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.
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
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
“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)
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.
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).
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.
Jones, Jeffrey P. Entertaining Politics: Satiric Television and Political Engagement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. Print.
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 McClennen however, all mirror images of satire might not be beneficial. She believes that shows such as South Park and The Simpsons, which are not afraid to attack anything, do not lead to any kind of positive political discourse. This is because they provide negative critique that does not offer the elements required from an effective public pedagogy (McClennen 74). Theodore Gournelos, the author of The Tao of South Park: Dissonant Visual Culture and the Future of Politics refutes McClennen´s claim by arguing that eventhough South Park does not directly intervene with policy making or legislative initiatives, it forms a social landscape in which we challenge the status quo. He continues by saying that ”conflict-oriented cultural productions like South Park suggest an arra...
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
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Laugh, and the Voters Laugh With You, or at Least at You.” New York Times 26 February 2006, New England ed.: Week in Review 1, 14.
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.
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.