http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/09/30/snl.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=474002147830401061&q=will+ferrell+osama+bin+laden&total=9&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
The Terror and Gallows Humor piece from before spring break got me thinking about humor after September 11th. Mentally going back to the days and weeks following September 11th has become slightly more difficult as more time goes by. That being said, the overall sentiment of that time still resonates in me. And one of the starkest memories I have of the days following the event was a sense that humor would never be the same. That it wouldn’t be ok to really laugh for a long, long time. And that certainly the events of September 11th themselves were off-limits.
So when I go back to that time and think about the first obvious attempts at humor following 9/11, there are a few things that immediately come to mind. First of all, I wasn’t much of an Onion reader back then so I missed out on that really interesting post-9/11 Onion installment. For me, humor in 2001 centered much more on the late night TV shows and especially Saturday Night Live. At fourteen years old, the comedy of Saturday Night Live was still fresh and hilarious. Thinking about Saturday Night Live in 2001 brings back memories of Will Ferrell still in the cast which now feels like a lifetime ago. While digging around the internet for 9/11 related pieces I came across this article from USA Today critiquing the first SNL following 9/11. I remember watching all the SNLs in the weeks following 9/11 because I had grown to miss “regular TV” during the insane 24-hour news network frenzy directly following 9/11 itself. This article highlighted some of the things I remember about the show during this time.
Overall, the event of just a couple weeks before was hardly brought up during the episode aside from the large-scale serious tribute to start the show. I distinctly remember Rudy Giuliani’s “why start now?” line, which I thought was pretty hilarious. The joke mentioned in the article from the Weekend Update segment applies pretty closely to the Doniger piece. Following a tragic event such as 9/11, the first acceptable targets were the enemies. In this case: Osama Bin Laden and Mariah Carey. Overall, the first episode back played it safe; there were no sketches featuring George W. Bush and the event itself was mentioned only a few times. As the weeks progressed, I distinctly remember this gradually changing. Osama Bin Laden and the hijackers became a central focus of the comedy on the show. Will Ferrell played both Osama Bin Laden and President Bush, demonstrating his earlier range and talent.
One sketch I remember in particular was aired following the release of a tape of Bin Laden taking responsibility for the 9/11 attack. I couldn’t find the clip online, but the sketch aimed to recreate the tape closely. It was presented in the same hazy and amateurish style of the tape and featured Will Ferrell as Osama Bin Laden describing the events of 9/11 to some friends. The sketch began to diverge from the dialogue of the actual tape when Will Ferrell started to describe the attitudes of the hijackers. He claimed that they wanted to attack America, but they developed cold-feet after learning that they would be involved in a suicide mission. They asked Bin Laden if they could instead just hijack a plane and threaten the people onboard, asking for the release of prisoners and landing safely in Egypt or something. Humor such as this and the Onion articles we looked at highlight a specific kind of comedy that was deemed acceptable following the tragedy. It was ok to mock the hijackers, painting them as cowards or imagining what kind of torture they were receiving in hell. Humor beyond that was much more controversial.
I also managed to track down a video of Will Ferrell as George W. Bush entitled “George W. Bush Calls Out Bin Laden.” Again, Bush himself is not really a target here, although this is slightly beginning to change. Bush is presented in the typical Ferrell fashion: dim-witted, child-like, and kind of a cowboy. Yet as you can tell by the crowd reaction, the audience is entirely supportive of everything Ferrell is saying. Looking back on this clip six years later, the comedy is still humorous while the subject-matter still stings a bit. We haven’t been attacked again, yet I’m sure many of us would like to see a return to this level of gusto from President Bush about tracking down Bin Laden. Almost any impression of George W. Bush today is presented in a much different tone than this one. The humor is aimed at the President instead of who we’re fighting and the message is more cynical and disparaging. This only stresses the importance of the passage of time. Since 2001 our foreign policy has changed, the country’s attitudes have changed, and comedy has changed right along with it.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Media, Gatekeeping, and the War in Iraq
This is a political cartoon by R.J. Matson from the New York Observer that I thought tied in pretty closely to our discussion on the impact of humor in politics. I thought this Matson cartoon was closely related to the readings we did from Mulkay and McKain. The direct commentary of the media in this cartoon is a long-running style of political humor that these articles focused on specifically. We may think that political cartoons or other forms of political satire are being subversive or are directly challenging political norms, but a cartoon like this emphasizes that much of political humor is entirely beholden to the status quo.
