A comedic approach to politics interests the public and presents political material in an engaging way. “Entertaining politics highlights the fact that politics can be pleasurable” (9). Audiences at home are interested in the entertainment aspect behind much of the drama of politics. I think an advantage to comedy in politics is that it can humanize the candidate and make them more relatable. But often the comedic side presented does not represent the candidate in the best light or as looking the most intelligent but it leads to recognition for the politicians or the issues being discussed.
Bill Maher, host of television show Politically Correct that aired on Comedy Central and current host of HBO’s show Real Time is a major contributor to entertainment politics. ABC News writer, Ryan Creed, covered a story on Maher’s most recent political dig. Maher’s name is currently associated with Delaware’s GOP U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell. It was on Maher’s show Politically Correct in 1999 where O’Donnell made a controversial statement that she “dabbled into witchcraft.” In September, Maher re-released this clip that media pundits are currently having a field day with. This comment that O’Donnell made has resurfaced and is now an ongoing issue she has to further explain to voters. She went about addressing her statements regarding witchcraft by airing a promotional advertisement where she states she is not a witch. (Video can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGAgljengs.) Political entertainment host Maher is trying to get O’Donnell back on his show to further explain her previous witchcraft statements, and he said he will continue to air this footage until she agrees to come on the show. "It's like a hostage crisis," Maher said. "Every week you don't show up, I'm going to throw another body out."
By reinstituting this embarrassing footage of O’Donnell, Maher’s role as a political comedic may very well affect the outcome of the U.S. Senate race in Delaware. Jones wrote, “Politics is increasingly crafted through and for media spectatorship, and hence the desired separation between media and politics no longer exists” (8). Clearly, an entertainment aspect to politics provides viewers with amusement, but do entertainment shows do anything for the policy aspect of politics? They are useful because they allow for the public to gain interest in politics and help viewers to have a general working knowledge of political topics, but to what extent do entertainment political shows inform the public on the important issues at hand? We have learned from Maher that years ago O’Donnell was involved in witchcraft, but what has Maher taught us about her policy issues? I think entertainment political shows are effective in the sense that they are amusing. They bring attention to main political topics but they require the viewer to either be somewhat informed already or to do further research. I find it a little scary that many people of our generation rely solely on this type of entertainment television as their main source of news rather than as a supplement to mainstream network news.
Sources:
Jones, Jeffrey. “Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture.” Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. 1-14.
Creed, Ryan. “Maher Airs Christine O’Donnell ‘Witchcraft’ Video.” ABC News. 23 Oct 2010.
“Christine O’Donnell: I’m You.” You Tube. You Tube. 4 Oct 2010. Web. 23 Oct 2010.
I think politics in entertainment primarily promotes and creates an image for a politician or political figure. This can be beneficial or harmful, but more often times it is the latter. This form of programming can define a political figure’s image, but fails to focus on their policies. The image produced can either create great support for the person, or cause many Americans to turn against them.
ReplyDeleteI think primarily for our generation, political comedy acts as way for young voters to become more interested in politics. Many people hear about a topic on the Jon Stewart Show, and go on to investigate the real story. Although it is helpful knowing the story before watching these programs, it can help to spark further interest in political topics. In this way, entertainment in politics is beneficial because it causes the viewer to investigate further and find out an unbiased truth. More people become educated about an issue, a political figure, the story receiving media attention, and in the end, the policies of that person or party. For the majority of the time though, political entertainment teaches little about public policy, and more about the image of a candidate or figure.
Caitie mentions that, “entertainment political shows are effective in the sense that they are amusing. They bring attention to main political topics...” It is amusing for the viewers, but what about the people that are being ridiculed? The “if you can’t beat them, join them” mentality starts to set in for the minds of the figures that are being made fun as they realize the amusement and how they might benefit from the large the audience being reached. In Jeffrey P. Jones’ article, “Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture”, he discusses the issue of comedy and politics colliding. “In 2000, both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates appeared on a special prime-time edition of Saturday Night Live the night before the election – formerly the place where they were satirized; now they participated in satirizing themselves during a campaign” (Jones). From a public relations stand point, is it more beneficial to play into the satire or to look the other way? Does taking part in the entertainment side of politics make a political figure appear more down-to-earth or as a joke to the American public? Some argue that playing along with the media’s interest in one’s flaws or mishaps could create more public support.
