Annotated Bibliography Feldman, 1. Lauren. "The Rally to Restore Sanity: A Growing Impact for Political Parody?" Interview by Matthew C. Nisbet. Web log post. Age of Engagement. Big Think, 20 Sept. 2010. Web. 25 Sept. 2010. <http://bigthink.com/ideas/24114>.
This very informative source has provided me with very useful information for my project. The blog post is authored by Matthew C. Nisbet, a professor at the Communications School of American University. Much of the blog post is based around the professor’s interview with fellow professor, Laura Feldman. The interview provides an informational report on the growing power of political satire on television. The intended audience for this blog are well-educated individuals who have a moderate amount of knowledge on both politics and current television programs such as the Colbert Report, SNL etc. etc.
The author’s thesis is that political satire on television has the potential to completely change the way that Americans view the political scene. His main source is a recent Pew Report that among other things, states that well-informed young people are receiving their political news less from traditional sources and more from political satire shows. Drawing upon the 2008 election, he argues that SNL’s political parodies of the major candidates marked a turning point in the way Americans view political parody. Professor Feldman draws upon a study that concluded that Americans were more familiar with Tina Fey’s parody of Sarah Palin then with the actual person. More recently, he sites Jon Stewart’s rally to restore sanity as a major turning point in political media. Overall, this research is well supported and clear. The author does not seem to take any political basis, and his questions to the professor are open-ended.
Overall, both professors seem to be very knowledgeable in the fields of politics and television. Drawing on a spectrum of current political shows, from the long running SNL to the relatively upstart Colbert Report. The interviewer takes an objective stance as his questions do not attempt to lead the interviewee down any particular path. For her part, the interviewee does not appear to lack any bias other than her belief that political satire is affecting American politics. It is clear that her conclusion has been backed up by numerous studies and reports.
This blog interview has been extremely informative to the author. The numerous reports and studies cited in the article provide compelling information regarding this project’s essential question. Information relating to both political programs on air today, and the information that the audience takes away from them while most likely provide a suitable cornerstone to my research and my eventual presentation. The fact that the source is a dialogue between two college professors gives the source credibility, which in turn means that I can use it to judge the reliability of other sources based on it. Before I read this source, I was unaware of the large role that political satire on television played on the way Americans look at their government. This source has helped open my eyes to the truth about one of the major parts of my project. 2. "The Daily Show: Journalism, Satire or Just Laughs?" Pew Research Center. Pew Research, 08 May 2008. Web. 05 Oct. 2010. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/829/the-daily-show-journalism-satire-or-just-laughs.
This source has presented me with many informative statistics regarding my project. While no author is given, this comes from a reputable source of information (the Pew Research Center), and this work has been referenced by the authors of another one of my sources. This is an informational report designed to make sense of a recent study run by the Pew Research Center about the changing climate of politics and how Americans get their news. The intended audience for such a report is the average American, since all of the report is spelled out in easy to understand terms and the statistics presented are not needlessly muddled. However, at the same time, it is expected that the reader have some sense of both how to read statistics and the current political climate in America.
The author’s thesis is that Americans, dissatisfied with the main stream media, have instead turned to John Stewart for the latest updates on American politics. This argument is based on the study done by the center which states that Stewart was tied with Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Anderson Cooper for the title of most admired journalist. In addition, 16 % of Americans watch the show while only 14% watched “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer.” According to the center’s report, those who watched the show are much more informed on the current political scene in the nation then those who do not watch the show, although this does not account for the other shows watched by the viewer. The center argues that this is due to Stewart’s show examining similar news stories to other cable political news shows, albeit in a funnier manner. In addition, the shows assumption that the viewer has significant knowledge about the political topics being discussed allows it to focus less on recapping recent developments and more on analyzing them.
Overall this work is logical, easy-to-understand, and well researched. The Pew Center is a respectable organization so it would only make sense that they would ensure that each of their studies was a accurate as possible. The topic has been properly addressed with the Center analyzing those who watch the show, the topics the show deals with, and even Stewart’s own feelings about the show. The author simply states the facts. While it is clear that he believes that there is a growing trend involving political comedy becoming the new source for political news, he lays out the facts and then lets the reader decide for himself.
This source has been very helpful as it provides quantitative data that I can use when supporting my thesis. This data nicely compliments the qualitative data found in the Age of Engagment blog that I am also using as a source. In terms of developing my argument, this source helped illustrate the growing trend toward political satire as news and it also demonstrated that it has not quite reached the point where it has supplanted traditional news sources, a point that was missing for the Age of Engagement blog.3. Garner, Joe. Made You Laugh!: the Funniest Moments in Radio, Television, Stand-up, and Movie Comedy. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Pub., 2004. Print. This source provides valuable information and analysis of how SNL has portrayed the commander-in-chief throughout the shows run. The author, Joe Garner, is a New York Times bestselling author who has written several books on television before, and has frequently appeared on national news shows. The purpose of this work is to entertain and enlighten the reader about comedy in movie, TV, and stage. For the section dealing with SNL and the presidents, the purpose is inform the reader about how SNL successfully satirized the presidents, and to also hint about it affected the population’s perception of their leaders.
The author’s thesis is that for the past 40 years SNL has provided goofy, satirical, and, at times, accurate portrayals of the presidents and their flaws. The author analyzes how each president was portrayed on the show, and he then notes how that affected the each politician’s image with the public. Using actual quotes from each sketch, the author illustrates how the how mocked each candidate’s flaws while at the same time drawing laughs from the audience. If there is one flaw with the research, it is that there is no statistical evidence that can back up the author’s claims as to how the show changed the public’s perception of the President. There is not a single survey mentioned to show how he arrived at the conclusion, which hurts the author’s arguments.
