I'll start with "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." First and foremost I should probably disclose that I am a little biased, I love "The Daily Show." I think it is interesting to see political news/events portrayed in a comedic way. The episode that I viewed was based on a few different issues such as a response to Republican's statement that Obama "picks winners and losers" in choosing which industries to save/invest in. Jon Stewart responded to that by showing clips of Mitt Romney discussing the importance of investing in roads, air traffic, Pell Grants, science and technology and explaining that those statements are also about "picking winners and losers" and that in almost every decision that government makes there are winners and losers. Jon Stewart also discusses Romney's support of Congressional candidate Richard Mourdock and Mourdock's comment that he agrees with abortion in cases of the life of the mother but in cases of rape and incest he believes that if a woman is impregnated by such an encounter it was by some divine will (what?!).
Here is a clip of this comment:
While the point of this segment was to criticize the comments that Republican's have made about rape, the audience and viewers are also able to attain information. Jon Stewart pointed out fragments of the Republican Party Platform that demonstrate the idea that rape should not be allowed under any circumstances. Even though Jon Stewart is presenting a comedic and entertaining program, he is still giving his audience and viewers information that they may not have had previously.
Throughout the show, Jon Stewart refers to different claims that Romney and Obama have made about each other's policies. While Jon Stewart pokes fun at Romney for his well-known inconsistencies, he also gives the audiences and the viewers factual information. For instance, Romney claimed that 50% of companies that received Federal Stimulus money have gone bankrupt (such as sustainable energy companies). However, Jon Stewart shows data and information to point to the fact that out of 63 energy companies that received that those funds only 8% went bankrupt, not 50%. He then goes on to show information about the 22% of companies that Bain Captial invested in went bankrupt, like a doll company called "Lifelike." While Jon Stewart pokes fun at Romney for investing in a doll company, the audience and viewers were able to get some information from the segment. They were able to discover that sometimes the numbers and data that Romney (or political candidates in general) has given aren't always entirely accurate.
Jon Stewart's guest for this episode was Nancy Pelosi.
(Photo Credit: LA Times Online)
The two discussed partisan issues in Congress and a bit about shared democratic values. Again, although Jon Stewart made some jokes throughout the interview, the discussion points had value, it could possibly demonstrate to the audience and viewers that the Presidential Election is not the only election that we should focus on and that we also need to pay close attention to Congressional elections as well.
Although many people believe that Jon Stewart has quite a bit of bias and he is very harsh on the Republican party, he does mocks the Democratic party at times on his show as well. By watching "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" I was able to see a few different concepts that I learned in class. First, I was able to see a demonstration of a "Gotcha" moment with Richard Mourdocks comments about rape. I was also able to see how inconsistencies in communication can cause people to be wary of political candidates. I honestly believe that there is value in watching "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." It seems to me that while the show is entertaining and funny, it is also informative. Audience members and views are able to extract "tid-bits" of information from the segments on the show. I think that it is important that Jon Stewart makes a point to give information because there are many people who would rather watch "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" rather than CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and the like because they are able to be entertained, laugh and have fun while also getting information about candidates that may help them to grasp a kind of understanding about candidate positions and issues. While this brings up an issues that I have learned in class, that American's would rather be entertained than hear cut and dry news stories (an idea discussed in "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business" by Neil Postman):
(Photo Credit: amazon.com)
Although perhaps we should pay more attention to the more serious news stories instead of comedic/satirical television shows, it is still possible for average citizens to be informed about the things that are going on around us in the political sphere by watching more entertaining shows such as "The Daily Report with Jon Stewart." Sometimes we need a break from the seriousness of the news, sometimes we need to sit back and have a laugh. I honestly feel that it is important for us to laugh at ourselves and our way of life every once in a while and watching shows such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" give us the chance to do that without completely ignoring important information that can guide us to being a better informed public.
The second program I chose to watch was "Anderson Cooper 360" to see a more straight forward segment. (And also, it doesn't hurt that Anderson Cooper is a gorgeous human being in my opinion)
(Photo Credit: Yahoo! TV Online)
There were several segments on the October 26th, 2012 episode of "Anderson Cooper 360" which mainly focused on the candidates efforts in Ohio. Statistical data was used to explore campaign ads, voter enthusiasm, and which candidates were more favored to win Ohio. This statistical data made the segment less biased. By using numbers charts, the viewers were able to get a grasp on which candidate is more successful in Ohio with less partisan issues skewing the view.