This political cartoon in particular is being critical of the gatekeeping quality of the News. An image of a radar screen is covered with contemporary stories and media interests, none of which happen to be the War in Iraq. Matson points out rather directly that the media has chosen to ignore what should be one of its major stories. While some of the issues encompassed in the radar screen are also serious such as the economy and the presidential candidates, some of the issues focused on are entirely trivial in comparison to the war such as March Madness and, most notably, Eliot Spitzer. It can be shocking to actually consider that a current story like the Eliot Spitzer call-girl debacle can actually dominate headlines more than the continued violence and relative chaos in Iraq. In this cartoon, Matson is expressing his frustration, similar in many ways to the manner in which Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert express their frustration on TV every night.
Matson is being critical of the gatekeeping practices of the media recently, or what kind of news the media chooses to focus on. While this political cartoon appears to be poignant and extremely critical of the status quo, it does become clear after reading McKain or Mulkay that political cartoons such as this rely heavily on the status quo in order to function. As McKain states in a totally clear and not-confusing manner, “As a parody of News, TDS constructs itself out of news transmitted by the News, just as the News uses news content as its bricks and mortar” (pg. 416). Indeed, this political cartoon and many others wouldn’t exist if the traditional media didn’t continue its ways. Like Mulkay said, “Institutionalized political humor is derived from, and dependent for its meaning upon, the established pattern of serious political discourse” (pg. 210). The status quo in both media and politics is the number one target for political cartoonists and satirists.
Mulkay also points out that, “repetitive political humor contributes to a sense of political apathy which actually makes it easier for our rulers to continue to exercise political domination in the customary manner” (pg. 210). If this is indeed the case, then I feel that it speaks more poorly of us as the public as opposed to the political humorists who choose to take on these issues. That being said, a political cartoon such as this one can’t help but remind the public of an important issue when the mainstream media has so far failed to do so. While political humor may not succeed in destroying the entrenched style of media we’ve grown accustomed to, it can succeed on a smaller level. Even if these forms of humor only reaffirm existing views, the fact that these opinions have an outlet through this channel of expression is valuable.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important
I thought this piece was pretty humorous because I really agreed with the message it was trying to convey. This video, taken from the Onion website, satirizes TV news shows and the seriousness with which they cover sometimes utterly trivial and irrelevant topics concerning politics. The basis for the running joke in this clip is that a fake study has been conducted and it reveals that the number one concern facing voters in the next election is “bullshit.” By “bullshit” the Onion is referring to elements to politicians’ campaigns that don’t concern policies, voting records, or experience, but rather seemingly inconsequential things such as previous marriages, clothing, or exercise regimens. The list of “bullshit issues” rattled off in the video were pretty spot on in my opinion, ranging from whether or not the candidates are photogenic to whether or not they used to smoke. By the end of the clip, the exchange between the two reporters has devolved into an apparent contest to see who can utter the word “bullshit” more, in an attempt to generate laughs.
This clip made me think primarily about the “What Makes Us Laugh” piece by Rappoport. In that piece Rappoport discussed the element of incongruity that allows things to come across as humorous. In this case, similar to the Daily Show clip I posted a couple weeks ago, the incongruity lies in the fact that professional-looking newscasters would use vulgar and inappropriate language at such a fast pace and with such carelessness. The sheer absurdity of listening to the word “bullshit” dozens of times is offset by the continued seriousness with which this message is communicated. There is something funny about watching a video that by all appearances could be on CNN, but based on the audio, must be reserved exclusively for the internet. This led me to think also about the segment of the Rappoport piece in which Freud was mentioned. It seemed to me that the whole section about aggressive humor that raises tension amongst the audience applied in this scenario. The article even mentioned explicitly the George Carlin “seven dirty words” incident in which the repeated utterance of vulgar language could get a rise out of an audience. It might be strange, but the presence of men dressed in suits repeatedly saying “bullshit” could be funny regardless of the context.
Anyway, the context for this video made it very relevant to me. As someone who follows politics pretty closely, it is striking how much “bullshit” does in fact bog down the political process. What Barack Obama’s middle name is and whether or not he wore Islamic garb in Kenya has just about zero relevance to whether or not he could be an adequate commander in chief. And yet these seem to be central issues in many voters’ minds. John McCain was recently involved in a scandal with the New York Times in which the Times alleged that he had an affair with a former lobbyist. The issue about McCain’s ties to lobbyists is an important one, but something tells me that in many circumstances, the public cares more about the private lives of these candidates running for office.