Except for the lack of verifiable statistics, the work is very well researched. The author has provided very precise details as to the nature of the parodies (this was verified by a trip to Youtube). In terms of scope, the author fails to provide information SNL’s parody of the 2004 2008 elections, but this is understandable due to the book only coming out in 2004. For the most part the author remains objective, the work is meant to entertain as much as it is to educate, but he always ensures that the reader is always kept informed about the underlying issues beneath each parody. That being said, he is biased in the sense that he believes that SNL provided funny and satirical caricatures of the gentlemen in the Oval Office, but he lays the facts out for the reader and lets the reader chose for themselves.
What I learned from the source is that Will Ferrell’s George W. Bush impression was not the first SNL spoof of a president, and that the show has been satirizing presidents since the days of Nixon. This informative source gives me all of the information that I need to help dig deeper into how comedy affects people’s perceptions of politics and it has also provided me with several ideas for clips to use in my presentation. After reading this, I have further evidence to advocate that satirical shows such as SNL can play a role in defining a presidential election, but, at the same time, I am still not sure as to what extent they can do this.
Please note that certain words in the citations for the next two sources appear twice. I don't know why this is, and I am unable to figure out how to remove such words as they do not appear when I click edit. Thanks
-Scott Braxton4. Braxton, Greg. "Funny Thing about Obama - Los Angeles Times." Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times. L.A Times, 04 May 2009. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/04/entertainment/et-obama-jokes4/3>. This informative article provided valuable information about the satires and parodies of the nation’s 45th president. The author of the article, Greg Braxton, is a respected columnist for the L.A Times. He writes for a major newspaper, and is therefore considered to be a credible source. The purpose of the article is to provide commentary on the lack of political satire directed towards President Obama. The language is the article is intended for the average individual, but is assumed that the reader would be somewhat familiar with political satire and the president. The author’s thesis is that Obama’s race is causing many satirists to avoid taking jabs at the new president, in order to avoid charges of racism. He argues that the uniqueness of Obama being the first African-American president presents a challenge to satirists who have never had to satirize a non-white president before. He also argues that the sensitivity to race has caused some people to react against the limited satire aimed at Obama. To cap it off, he points out that Obama is very careful about his conduct which makes him difficult to satirize from a creative standpoint. To support his claim, he points out that when Bill Maher poked fun at Obama during a discussion on his show he received such a negative response from the audience that he decided not to do it again. He then goes on to describe how many satirists also avoided poking fun at Obama in order to avoid the same reaction that Maher got. An interviewer from the Jay Leno Show is quoted as saying that many writers are worried that they will be called racist if they write jokes about Obama. He also compares the amount of satire that Bush and Clinton received in comparison to Obama and found it to be much greater. He then points out that Obama is much more careful about what he says than Bush and Clinton ever were means that the writers of political satire are limited to his policies and mocking them, which is difficult since many of the writers of political satire are liberals. Overall this work appears to be well-researched as the author draws upon a number of sources to support his claims. It is easy to follow, and the meaning is never muddled. The topic has been adequately addressed, with a thorough analysis of both satire in the past and satire in the era of Obama. In terms of bias, it appears that the author has some bias towards the notion that Obama has been given softer treatment in terms of satire, but the author of this annotated bibliography does remember some sketches on SNL that mocked the president’s speech patterns and the media’s love for him. Such examples were noticeably absent from the article which leads one to believe that the author simply missed them in his research or left out on purpose in order to advance his argument. This source was extremely helpful in comprehending the current nature of presidential satire in this country. This article provides evidence that the lack of critical satire directed at Obama might have contributed to people’s perceptions of him. After reading this, it is clear that political satire is by no means colorblind, but there have been some attempts to poke fun of the president. This will greatly support the arguments dealing with the affect that political satire has on the population, and it might lead to greater discussion as to the effect that people have on political satire.
5. StewartStewart, John. "Bill Moyers Interviews John Stewart." Interview by Bill Moyers. NOW. PBS, 11 July 2003. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_stewart.html>.
The credentials of both the interviewer and the interviewee are very impressive. The interviewer, Bill Moyers, is a internationally known journalist, who is the host of the award winning television program NOW on PBS. Through the course of his long career, he has reported on many stories of national importance, and his show has received plaudits for its evenhandedness and commitment to journalist and not sensationalism. The interviewee, Jon Stewart, is the host of The Daily Show, a faux news program that skewers political news programs. He has been heralded as a visionary in the world of political satire and his show enjoys high ratings and critical acclaim. The purpose of this work is to analyze the growing popularity of political satire shows on TV, and to analyze whether or not they can be considered a valid source of news. The intended audience of this piece is an educated individual who has a firm grasp of American politics and who watches The Daily Show. While clips from the show are shown, it doubtful that the viewer would be able to adequately comprehend the nature of the show from sections of the show shown. The interviewer’s thesis is that Jon Stewart is contributing a valuable service to the world of politics and journalism. He points out the satirical nature of the show allows it cover topics and ask the questions which would be frowned upon by the mainstream media. In order to back up his claim, he cites the growing popularity of Stewart’s show and the growing respect it is getting from experts in the field of journalism. In addition, he also shows clips of the show in order to let the view see the comedy and impact of Stewart’s show for themselves. Much of the interview is spent in dialogue between the two individuals. Stewart provides information about how his show is handled and what he thinks the keys to its success are. He believes that he can focus more specifically on certain relevant topics because he is not bound to report everything that occurs like other programs are. Since this is a news program on public television, it comes as no surprise the work is very clear, logical, and well-researched. The topic is adequately addressed, and both men are clearly very well informed about the nature of politics, journalism, and satire. For the most part Moyer’s takes an objective stance, but at the same time, it is clear that he is a fan of Stewart’s show and it is clear that Moyer’s believes that Stewart is pioneering a new type of journalism. In an interesting contrast, Stewart takes the opposite position. He argues that while his show can offer some political insights, ultimately it is not real journalism. This source was extremely helpful in my research on the topic. Moyer’s and Stewart provide very interesting insights about the nature of political satire, and the examples taken from Stewart’s show can be used in my presentation. This source prevents both sides on the debate of whether shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are real news shows or simply comedies. With this information, I can have clearer grasp the evolving nature of the fake news show and how its satire is changing the way America gets its news.
