I agree with Gretchen in saying that political satire is good for democracy. I believe it provides a relief to the sometimes stressed out events that are happening. They make fun of flaws or gaffs that someone has made. I watch Saturday Night Live every week and have enjoyed the last two skits they have done on the presidential debate and the vice presidential debate. They emphasize the things that each candidate did poorly and over embellish it. It makes it a fun way to laugh at both candidates knowing its not serious.
Now, like Gretchen said, you cannot only rely on these political satire shows for your information on politics. Many things are over stated and not entirely true. This can create a dilemma where some of your facts are wrong. So if you do watch these satire shows, it would be a good idea to watch or read from a reliable news source as well.
I disagree with Kirsten. Political satire and other forms of mocking political speech, while entertaining, cheapen political debate and complicate understanding of important issues. Some credit has been given to political satire for peaking public interest in dry public affirs, with some due credit. In 2009, internet forums, blogs, as well as sharp, sarcastic critisim from high-browed sources actually inspired action and new, inventive policies from the Federal Reserve. That is clearly an American concept--the more minds you have considering and refined policy, the better the policy would be, based on the competition therory. Important financial publications like Baron's ran satorial critisims of the Federal Reserve instead of their usual more serious, factual pieces. This added fire to the political economic debate. Around election time, however, the results tend to be a little differnet than our economic. Sources like SNL and other "late shows" sensationalize information and usually add a cynical attitude to public political debate. For example, in the 2008 election, SNL aired their infamous Tina Fey impersonations of Sarah Palin, who they famously penned to say "I can see Russia from my house." Today, many Americans still believe that Sarah Palin actually said this, when in fact she never did. Instead of highlighting a new side of Sarah Palin, and enhancing public debate, the skits gave a cynical, politians-are-stupid, attitude to an important presidential election. Instead of firing up debate, the satire cheapened it. The difference in results between the two examples comes from the target audience of the satire. The economic satire came from sources with a highly educated demographic. Readers who read and applied economic satire to their own debate were interesting in the topic (most Americans don't argue over monetary policy if they don't have a geniune interest in the topic). The satire therefore renewed interest in the politically inclined, and led to positive results. The viewers of SNL are not necesarily as educated about politics as the readers of Baron's. Not to say that they aren't intellegent, but as we saw in 2008, many were not involved or current enough to distinguish television characters from political candidates, and blended the two images. They also weren't interested enough to take the cynicism in stride. The negative view of politics on popular shows, then, promoted the politics-is-corrupt attitude, also adding a degree of apathy to pressing debate.
I don't think that it's fair to say that satire is detrimental to democracy because the viewers are undereducated. If someone who actually is interested in the politics watches the skits, then they are able to take a more lighthearted view on some serious issues. I think that this will allow those people to continue their interest in politics, simply by keeping it interesting. What Tori is saying sounds to me more like an argument that undereducated voters is detrimental to democracy rather than saying that the satire itself is bad. I do agree that undereducated voters can be bad for democracy, and the satire does not help that issue, but I don't think it necessarily hurts democracy on its own.
I agree with Gretchen that political satire shows are good for democracy. Like she said, many young people are apathetic when it comes to politics and think that it is too serious and too dry. Young people are usually very busy, and most simply do not want to spend their time trying to understand complex policies and acts of government that, in their minds, do not affect them. Satire shows such as Saturday Night Live take these issues and turn them into something that is more easily understandable and presents it to them in a way that they can, like Gretchen said, relate to. For me, it is hard not to laugh while watching SNL or the Colbert Report. Although the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are bias, I do not think that people treat these shows as news sources and treat them as they are: comedy shows. This is one area where we have to give apathetic young people credit. These shows are widely popular, especially during election time because the issues are so serious and sometimes so grave that the American people need to look at such things in a comical light so that they are not bogged down by constant reminders of how terrible the world is or how bad things in America are perceived to be.
I thought it was a really good idea to talk about this issue in the vlog. The media nowadays has been saturated with election talk and I'm glad for a chance to discuss something different. I think this is an issue that really affects our age group more than some of the other issues, because as Gretchen said, it is mainly younger people who watch these shows. I have to agree that political satire is good for democracy. A lot of times it makes potentially boring and uninteresting policy relatable to us, or at least to me. It is also a good way to keep up with whats happening on the "political scene", as long as you keep in mind the extreme bias and distorted versions of the truth. But it does help to keep you aware if you don't particularly follow the hard news. If you want to learn more about something, or a more accurate and unbiased truth, about an issue you can also do separate research. But if there were no satire I'm sure a lot of young people would be more in the dark about political issues. If people view these comedy shows as fact and take them seriously that is obviously not good, but as long as people take into consideration that they are comedy shows, I think they remain an asset to democracy.
I agree with Gretchen, to a certain extent, that political satire is good for democracy. Undoubtedly, comedic shows pique the interest of usually disinterested voters in the country. However, it must be taken with a grain of salt. Although most people understand that these shows cannot be used as reliable sources of information for political elections, the shows can have the same effect as push polling. By this, I mean some exaggerated ideas used for comedic relief can be planted in the voters’ heads, unknowingly but not necessarily unintentionally. Politicians are usually portrayed with embellished flaws, some loosely accurate and some completely fabricated. As a result, these scripted jokes, with a primarily comedic purpose, can linger in the voters’ mind and can even cause them to form an opinion on more or less an inaccurate basis. There is something to be said about the overwhelming influence of the media on elections. In addition, I agree with Tori’s example about Sarah Palin. Even after the buzz of 2008 election died down, people still identified Sarah Palin with the statement about being able to see Russia from her house. This was too distracting for voters, taking the primary focus of political policies away from Palin, and still to this day, does she have to pay for it. The media producing these shows or comics are not always innocent in the situation. Many have their own political agenda and may slightly sway the comedy skit, in order to sway the voters watching them. This can be subtle and not always effective, but admittedly can have an effect on the voters’ opinions.