The question that I had after viewing this video clip was centered on who is to blame for stuff like this. The Onion appears to be blaming both the public at large and the media. The public is responsible in large part because we care about whether or not we could envision a candidate having a beer with us or whether or not they hunt in their spare time. The media is to blame because, as the one reporter states, “If it wasn’t for the media, there would be a lot less bullshit in these elections.” The media often adds fuel to the fire by focusing too much on petty issues. As the November election approaches, the question of what issues get focused on becomes increasingly important.
I thought this piece was pretty humorous because I really agreed with the message it was trying to convey. This video, taken from the Onion website, satirizes TV news shows and the seriousness with which they cover sometimes utterly trivial and irrelevant topics concerning politics. The basis for the running joke in this clip is that a fake study has been conducted and it reveals that the number one concern facing voters in the next election is “bullshit.” By “bullshit” the Onion is referring to elements to politicians’ campaigns that don’t concern policies, voting records, or experience, but rather seemingly inconsequential things such as previous marriages, clothing, or exercise regimens. The list of “bullshit issues” rattled off in the video were pretty spot on in my opinion, ranging from whether or not the candidates are photogenic to whether or not they used to smoke. By the end of the clip, the exchange between the two reporters has devolved into an apparent contest to see who can utter the word “bullshit” more, in an attempt to generate laughs.
This clip made me think primarily about the “What Makes Us Laugh” piece by Rappoport. In that piece Rappoport discussed the element of incongruity that allows things to come across as humorous. In this case, similar to the Daily Show clip I posted a couple weeks ago, the incongruity lies in the fact that professional-looking newscasters would use vulgar and inappropriate language at such a fast pace and with such carelessness. The sheer absurdity of listening to the word “bullshit” dozens of times is offset by the continued seriousness with which this message is communicated. There is something funny about watching a video that by all appearances could be on CNN, but based on the audio, must be reserved exclusively for the internet. This led me to think also about the segment of the Rappoport piece in which Freud was mentioned. It seemed to me that the whole section about aggressive humor that raises tension amongst the audience applied in this scenario. The article even mentioned explicitly the George Carlin “seven dirty words” incident in which the repeated utterance of vulgar language could get a rise out of an audience. It might be strange, but the presence of men dressed in suits repeatedly saying “bullshit” could be funny regardless of the context.
Anyway, the context for this video made it very relevant to me. As someone who follows politics pretty closely, it is striking how much “bullshit” does in fact bog down the political process. What Barack Obama’s middle name is and whether or not he wore Islamic garb in Kenya has just about zero relevance to whether or not he could be an adequate commander in chief. And yet these seem to be central issues in many voters’ minds. John McCain was recently involved in a scandal with the New York Times in which the Times alleged that he had an affair with a former lobbyist. The issue about McCain’s ties to lobbyists is an important one, but something tells me that in many circumstances, the public cares more about the private lives of these candidates running for office.
The question that I had after viewing this video clip was centered on who is to blame for stuff like this. The Onion appears to be blaming both the public at large and the media. The public is responsible in large part because we care about whether or not we could envision a candidate having a beer with us or whether or not they hunt in their spare time. The media is to blame because, as the one reporter states, “If it wasn’t for the media, there would be a lot less bullshit in these elections.” The media often adds fuel to the fire by focusing too much on petty issues. As the November election approaches, the question of what issues get focused on becomes increasingly important.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Paul Mooney on the Michael Richards Incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cuX2uYOi4g
This is a clip of comedian Paul Mooney on the Greta Van Susteren show discussing the Michael Richards incident from 2006. I found this clip to be especially pertinent to our class discussions on race and gender comedy. Paul Mooney is a good example of a certain kind of confrontational black comedy that was really epitomized by the late Richard Pryor. Paul Mooney was actually a close friend of Pryor’s and Paul co-wrote many of Richard’s stand-up comedy routines in the 1970s and 80s. Paul Mooney subsequently went on to write for In Living Color and made several guest appearances on Chappelle’s Show while continuing to do his own stand-up performances.