However, entertainment shows often do not send the right image of a politician to the people. For viewers that decide to investigate further and find out all sides to a story, this form of entertainment is successful. For those that watch SNL’s parody of Christine O’Donnell’s advertisement rebutting the “witch craft” statement and decide to not look further, entertainment and politics become harmful. It could be detrimental in the fact that if voters only watch parodies and satire, then make their vote based on the one side of the story they hear. It can also ingrain negative comments made by politicians into the minds of Americans and be nearly impossible to rebuild a politician’s image based on one mistake or comment.
Jones later states,”Politics is naturally interesting, dramatic, strange, unpredictable, frustrating, outrageous, and downright hilarious in ways that far exceed the reductive formulations of politics as horse races, policy maneuvers, and palace court intrigue that insider presentations of politics tend to emphasize”. Does it make sense to use politics in entertainment, since it already has the qualities that regular programming hopes to achieve? This ongoing battle of whether it is beneficial or harmful to incorporate satire and politics will be around for a long time.
In our generation today most people only follow politics because they are on comedy central, MTV, and other networks. Not many kids are going to turn on CNN or MSNBC and watch about the political races, it is just not something regularly done. By providing a humorous touch to the topic which is not exactly the most exciting allows many people to tolerate it.
ReplyDeleteWhen I turn on the TV and flip through the channels I go right pass the notable political channels. If I happen to get to comedy central or MTV and one of the humorous political shows is on then I sometimes sit and watch it. These shows provide a way for individuals to get political knowledge to a certain extent and also get some laughter out of it. In the media today comedy plays a huge role in shows. I feel that most shows on TV now are aimed to have some comedy in them because it is what viewers are looking for.
In The Image is Everything Presidency, it quote Ronald Reagan saying “When you get down to it, it is people that make the presidency work, not images.” I have to disagree with Reagan here because in today’s generation I feel the media has the power to influence voters drastically. I think most college students look to these comedic political shows to get a lot of their information on candidates. Is this right? I don’t think it is but I believe it is happening all over college campuses. With other forms of the media they have the jobs to portray the candidates in a non bias way. If they did not do this and just wrote what they felt then I think they would have the power to influence voters.
The media has a great responsibility to show candidates in a non bias way and I think they do a good job with this for the most part. Some stations do take sides but it everyone really said what they truly felt I think it would influence the presidency. The media in today age is a primary source on how candidates get their views and policies out to the public. With these comedic shows it allows more viewers to become educated on the race but sometimes the information can become distorted making these shows not very reliable.
Politics is an easy target for entertainment purposes. First, political entertainment brings some interest and enjoyment to some topics that lack substance. Comedians such as Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart and Bill Maher bring light to politics. I think it's beneficial for young voters, who are the demographic that their television programs tend to attract. It is necessary, however, to be familiar of the current issues in politics in order to understand the comedy. So, those who do follow these political comedians are mostly already educated about current politicians and hot topics. Poking fun at politicians, as Maher has done so with O'Donnell, gives audience members an idea about the politician's character, but not about their policies. I believe that this shouldn't have such a negative effect on a politician, for those who follow political entertainment programs tend to follow politics, and they are already aware of the issues that matter. Jeffrey Jones states "television is a cynical medium that may encourage us to feel engaged or empowered politically, but ultimately it provides feelings that are false, temporal, and certainly not residual." (8) If one is not interested in politics, they may watch these programs, take a while to understand the jokes, and feel satisfied and politically aware once it's over. But political comedy talk shows are not necessarily meant to inform viewers on important political issues, but rather they are meant to poke fun at such usually-bland topics.
ReplyDeleteAt a young age I can remember turning to Saturday Night Live to get my entertainment and political news. SNL’s 2000 “presidential debates” first introduced me to the idea that Al Gore was boring and monotone and George W. Bush was (for a lack of better words) stupid. Before Bush v. Gore SNL boldly tackled William Jefferson Clinton. According to the Matviko text, “SNL’s satire moved from satire about events and decisions to focus increasingly on the presidential scandals.” Politics and comedy seems to be at a crossroads. After Clinton’s presidency, Saturday Night Live relished drama or a good scandal in the White House. Will there ever be a time when political comedy can stop being negative? Will anyone want to watch? I know I won’t! One of the more recently SNL sketches that had me actually laughing out loud involved the now infamous “I’m Not a Witch” campaign ad from Christine O’Donnell. The talented Kristen Wiig’s parody of the ad is absolutely hilarious. I say, keep these scandalous satires coming!