In my opinion, the effect of political satire on democracy is minimal at best. We need to keep in mind that these shows, in fact, are comedies and most people view them simply as entertainment. The informed people who view these shows know not to treat them as fact and therefore, they have virtually no effect on their political alignment. The uninformed voters may treat these shows as sources of information for forming their political opinion, yet people who are not interested in politics and don't want to spend their time researching the facts probably won't vote anyway. So the net effect of these shows on the voting public is very limited. Notably, the hosts and viewers of these shows are primarily young and liberal. The viewers, being young, have poor voting records compared to older people. Therefore, this liberal bias reflected in the shows does not materially effect voting results. Overall, political satire is simply comedy and entertainment, which I believe has little bearing on how people vote, and therefore, has only a small effect on democracy.
I certainly have to agree with Tori on this issue. Although satirical representations of politicized events may be entertaining, they should only be supplementary to a citizen's conception of politics, but as Margaret mentioned, all informed voters are cognizant of this fact. Sure, the "uninformed" voters are argued to be the most critical demographic in this upcoming election, but the fact of the matter continues to be, will these uninformed voters even venture off to the polls if they are that apathetic to our system of government? I certainly think not. But as Tori and Gabriella mentioned, these satirical representations often leave lingering negative images of political figure heads in our minds and frequently undermine the legitimacy of our government. In order for foreign policy and international relations to remain strong, public opinion must have a strong dimension of respect for those making important decisions for our country. Clearly, satirical representations reduce public support and trust in leaders decision making ability and inherently leaves an unhappy electorate.
I think that political satire is good for democracy. I think that although at times it can go a little to far on shows such as SNL and such but I believe that at times shows such as this can cause people to learn more about politics and about things that are happening in the world right now. Also, I know many people that find the world of politics and government very confusing and not worth learning about so I think that political satire can make politics seem more relaxed and not as intimidating. For me personally I think that it keeps politicians in check and can show each candidate that people are paying attention to what they say and that they should be open to criticism as public officials. On the other side I do have to agree with the fact that some of the programs on television that support political satire maybe biased and not give their audience both sides of the story which could really sway public opinion.
I enjoyed how Gretchen fully embraced the apathetic nature of our society, at least with regard to politics. Sure, you can argue that these shows cheapen important issues and are loaded with biased statements (this is all true). Unfortunately, though, we have to acknowledge that a fair number of people don't care and have a hard time forcing themselves to care. Some might argue that it's these people's choice to be ignorant, and thus shouldn't be apart of the political process at all. Again though, this percentage of Americans is way too high to have them be completely ostracized from political procedure. I rather these people at least have some information rather than none, even if that info is straight out of the mouth of Stephen Colbert. All I think we can hope for is that these people are, at a bare minimum, vaguely aware of the fine line between accusations like "I can see Russia from my back yard" and jokes that highlight important issues in a more American friendly way. It's one of those things we just have to make the best of, because it often is a lose-lose situation. In our society, the value of humor is at an all time high. The "entertainment factor" is crucial. So, why not appeal to the masses, at least somewhat? Not everything needs to twisted into a joke about Sarah Palin's stupidity, but I think that the success of these shows is a good lesson to politicians. Perception is reality. Take your stuffy five point plan, and put it in a format that is more user friendly.
Personally, I believe that political satires are not good for democracy. I believe that they exploit and misinterpret what is really happening in the world by publically ridiculing events or speeches that are occurring. Many people may have the wrong idea of what is actually occurring in the world because of political satires. Though, like Kristen said, they do provide a relief to the stressed out events that occur in the world, I do not think mocking political events or speeches is a democratic thing or an appropriate thing. Gretchen mentioned that TV shows like Saturday Night live would help undecided voters and uninformed citizens realize what is happening in the world, but in reality, the hosts of TV shows are mocking these events and making sarcastic jokes, so are people really learning about what is happening. I agree with Gretchen that outside research must be done because even mocking an event or political speech will not make anyone understand the whole issue in thirty minutes. Many things are overstated in political satires and thrown way out of proportion. I agree with Tori, that political satires will cheapen political debate and also complicate the understanding of many important issues and matters. In a way, political satires are like scandals. They are purely GOSSIP. Some ideas or misinterpretations that are not true can be mentioned in a TV show like Saturday Night live. The media nowadays, throws many things out of proportion just for money. I do not believe that political satires are appropriate they should not be existent because they can make comments on certain issue that are irrelevant to the current issue and make matters worse for public figures and hot-related topics such as abortion. Since political satires are in existent, I believe they should be negligible. Shows like Saturday night live have a reputation of being funny and a source of entertainment for many people. Many people will therefore, watch this show, especially uninformed voters. Saturday night live may be a source of FALSE information for these uninformed voters. Another thing, is that these shows are extremely biased, therefore, many uninformed voters will take the same position as the biased show, not looking at the other side of the issue. Political satires not necessary and set hurdles for many issues.
I think that it depends on the show. Saturday Night Live is not a good source of information on political news at all, because they just choose an event and make fun of it for 3-4 minutes and then make fun of something else. The Colbert Report is also not a really good source of news, because the joke is that Colbert's opinions are ridiculous. The Daily Show, however, can be a decent source of news because, unlike the others, for the most part, I have noticed that The Daily Show is actually Jon Stewart trying to get the political message out there and using comedy as the medium, rather than putting the comedy first. I don't think that the bias is a good argument against the satires, because a viewer would have the same problem if they only got their news from one source, or from several sources with the same bias. Most of the people that I know that watch the news regularly and stay up to date on politics only get their news from one source or several sources that have the same bias that they have. I agree that this medium can be a good thing for democracy in that it gets people less likely to pay attention to politics to know what is going on before they vote. I think, however, that it can be dangerous if this is their only source of information. These are satires, based on exaggerating the features, especially the worst features, of the subjects. In the 2008 Democratic primaries, I did not watch a lot of news, but I did watch a lot of Saturday Night Live, and when I finally watched the actual news, I was shocked at how much different Hillary Clinton was in real life versus on the show, and how much more I liked her in real life. If I had been someone who could actually vote, I could have made a decision that was actually against what would be in my self-interest based on what I thought was true of the candidates, rather than what was actually true. Many people who can vote are just as informed as I was in 2008, and they may make the wrong decision at the polls because of it. I don't necessarily think that satires are bad for democracy, but I think that it is just as bad to have a voter who is only educated based on satires as it is to have a voter who is completely uninformed.