6. Jessica Bloustein. "Political Humor Has Long and Storied History - Newsweek." Newsweek - National News, World News, Business, Health, Technology, Entertainment, and More - Newsweek. Newsweek, 11 Sept. 2008. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/10/political-punch-lines.html>. This excellent source provides a brief history of political satire from the 2008 election. The author, Jessica Bloustein, is a respected writer for Newsweek magazine and therefore the source is reliable. This report is designed to serve as a brief history of political satire throughout the ages, and also analyze the impact that modern satire is having on the American nation. The audience is expected to have some basic knowledge about both history and the current shows that employ political satire in the modern world. \ The author’s thesis is that political satire is as old as time itself, yet its nature and the impact it has changed little throughout the years. The main arguments are that political satire was present in Ancient Greece, Medieval Italy, and in the United States since its inception. In addition, political satire is having inedible impact on the way that Americans view their politicians and the rising popularity of political satire is no surprise given the political climate. In order to support these arguments, Bloustein points out that the playwright Aristophanes included numerous jabs towards political leaders in his shows, and Dante wrote satirical articles about Italian leaders while he was in exile. On the American scene, Mark Twain’s quote, “Suppose you were and idiot and a member of Congress, but I am repeating myself” is employed to show that American satire was going strong in the mid 19th century. Moving on to the present day, Bloustein interviews the people behind such shows as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, order to get new perspectives on both the history of political satire and its modern day impact. The co-creator of The Daily Show expresses his belief that it is not democracy but rather the politicians that claim to be serving the democracy who are the true source of humor. Such an opinion is echoed by several other interviewees on the show who also say that satire is influencing the nature of politics in America. To support that they point to the growing number of politicians who are appearing on SNL and The Colbert Report. This directly supports my arguments about political satire influencing how people view their politicians, since politicians would only appear on such shows if they viewed it as positive benefit for their campaign.
The work is very clear and easy to comprehend, and the numerous amount quote s shows that it has been well-researched. The topic has been more than adequately addressed, with information dealing not just with the history of political satire but also its modern day impact. For the most part the author remains objective, aside from a brief topic sentence affirming her belief in the long history of political satire; the author lets the facts speak for themselves.
This source was helpful in that it allowed me to gain a new perspective on the history of satire. I had long assumed that satire was confined to the western democratic nations and had only begun about 200 years ago. However, I now know that political satire existed as far back as Ancient Greece. At the same time, the quotations from the minds behind some of the most influential political satire TV shows of the modern era will help me support my arguments regarding the topic.
. Heilemann, John, and Mark Halperin. Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. New York: Harper, 2010. Print. This very informative source helped give me a politician’s angle on how they approach both the media and their own image. The authors of the source are highly qualified. John Heilemann is a columnist for New York magazine. He has written several books and has previously written for The New Yorker, Wired, and The Economist. Mark Halperin is a senior political analyst for Time magazine. He too is the author of several books, and he served as director for ABC News for over a decade. This work is an informational report that intends to describe the saga that was the 2008 presidential election. The intended audience is an individual who understands the nature of how the American political process works, but the language of the book is set out in layman’s terms. The authors’ thesis is that the election of 2008 was a “game changer” in terms of the people involved, the voter turnout, and the historic implications of the campaigns. The main arguments involve the unique events that occurred during or as a result of the election. Among these events, Obama was the first African-American president ever elected, Hillary Clinton was the first wife of a former president to run for the oval office, and John McCain’s selection of Governor Palin was such a surprise move that it completely changed the nature of the campaign. However, it was not so much the events, as it was the reaction that they elicited. The cult that grew up around Obama and later Palin was unprecedented in the history of American politics. The number of young people who got involved in the election both electrified the campaign, while also highlighting a large gap between the political views of the younger and older generations. Overall, this work is very logical, clear, and well researched. The level of detail provided about the candidates when they weren’t on camera is astounding, and it is nothing short of a miracle that the authors were able to get such information and details. The topic has been more than adequately addressed, and there does not appear to be any indication of an author bias. Each candidate’s mistakes and triumphs are examined fairly, and no candidate is ever placed on a golden pedestal above the others. What I learned from this source was that the candidates in the 2008 election had such unique personalities that they were perfect for satire, thereby causing the explosion in political satire during that time. I also learned that many of the politicians were dissatisfied with their treatment by the mainstream media, and therefore saw shows such as SNL as alternative venues for them to campaign and get their message out. Essentially, this book has helped me answer the question of how shows like the Colbert Report, SNL, and others are able to get notable politicians on their shows. Finally, this book has provided me with a lot of inspiration for my political satire scenes.