Mooney’s style of humor is a confrontational humor that manages to get blacks and whites laughing, but clearly masks resentment towards whites for their treatment of African-Americans. In an interview with Nightline on ABC, Mooney said that he hopes to make people both think and laugh at his humor. He prides himself in easing tensions between the races, but also in confronting white people with the injustice of racism. While watching this clip I made the parallel to the Zolten piece we read and the differences between the Richard Pryor brand of humor and the Bill Cosby brand. I think that both can be effective and useful. In this clip, Mooney addresses the Michael Richards comments head on using sarcasm and a certain racially charged humor that actually serves to raise the tension level on the Fox News show.
In 2006, Michael Richards was performing at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood. What started as a typical stand-up routine from the former Seinfeld star devolved into a racist rant while confronting some hecklers. The rant concluded with Richards repeatedly yelling the word “nigger.” Richards’ “meltdown” received widespread national attention and resulted in a dialogue over the use of the N-word. The Michael Richards incident followed by the potentially even more noteworthy Don Imus incident served to galvanize much of the African-American community to condemn any use of the N-word in public. What was formerly a word used as a form of oppression by whites against blacks and was later adopted by blacks as a means to remove the negative connotation, has now been criticized by blacks as inappropriate for anyone to utter. Even Paul Mooney, someone who has frequently used the N-word in his stand-up routines, has now promised to never use the word on stage again.
The clip that I found here was taken directly after the Richards incident. Van Susteren begins by noting that Mooney has known Richards for 30 years and has worked with him in the past. Mooney says that the incident was a total shock and goes on to say that he believes Richards had a total mental breakdown in which being funny no longer mattered. Mooney believed that the language used by Richards did not even have a humorous backdrop or a comedic intent, but was rather a reflection of Richards’ true feelings coming through in his fit of rage. The clip becomes funny and tense when Van Susteren asks Mooney how Richards could redeem himself. Mooney says at first that Richards could perform that same routine at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, suggesting that Richard’s remarks would not have gone over well in front of a largely black audience. Van Susteren interrupts Mooney to point out to the audience watching at home that the Apollo Theatre is located in Harlem and presumably attempts to inform white viewers about the theatre’s ties to the black community. At this point, Mooney interrupts Van Susteren and claims that the Apollo Theatre is “world-renowned” and that everyone should know about the Apollo. I found this to be fascinating as Mooney stepped in to make a conversation about race even more tense. During this portion of the conversation he even calls Van Susteren, “sweetheart,” mocking the perceived naiveté of the television host. Mooney then goes on to say that Richards could redeem himself by hosting the BET hip-hop awards, stepping into Watts at midnight wearing red, or adopting a black baby. All of these were meant as tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic remarks as clearly none of these things were realistic or at all feasible. Mooney was instead trying to draw attention to the fact that Richards had a lot of work to do to win back black support while also trying to bring some levity to the situation.
The clip ends with Mooney describing to Van Susteren a kind of racial joke that would still qualify as being funny. The joke, about a white child putting chocolate on his face and calling himself black, is funny but still conveys a sense of black resentment and anger. I found the joke to be a good example of the kind of humor we discussed in class that someone like Richard Pryor would use to keep people laughing but also to send a message. Ultimately I thought this clip was appropriate because it touches on the use of language and its cultural usages, and also the role of racial humor. The word “nigger” is almost unique to our lexicon in that the level of inflammatory sentiment attached to it makes it almost completely off limits to the white population. But now, as the argument turns to methods for eliminating the power behind the word, it appears as though many in the African-American community wish to see the word disappear entirely and hope that blacks will stop using the word as well. This is certainly a fascinating discussion on the role of language in our culture. The role of racial humor is also interesting to note. Clearly Paul Mooney found the Michael Richards incident an opportunity to express his disappointment and anger while also sharing his own brand of socially aware humor. His humor is light-hearted enough to allow white people to laugh, while also gritty and biting enough to get his point across.
This is a clip of comedian Paul Mooney on the Greta Van Susteren show discussing the Michael Richards incident from 2006. I found this clip to be especially pertinent to our class discussions on race and gender comedy. Paul Mooney is a good example of a certain kind of confrontational black comedy that was really epitomized by the late Richard Pryor. Paul Mooney was actually a close friend of Pryor’s and Paul co-wrote many of Richard’s stand-up comedy routines in the 1970s and 80s. Paul Mooney subsequently went on to write for In Living Color and made several guest appearances on Chappelle’s Show while continuing to do his own stand-up performances.