Personally, I believe that political Satire is bad for democracy. These shows are sources of entertainment for the informed voters, but can be taken in a different direction by the uninformed voters. Informed voters know what is going on and can easily tell the facts from a things said in a skit that pokes fun at someone/ an event. Uninformed voters might use such programs as there source of information, which obviously isn't reliable, but they might not be able to tell what happened from what is part of the skit. They can leave bad and sometimes bias impressions of political figures in viewers minds. People have to be well informed for a democracy to properly function, and Political satire can hinder the American people from being well informed with legitimate information. I can also see how political satire can be good for democracy, Shows like Saturday night live do make politics more interesting and intrigue typically uninterested voters, and make information more understandable, however, the information on these shows are meant to be funny and not reliable facts.
I think that political satires are most appreciated by people who are current on issues in government. I don't think that many people who weren't interested in politics would be tuning in daily to watch a politically based satire show such as the Colbert report or the Daily show. That's why people find them funny because they can relate to the issue or the exaggeration of the absurdities of political officials. The viewers would also tend to watch the show that displayed their certain political views or bias because they can relate to it. I ultimately think it should be taken at face value and it is for entertainment. It is not just in political satire that we find bias views of politics. News stations such as fox news are extremely bias and treat political commentary like the news.
I would have to say that these political satire shows are just for pure entertainment purposes and shouldn't be taken seriously by any person who is trying to base their vote off of this. Shows such as Saturday Night Live's purpose is to just make fun of an event or person who for example maybe is running for presidential candidate (since that is the big political news as everyone should know by now). The show isn't supposed to be giving the 'real' political facts. I don't think they should be taken anything serious just for pure entertainment purposes to the public. I'm not going to lie I love getting a good laugh when I see the political satire skits on SNL, especially when they were making fun of the republican primary debates. It was just funny to see how far fetched they were making the whole skit to be. I don't think these shows should help or hurt an undecided voter. If voters are going to start basing their opinions off of a show that makes fun of everybody and anything, well that to me isn't the smartest decision. If a voter is trying to decide their opinion they should actually do some research on the candidate or issue.
I think that political satire shows are effective in certain ways but are ultimately for entertainment. They make politics relatable, funny, and interesting. This can't be a bad thing. It helps people who find government boring to learn a bit about what's going on in our nation. It shouldn't really be anyone's primary source for news or info on a candidate for example, because of it's obvious extreme bias, but it can still help people to learn something about politics in an enjoyable way.
I disagree. Obviously, political satire shouldn't be anyone's primary source for political knowledge. The issue is, even people who know this tend to use political satire as such. Too many people, especially young people, take shows like John Steward literally. I do not think that shows like this actually get people engaged or interested in political affairs, as Jacquelyn suggests it does. Rather, it gets people interested and involved in political entertainment--just as watching around the horn on ESPN with my brother doesn't make me interested in sports, it entertains me with eccentric and funny tv personalities that attempt to "educate" you with hand-picked information that only asserts one view. On the other hand, I do not think that political satire should be limited. Many things in society are bad for society, but as can be pointed to in many cases (prohibition, anyone?); limiting these things does little to no good. The higher good in any case is the ultimate freedom to make irrevocably destructive choices. If people want to cloud their own decision making skills with skewed and best information from Stewart or SNL, we should let them. After all, it's no worse than deciding elections by the weather.
As many others have said, political satires may not be the best for democracy. Ideally, voters should watch these comedic shows for pure entertainment, not as a substitute for true political analysis and fact. However, I have to disagree with Payas’ comment that political satires should not exist. That not only is a little extreme, but it also fails to take into consideration every citizen’s First Amendment rights. Even in my previous comment, I cautioned to consider the dangerous effect of political satire on the voters’ opinion; however, it is a civil right and reality in the United States’ democracy. Political satire has a necessary and essential place in democracy, even in its most laughable and ridiculous form. The previous remarks I made about the risk and sometimes corrupt behavior of political satire still holds true, but I think some people may be venturing a little too far on the topic. Criticizing political satire does not mean abolishing it, but rather taking an active role to inform voters through other outlets. The hard hitting news channels and newspapers outweigh the satirical ones, meaning that citizens are hearing factual news at a higher percentage than comedic news. Most voters do understand the comedic value of these shows and do not let them influence their overall vote. Many of these comments are considering the Menand definition of a voter, which should not be the standard. However, my previous comments about political satire being comparable to push polling are still a good argument, in my opinion, but mostly in this specific election. Due to the fact that independent and undecided voters could have the biggest effect on the election, all news outlets, even the comedic ones, are being evaluated to attempt to understand every possible influence on voters. Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show could have a bigger effect on this election than many people thought possible, merely because of the predicted closeness of the election. Although political satires are debatable, they do serve a necessary purpose in politics in the United States.
I'd like to agree with Tori in that although some things are inherently bad for society, and attempting to regulate them would do more harm than good. These satires are, at the very least, a better source of information than the weather. Additionally, Stephanies point of certain shows being more reliable sources of factual information than others has some validity. Using comedy as a medium (not the dominant purpose) to present otherwise dense information can be effective. I rather the news be slightly cheapened than ignored all together.
