Michael Xenos
In an earlier post, Laura closed a rather depressing entry with an offer for you to cheer up by indulging in some of Jon Stewart’s comedy. But last week’s “Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer” confrontation raises a number of issues that remind us that laugh-out-loud comedy and serious issues related to American Politics are not always at odds. Although a mound of statistics would suggest that very few of you reading this have not already seen some of what I am referring to, I’ll include the following link in case you just never quite got around to viewing those links and clips that people may have sent you.
In addition to being wildly entertaining in its own right, the week-long confrontation, culminating in Cramer’s appearance on The Daily Show last Friday brings to light some of the principal features of political comedy (including The Daily Show, but also shows like The Colbert Report, and occasionally Saturday Night Live) that are often cited as evidence that we should be either alarmed or pleased that more and more young people are claiming to learn something about politics from people like Jon Stewart and comedy programming in general.
On the positive side, this exchange (much like its counterpart, the famous Jon Stewart appearance on CNN’s Crossfire years ago) illustrates the unique perspective comics like Stewart are able to offer on matters of public interest. As Stewart frequently points out, he is not a regular journalist and claims no special expertise on matters political or economic. As such, he is unconstrained by journalistic norms such as objectivity, and can say things and ask questions that television journalists simply cannot. Thus he is able to in this case develop a strong critique of his guest, and an entire class of television news content. Simply put, Stewart is able to engage in a serious discussion about the proper role of journalism (in this case, financial journalism), even if it is in the context of jokes and humor.
In addition to providing a kind of critical commentary that other news sources cannot, good political comedy also makes politics fun. This is valuable because as your textbook illustrates, for most people, most of the time, taking the time to learn something about politics is an uphill battle. Except for those who have an inherent interest in politics and public affairs, most people find little reward in learning about the issues of the day, and as a result, we often have to be careful about how we interpret things like opinion poll results. By weaving humor into discussions of current affairs, and yes, as Joe Scarborough points out, making the occasional funny face, Stewart makes otherwise unattractive information enjoyable to think about. According to political scientist Matthew Baum, by combining the serious and the amusing, political entertainment programming or soft news can serve as a “gateway” to learning more about serious issues, especially for those who are generally less interested in politics. Although Baum’s research primarily focuses on soft news coverage of foreign policy matters, the basic principle is applicable to a variety of political issues. In the case of Stewart vs. Cramer, it is possible that the event led a considerable number of people to have conversations and consume media content related to the financial crisis that they otherwise may have easily passed up.
Detractors of political comedy and soft news often point out that the thrust of the content is usually negative. Whether in the form of the monologues at the start of late-night talk shows, skits on SNL, or more in-depth “correspondent coverage” on The Daily Show, political comedy usually involves highlighting embarrassing gaffes or personal foibles, which leads many to worry that a steady diet of such content might fuel cynicism and disaffection from public affairs the political process. The same principle might be invoked with respect to Stewart’s media criticism. By making fun of serious news (financial or otherwise), some people worry that such humor may end up turning even more people away from programs and content that, despite their problems, are often a reasonable source of information about political issues of the day.
Either way, the increasing popularity of such programming further illustrates a broader issue, which is that important elements of how individuals learn about politics and form opinions are changing in response to a shifting media landscape, which makes it a very interesting time to be learning about American Politics. So, cheer up, and learn something about politics, but please try not to let it make you too cynical.
I used your instructions for making a reversible jumper and they were great.I agree with your opinions on men and how they more clean cut.
People usually talk about gender when they discuss the metero male, but I like how you link it with a historical context to class and divisions between men.
Posted by: Christian Louboutin Outlet | September 13, 2011 at 08:21 PM