By Griffin Spurgin
Late night talk shows play a big role in today’s society. The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart are two reasons why the outcome of the 2016 election came out with the results landing in favor of Republican Donald Trump. Both these shows are a great watch for those that love comedy, but they also provide as good news sources for politics and elections. However, they can pose a negative satirical threat to their viewers.
The past election was a heated and important one to say the least. The two candidates, to most, were unqualified for the job. Dean Flannery writes in his research article, “How Satire Failed,” that, “Just 24 hours before Donald Trump was elected the next president of the United States, Americans were still in the mood to laugh about their volatile political climate—or rather, late-night hosts were still trying to make them laugh about it”(Flannery, 2016). Elections should not be laughing matters due to their importance for the next four years. The Late Show with Stephen Colbert had a skit that could easily factored into people deciding not to vote in the election.
Colbert and Stewart find a girl on the street that is too scared to vote. Colbert asks her why, only to find out that she does not agree with the two presidential candidates up for vote and the street urchin believes that our political system is corrupt. The only harmful condition that goes with this is that Colbert and Stewart agree with her (Flannery, 2016). Millions of people watch this show and if two of the most respected satirists think the political system is corrupt, that would have to make viewers skeptical of voting. “On Nov. 8, an estimated 57 per cent of the electorate voted” (Flannery, 2016). This percent is too low especially since people want to complain about the outcome of the election.
Political satirists like Colbert and Stewart have power. Power is, “a force that exerts influence over the behavior of individuals and groups” (Kidd, 2014) The low percentage of voters could very well be due to the negative tone that satirists put on the election. Trump’s win over Clinton revealed the error of the mainstream faith in political satire as an effective form of political engagement. Clinton easily could have one had these satirists not been so comedical and stated several good comments about her rather than bashing her. The same goes for Trump. If Trump would have been the butt of a few more jokes and shamed a little more he could have lost the presidential election. After he won many did not have anything to say nor could they. Satirists couldn’t make jokes at the moment. Political satire is often used for the better of society. However, when used poorly at the wrong time, the outcome will not be a favorable result. The constant bashing of the two parties leading up to the election led to where we are now and nobody should be upset because they were laughing along with the satirists. People that have the power to guide individuals to make a change need to make sure they achieve that goal and don’t turn political satire into so much of a joke at such crucial times where people forget to do the right things.
References
Dean, F. (2016). How satire failed. Maclean’s, 129(47), 56–58.
Kidd, D. (2014). Identity, mass media, and society.
Boulder: Westview Press
Word Count: 557
Griffin,
ReplyDeleteI really like the topic because the power of satire is often overlooked, especially in a political sense. People like Colbert and Stewart are often seen just as comedians but actually have a lot of power in swaying people's opinions in the form of humor.
One critique I have however is to focus MORE on the power of satire. Maybe focusing on the positives and negatives of political satire. I think your second to last paragraph is very powerful and I think you should continue that throughout your entire post. But overall good job!
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteYou talk about a topic that is very controversial, but do it in an appropriate matter. You give good examples of using shows that people might know about, but if they don't you explain the summary of those shows. I like your idea of the power that is affecting political satire, just try to expand on that idea more and make it clear.
*Griffin
DeleteGriffin,
ReplyDeleteGood to see you taking political satire seriously.
You are not alone in your concern with this form of comedy. Some critics (e.g., Hart & Hartelius, 2007) contend, as you seem to, that satire produces cynicism and apathy among the electorate.
I encourage you to continue to think through this issue. After all, as you suggest, with the 2020 election fast approaching, political satirists are gearing up along with the candidates.
That said, you've undermined your efforts here. First and foremost, you haven't consulted an academic source (other than Kidd) as required for this assignment.
What's more, your citations are confusing and incomplete. For instance, in the body of your post you cite Flannery. But you reference Dean in the reference list. And the Kidd book isn't properly cited.
Then there are some awkward or confusing passages, as when you confuse "one" for "won."
More substantively, while the clip is clearly an instance of political satire, the "take away" is to get out and vote. Not, as you suggest, to sit this one out. Hence the big production number at the end encouraging everyone to exercise their right to vote.
In short, entertaining as this is, it might not be the best example to illustrate your point.
BTW the turnout in 2016 was about average for previous presidential election years. And to equate this skit with determining the outcome of the election is a bit of a stretch.
In short, if you are interested in such debates, there's no shortage of academic literature on the subject. In the meantime, brush up on APA and make certain you follow directions for the next assignment.
24/30 pts.