As others have previously said, political satire should not be restricted because that would be absolute ridiculous and there is no solid reason to get rid of it. That being said, I strongly believe that political satire is simply entertainment and basically useless in democracy. I think political satire shows are not productive tools for democracy, and I will even go so far as to say that they have negative impacts on voters. Young people are the primary viewers of these shows and they tend to be the most uninformed voters. They might use the exaggerations and lies presented in these shows and use them to form opinions on candidates. These shows tend to have liberal bias and therefore, have a strong influence on young voters. These shows target their conservative opposition and make them the butt of jokes, mostly through absurd lies and by mocking them. As others have said, this cheapens democracy and lesssns public opinion of very qualified public officials. Overall, I believe that political satire essentially hurts democracy.
I still believe that political satire does not have a major affect on politics in general. I believe that most of the voting public can separate there thoughts of innocent fun from their serious ideas concerning political ideology. I understand the arguments made by the opposing side but I think that those Americans who are persuaded by weather and the colors of the parties to vote are those who may in fact care a lot about political satire. I agree that there is no real reason for political satire to be thrown away as a type of entertainment because I don't believe that their is enough factual proof of how it negatively affects politics. I do, however, agree with the opinion that curbing the amount of bias that a program produces is an effective way of helping young voters form their own opinions.
The purpose of Saturday Night Live is not to influence any political affiliation. It's main purpose is for entertainment. I am skeptical when coming to the conclusion that uninformed voters base their views off of Saturday Night Live. When watching the skits, you have to have some political knowledge on the issue before you can fully understand what they are making fun of. I would have to disagree with Payas's comment as well that political satire shows should not exist. The cornerstone of democracy is free speech. That is taking away the most fundamental value in the Bill of Rights. When you start taking away free speech, you move away from democracy not towards it as some have suggested.
If political satire was restricted it would go against our first amendment rights first of all. Also I think that political satire defuses some of the tension that is going on. It makes it more comical. Such as the Alfred E. Smith dinner, the candidates were able to make fun of themselves and laugh at themselves during the stressful times of the presidential campaign. Most people who know what is going on know that this is just a way to make fun of politics. They should know that these skits are mostly over reached and make a little thing seem more important. Such as the first debate when Obama was very passive there was an SNL skit where they showed Obama falling asleep. We all know that didn't happen but it was fun to see the skit. I believe this is good as I have suggested before.
I think all of us need to remind ourselves of the fact that the majority of the participatory members of our democracy (with regard to casting a ballot) are neither apathetic nor young. Mr. Baker mentions this quite a bit during class—for the “older” voter, the due process of casting a ballot has become extremely habitual. For “older” citizens the frequency at which one watch political satire is completely determined by their interest in the programming/availability of time (just as it is for young people). I place the word older in quotations of course because when I say older, I could mean forty to fifty to sixty to seventy year olds. All interpretations of the word “older” are in play here. It simply depends on one’s take on the issue, and obviously the different age groups see satirical representation of political events differently. For example, my grandma may see differently the comical interpretation of Obama single handedly shooting Osama Bin laden with a handgun as my mother may (and even myself/sisters). I guess the argument that I am trying to make here is that satirical representation of political affects different age groups differently. We can’t simply place a label on satirical influence on society as a whole, because it quite frankly doesn’t affect society as a whole. Sure, it may affect certain young/apathetic people more than others, but the fact of the matter is, not all citizens of our country are apathetic and not all citizens of our country think or do things in the same way. Generalization is the root of most misconception, and I think that’s another issue that should be addressed; however, this is a completely different topic in and of itself.
After reviewing everyone's comments, I would have to agree that political satire shows do not affect democracy all that much, and I certainly do not think that they are a BAD thing for democracy. If anything, they would be neutral, having little effect. Politicians like Sarah Palin herself has appeared on Saturday Night Live and President Obama appeared on the Daily Show with John Stewart. Politicians recognize the importance of these shows and the appeal they have to potential voters. Although most do not visit these shows are campaign stops per say or actually expect to use them to convey serious political opinions, they are able to use them to appeal to voters and to make them seem more relatable and more human. Most viewers of political satire shows are quite young, and the comedic nature of the shows, I agree, do lessen the severity of the issues but this can be a good thing. Even though they do not recognize the full severity of an issue, they can see it in a different light and form their own opinions on it.
After reading everyone's comments I find myself agreeing with the majority, and my former opinion. I don't think political satire is a really a bad thing for democracy, or that it really has a big impact on politics altogether. I'm sure the majority, if not all, of the people who watch these shows know it is just entertainment and not for accuracy and facts. If people are going to base their votes off a satirical show, I think it's safe to assume that if there were not satirical shows that persons vote would still not be based on anything else more "serious". If the government tried to take away these types of shows I'm positive there would be a huge uproar, and for good reason. It would be a direct violation of the first amendment.
I still think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with political satire shows and they in no way hinder democracy. The people who watch them realize that they're meant to be comical and not to legitimately inform them about politics. That's not the real reason they watch them in the first place. They give people a fresh, funny perspective politics and make light of a serious, sometimes boring topic. I think that there is nothing wrong with this and it can be good for some comic relief. It can even help to attract a younger audience to politics as a whole.
After re-reading everyone's comments, I still agree with my statement that political satires are still very inappropriate. They misinterpret information and are defaming either a public figure, speech, or issue for no reason at all. I do agree that shows like Saturday Night Live, are looked upon as entertainment, but for the wrong reasons - if they are publicly defaming or mocking something. I do not agree with Alexandra. I believe that political satires has a huge impact on democracy and are a good bad thing for democracy because many uniformed voters will watch these shows and believe that they are informed about what is going on in the world. As it is sad in our AP Gov book, democracy is by "some of the people", not everyone. The people that research outside of TV shows, and into internet are the ones that are educated in certain issues, whereas people who just don't have the time will believe they learned everything they need to know through these political satires-which half the time these shows are feeding wrong information to people. I do change my statement that political satires should not exist. I change my opinion and believe they should exist because it is a source of entertainment, but people should not rely on these shows for their information on important issues.
quality webcam...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gretchen in saying that political satire is good for democracy. I believe it provides a relief to the sometimes stressed out events that are happening. They make fun of flaws or gaffs that someone has made. I watch Saturday Night Live every week and have enjoyed the last two skits they have done on the presidential debate and the vice presidential debate. They emphasize the things that each candidate did poorly and over embellish it. It makes it a fun way to laugh at both candidates knowing its not serious.