ReplyDeleteA YouTube video of the SNL parody is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mUn2c_PKho&feature=related
I think an important part of what Jones is saying is found in the quote Caiti used about the news not being able to say certain things that satirists can because they don't have a responsibility to objectivity. However, I think it's also important to note that yes, while shows like Bill Maher do take certain things to the extreme (but I think his extreme-ness when it comes to everything is what has made him so popular), there are other shows that do analyze the way in which the news covers things- that clearly the news programs cannot, and that does a great job of educating young people about the biases in news. The extreme case of Bill Maher and Christine O'Donnel does raise of the issue of whether or not he's swaying the election because of what he's doing- but the same argument can be made about the media focusing on her "dabbling in witchcraft" comment more than her policies. I think in this case, the media and Maher are doing the exact same thing. While every anchor on a cable news show has an opinion on issues, as does the host of a satirical news show, the satirical shows allow for more leeway when examining issues that a news show would receive criticism for. While they still do slant their news, certain shows are bringing light to that fact. I think the clip we watched in class where Jon Stewart commands the media to change their news to fit their narrative just like Fox does is a perfect example of this. In the clip, Stewart is examining the issue of media bias that the media cannot, and will not address.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Catie when she discusses that Comedians have roles that sometimes may affect the outcome of political races even when most of their comedy is not based on actual policies, but rather embarrassing moments in the lives of the politicians that are being used for comedy. Not only are the talking heads are having a field day with Christine O'Donnell's past but so are the American people. There are countless video's re-making and making fun of her political ad "I am not a witch, I am you" that also spurred a rebuttal campaign saying "Christine O'Donnell you are not me" led by her opponent Chris Coons. (http://www.chriscoons.com/notme/). This ties in with what Matviko was saying about SNL and Bill Clinton, how through the scandels SNL almost helped keep Bill's popularity. Also SNL can make politicians unpopular, thinking most recently to the 2008 election when most people knew more about SNL Palin than Sarah Palin herself. SNL also did a spoof of Christine O'Donnell's ad. (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/christine-odonnell-ad/1253643/) While comedy in politics brings politics to a new audience, it also can hurt politicians because they can lead people to believe falsifications about those people rather than teach them of the facts.
ReplyDeleteFor me, this is one of the most entertaining aspects of politics. While I understand Caiti's concern over an amount of ignorance for regular nightly news, I find nightly news soooo boring. And the majority of what is slightly interesting is what is then covered on The Daily Show and SNL. Airplace company takeovers and shootings in New Haven do very little for me.
ReplyDeleteI so enjoyed "The Case of Saturday Night Live." To be honest, the George W. Bush and Al Gore SNL debates are what sparked my interest in politics. When Cokie Roberts said "We have to see what the late night comedians say," I felt they did a great job of bringing these seemingly uninteresting candidates to the people. Because each was mocked and I remember both actual candidates hilariously appeared on the show, the close race may have had more to do with the even the split.
I agree with what Kailyn said: Comedy can serve as a gateway to get people interested in politics. I've never been one to follow politics very much, but when I watch Jon Stewart or SNL poking fun at something or someone, I tend to notice that the jokes are only funny if you actually know what they're talking about. The extreme case is, of course, Sarah Palin. For me, all of the ridicule about Sarah Palin made me actually want to go and find out what her policies were. Additionally, I saw the Katie Couric interview skit with Amy Poehler and Sarah Palin before I saw the ACTUAL Katie Couric interview. Had it not been for comedy, I might never have gone out of my way to find that interview and watch it in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteIn a nation that gets bored with dry news and politics, I think that shows like Jon Stewart are nothing but helpful. Jones makes an excellent point in his article -- "Entertaining politics highlights the fact that politics can be pleasurable, and that engaging or contemplating it need not always be the equivalent of swallowing bitter medicine" (Jones 9). I agree completely with this statement -- people need to enjoy doing something before they can ever actually absorb any of it (as is the case with most classes).
It seems that Matviko's article, however, does not see the benefits of sattire. Of course, I would have to disagree. While these comedy shows don't always aim directly to inform the public about policies, it sparks interest in politics that may not have otherwise been there for some people in America.