To me, the most interesting segment of this episode was the discussion of Political Ads, a topic we are currently discussing in depth in class. Anderson Cooper discussed the different strategies that each candidate is using in their ads. Research and statistical data was used to show the different strategies. For instance, the audience was told that 21% of Romney's ads used "sad faced" people to depict unemployment, with the Obama campaign only using similar images in about 1% of ads. Anderson Cooper explained that there have been over 119 campaigns ads that have aired approximately 180,000 times in October (WOW!). He also discussed the focus on women and the elderly in many of these votes. The most interesting information (in my opinion) was regarding the way that the Obama campaign ads chose to portray Romney versus the way that Romney's campaign ads chose to portray him. Anderson Cooper discussed that in Obama campaign ads, Romney is usually shown wearing a suit and tie while in his own campaign ads he is usually shown wearing jeans, a button down and no tie. This idea reflects several concepts I've learned in class thus far. First, the importance of image and how critical it can be to portray a candidate in a certain way. The Obama campaign ads chose to show Romney in a more elitist way, drawing from the idea that Romney is a difficult man for the middle class to relate to. On the other hand, the Romney campaign chose to portray him as more relaxed and casual, more like the "every-man." This was a very interesting way see campaign ads and the strategies used in them, a topic that I have been learning quite a bit about in class.
The rest of the episode was a discussion about the campaigning in Ohio and how important it is for either candidate to succeed in Ohio. Anderson Cooper used the CNN ORC Poll to show "Likely Voters Choice for President" in Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 46%. John King made an appearance to discuss the polls in Ohio also showing the among independent voters, 49% were likely to vote for Obama and 44% were likely to vote for Romney. Both Anderson Cooper and John King discussed the importance of winning the vote in Ohio by using numbers and data. Another portion discussed voter enthusiasm in Ohio with James Carville and Mary Matalin.
(Photo Credit: LA Times Blog Online)
They discussed the new poll information which brought up an interesting issue. James Carville discussed that the polls are not necessarily perfect sources of information. First, he explained that those who answer the poll are not guaranteed to vote. He also explained the issue of "robo-calls" and the inability to reach many people because robo-calls cannot contact via cell phones. This was an important point, one I've also learned in class. Polls are not perfect sources of information, they have flaws. A great deal of these portions of "Anderson Cooper 360" were more "horse-race" information. They used numbers and data to explain the possible outcomes of the election.
On the other hand, the remaining two segments were more based on the candidate's strategies. One segment discussed the level of enthusiasm in Ohio voters for each candidate. Viewers were able to see that Romney's strategy was "Romney can win" while Obama's strategy was "Romney can't win." Obama also used the 2000 election disaster to demonstrate the importance of getting to the polls on Election Day. Another, quite interesting segment was a discussion of an interview that MTV had with President Obama. Anderson Cooper explained that there are 45 million 18-25 years old that are eligible to vote in this election. This concept reminded me of another concept we learned in class which is tailoring messages to reach certain voters.
By watching "Anderson Cooper 360" citizens are able to get information about strategies and understand the numbers a bit better. Average citizens can learn which candidate is currently more successful, and how and where they are campaigning. It is very important that we are able to see discussion from experts (political analysts, campaign analysts, etc) and hear what they have to see regarding the election. Also, on occasion reporters from stations such as CNN go out into the field and talk to the people and we are able to hear and see things from the viewpoints of others who are generally just like us. I think it is also important to make an attempt to watch news shows that do not claim support to one candidate or another (although there has been some controversy over CNN's supposed bias) and hear facts and information from those who do not necessarily attempt to sway one way or the other but present pertinent information and allow us, the citizens, to make the decision for ourselves.
Both of these programs have value. I don't think that a citizen can get all of the information they would need to make an informed decision about a candidate simply by watching "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Although it is an opportunity to learn some pieces of information and be a bit better informed, it cannot be a sole provider of correct, non-partisan information. It is important to create a balance, I think. To be better informed citizens, we need to watch programs like "Anderson Cooper 360" and hear from experts that spend their lives researching and studying political campaigns. However, when we tire from all of the numbers, percentages, maps, charts and graphs, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to a program that we can laugh along with, while also getting information.
Watching these two shows reminded me of those two theories of Lippman and Dewey. Watching these programs I honestly believe that Dewey had a stronger idea/theory about the media's role in politics. Citizens are not apathetic, to be honest I think it would be a full-time job to be apathetic to political matters. Each and everyday we are bombarded with ads, news shows, comedic and satirical political shows, articles, radio shows, friends, co-workers, etc. Whether we like it or not, when we hear about issues and candidate stances, we react. We may not know everything there is to know about an issue or a candidate, but we get bits and pieces of information EVERYWHERE and when we hear those pieces of information we form an opinion (probably not a wholly informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless). Lippman was inaccurate (in my opinion), citizens do not need the media to dissect the information and then tell us what to think, most people I know are VERY good at forming their own opinions and drawing conclusions for themselves. Dewey had the right idea, it is the duty of the press to inform us as citizens, help us to understand the more difficult information (some of those graphs and the slew of percentages give me a headache). These types of shows help us to do just that. They give us the information, discuss what that information means (in very different ways), and then allow us to form our own opinions. Both types of shows can be helpful in our quest for information of candidates, one can give us the data and facts and help us to understand them, and the other presents us with information while allowing us the opportunity to analyze the information and also laugh at the sometimes ridiculous things that happen in campaigns and elections. Lippman should really give us a bit more credit, we can be a very smart and driven people. Honestly, these citizens don't look very apathetic to me:
No comments:
Post a Comment