A very interesting phenomenon recently has been the spoofing of cable news. This is most notably featured on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and The Colbert Report, in which Stephen Colbert actually
portrays himself, a right wing, Fox News, type reporter. The shows have become incredibly popular, especially with young people (I am
big time evidence of this). What is so interesting about this however, is that in a lot of cases, Stewart and Colbert have become young people's primary source of news. These shows are now literally defining how a
very large amount of young people see the world. So large in fact that something like this could happen:
A lot of critics, all of which that I have heard, by the way, are over the age of 50, see this as a problem. They say that people who get news from comedians can't look at the world seriously. However, I see Colbert and Stewart as more than just comedians. Anyone who watches their shows and really thinks about them knows this. They are actually incredibly, amazingly smart. The stuff they pick-up, make fun of, and articulate so well is unprecedented in cable news. Colbert and Stewart, in my opinion, are better than anyone else on TV at picking up nuances in the news, and twisting them to show the reality while making it hilarious. I think that the news you get in these shows is actually the least bias. Because the main agenda is comedy, and not political advantage. This leads a startling truth to come out in the Colbert and Stewart programs.
I would agree that it is definitely important to get news from other sources, because there is a lot of silly stuff on these shows as well. However, I feel these shows serve as a much better reality check than other news programs (which claim to be the best reality check). And anyone who claims that these comedians can't be serious, and are not intelligent when it comes to world events should watch this three part interview, in which Jon Stewart ends his much publicized feud with Jim Cramer by totally grilling him. Take a look:
I apologize, but now I must get out my rant on cable news. Recently, I watched Barack Obama's prime time press conference on CNN, who I grudgingly find to be the most balanced major news network. I watched the pundits discuss afterwords for about 15 minutes, before I emphatically turned the TV off in disgust. Everything that the pundits said seemed to have nothing to do with our current crisis. All it was, was "Obama looks on edge on angry - he did a terrible job", and other remarks about his tone of voice or body language. Instead of offering intelligent, insightful, and useful insight on to the plans that he proposed (this could be criticism or explanations of how his plans will be enacted) all the talking heads did was ramble on about tiny nit-picking things that will not help the viewer understand the situation any better. He has already been elected, now is not the time to be questioning his demeanor, but rather plans. The worst, however came when the openly liberal, and the openly conservative pair came in with their own analysis. Of course, the liberal (Roland Martin) said he was professional and he touched on ideas that Americans cared about, etc., etc. Then the conservative (Bill Bennett) came in and only talked about how angry Obama looked, and how his plans made no sense without actually explaining why. During the 15 minutes I watched, I heard not one insightful thing. Cable news is sadly just a manipulative political tool. If you don't believe me, and have not watched the Jim Cramer interview above, I
strongly suggest you do. If you do this, and still do not agree (or if
do agree with me as well) I would love to hear what you have to say. Personally, I would take Colbert or Stewart any day. That is true, honest reporting.
Also of note: I find it vey interesting how comedy spoofs have shaped elections. The best example, as I am sure everyone knows, is the Tina Fey impression of Sarah Palin. I think it is fascinating, and extremely cool, that this platform of comedy can really make a big difference on important matters.
Hey, cool post, I don't watch comedy shows that often, but when I do, I always catch the politcal spoofs. I agree that it influences the opinions of viewers... have you noticed which side is more popular?
ReplyDeletePS, to embed videos, you need to put the video's html code in the "edit html" tab, instead of the "compose" tab. Hope it works!
Katie, thanks for tip and comment....
ReplyDeleteIf you are hinting to the fact that Stewart, Colbert, SNL, and the likes are clearly show more information to the left, I would obviously agree (I would be lying if I didn't). There are a couple reasons for this. First of all, this kind of comedy has always, and still does appeal greatly to the youth - Young people (15-30 range) are the target audience (although these shows have lately been growing in popularity with the baby boomer set as well). The clear majority of young people are more liberal (as proved by the recent elections) in their political standing, so trust me, a show like this with a more conservative perspective would not become popular. Right now, like it or not, it is hip to be a democrat.
The other reason is that traditionally the liberals favor the individual over the institution, and the conservatives vice versa. I think when issues are presented in such a way as they are on these shows, where the raw truth of the matters are exposed, it generally makes the institution a bit silly. This usually feeds into a liberal point of view. Obviously my own political opinion might have influenced this last point, but I really believe it to be true. And honestly, compared to Fox News, the reporting on Colbert and the Daily Show looks straight down the middle.
Also, I have a couple conservative friends who find the Colbert Report hilarious. These political comedy shows make fun of politics in general, and often make fun of democrats as well. Washington Institutionalism is the main target of these shows, not conservatives. One may perceive this to not be true because there have been more cases of "politicians acting like politicians" (what I am getting at is the sneaky, greedy, lying public stereotype) with Republicans, i.e. Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh's whole life, etc. These cases are low hanging fruit for the comedians
Other interesting note: I heard Seth Myers, the head writer and Weekend Update host of Saturday Night Live, interviewed on the NPR program Fresh Air this past fall. In the past, and this election season held true, there have been more REPUBLICANS to appear on SNL than Democrats. When asked why, Myers responded by saying that Republicans are more willing to come on because they aren't afraid that Democrats are going to use the appearance against them, where as Democrats are terrified of the reverse situations. Nobody's going to used Jon Stewart against the Democrats. Just putting that out there......
Wow, Liam, you sure know your stuff about comedy and politics. Generally, I tend to stand on common ground with both parties, but I have some more investigating to do. I agree though that the majority of youth have democratic views. Even my older brother, who I was pretty sureee was conservative, voted for Obama in the elections. Many of my religious friends were pro McCain though; due to issues like abortion of course ...although, one would think that healthcare and education are also primary concerns of the church as well. But back to the comedy aspect, that's an interesting note about how more republicans have appeared on late night television. Do you think the goal of that is to work on boosting their popularity with the youth?
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that is the goal . It is also just to get as much publicity as possible, and to be in the media in a more "light-hearted" situation as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes, I do think that better popularity with the youth is the main goal (especially in an election where the opponent is "Mr. Hip")