8. "NOW with David Brancaccio. Politics & Economy. Who's Laughing Now? American Political Satire | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. New York Times, 11 July 2004. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/satire.html>. This very informative source provided information on all types of satire that have existed and still do exist. While no author is given, the source was found on the PBS website, so one can assume that it has been well-researched and fact checked. The article is question was found on the NOW page of the PBS website. NOW is one of the most respected news sources in the country, so it makes sense that if it’s on there then it’s credible. This in an informational report, and. The intended audience is an individual with a basic grasp of history. This thesis of this source is that satire has had a long history of being used to attack politics and politicians. The main arguments are that political satire has been produced in a myriad of ways throughout history yet it continues to be used today even if some forms are no longer practice. It is implied that a true democracy cannot exist without satire. The evidence provided are all of the examples of satires listed in the source including: cartoons, books, stage and radio shows, and television. To further back this claim famous practitioners of each type of satire are noted in the source and brief passages of from their works are also included. The above evidence provides me with a lot of examples to use in my research, in particular, the section about the SNL weekend news provided me with another potential source to analyze. Overall, this source is very well-researched. Links are provided to other pages dealing with the individuals mentioned in the article, and definitions and citations are used frequently. In addition, the division of the article into little boxes based on the type of satire makes this article very clear and well organized. The topic has been more than adequately addressed, and there is little to no evidence of an author bias. The facts are given to the reader, and it is left up to the reader to pass judgment on them. This source was very helpful to me in my research. By giving me a brief history of satire, I can better understand how satire evolved and how it came to exist in the form that I’m analyzing. In addition, the source’s account of the massive popularity of political satire in its various forms adds strength to my agreement that it does have an effect on the way that people view politics. My arguments are now further developed in the sense that I can no support my claim not just from recent political satire but from satire stretching back all the way to the 18th century (although my main focus, of course, will remain how television influences people’s views of politics.
This very informative article takes a real-life example of possible basis of shows that specialize in political satire. The author of this source is a New York Times correspondent, so it can be assumed that his work is credible since he works for a reputable paper. This source is an investigative piece designed to examine a claim made against a proper television network. The intended audience would be any reader who has some knowledge about American politics and Saturday Night Live. The author’s thesis is that Saturday Night Live is, first and foremost, a comedy show, and if it appears to favor any candidate that is simply due to the nature of the event being parodied. Carter argues that Saturday Night Live has taken shots at many candidates, and that its producers are a diverse group of people. To support this he references the Bush and Gore debate parodies from 2000 in which both candidates were made fun of. He also points out that several of the producers are Obama and McCain supporters. That being said he did acknowledge that the sketches dealing with Obama’s treatment by the media did help Hillary in the eyes of the voters. He continues to advocate, however, that this was simply due to the situation being very humorous and therefore ripe for parody. This work is very clear and logical. The author uses quotes from many individuals and references several SNL sketches. The topic has been more than adequately addressed, and the reader is given all of the information necessary to comprehend the story. At the same time, the majority of the article seems to be quotes by the head of SNL, so it is entirely probable that the author contains a bias and should be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, the rest of the article appears to be objective, with the author letting the facts speak for themselves. What I learned from this source is that it is extremely difficult for political satire to remain bipartisan. Even though parodies may be done purely for humor value, ultimately they will be perceived as undermining one individual at the expense of another. The fact that people would react so strongly to the parody indicates that many Americans do pay attention to political satire and feel that it does affect American politics. With this information I know have further support for my arguments, as well as some interesting information regarding bias in political satire.
Gray, Jonathan, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson. Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-network Era. New York: NYU, 2009. Print. This excellent source provides a lot of great information about political satire, particularly aimed at Presidents. The author is a well-known (information pending). This is an informational l report, designed for the well-read and well-cultured individual. It is doubtful that an individual who is unfamiliar with American politics or television would be able to understand the content of the work. The author’s thesis is that while political satire has the potential to make a major impact upon American political life, but most of it has gone stale. His main arguments involve comparing and contrasting early and modern SNL. The TV satires that focused on Bush are also a point of contention. The author argues that such shows had a major impact on American political satire despite their brief run on television. He also argues that shows such as SNL have failed to remain relevant and no simply ride the bandwagon when it comes to political satire. To support his claim, he points at the decline of SNL’s ratings (the research was presumably done before the 2008 election) over the years and then compares it with the relatively good ratings of the “Bush programs” before their cancelation and with shows such as the Colbert Report. In addition, he points out that a growing number of Americans are getting their political news from parody news sources such as The Daily Show. He also points out that a growing number of Americans are dissatisfied with both politicians and the media. Overall this work is very clear and well-researched. It provides a multitude of facts, but logically moves from one point to another. The topic has been more than adequately addressed and it is clear that a lot of research went into compiling the project. However, the author does have a clear basis towards some tv shows. He praises The Daily Show and lambasts SNL in a way more consistent with a television critic then a author analyzing their impact on popular culture. It is clear that he is strongly against the Bush administration, and makes such a fact clear even though it is not particularly relevant to the topic at hand. This source has been extremely helpful. It’s analysis of the impact of political satire on television provides a lot of support to my arguments, and it’s referencing of more obscure shows has clued me into evidence that I didn’t even know existed. At the same time, his analysis that SNL is not a meaningful source of political satire is in direct contrast with my arguments. However, this is a good thing as it allows me to get an opposing view and therefore further develop my argument in order to prove that I am right.