ReplyDeleteNow, like Gretchen said, you cannot only rely on these political satire shows for your information on politics. Many things are over stated and not entirely true. This can create a dilemma where some of your facts are wrong. So if you do watch these satire shows, it would be a good idea to watch or read from a reliable news source as well.
I disagree with Kirsten. Political satire and other forms of mocking political speech, while entertaining, cheapen political debate and complicate understanding of important issues. Some credit has been given to political satire for peaking public interest in dry public affirs, with some due credit. In 2009, internet forums, blogs, as well as sharp, sarcastic critisim from high-browed sources actually inspired action and new, inventive policies from the Federal Reserve. That is clearly an American concept--the more minds you have considering and refined policy, the better the policy would be, based on the competition therory. Important financial publications like Baron's ran satorial critisims of the Federal Reserve instead of their usual more serious, factual pieces. This added fire to the political economic debate.
ReplyDeleteAround election time, however, the results tend to be a little differnet than our economic. Sources like SNL and other "late shows" sensationalize information and usually add a cynical attitude to public political debate. For example, in the 2008 election, SNL aired their infamous Tina Fey impersonations of Sarah Palin, who they famously penned to say "I can see Russia from my house." Today, many Americans still believe that Sarah Palin actually said this, when in fact she never did. Instead of highlighting a new side of Sarah Palin, and enhancing public debate, the skits gave a cynical, politians-are-stupid, attitude to an important presidential election. Instead of firing up debate, the satire cheapened it.
The difference in results between the two examples comes from the target audience of the satire. The economic satire came from sources with a highly educated demographic. Readers who read and applied economic satire to their own debate were interesting in the topic (most Americans don't argue over monetary policy if they don't have a geniune interest in the topic). The satire therefore renewed interest in the politically inclined, and led to positive results. The viewers of SNL are not necesarily as educated about politics as the readers of Baron's. Not to say that they aren't intellegent, but as we saw in 2008, many were not involved or current enough to distinguish television characters from political candidates, and blended the two images. They also weren't interested enough to take the cynicism in stride. The negative view of politics on popular shows, then, promoted the politics-is-corrupt attitude, also adding a degree of apathy to pressing debate.
I don't think that it's fair to say that satire is detrimental to democracy because the viewers are undereducated. If someone who actually is interested in the politics watches the skits, then they are able to take a more lighthearted view on some serious issues. I think that this will allow those people to continue their interest in politics, simply by keeping it interesting. What Tori is saying sounds to me more like an argument that undereducated voters is detrimental to democracy rather than saying that the satire itself is bad. I do agree that undereducated voters can be bad for democracy, and the satire does not help that issue, but I don't think it necessarily hurts democracy on its own.
DeleteI agree with Gretchen that political satire shows are good for democracy. Like she said, many young people are apathetic when it comes to politics and think that it is too serious and too dry. Young people are usually very busy, and most simply do not want to spend their time trying to understand complex policies and acts of government that, in their minds, do not affect them. Satire shows such as Saturday Night Live take these issues and turn them into something that is more easily understandable and presents it to them in a way that they can, like Gretchen said, relate to. For me, it is hard not to laugh while watching SNL or the Colbert Report. Although the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are bias, I do not think that people treat these shows as news sources and treat them as they are: comedy shows. This is one area where we have to give apathetic young people credit. These shows are widely popular, especially during election time because the issues are so serious and sometimes so grave that the American people need to look at such things in a comical light so that they are not bogged down by constant reminders of how terrible the world is or how bad things in America are perceived to be.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was a really good idea to talk about this issue in the vlog. The media nowadays has been saturated with election talk and I'm glad for a chance to discuss something different. I think this is an issue that really affects our age group more than some of the other issues, because as Gretchen said, it is mainly younger people who watch these shows. I have to agree that political satire is good for democracy. A lot of times it makes potentially boring and uninteresting policy relatable to us, or at least to me. It is also a good way to keep up with whats happening on the "political scene", as long as you keep in mind the extreme bias and distorted versions of the truth. But it does help to keep you aware if you don't particularly follow the hard news. If you want to learn more about something, or a more accurate and unbiased truth, about an issue you can also do separate research. But if there were no satire I'm sure a lot of young people would be more in the dark about political issues. If people view these comedy shows as fact and take them seriously that is obviously not good, but as long as people take into consideration that they are comedy shows, I think they remain an asset to democracy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gretchen, to a certain extent, that political satire is good for democracy. Undoubtedly, comedic shows pique the interest of usually disinterested voters in the country. However, it must be taken with a grain of salt. Although most people understand that these shows cannot be used as reliable sources of information for political elections, the shows can have the same effect as push polling. By this, I mean some exaggerated ideas used for comedic relief can be planted in the voters’ heads, unknowingly but not necessarily unintentionally. Politicians are usually portrayed with embellished flaws, some loosely accurate and some completely fabricated. As a result, these scripted jokes, with a primarily comedic purpose, can linger in the voters’ mind and can even cause them to form an opinion on more or less an inaccurate basis. There is something to be said about the overwhelming influence of the media on elections. In addition, I agree with Tori’s example about Sarah Palin. Even after the buzz of 2008 election died down, people still identified Sarah Palin with the statement about being able to see Russia from her house. This was too distracting for voters, taking the primary focus of political policies away from Palin, and still to this day, does she have to pay for it. The media producing these shows or comics are not always innocent in the situation. Many have their own political agenda and may slightly sway the comedy skit, in order to sway the voters watching them. This can be subtle and not always effective, but admittedly can have an effect on the voters’ opinions.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the effect of political satire on democracy is minimal at best. We need to keep in mind that these shows, in fact, are comedies and most people view them simply as entertainment. The informed people who view these shows know not to treat them as fact and therefore, they have virtually no effect on their political alignment. The uninformed voters may treat these shows as sources of information for forming their political opinion, yet people who are not interested in politics and don't want to spend their time researching the facts probably won't vote anyway. So the net effect of these shows on the voting public is very limited. Notably, the hosts and viewers of these shows are primarily young and liberal. The viewers, being young, have poor voting records compared to older people. Therefore, this liberal bias reflected in the shows does not materially effect voting results. Overall, political satire is simply comedy and entertainment, which I believe has little bearing on how people vote, and therefore, has only a small effect on democracy.