Mooney’s style of humor is a confrontational humor that manages to get blacks and whites laughing, but clearly masks resentment towards whites for their treatment of African-Americans. In an interview with Nightline on ABC, Mooney said that he hopes to make people both think and laugh at his humor. He prides himself in easing tensions between the races, but also in confronting white people with the injustice of racism. While watching this clip I made the parallel to the Zolten piece we read and the differences between the Richard Pryor brand of humor and the Bill Cosby brand. I think that both can be effective and useful. In this clip, Mooney addresses the Michael Richards comments head on using sarcasm and a certain racially charged humor that actually serves to raise the tension level on the Fox News show.
In 2006, Michael Richards was performing at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood. What started as a typical stand-up routine from the former Seinfeld star devolved into a racist rant while confronting some hecklers. The rant concluded with Richards repeatedly yelling the word “nigger.” Richards’ “meltdown” received widespread national attention and resulted in a dialogue over the use of the N-word. The Michael Richards incident followed by the potentially even more noteworthy Don Imus incident served to galvanize much of the African-American community to condemn any use of the N-word in public. What was formerly a word used as a form of oppression by whites against blacks and was later adopted by blacks as a means to remove the negative connotation, has now been criticized by blacks as inappropriate for anyone to utter. Even Paul Mooney, someone who has frequently used the N-word in his stand-up routines, has now promised to never use the word on stage again.
The clip that I found here was taken directly after the Richards incident. Van Susteren begins by noting that Mooney has known Richards for 30 years and has worked with him in the past. Mooney says that the incident was a total shock and goes on to say that he believes Richards had a total mental breakdown in which being funny no longer mattered. Mooney believed that the language used by Richards did not even have a humorous backdrop or a comedic intent, but was rather a reflection of Richards’ true feelings coming through in his fit of rage. The clip becomes funny and tense when Van Susteren asks Mooney how Richards could redeem himself. Mooney says at first that Richards could perform that same routine at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, suggesting that Richard’s remarks would not have gone over well in front of a largely black audience. Van Susteren interrupts Mooney to point out to the audience watching at home that the Apollo Theatre is located in Harlem and presumably attempts to inform white viewers about the theatre’s ties to the black community. At this point, Mooney interrupts Van Susteren and claims that the Apollo Theatre is “world-renowned” and that everyone should know about the Apollo. I found this to be fascinating as Mooney stepped in to make a conversation about race even more tense. During this portion of the conversation he even calls Van Susteren, “sweetheart,” mocking the perceived naiveté of the television host. Mooney then goes on to say that Richards could redeem himself by hosting the BET hip-hop awards, stepping into Watts at midnight wearing red, or adopting a black baby. All of these were meant as tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic remarks as clearly none of these things were realistic or at all feasible. Mooney was instead trying to draw attention to the fact that Richards had a lot of work to do to win back black support while also trying to bring some levity to the situation.
The clip ends with Mooney describing to Van Susteren a kind of racial joke that would still qualify as being funny. The joke, about a white child putting chocolate on his face and calling himself black, is funny but still conveys a sense of black resentment and anger. I found the joke to be a good example of the kind of humor we discussed in class that someone like Richard Pryor would use to keep people laughing but also to send a message. Ultimately I thought this clip was appropriate because it touches on the use of language and its cultural usages, and also the role of racial humor. The word “nigger” is almost unique to our lexicon in that the level of inflammatory sentiment attached to it makes it almost completely off limits to the white population. But now, as the argument turns to methods for eliminating the power behind the word, it appears as though many in the African-American community wish to see the word disappear entirely and hope that blacks will stop using the word as well. This is certainly a fascinating discussion on the role of language in our culture. The role of racial humor is also interesting to note. Clearly Paul Mooney found the Michael Richards incident an opportunity to express his disappointment and anger while also sharing his own brand of socially aware humor. His humor is light-hearted enough to allow white people to laugh, while also gritty and biting enough to get his point across.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Polls Conducted the Daily Show Way
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156231&title=team-daily-polls
Watching the Daily Show last week was a perfect time to get some good satire and political commentary as it was the week of Super Tuesday and voting to pick nominees was in full swing. And just as we’ve come to expect, Jon Stewart and company managed to mock the cable news networks for their roles in the political process. This time the Daily Show was targeting the significance of polls. Polls have become incredibly important to newscasters and political commentators who must fill at least some of their time slots with “analysis” of the numbers and predictions for what will happen in the future.