Feldman, 1. Lauren. "The Rally to Restore Sanity: A Growing Impact for Political Parody?" Interview by Matthew C. Nisbet. Web log post. Age of Engagement. Big Think, 20 Sept. 2010. Web. 25 Sept. 2010. <http://bigthink.com/ideas/24114>.
This very informative source has provided me with very useful information for my project. The blog post is authored by Matthew C. Nisbet, a professor at the Communications School of American University. Much of the blog post is based around the professor’s interview with fellow professor, Laura Feldman. The interview provides an informational report on the growing power of political satire on television. The intended audience for this blog are well-educated individuals who have a moderate amount of knowledge on both politics and current television programs such as the Colbert Report, SNL etc. etc.
The author’s thesis is that political satire on television has the potential to completely change the way that Americans view the political scene. His main source is a recent Pew Report that among other things, states that well-informed young people are receiving their political news less from traditional sources and more from political satire shows. Drawing upon the 2008 election, he argues that SNL’s political parodies of the major candidates marked a turning point in the way Americans view political parody. Professor Feldman draws upon a study that concluded that Americans were more familiar with Tina Fey’s parody of Sarah Palin then with the actual person. More recently, he sites Jon Stewart’s rally to restore sanity as a major turning point in political media. Overall, this research is well supported and clear. The author does not seem to take any political basis, and his questions to the professor are open-ended.
Overall, both professors seem to be very knowledgeable in the fields of politics and television. Drawing on a spectrum of current political shows, from the long running SNL to the relatively upstart Colbert Report. The interviewer takes an objective stance as his questions do not attempt to lead the interviewee down any particular path. For her part, the interviewee does not appear to lack any bias other than her belief that political satire is affecting American politics. It is clear that her conclusion has been backed up by numerous studies and reports.
This blog interview has been extremely informative to the author. The numerous reports and studies cited in the article provide compelling information regarding this project’s essential question. Information relating to both political programs on air today, and the information that the audience takes away from them while most likely provide a suitable cornerstone to my research and my eventual presentation. The fact that the source is a dialogue between two college professors gives the source credibility, which in turn means that I can use it to judge the reliability of other sources based on it. Before I read this source, I was unaware of the large role that political satire on television played on the way Americans look at their government. This source has helped open my eyes to the truth about one of the major parts of my project.
2. "The Daily Show: Journalism, Satire or Just Laughs?" Pew Research Center. Pew Research, 08 May 2008. Web. 05 Oct. 2010. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/829/the-daily-show-journalism-satire-or-just-laughs.
This source has presented me with many informative statistics regarding my project. While no author is given, this comes from a reputable source of information (the Pew Research Center), and this work has been referenced by the authors of another one of my sources. This is an informational report designed to make sense of a recent study run by the Pew Research Center about the changing climate of politics and how Americans get their news. The intended audience for such a report is the average American, since all of the report is spelled out in easy to understand terms and the statistics presented are not needlessly muddled. However, at the same time, it is expected that the reader have some sense of both how to read statistics and the current political climate in America.
The author’s thesis is that Americans, dissatisfied with the main stream media, have instead turned to John Stewart for the latest updates on American politics. This argument is based on the study done by the center which states that Stewart was tied with Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Anderson Cooper for the title of most admired journalist. In addition, 16 % of Americans watch the show while only 14% watched “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer.” According to the center’s report, those who watched the show are much more informed on the current political scene in the nation then those who do not watch the show, although this does not account for the other shows watched by the viewer. The center argues that this is due to Stewart’s show examining similar news stories to other cable political news shows, albeit in a funnier manner. In addition, the shows assumption that the viewer has significant knowledge about the political topics being discussed allows it to focus less on recapping recent developments and more on analyzing them.
Overall this work is logical, easy-to-understand, and well researched. The Pew Center is a respectable organization so it would only make sense that they would ensure that each of their studies was a accurate as possible. The topic has been properly addressed with the Center analyzing those who watch the show, the topics the show deals with, and even Stewart’s own feelings about the show. The author simply states the facts. While it is clear that he believes that there is a growing trend involving political comedy becoming the new source for political news, he lays out the facts and then lets the reader decide for himself.
This source has been very helpful as it provides quantitative data that I can use when supporting my thesis. This data nicely compliments the qualitative data found in the Age of Engagment blog that I am also using as a source. In terms of developing my argument, this source helped illustrate the growing trend toward political satire as news and it also demonstrated that it has not quite reached the point where it has supplanted traditional news sources, a point that was missing for the Age of Engagement blog.3. Garner, Joe. Made You Laugh!: the Funniest Moments in Radio, Television, Stand-up, and Movie Comedy. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Pub., 2004. Print.
This source provides valuable information and analysis of how SNL has portrayed the commander-in-chief throughout the shows run. The author, Joe Garner, is a New York Times bestselling author who has written several books on television before, and has frequently appeared on national news shows. The purpose of this work is to entertain and enlighten the reader about comedy in movie, TV, and stage. For the section dealing with SNL and the presidents, the purpose is inform the reader about how SNL successfully satirized the presidents, and to also hint about it affected the population’s perception of their leaders.
The author’s thesis is that for the past 40 years SNL has provided goofy, satirical, and, at times, accurate portrayals of the presidents and their flaws. The author analyzes how each president was portrayed on the show, and he then notes how that affected the each politician’s image with the public. Using actual quotes from each sketch, the author illustrates how the how mocked each candidate’s flaws while at the same time drawing laughs from the audience. If there is one flaw with the research, it is that there is no statistical evidence that can back up the author’s claims as to how the show changed the public’s perception of the President. There is not a single survey mentioned to show how he arrived at the conclusion, which hurts the author’s arguments.