ReplyDeleteI certainly have to agree with Tori on this issue. Although satirical representations of politicized events may be entertaining, they should only be supplementary to a citizen's conception of politics, but as Margaret mentioned, all informed voters are cognizant of this fact. Sure, the "uninformed" voters are argued to be the most critical demographic in this upcoming election, but the fact of the matter continues to be, will these uninformed voters even venture off to the polls if they are that apathetic to our system of government? I certainly think not. But as Tori and Gabriella mentioned, these satirical representations often leave lingering negative images of political figure heads in our minds and frequently undermine the legitimacy of our government. In order for foreign policy and international relations to remain strong, public opinion must have a strong dimension of respect for those making important decisions for our country. Clearly, satirical representations reduce public support and trust in leaders decision making ability and inherently leaves an unhappy electorate.
ReplyDeleteI think that political satire is good for democracy. I think that although at times it can go a little to far on shows such as SNL and such but I believe that at times shows such as this can cause people to learn more about politics and about things that are happening in the world right now. Also, I know many people that find the world of politics and government very confusing and not worth learning about so I think that political satire can make politics seem more relaxed and not as intimidating. For me personally I think that it keeps politicians in check and can show each candidate that people are paying attention to what they say and that they should be open to criticism as public officials. On the other side I do have to agree with the fact that some of the programs on television that support political satire maybe biased and not give their audience both sides of the story which could really sway public opinion.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how Gretchen fully embraced the apathetic nature of our society, at least with regard to politics. Sure, you can argue that these shows cheapen important issues and are loaded with biased statements (this is all true). Unfortunately, though, we have to acknowledge that a fair number of people don't care and have a hard time forcing themselves to care.
ReplyDeleteSome might argue that it's these people's choice to be ignorant, and thus shouldn't be apart of the political process at all. Again though, this percentage of Americans is way too high to have them be completely ostracized from political procedure. I rather these people at least have some information rather than none, even if that info is straight out of the mouth of Stephen Colbert. All I think we can hope for is that these people are, at a bare minimum, vaguely aware of the fine line between accusations like "I can see Russia from my back yard" and jokes that highlight important issues in a more American friendly way. It's one of those things we just have to make the best of, because it often is a lose-lose situation.
In our society, the value of humor is at an all time high. The "entertainment factor" is crucial. So, why not appeal to the masses, at least somewhat? Not everything needs to twisted into a joke about Sarah Palin's stupidity, but I think that the success of these shows is a good lesson to politicians. Perception is reality. Take your stuffy five point plan, and put it in a format that is more user friendly.
Personally, I believe that political satires are not good for democracy. I believe that they exploit and misinterpret what is really happening in the world by publically ridiculing events or speeches that are occurring. Many people may have the wrong idea of what is actually occurring in the world because of political satires. Though, like Kristen said, they do provide a relief to the stressed out events that occur in the world, I do not think mocking political events or speeches is a democratic thing or an appropriate thing. Gretchen mentioned that TV shows like Saturday Night live would help undecided voters and uninformed citizens realize what is happening in the world, but in reality, the hosts of TV shows are mocking these events and making sarcastic jokes, so are people really learning about what is happening. I agree with Gretchen that outside research must be done because even mocking an event or political speech will not make anyone understand the whole issue in thirty minutes. Many things are overstated in political satires and thrown way out of proportion. I agree with Tori, that political satires will cheapen political debate and also complicate the understanding of many important issues and matters. In a way, political satires are like scandals. They are purely GOSSIP. Some ideas or misinterpretations that are not true can be mentioned in a TV show like Saturday Night live. The media nowadays, throws many things out of proportion just for money. I do not believe that political satires are appropriate they should not be existent because they can make comments on certain issue that are irrelevant to the current issue and make matters worse for public figures and hot-related topics such as abortion. Since political satires are in existent, I believe they should be negligible. Shows like Saturday night live have a reputation of being funny and a source of entertainment for many people. Many people will therefore, watch this show, especially uninformed voters. Saturday night live may be a source of FALSE information for these uninformed voters. Another thing, is that these shows are extremely biased, therefore, many uninformed voters will take the same position as the biased show, not looking at the other side of the issue. Political satires not necessary and set hurdles for many issues.
