard some type of political humor over time. The current presidential election provides plenty of political humor. Sure, the jokes are humorous and the comedy is entertaining. However, do we ever notice what effect these jokes have on our own political preferences? Perhaps political humor is more than just humor. In this class we have discussed how the rise in “infotainment” affects our perceptions of pubic officials. For many years, networks rarely ventured into the world of political humor. Compared to television today this is hard to believe. However, in 1970, this began to change. In the following …show more content…
At this point researchers examine just how this late night humor interacts with public opinion of political figures. The analysis of their dataset of late night jokes are compared with findings of political news analysis gathered from the CMPA during presidential campaigns from 1992 to 2008. Charts are developed looking at the correlations between unfavorability rating, jokes, and negative news regarding presidential candidates. Both the republic and democratic candidate’s charts are displayed next to one another in order to see if perhaps these jokes led to the outcome of the campaign. Later, the book shifts its focus to the role that late night talk shows play in presidential elections. Beginning with Bill Clinton’s appearance on the Arsenio Hall Show in 1992, late night talk shows have become a regular standard for politicians on their road to the White House. These appearances offer presidential candidates an opportunity to showcase their more positive traits in a relaxed way that reaches a wider range of voters. This section of the book covered late night appearances during elections from 1996 to …show more content…
There is no overarching question that this books seeks to answer. Therefore, there is no real conclusion ever drawn. In fact, there is not enough information to draw any conclusions from. The tables and figures included in this book include variables such as the number of political jokes, the most targeted individuals, the percentage of jokes targeting each individual, the number of jokes about various issues areas, and the unfavorability ratings of different presidential candidates. There was no organization of results based on characteristics such as age or gender. We are never told who this political humor might affect more. There was never a steady variable that could be compared to draw any final conclusions. We are simply told at the end that this political humor affects us whether we notice it or not. The charts and graphs provided, while containing a large amount of information, offer us no use when trying to draw conclusions. It is nearly impossible for us as readers to discover whether or not this information really means
In 1992, President Bill Clinton was a little known former governor from the poor state of Arkansas who thwarted President George H.W. Bush’s effort to be reelected and became the 42nd president of the United States. During the primary and general election, President Clinton’s campaign made extensive use of television to introduce himself and his ideas to the general public. Three examples were chosen as representative of the type of imagery seen during campaign. The first is a TV ad called “Hope”, the next is a picture from President’s appearance on the Arsenio Hall TV show and the last is a TV ad called “1988.” These examples serve to represent key moments that occurred during the presidential campaign.
“Morreall argues that, if we want to answer these questions, we shouldn’t focus on whether the joke happens to trade on a stereotype. Instead, he takes the primary problem with some humor to be that it involves disengaging from things with which we ought to be engaged.” (Morreall, 529)
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
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).
Popular television host, Stephen Colbert, was famously quoted on the premiere of his show saying, “Anyone can read the news.” In 1996, The Daily Show, often referred to as TDS, originated on the popular television channel, Comedy Central. Its goal was to provide the viewers with political information, drawing them in and holding them by making political events, situations, parties, and people the subject of a comedic target. The extreme outlook of politics displayed on the popular television series can easily turn people away from these programs, however, it also attracts a large group of avid followers. Each host takes a humorous and sometimes crude view on politics and world events. The Colbert Report, debuting in 2005, is a spin off series of The Daily Show but oppositely focuses on a conservative viewpoint, while the Daily Show has a more liberal voice. Jon Stewart is the host of TDS and his rival, the host of the Colbert Report, is Stephen Colbert. Comedic news television programs, such as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, provide factual information to people who have turned away from traditional news sources, however, the entertainment that is found in the cynical outlook held by such shows can lead to public ignorance of politics and further youth disengagement in politics in the future.
Humor and emotional appeals is what Moore has used in Fahrenheit 9/11 to aid the effect of persuasion. For humor, Moore reaches for an ‘ad populum’ with his audience, looking to exert his opinion as a justification for his claim. An example can be with the Florida election, where Moore has used a fast tempo background piece of music. This sounds much like a stereotypical ‘hillbilly/country’ song; which can be related to Bush’s southern US state background. This music has several functions, including helping Moore’s rapid delivery of facts, but in this case it illustrates Moore’s opinion of the nature of the election – that it can be seen as some sort of ‘joke’. By providing a taunt at Bush’s background, Moore has given the audience humor. Comedy makes these messages more effective as it increases the liking for the source [Moore], and the choice of humor might illustrate a shared sense of hilarity that hints at a similar set of underlying ideas that the audience hold.
Television has affected every aspect of life in society, radically changing the way individuals live and interact with the world. However, change is not always for the better, especially the influence of television on political campaigns towards presidency. Since the 1960s, presidential elections in the United States were greatly impacted by television, yet the impact has not been positive. Television allowed the public to have more access to information and gained reassurance to which candidate they chose to vote for. However, the media failed to recognize the importance of elections. Candidates became image based rather than issue based using a “celebrity system” to concern the public with subjects regarding debates (Hart and Trice). Due to “hyperfamiliarity” television turned numerous people away from being interested in debates between candidates (Hart and Trice). Although television had the ability to reach a greater number of people than it did before the Nixon/Kennedy debate, it shortened the attention span of the public, which made the overall process of elections unfair, due to the emphasis on image rather than issue.
According to Everything’s an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, “Humor has always played an important role in argument.” (38). Humor itself is something that activates amusement or laughter. Moreover, in popular culture, satire is a tool that is used to point out things in our society. Satire opens the minds of people to philosophies they might completely deny, using humor.
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.
Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists study humor because it is a fundamental culture value, but they still can’t determine why certain things make some people laugh and others not. There are “humor quotient” tests that are designed to measure an individual’s sense of humor, but these tests are questionable. These tests aren’t accurate because almost all humor depends on cultural background knowledge and language skills. Not every person in the whole world, or even in one country share the same background knowledge and skills, therefore they cannot have the same type of humor. “The fact remains that individuals vary in their appreciation of humor” (Rappoport 9). Since humor varies from individual to individual, humor lies in the individual. How successful or funny a joke is depends on how the person receives the joke, humor cannot be measured by a statistical
The airing of presidential debates on television is another very crucial part of the election process today. They are a chance for the public to see the candidates speak about vital current issues and their stance on political subjects. They are also a major deciding factor for voters. For example we can contrast the election between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 and the election between Gore and Bus...
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
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.
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.
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).