Except for the lack of verifiable statistics, the work is very well researched. The author has provided very precise details as to the nature of the parodies (this was verified by a trip to Youtube). In terms of scope, the author fails to provide information SNL’s parody of the 2004 2008 elections, but this is understandable due to the book only coming out in 2004. For the most part the author remains objective, the work is meant to entertain as much as it is to educate, but he always ensures that the reader is always kept informed about the underlying issues beneath each parody. That being said, he is biased in the sense that he believes that SNL provided funny and satirical caricatures of the gentlemen in the Oval Office, but he lays the facts out for the reader and lets the reader chose for themselves.
What I learned from the source is that Will Ferrell’s George W. Bush impression was not the first SNL spoof of a president, and that the show has been satirizing presidents since the days of Nixon. This informative source gives me all of the information that I need to help dig deeper into how comedy affects people’s perceptions of politics and it has also provided me with several ideas for clips to use in my presentation. After reading this, I have further evidence to advocate that satirical shows such as SNL can play a role in defining a presidential election, but, at the same time, I am still not sure as to what extent they can do this.
Please note that certain words in the citations for the next two sources appear twice. I don't know why this is, and I am unable to figure out how to remove such words as they do not appear when I click edit. Thanks
-Scott
Braxton4. Braxton, Greg. "Funny Thing about Obama - Los Angeles Times." Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times. L.A Times, 04 May 2009. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/04/entertainment/et-obama-jokes4/3>.
This informative article provided valuable information about the satires and parodies of the nation’s 45th president. The author of the article, Greg Braxton, is a respected columnist for the L.A Times. He writes for a major newspaper, and is therefore considered to be a credible source. The purpose of the article is to provide commentary on the lack of political satire directed towards President Obama. The language is the article is intended for the average individual, but is assumed that the reader would be somewhat familiar with political satire and the president.
The author’s thesis is that Obama’s race is causing many satirists to avoid taking jabs at the new president, in order to avoid charges of racism. He argues that the uniqueness of Obama being the first African-American president presents a challenge to satirists who have never had to satirize a non-white president before. He also argues that the sensitivity to race has caused some people to react against the limited satire aimed at Obama. To cap it off, he points out that Obama is very careful about his conduct which makes him difficult to satirize from a creative standpoint. To support his claim, he points out that when Bill Maher poked fun at Obama during a discussion on his show he received such a negative response from the audience that he decided not to do it again. He then goes on to describe how many satirists also avoided poking fun at Obama in order to avoid the same reaction that Maher got. An interviewer from the Jay Leno Show is quoted as saying that many writers are worried that they will be called racist if they write jokes about Obama. He also compares the amount of satire that Bush and Clinton received in comparison to Obama and found it to be much greater. He then points out that Obama is much more careful about what he says than Bush and Clinton ever were means that the writers of political satire are limited to his policies and mocking them, which is difficult since many of the writers of political satire are liberals.
Overall this work appears to be well-researched as the author draws upon a number of sources to support his claims. It is easy to follow, and the meaning is never muddled. The topic has been adequately addressed, with a thorough analysis of both satire in the past and satire in the era of Obama. In terms of bias, it appears that the author has some bias towards the notion that Obama has been given softer treatment in terms of satire, but the author of this annotated bibliography does remember some sketches on SNL that mocked the president’s speech patterns and the media’s love for him. Such examples were noticeably absent from the article which leads one to believe that the author simply missed them in his research or left out on purpose in order to advance his argument.
This source was extremely helpful in comprehending the current nature of presidential satire in this country. This article provides evidence that the lack of critical satire directed at Obama might have contributed to people’s perceptions of him. After reading this, it is clear that political satire is by no means colorblind, but there have been some attempts to poke fun of the president. This will greatly support the arguments dealing with the affect that political satire has on the population, and it might lead to greater discussion as to the effect that people have on political satire.
5.
StewartStewart, John. "Bill Moyers Interviews John Stewart." Interview by Bill Moyers. NOW. PBS, 11 July 2003. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_stewart.html>.
The credentials of both the interviewer and the interviewee are very impressive. The interviewer, Bill Moyers, is a internationally known journalist, who is the host of the award winning television program NOW on PBS. Through the course of his long career, he has reported on many stories of national importance, and his show has received plaudits for its evenhandedness and commitment to journalist and not sensationalism. The interviewee, Jon Stewart, is the host of The Daily Show, a faux news program that skewers political news programs. He has been heralded as a visionary in the world of political satire and his show enjoys high ratings and critical acclaim. The purpose of this work is to analyze the growing popularity of political satire shows on TV, and to analyze whether or not they can be considered a valid source of news. The intended audience of this piece is an educated individual who has a firm grasp of American politics and who watches The Daily Show. While clips from the show are shown, it doubtful that the viewer would be able to adequately comprehend the nature of the show from sections of the show shown.
The interviewer’s thesis is that Jon Stewart is contributing a valuable service to the world of politics and journalism. He points out the satirical nature of the show allows it cover topics and ask the questions which would be frowned upon by the mainstream media. In order to back up his claim, he cites the growing popularity of Stewart’s show and the growing respect it is getting from experts in the field of journalism. In addition, he also shows clips of the show in order to let the view see the comedy and impact of Stewart’s show for themselves. Much of the interview is spent in dialogue between the two individuals. Stewart provides information about how his show is handled and what he thinks the keys to its success are. He believes that he can focus more specifically on certain relevant topics because he is not bound to report everything that occurs like other programs are.