ReplyDeleteI think that it depends on the show. Saturday Night Live is not a good source of information on political news at all, because they just choose an event and make fun of it for 3-4 minutes and then make fun of something else. The Colbert Report is also not a really good source of news, because the joke is that Colbert's opinions are ridiculous. The Daily Show, however, can be a decent source of news because, unlike the others, for the most part, I have noticed that The Daily Show is actually Jon Stewart trying to get the political message out there and using comedy as the medium, rather than putting the comedy first. I don't think that the bias is a good argument against the satires, because a viewer would have the same problem if they only got their news from one source, or from several sources with the same bias. Most of the people that I know that watch the news regularly and stay up to date on politics only get their news from one source or several sources that have the same bias that they have. I agree that this medium can be a good thing for democracy in that it gets people less likely to pay attention to politics to know what is going on before they vote. I think, however, that it can be dangerous if this is their only source of information. These are satires, based on exaggerating the features, especially the worst features, of the subjects. In the 2008 Democratic primaries, I did not watch a lot of news, but I did watch a lot of Saturday Night Live, and when I finally watched the actual news, I was shocked at how much different Hillary Clinton was in real life versus on the show, and how much more I liked her in real life. If I had been someone who could actually vote, I could have made a decision that was actually against what would be in my self-interest based on what I thought was true of the candidates, rather than what was actually true. Many people who can vote are just as informed as I was in 2008, and they may make the wrong decision at the polls because of it. I don't necessarily think that satires are bad for democracy, but I think that it is just as bad to have a voter who is only educated based on satires as it is to have a voter who is completely uninformed.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that political Satire is bad for democracy. These shows are sources of entertainment for the informed voters, but can be taken in a different direction by the uninformed voters. Informed voters know what is going on and can easily tell the facts from a things said in a skit that pokes fun at someone/ an event. Uninformed voters might use such programs as there source of information, which obviously isn't reliable, but they might not be able to tell what happened from what is part of the skit. They can leave bad and sometimes bias impressions of political figures in viewers minds. People have to be well informed for a democracy to properly function, and Political satire can hinder the American people from being well informed with legitimate information.
ReplyDeleteI can also see how political satire can be good for democracy, Shows like Saturday night live do make politics more interesting and intrigue typically uninterested voters, and make information more understandable, however, the information on these shows are meant to be funny and not reliable facts.
I think that political satires are most appreciated by people who are current on issues in government. I don't think that many people who weren't interested in politics would be tuning in daily to watch a politically based satire show such as the Colbert report or the Daily show. That's why people find them funny because they can relate to the issue or the exaggeration of the absurdities of political officials. The viewers would also tend to watch the show that displayed their certain political views or bias because they can relate to it. I ultimately think it should be taken at face value and it is for entertainment. It is not just in political satire that we find bias views of politics. News stations such as fox news are extremely bias and treat political commentary like the news.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that these political satire shows are just for pure entertainment purposes and shouldn't be taken seriously by any person who is trying to base their vote off of this. Shows such as Saturday Night Live's purpose is to just make fun of an event or person who for example maybe is running for presidential candidate (since that is the big political news as everyone should know by now). The show isn't supposed to be giving the 'real' political facts. I don't think they should be taken anything serious just for pure entertainment purposes to the public. I'm not going to lie I love getting a good laugh when I see the political satire skits on SNL, especially when they were making fun of the republican primary debates. It was just funny to see how far fetched they were making the whole skit to be. I don't think these shows should help or hurt an undecided voter. If voters are going to start basing their opinions off of a show that makes fun of everybody and anything, well that to me isn't the smartest decision. If a voter is trying to decide their opinion they should actually do some research on the candidate or issue.
ReplyDeleteI think that political satire shows are effective in certain ways but are ultimately for entertainment. They make politics relatable, funny, and interesting. This can't be a bad thing. It helps people who find government boring to learn a bit about what's going on in our nation. It shouldn't really be anyone's primary source for news or info on a candidate for example, because of it's obvious extreme bias, but it can still help people to learn something about politics in an enjoyable way.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Obviously, political satire shouldn't be anyone's primary source for political knowledge. The issue is, even people who know this tend to use political satire as such. Too many people, especially young people, take shows like John Steward literally. I do not think that shows like this actually get people engaged or interested in political affairs, as Jacquelyn suggests it does. Rather, it gets people interested and involved in political entertainment--just as watching around the horn on ESPN with my brother doesn't make me interested in sports, it entertains me with eccentric and funny tv personalities that attempt to "educate" you with hand-picked information that only asserts one view. On the other hand, I do not think that political satire should be limited. Many things in society are bad for society, but as can be pointed to in many cases (prohibition, anyone?); limiting these things does little to no good. The higher good in any case is the ultimate freedom to make irrevocably destructive choices. If people want to cloud their own decision making skills with skewed and best information from Stewart or SNL, we should let them. After all, it's no worse than deciding elections by the weather.
ReplyDelete*Jon Stewart
ReplyDeleteAs many others have said, political satires may not be the best for democracy. Ideally, voters should watch these comedic shows for pure entertainment, not as a substitute for true political analysis and fact. However, I have to disagree with Payas’ comment that political satires should not exist. That not only is a little extreme, but it also fails to take into consideration every citizen’s First Amendment rights. Even in my previous comment, I cautioned to consider the dangerous effect of political satire on the voters’ opinion; however, it is a civil right and reality in the United States’ democracy. Political satire has a necessary and essential place in democracy, even in its most laughable and ridiculous form. The previous remarks I made about the risk and sometimes corrupt behavior of political satire still holds true, but I think some people may be venturing a little too far on the topic. Criticizing political satire does not mean abolishing it, but rather taking an active role to inform voters through other outlets. The hard hitting news channels and newspapers outweigh the satirical ones, meaning that citizens are hearing factual news at a higher percentage than comedic news. Most voters do understand the comedic value of these shows and do not let them influence their overall vote. Many of these comments are considering the Menand definition of a voter, which should not be the standard. However, my previous comments about political satire being comparable to push polling are still a good argument, in my opinion, but mostly in this specific election. Due to the fact that independent and undecided voters could have the biggest effect on the election, all news outlets, even the comedic ones, are being evaluated to attempt to understand every possible influence on voters. Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show could have a bigger effect on this election than many people thought possible, merely because of the predicted closeness of the election. Although political satires are debatable, they do serve a necessary purpose in politics in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to agree with Tori in that although some things are inherently bad for society, and attempting to regulate them would do more harm than good. These satires are, at the very least, a better source of information than the weather. Additionally, Stephanies point of certain shows being more reliable sources of factual information than others has some validity. Using comedy as a medium (not the dominant purpose) to present otherwise dense information can be effective. I rather the news be slightly cheapened than ignored all together.
