Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Links of Interest
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(43)
-
▼
December
(13)
- Opps
- Politics Turns Chic: Increases Youth Vote
- Underneath the Drama and Laughter
- Final Project
- The Media Machine
- Will Obama be Remembered for Environmental Efforts?
- The Architects
- Historical Parallels between 1932 and 2008
- No title
- The Obama Era: A New Age for America
- Billary
- Political Satire: Obama '08
- A Comparative Retrospect: J.F.K and Jimmy Carter v...
-
▼
December
(13)
Posts
13 comments:
I thought it was very interesting to look at the roles that satire played in this election. As Peter has shown, many of these skits and cartoons were in Obama's favor as it made him the more popular choice, especially for young people. Although Obama was the younger and more dynamic candidate in this election, do you think, in the future, that other notably younger candidates will receive similar treatment as Obama did during this election season? Are these sources of political satire simply trying to gain ratings by downplaying the older candidate in order to increase the number of young viewers, or do they have another motive behind doing so?
I would like to ask why you do not buy the fact that if Obama and McCain run campaigns with different levels of negativity, how is would it be unbiased for the media to report on an equal number of negative stories? Also, if you look closely at the media studies, any article that states that McCain is losing or Obama is winning counts as a negative article for McCain or a positive story for Obama. When a candidate is behind he has to do things that are viewed less favorably and the media is going to report on these things. I agree there is a liberal bias in the media but I believe it is way overblown how big it is.
I was watching a rerun of the Conan O'Brien show from las t August the other day and he made a comment about how most comedians have had a really hard time finding a comedic slant on Obama. Conan said that Obama simply was not a funny character and it was hard to make fun of him. This may be some insight into why very few jokes were made at his expense. I recall in the 2004 election John Kerry was the butt of many jokes because he had characteristics that were good sources of comedy. How do you think the above statement may affect satire?
The message from this paper comes out pretty clearly from the different types of satire presented.
Satire could possibly lead to one of the major deciding factors in campaigning for the presidency. The fact that people love to watch television, and love entertainment probably instigated the popular trend of watching satirical tv shows. Because of this, many young and old voters utilize this type of information to catch up with political news.
I think what would be good to research after reading this is
Did the popularity of these shows, such as SNL and the Daily Show, increase or stay the same since the last election?
Could people now predict the outcome of the election through popularity of these shows?
Obama did have a big edge when it came to satire given by various programs. While this is mainly due to the leftist inclination of the media, it played a huge role nonetheless. Because people love to laugh they will tune into a program that makes fun of politicians. What could be better than laughing at the people who hold the most responsibility and should be held to a higher standard. Unfortunately, when people decide that that's the only way they will get their political news, there is a huge problem. While it cannot be good for people to base their political knowledge solely on show's such as The Daily Show, the viewer must actually have some legitimate background knowledge to appreciate many of the jokes. Lighthearted politics are great for an occasional break from the drama of it all, but should not be the only source of political news.
Should political satire be allowed on television?
If political satire had not played a role in this election, would the outcome have been the same?
I think Peter made great points in pointing out how satire strongly influenced the outcome of this election. It's obvious that McCain was made fun of more, and that this influenced the youth vote. And the notion that "Obama was not funny" or comments similar to that are just nonsense. Sarah Palin was made fun of for her lack of experience. Obama's not much better in that category. Yet, that point was not brought out at all by satirists. If satirists had focused on that point, it is my belief that Obama would not have made it out of the democratic primary. Obama was able to make it out of the primary because Hillary was made fun of much more than him.
Why do you think Obama's lack of experience was not made fun of?
Do you think satirists, because of their huge influence, should focus and equal amount of time and jokes on each candidate?
1) SNL does not focus on the new as much as the DS and CR, but how strong do you feel their influence is in relation to the DS and CR
2)could Obama have won without the Daily Show, Colber Report, and SNl
Satire was such a huge part of this election. When people think of Sarah Palin and then immediately think of tina Fey you know there's a big influence there. While satire was popular you hit the nail on the head, the media loved Obama and hardly had any negative satire about him.
Do you think the lack of political satire attributed to Obama was because of the color of his skin and the media afraid to cross that line?
This paper makes a great case for how the "funny men" of the U.S. aided Obama in his historical victory in the presidential election. When Peter pointed out the fact that many satirical shows defend their unsubstantiated claims by saying are not a legitimate source of information, he made a great point. Whether these programs are willing to admit it or not, more and more Americans trust them as sources of political news. Because of this, these programs have moral obligation present news with some basis in truth, which they only sometimes do.
Questions:
With George Bush and many of The Daily Show's (and other similar programs’) favorite targets now out of the political picture (Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld etc.) who will satirists make fun of now?
Now that Obama is under the microscope more than ever, will we finally see comedians take an angle on Barack making him "funny" or "easy to be made fun of”?
I like this argument a lot. i think that the satires of Obama played a crucial role in his campaign. the jokes that the news sources were constantly shoveling out on him and the other candidates made his name a much more household name and one that was constantly being spoken. if it was not for shows like the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, there might have been a closer election.
As Peter showed us, more and more people are getting their news from "soft news" outlets such as Comedy Central's television shows. i think that their influence was instrumental in Obama's success.
Would McCain have done better if Stewart and Colbert were more Republican leaning supporters?
Is any sort of laughter good for a campaign? If we laugh about a candidates deficiencies, rather than something funny that may have occurred to them, is that accomplishing the same sort of positive satire for the candidate?
Overall, the presentation was delivered effectively and with much appeal through the use of media clips, etc. Peter makes clear that there is no doubt in the significance of satire's role in this recent election.
Questions:
1. Although satire is a significant factor, is it also safe to call it the determining factor? What if only for this 2008 election?
2. Although satire may help a candidate win office, does that necessarily legitimize his ability to competently carry out the agenda of such an office?
Peter, I found your argument to be both entertaining and fascinating. For my last paper, i researched the effects of Comedy and the Media and i found that mnay people were more focused on the satire than the reality. Do you think that this is a potential problem for our nation? Will the media inevitably "dumb" us down?
I found your video clips to fit perfectly to your argument. THey provide their audiences with comedy and news simultaneously. I feel that the soft news is " fun" but it must be seen in conjunction with the real legitimate news shows.
Which candidate was affected the most by the funny men? And how were some candidates attacked with more strength than others?
Political satire is always a fun topic to work on, and you made a very engaging, fun presentaion.
Peter, do you think political satire will contintue to grow in influence, (as you showed on your pie charts), and do you think it will play the same role in the next election?
Do you think it is beneficial or harmful that satire is increasingly becoming the source of news for young people?
I thought that you did a great job comparing and contrasting how soft news programs treated Obama differently than they treated McCain and Hillary. The clips of the Daily show especially exhibited how comedy shows tend to reveal more of Obama's virtues than his faults. Where as, McCain and Hillary took a beating at almost every turn.
My questions to you are: 1) Do these "soft news programs" have a responsibility to report with a greater degree of neutrality? 2) Would it be reasonable for Campaigns to spend time trying to influence comedy shows and political cartoons?
Post a Comment