Since this is a news program on public television, it comes as no surprise the work is very clear, logical, and well-researched. The topic is adequately addressed, and both men are clearly very well informed about the nature of politics, journalism, and satire. For the most part Moyer’s takes an objective stance, but at the same time, it is clear that he is a fan of Stewart’s show and it is clear that Moyer’s believes that Stewart is pioneering a new type of journalism. In an interesting contrast, Stewart takes the opposite position. He argues that while his show can offer some political insights, ultimately it is not real journalism.
This source was extremely helpful in my research on the topic. Moyer’s and Stewart provide very interesting insights about the nature of political satire, and the examples taken from Stewart’s show can be used in my presentation. This source prevents both sides on the debate of whether shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are real news shows or simply comedies. With this information, I can have clearer grasp the evolving nature of the fake news show and how its satire is changing the way America gets its news.
6. Jessica Bloustein. "Political Humor Has Long and Storied History - Newsweek." Newsweek - National News, World News, Business, Health, Technology, Entertainment, and More - Newsweek. Newsweek, 11 Sept. 2008. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/10/political-punch-lines.html>.
This excellent source provides a brief history of political satire from the 2008 election. The author, Jessica Bloustein, is a respected writer for Newsweek magazine and therefore the source is reliable. This report is designed to serve as a brief history of political satire throughout the ages, and also analyze the impact that modern satire is having on the American nation. The audience is expected to have some basic knowledge about both history and the current shows that employ political satire in the modern world.
\
The author’s thesis is that political satire is as old as time itself, yet its nature and the impact it has changed little throughout the years. The main arguments are that political satire was present in Ancient Greece, Medieval Italy, and in the United States since its inception. In addition, political satire is having inedible impact on the way that Americans view their politicians and the rising popularity of political satire is no surprise given the political climate. In order to support these arguments, Bloustein points out that the playwright Aristophanes included numerous jabs towards political leaders in his shows, and Dante wrote satirical articles about Italian leaders while he was in exile. On the American scene, Mark Twain’s quote, “Suppose you were and idiot and a member of Congress, but I am repeating myself” is employed to show that American satire was going strong in the mid 19th century. Moving on to the present day, Bloustein interviews the people behind such shows as The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, order to get new perspectives on both the history of political satire and its modern day impact. The co-creator of The Daily Show expresses his belief that it is not democracy but rather the politicians that claim to be serving the democracy who are the true source of humor. Such an opinion is echoed by several other interviewees on the show who also say that satire is influencing the nature of politics in America. To support that they point to the growing number of politicians who are appearing on SNL and The Colbert Report. This directly supports my arguments about political satire influencing how people view their politicians, since politicians would only appear on such shows if they viewed it as positive benefit for their campaign.
The work is very clear and easy to comprehend, and the numerous amount quote s shows that it has been well-researched. The topic has been more than adequately addressed, with information dealing not just with the history of political satire but also its modern day impact. For the most part the author remains objective, aside from a brief topic sentence affirming her belief in the long history of political satire; the author lets the facts speak for themselves.
This source was helpful in that it allowed me to gain a new perspective on the history of satire. I had long assumed that satire was confined to the western democratic nations and had only begun about 200 years ago. However, I now know that political satire existed as far back as Ancient Greece. At the same time, the quotations from the minds behind some of the most influential political satire TV shows of the modern era will help me support my arguments regarding the topic.
. Heilemann, John, and Mark Halperin. Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. New York: Harper, 2010. Print.
This very informative source helped give me a politician’s angle on how they approach both the media and their own image. The authors of the source are highly qualified. John Heilemann is a columnist for New York magazine. He has written several books and has previously written for The New Yorker, Wired, and The Economist. Mark Halperin is a senior political analyst for Time magazine. He too is the author of several books, and he served as director for ABC News for over a decade. This work is an informational report that intends to describe the saga that was the 2008 presidential election. The intended audience is an individual who understands the nature of how the American political process works, but the language of the book is set out in layman’s terms.
The authors’ thesis is that the election of 2008 was a “game changer” in terms of the people involved, the voter turnout, and the historic implications of the campaigns. The main arguments involve the unique events that occurred during or as a result of the election. Among these events, Obama was the first African-American president ever elected, Hillary Clinton was the first wife of a former president to run for the oval office, and John McCain’s selection of Governor Palin was such a surprise move that it completely changed the nature of the campaign. However, it was not so much the events, as it was the reaction that they elicited. The cult that grew up around Obama and later Palin was unprecedented in the history of American politics. The number of young people who got involved in the election both electrified the campaign, while also highlighting a large gap between the political views of the younger and older generations.
Overall, this work is very logical, clear, and well researched. The level of detail provided about the candidates when they weren’t on camera is astounding, and it is nothing short of a miracle that the authors were able to get such information and details. The topic has been more than adequately addressed, and there does not appear to be any indication of an author bias. Each candidate’s mistakes and triumphs are examined fairly, and no candidate is ever placed on a golden pedestal above the others.
What I learned from this source was that the candidates in the 2008 election had such unique personalities that they were perfect for satire, thereby causing the explosion in political satire during that time. I also learned that many of the politicians were dissatisfied with their treatment by the mainstream media, and therefore saw shows such as SNL as alternative venues for them to campaign and get their message out. Essentially, this book has helped me answer the question of how shows like the Colbert Report, SNL, and others are able to get notable politicians on their shows. Finally, this book has provided me with a lot of inspiration for my political satire scenes.
8. "NOW with David Brancaccio. Politics & Economy. Who's Laughing Now? American Political Satire | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. New York Times, 11 July 2004. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/satire.html>.