This is great fodder for a satirical show like the Daily Show, which has thrived when it hits hard at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or any other news program out there. This particular piece, assembled by many of the contributors to the show, begins with a direct hit to the pollsters and news shows. It seemingly mocks these programs for failing to make accurate predictions concerning the New Hampshire primary last month. A clip of an “expert” pointing out a massive lead for Obama is shown, setting up the premise of the following segment. When Hillary Clinton was declared the winner, the validity and relevance of polls were immediately questioned. The question being raised by Jon Stewart is that if polls are often wrong, why is that so and who is to blame?
The segment quickly cuts to reporter John Oliver interviewing a professional pollster who appears to be utterly reasonable and intelligent. The pollster comments that polls are simply a snapshot of people’s opinions and can in no way be used to predict future outcomes. This astute offering of advice is contrasted with John Oliver’s ludicrous behavior. He swears while conducting the interview and then proceeds to challenge the pollster and announce his own effort to execute a more successful poll. The basis for this new kind of poll is intimidation. The Daily Show pollsters would scare the people they interviewed into not changing their minds and therefore rendering their results worthless. So the answer reached by the Daily Show team is that polls are often wrong because the voters flip-flop on who they support. Because of this, an accurate poll must include unchanging, static opinions.
What ensues is a series of very funny confrontations with innocent and unsuspecting voters in New York, who reveal who they support in the election and are then threatened and yelled at by the Daily Show staff. A mother and father give their answers and Samantha Bee takes their small children as “insurance.” Rob Riggle decides to break a man’s finger because he appears to be lying. The humor is successful because it’s all about incongruities. No one expects professional newscasters or professional pollsters to repeatedly swear at people or to continually threaten to “break their bodies.” The thought of these supposedly professional individuals engaging in such absurd behavior is genuinely funny. The segment itself is a parody of the cable new networks who take these polls so seriously, and the high level of sarcasm is palpable. Obviously, no sane person would recommend actually implementing the Daily Show form of polling. But according to Jon Stewart and his team, this is the only feasible way to fix the polling problem. The purpose of this piece, like many others on the Daily Show, is to ridicule cable news networks while simultaneously discussing topical, relevant issues that, in this case, pertain to the 2008 election.
Watching the Daily Show last week was a perfect time to get some good satire and political commentary as it was the week of Super Tuesday and voting to pick nominees was in full swing. And just as we’ve come to expect, Jon Stewart and company managed to mock the cable news networks for their roles in the political process. This time the Daily Show was targeting the significance of polls. Polls have become incredibly important to newscasters and political commentators who must fill at least some of their time slots with “analysis” of the numbers and predictions for what will happen in the future.
This is great fodder for a satirical show like the Daily Show, which has thrived when it hits hard at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or any other news program out there. This particular piece, assembled by many of the contributors to the show, begins with a direct hit to the pollsters and news shows. It seemingly mocks these programs for failing to make accurate predictions concerning the New Hampshire primary last month. A clip of an “expert” pointing out a massive lead for Obama is shown, setting up the premise of the following segment. When Hillary Clinton was declared the winner, the validity and relevance of polls were immediately questioned. The question being raised by Jon Stewart is that if polls are often wrong, why is that so and who is to blame?
The segment quickly cuts to reporter John Oliver interviewing a professional pollster who appears to be utterly reasonable and intelligent. The pollster comments that polls are simply a snapshot of people’s opinions and can in no way be used to predict future outcomes. This astute offering of advice is contrasted with John Oliver’s ludicrous behavior. He swears while conducting the interview and then proceeds to challenge the pollster and announce his own effort to execute a more successful poll. The basis for this new kind of poll is intimidation. The Daily Show pollsters would scare the people they interviewed into not changing their minds and therefore rendering their results worthless. So the answer reached by the Daily Show team is that polls are often wrong because the voters flip-flop on who they support. Because of this, an accurate poll must include unchanging, static opinions.
