Summary Of The Media And Democracy: Beyond Stereotypes

In John Stewart's speech, Rally to Restore Sanity, Stewart calls for the reasonable people of this country to join together, to show, that there are still people who think rationally. He begins his speech stating that his intentions are not to ridicule people and that he feels hopeful and good that things can change for the better. Stewart holds beliefs that there will always be darkness within our nation, but together, we can move beyond this darkness. To move past this darkness, we, the United States, must ban together, unified. He points out that many media and news outlets broadcast and sensationalize news, politically and socially.

Ever since the 17th century, the newspaper has been produced and blown out of proportion, known as mass media. George A. Krimsky shines his own opinion in his essay, “The Role of the Media in a Democracy.” Krimsky provides many examples, reasoning, and rhetoric devices to expand his argument even more, his argument being that; the press should send out straight facts, let people interpret them, and allow the free press to hold the government accountable.

America is a culture that enjoys having some time away from the reality of political issues within society. Comedic entertainment has found ways to also inform its audience about important political statements that is used to “refer to any act or nonverbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision to be made for or by a political party”( Wikipedia), or ideas through a comedic point of view. Comical news is what brings our attention with ease because listening to straight political debates can lead a person to not want to sit and become informed on latest political topics. The culture that society has developed into became accustomed to finding it better to have a laugh about serious news because through humor an audience

The author builds his credibility by noting, “Congressional Democrats are voting and speaking out against Trump's proposals on issues like health care, but few of them can garner national headlines or get a video to go viral…. Jimmy Kimmel's emotional plea to preserve coverage for pre-existing conditions in the Trump-championed health care bill. Kimmel touched a nerve, as the video of his tearful plea was widely shared.” Essentially, this juxtaposition establishes the framework for his credibility by forcing the reader to investigate Kimmel’s viral plea and search for headlines made by Democrats. Consequently, the reader will compare the effect of Kimmel's emotional plea and the effect that democrats have in forming public opinion on Trump’s policies. It is clear that the plea made by comedians is more effective in making headlines because comedy is a popular aspect of American culture. Thus, Obeidallah is able to establish his argument that comedians are extremely effective in swaying public opinion against Trump’s

Humorists are often seen as insignificant contributors of society. People consider humorists no more than just “entertainers”, willing to make fun of anything in order to make a crowd laugh, however, has the audience ever contemplated why humorists are the some of the only people who are allowed to critique anything that crosses their mind without consequences? Alain de Botton, claims the vital role of humorist is, “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” I agree with Alain de Botton’s claims, that humorists do hold an important role in society, which is far more than to entertain. They break the ice on delicate topics, communicating the messages to society. Political cartoons and the Colbert

Although shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report ridicule governmental policy and the political stances of government officials, I believe that since they focus on specific issues, and offer useful insight (to those with some prior background to certain issues), they are not the cause of misinformation or the lack of political awareness in young people. I found it interesting when Peterson wrote in “Strange Bedfellows”: “Real satire–such as Colbert’s excoriation of the press and the president–sounds the alarm: something is wrong, people must be held to account, things must be made right” (Peterson 616). I was initially skeptical about the quality and objectiveness of The Colbert Report, and decided to watch a recent 11/6/2014

I stand by the fact that I think without political satire politics would honestly be quite boring and a lot less people would be interested in politics, especially the younger generation. By bringing in jokes and satirical skits you can appeal to audiences of all ages and political parties. Satire is something that allows everyone to laugh together over light hearted jokes. Shows such as Saturday Night Live show that political satire can be funny and appropriate. They make fun of both sides such as their comical pieces on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The media influences how people experience social life. Media such as newspaper, television and film, are important sources of information, education and entertainment. It can be used to learn more about the world and the people in it. In this regard it can be said that the media represent, interpret and endorse aspects of social experience (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2005). The media are also implicated in social regulation, or in other terms, the government of society. The media are implicated in government and politics in an obvious way because modern systems of democracy are conducted through the media. But the media have a bigger role to play in government by structuring how society is controlled and maintained.