This very informative source provided information on all types of satire that have existed and still do exist. While no author is given, the source was found on the PBS website, so one can assume that it has been well-researched and fact checked. The article is question was found on the NOW page of the PBS website. NOW is one of the most respected news sources in the country, so it makes sense that if it’s on there then it’s credible. This in an informational report, and. The intended audience is an individual with a basic grasp of history.
This thesis of this source is that satire has had a long history of being used to attack politics and politicians. The main arguments are that political satire has been produced in a myriad of ways throughout history yet it continues to be used today even if some forms are no longer practice. It is implied that a true democracy cannot exist without satire. The evidence provided are all of the examples of satires listed in the source including: cartoons, books, stage and radio shows, and television. To further back this claim famous practitioners of each type of satire are noted in the source and brief passages of from their works are also included. The above evidence provides me with a lot of examples to use in my research, in particular, the section about the SNL weekend news provided me with another potential source to analyze.
Overall, this source is very well-researched. Links are provided to other pages dealing with the individuals mentioned in the article, and definitions and citations are used frequently. In addition, the division of the article into little boxes based on the type of satire makes this article very clear and well organized. The topic has been more than adequately addressed, and there is little to no evidence of an author bias. The facts are given to the reader, and it is left up to the reader to pass judgment on them.
This source was very helpful to me in my research. By giving me a brief history of satire, I can better understand how satire evolved and how it came to exist in the form that I’m analyzing. In addition, the source’s account of the massive popularity of political satire in its various forms adds strength to my agreement that it does have an effect on the way that people view politics. My arguments are now further developed in the sense that I can no support my claim not just from recent political satire but from satire stretching back all the way to the 18th century (although my main focus, of course, will remain how television influences people’s views of politics.
Carter, 9. Bill. "Pro-Clinton 'SNL' Says You're Joking." New York Times Online. New York Times, 13 Mar. 2008. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/arts/television/13snl.html?_r=1>.
This very informative article takes a real-life example of possible basis of shows that specialize in political satire. The author of this source is a New York Times correspondent, so it can be assumed that his work is credible since he works for a reputable paper. This source is an investigative piece designed to examine a claim made against a proper television network. The intended audience would be any reader who has some knowledge about American politics and Saturday Night Live.
The author’s thesis is that Saturday Night Live is, first and foremost, a comedy show, and if it appears to favor any candidate that is simply due to the nature of the event being parodied. Carter argues that Saturday Night Live has taken shots at many candidates, and that its producers are a diverse group of people. To support this he references the Bush and Gore debate parodies from 2000 in which both candidates were made fun of. He also points out that several of the producers are Obama and McCain supporters. That being said he did acknowledge that the sketches dealing with Obama’s treatment by the media did help Hillary in the eyes of the voters. He continues to advocate, however, that this was simply due to the situation being very humorous and therefore ripe for parody.
This work is very clear and logical. The author uses quotes from many individuals and references several SNL sketches. The topic has been more than adequately addressed, and the reader is given all of the information necessary to comprehend the story. At the same time, the majority of the article seems to be quotes by the head of SNL, so it is entirely probable that the author contains a bias and should be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, the rest of the article appears to be objective, with the author letting the facts speak for themselves.
What I learned from this source is that it is extremely difficult for political satire to remain bipartisan. Even though parodies may be done purely for humor value, ultimately they will be perceived as undermining one individual at the expense of another. The fact that people would react so strongly to the parody indicates that many Americans do pay attention to political satire and feel that it does affect American politics. With this information I know have further support for my arguments, as well as some interesting information regarding bias in political satire.
Gray, Jonathan, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson. Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-network Era. New York: NYU, 2009. Print.
This excellent source provides a lot of great information about political satire, particularly aimed at Presidents. The author is a well-known (information pending). This is an informational l report, designed for the well-read and well-cultured individual. It is doubtful that an individual who is unfamiliar with American politics or television would be able to understand the content of the work.
The author’s thesis is that while political satire has the potential to make a major impact upon American political life, but most of it has gone stale. His main arguments involve comparing and contrasting early and modern SNL. The TV satires that focused on Bush are also a point of contention. The author argues that such shows had a major impact on American political satire despite their brief run on television. He also argues that shows such as SNL have failed to remain relevant and no simply ride the bandwagon when it comes to political satire. To support his claim, he points at the decline of SNL’s ratings (the research was presumably done before the 2008 election) over the years and then compares it with the relatively good ratings of the “Bush programs” before their cancelation and with shows such as the Colbert Report. In addition, he points out that a growing number of Americans are getting their political news from parody news sources such as The Daily Show. He also points out that a growing number of Americans are dissatisfied with both politicians and the media.
Overall this work is very clear and well-researched. It provides a multitude of facts, but logically moves from one point to another. The topic has been more than adequately addressed and it is clear that a lot of research went into compiling the project. However, the author does have a clear basis towards some tv shows. He praises The Daily Show and lambasts SNL in a way more consistent with a television critic then a author analyzing their impact on popular culture. It is clear that he is strongly against the Bush administration, and makes such a fact clear even though it is not particularly relevant to the topic at hand.
This source has been extremely helpful. It’s analysis of the impact of political satire on television provides a lot of support to my arguments, and it’s referencing of more obscure shows has clued me into evidence that I didn’t even know existed. At the same time, his analysis that SNL is not a meaningful source of political satire is in direct contrast with my arguments. However, this is a good thing as it allows me to get an opposing view and therefore further develop my argument in order to prove that I am right.