What ensues is a series of very funny confrontations with innocent and unsuspecting voters in New York, who reveal who they support in the election and are then threatened and yelled at by the Daily Show staff. A mother and father give their answers and Samantha Bee takes their small children as “insurance.” Rob Riggle decides to break a man’s finger because he appears to be lying. The humor is successful because it’s all about incongruities. No one expects professional newscasters or professional pollsters to repeatedly swear at people or to continually threaten to “break their bodies.” The thought of these supposedly professional individuals engaging in such absurd behavior is genuinely funny. The segment itself is a parody of the cable new networks who take these polls so seriously, and the high level of sarcasm is palpable. Obviously, no sane person would recommend actually implementing the Daily Show form of polling. But according to Jon Stewart and his team, this is the only feasible way to fix the polling problem. The purpose of this piece, like many others on the Daily Show, is to ridicule cable news networks while simultaneously discussing topical, relevant issues that, in this case, pertain to the 2008 election.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Bill, Hillary, and the Kennedys
I found this political cartoon to be effective for its overall direct message and its more subtle barbs at both Hillary and Bill Clinton following the Obama endorsement from Ted Kennedy. The cartoon depicts Hillary and Bill Clinton watching a television with John F. Kennedy’s image shown underneath an “Obama ‘08” logo. Kennedy is saying that he approved the previous message given by the Obama ad. The cartoon is timely as it is making political commentary concerning the recent Ted Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama. The cartoon is effective because of how it demonstrates the significance of the Ted Kennedy endorsement and the commentary it makes about the Bill and Hillary Clinton relationship, both of which have become central issues to the Democratic Party’s nomination process in 2008.The argument being laid out by cartoonist Jack Ohman, is that the Kennedy endorsement of Obama will be extraordinarily effective and that this time around there is little Bill Clinton can do to offset the consequences. The cartoon very blatantly references the controversial role that Bill Clinton has assumed following Barack Obama’s early caucus victory in Iowa. Following Hillary Clinton’s disappointing third place finish in the state, Bill Clinton began going on the offensive against Obama, targeting the senator’s record and experience, and more controversially bringing Obama’s race to the forefront of the political debate. After Hillary’s surprising victory in New Hampshire, Bill continued to go after Obama before the South Carolina primary. During his frequent attacks on Obama, Bill seemingly downplayed the importance of the South Carolina primary due to its very large number of African-American voters, voters who greatly favor Obama over Clinton. Following Obama’s landslide victory, Bill related Obama’s victory to that of Jessie Jackson 20 years earlier, seemingly in an effort to again diminish the significance of the win. In the cartoon presented here, Ohman is making reference to this sequence of events through Hillary Clinton as she turns to her husband and says, “Spin that…” The not so subtle implication here is that Bill Clinton has been spinning recent events to favor his wife and is directly referencing the former President’s new role in the campaign as an ‘attack dog’ for his wife. In this regard the cartoon works as a subtle attack at Bill Clinton.
The cartoon is also effective in its ability to really highlight the cartoonist’s perceived significance of the Ted Kennedy endorsement. During Ted Kennedy’s endorsement speech at an event on January 28, Kennedy did indeed raise the name of his brother John F. Kennedy in an analogy to Barack Obama’s campaign. Adding to this analogy is the endorsement from Caroline Kennedy, who directly compared Barack Obama to her father. The message from the political cartoon here is that the now frequent comparisons to John F. Kennedy have acted to provide a sort of endorsement by JFK from beyond the grave. And when the relatives of President Kennedy act to bestow the mantle of the Kennedy legacy onto someone, how can you possibly combat that as a political opponent? The cartoon is also making fun of the sheer absurdity of a dead former president endorsing a candidate and how that really is not fair to the Clintons. Based on this cartoon it is clear that the illustrator feels that the Kennedy endorsements of Obama will be effective because of the images they conjure up in voters and the impossibility of an effective rebuttal from Hillary Clinton.
Visually, Ohman goes out of his way to portray Hillary as angry and seemingly pessimistic while Bill is drawn to appear shocked and bewildered. This again can be interpreted as a kind of parody of the Bill and Hillary relationship, in this circumstance the political relationship where Hillary is seen as the more cynical realist, and Bill is shown to be more of the eager political opportunist.
The cartoon is directed at voters generally, especially Americans who have been following the presidential race and are aware of current events, more specifically about the role of Bill Clinton in the campaign. And overall, the cartoon is meant to maybe ridicule the relationship that the Clintons have and possibly more seriously critique the role that Bill Clinton has played recently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)