One recent case where the mass media poked fun at and satirized the government was the year 2000 election. In the time where ballots and votes became confused and the state of Florida became the punch-line to many a water cooler joke, shows such as the ones above took the story and ran with it. From the very beginning the satire of political figures played its role in the election. According to the Washington Post and the Pew Research Center, 47 percent of Americans under the age of 30 receive around 26% of their information about candidates, amongst other political matters, through late night comedy television. This trend has been labeled by many “Infotainment.” The viewers are receiving information about political issues and their government, but through a sarcastic or humorous filter that creates a different culture of informed citizens.

Perhaps the most important reading from this class, I feel, is the Gray, Jones, and Thompson article on satire. Although the seemingly most popular article of the class, I argue that its popularity strives from a detachment of more traditional television sources, providing a new form of cultural engagement and citizenship. As trust in clear-leaing broadcasting systems fades, satire and parody emerges as substitute, filling in the spaces of discontent and misrepresentation felt by audiences. Shows like the Daily Show “defamiliarize” norms embedded into our social-political behavior, allowing a ‘step back’, as it were, and on an individual scale philosophically scrutinize them (Gray, 9). Most significantly, elements of satire and parody facilitates

     The media provides the public political issues, which sets the agenda for political discussion. In theory the media tries to attune themselves to the interest of the public, but “in most instances the media severs as conduits for agenda-setting efforts by competing groups and forces” (Ginsberg, Lowi & Weir, 1999, p. 298). To gain public support, groups and forces need media coverage to promote their ideas. However, the media has great control over which issues they televise. The issues must have media appeal or be considered newsworthy.

When the White House felt a retraction was not enough because so much harm had already been done, the media got extremely upset with the White House, due to the pressure they were putting on the publication (52-53). Begala agrees with Hewitt that the media has a bias, but argues that it is a liberal bias. He cites the media's obsession with the Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal and how, "Even when Clinton was leaving office, he was hounded and pounded by the press" (199). He argues the news coverage was unfair, brutal and unethical in the way both Bill and Hillary Clinton were treated during the scandal (200). Begala also says Al Gore was treated very poorly by the press during the election, by being misquoted. Gore made major contributions during the early phases of the internet and made a comment on CNN saying he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." Begala argues this was blown out of proportion and more than a thousand articles have been written quoting Gore saying he said he "invented the internet" (202). The people's perception that certain publications are bias can have a negative affect on journalists as a whole. While the public demands that the press question politicians, Robinson says there is public discontent when bad news is reported due to the publics distrust in news and a "kill the messenger syndrome." At times, the public will assume all media is the same and when one publication is guilty of inaccurate or bias

How much does your vote really count? As a voter, does your choice really matter? How much influence does the media have on your vote? How many choices does the media actually make when it comes to our nation's leadership? These are questions pondered by both political scientists and the average American citizen each year as the second Tuesday in November approaches. Though we know that the framers founded this nation on the principles of representing it's citizens, and on the ideals of a nation for the people and by the people; it is obvious that the people feel that their vote doesn't always count. In this paper I plan to expand on these questions and the justifications behind asking them, and I plan to follow up with a specific

The 2010 airing of the Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony was met with controversy from numerous ends of the world, as its recipient was the jailed Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo. It has been argued by the Chinese government and outlets that this event is a product of the media and by doing so critiques the broadcast as a representation of western imperialism and as such highlights the limits of the liberal political-press model. The communist party ran newspaper Global Times attacked the broadcast as a "political tool of Western interests", and whether agreeing or not with this accusation, it is easy to understand why such a conclusion can be made. This case can be analysed in some ways as a case of the western media democratic promotion against the east.

By show of hands how many people in here have heard the terms: left wing and right wing? Some people understand that it is political jargon for political division, others may be staring at their television wondering why the news is talking about bird anatomy. Many people hear these terms, but do not understand what they mean. I myself was one of those who did not understand, not a bird enthusiast, but one who was in the dark about what the terms meant. This was until a year and a half ago when our big trip called the 2016 election began. I began watching the news and researched were the various terms came from, as well as where I stood on that line. Jonah Goldberg, a columnist for National Review online, claims that americans as a whole having become much more accepting of one each other, so long as they have the same view (“The Current Political Divide”). What the writer means is that we the people are willing to accept anything except opposing views. Understanding what the division is, as where the left and the right view things, is a big first step in deciding where you stand and which group to support.