ReplyDeleteAs others have previously said, political satire should not be restricted because that would be absolute ridiculous and there is no solid reason to get rid of it. That being said, I strongly believe that political satire is simply entertainment and basically useless in democracy. I think political satire shows are not productive tools for democracy, and I will even go so far as to say that they have negative impacts on voters. Young people are the primary viewers of these shows and they tend to be the most uninformed voters. They might use the exaggerations and lies presented in these shows and use them to form opinions on candidates. These shows tend to have liberal bias and therefore, have a strong influence on young voters. These shows target their conservative opposition and make them the butt of jokes, mostly through absurd lies and by mocking them. As others have said, this cheapens democracy and lesssns public opinion of very qualified public officials. Overall, I believe that political satire essentially hurts democracy.
ReplyDeleteI still believe that political satire does not have a major affect on politics in general. I believe that most of the voting public can separate there thoughts of innocent fun from their serious ideas concerning political ideology. I understand the arguments made by the opposing side but I think that those Americans who are persuaded by weather and the colors of the parties to vote are those who may in fact care a lot about political satire. I agree that there is no real reason for political satire to be thrown away as a type of entertainment because I don't believe that their is enough factual proof of how it negatively affects politics. I do, however, agree with the opinion that curbing the amount of bias that a program produces is an effective way of helping young voters form their own opinions.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of Saturday Night Live is not to influence any political affiliation. It's main purpose is for entertainment. I am skeptical when coming to the conclusion that uninformed voters base their views off of Saturday Night Live. When watching the skits, you have to have some political knowledge on the issue before you can fully understand what they are making fun of. I would have to disagree with Payas's comment as well that political satire shows should not exist. The cornerstone of democracy is free speech. That is taking away the most fundamental value in the Bill of Rights. When you start taking away free speech, you move away from democracy not towards it as some have suggested.
ReplyDeleteIf political satire was restricted it would go against our first amendment rights first of all. Also I think that political satire defuses some of the tension that is going on. It makes it more comical. Such as the Alfred E. Smith dinner, the candidates were able to make fun of themselves and laugh at themselves during the stressful times of the presidential campaign. Most people who know what is going on know that this is just a way to make fun of politics. They should know that these skits are mostly over reached and make a little thing seem more important. Such as the first debate when Obama was very passive there was an SNL skit where they showed Obama falling asleep. We all know that didn't happen but it was fun to see the skit. I believe this is good as I have suggested before.
ReplyDeleteI think all of us need to remind ourselves of the fact that the majority of the participatory members of our democracy (with regard to casting a ballot) are neither apathetic nor young. Mr. Baker mentions this quite a bit during class—for the “older” voter, the due process of casting a ballot has become extremely habitual. For “older” citizens the frequency at which one watch political satire is completely determined by their interest in the programming/availability of time (just as it is for young people). I place the word older in quotations of course because when I say older, I could mean forty to fifty to sixty to seventy year olds. All interpretations of the word “older” are in play here. It simply depends on one’s take on the issue, and obviously the different age groups see satirical representation of political events differently. For example, my grandma may see differently the comical interpretation of Obama single handedly shooting Osama Bin laden with a handgun as my mother may (and even myself/sisters). I guess the argument that I am trying to make here is that satirical representation of political affects different age groups differently. We can’t simply place a label on satirical influence on society as a whole, because it quite frankly doesn’t affect society as a whole. Sure, it may affect certain young/apathetic people more than others, but the fact of the matter is, not all citizens of our country are apathetic and not all citizens of our country think or do things in the same way. Generalization is the root of most misconception, and I think that’s another issue that should be addressed; however, this is a completely different topic in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing everyone's comments, I would have to agree that political satire shows do not affect democracy all that much, and I certainly do not think that they are a BAD thing for democracy. If anything, they would be neutral, having little effect. Politicians like Sarah Palin herself has appeared on Saturday Night Live and President Obama appeared on the Daily Show with John Stewart. Politicians recognize the importance of these shows and the appeal they have to potential voters. Although most do not visit these shows are campaign stops per say or actually expect to use them to convey serious political opinions, they are able to use them to appeal to voters and to make them seem more relatable and more human. Most viewers of political satire shows are quite young, and the comedic nature of the shows, I agree, do lessen the severity of the issues but this can be a good thing. Even though they do not recognize the full severity of an issue, they can see it in a different light and form their own opinions on it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading everyone's comments I find myself agreeing with the majority, and my former opinion. I don't think political satire is a really a bad thing for democracy, or that it really has a big impact on politics altogether. I'm sure the majority, if not all, of the people who watch these shows know it is just entertainment and not for accuracy and facts. If people are going to base their votes off a satirical show, I think it's safe to assume that if there were not satirical shows that persons vote would still not be based on anything else more "serious". If the government tried to take away these types of shows I'm positive there would be a huge uproar, and for good reason. It would be a direct violation of the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteI still think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with political satire shows and they in no way hinder democracy. The people who watch them realize that they're meant to be comical and not to legitimately inform them about politics. That's not the real reason they watch them in the first place. They give people a fresh, funny perspective politics and make light of a serious, sometimes boring topic. I think that there is nothing wrong with this and it can be good for some comic relief. It can even help to attract a younger audience to politics as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAfter re-reading everyone's comments, I still agree with my statement that political satires are still very inappropriate. They misinterpret information and are defaming either a public figure, speech, or issue for no reason at all. I do agree that shows like Saturday Night Live, are looked upon as entertainment, but for the wrong reasons - if they are publicly defaming or mocking something. I do not agree with Alexandra. I believe that political satires has a huge impact on democracy and are a good bad thing for democracy because many uniformed voters will watch these shows and believe that they are informed about what is going on in the world. As it is sad in our AP Gov book, democracy is by "some of the people", not everyone. The people that research outside of TV shows, and into internet are the ones that are educated in certain issues, whereas people who just don't have the time will believe they learned everything they need to know through these political satires-which half the time these shows are feeding wrong information to people. I do change my statement that political satires should not exist. I change my opinion and believe they should exist because it is a source of entertainment, but people should not rely on these shows for their information on important issues.
ReplyDelete