Almost everyone likes to watch comedy television; there is a reason that there are so many comedy television shows on every day. Satire TV gave examples of shows that have grabbed the attention of many viewers, drawing them to their screens night after night. Some of the shows were Da Ali G Show, The Colbert Report, The Boondocks, and Saturday Night Out, among others. These shows got people glued to their screen because of the satire that they brought with. Some scholars insist that it is the comical part of the political shows that attract the attention of the viewers even more; however, there should be more understanding on the playing of roles that is made within the media and where have the ideas came from and how they are manipulated to bring out a lot of fun and carry a political message as well.
There are people who think that these shows are wrong because they feel that the shows do not bring about the true picture of the politicians-- they use examples that are too extreme and ridiculous. This was never the case, the idea of it helps the audience understand that they do not cross their boundaries and that whatever they do is or should be authorized by the law. Nothing is beyond what they are supposed to do. These kind of techniques of acting are helpful to most communities and especially here in the US, where freedom of speech allows television shows to make fun of politicians. People need to understand that this is satire, not real life; television shows use this way of reflecting on politicians to create comedy. It is also designed to be fun and entertaining, and deviating people from the normal trends that politicians use. If someone is not interested or is tired of what politicians say and do, they can tune into satire TV to have a more relaxed political environment that is fun to watch and listen.
Everyone has seen the program with fake news on the television screen. The shows are getting very popular. After having read the chosen scholarly works, it explains why this has become the latest trend in the media industry. So many people are drawing their attention to the lies that the comedians put across. Some of the information they pass is true, while the rest of it is some sort of exaggeration. Gray, Jones, and Thompson came up with a theory that explains the temporary state of political life. They suggest that the world and, thus, television audiences have diversified, and as a result, television shows have had to become more diverse. They have also had to become smarter and more witty to keep up with television audiences (Gray, Jones and Thompson). This life is a bit too serious, and it needs some distraction to cool the heat. Comical political life came in as a change in the comedy life on televisions. People were already used to the normal programs, and they were starting to get boring. This was when comedians thought that they could bring out some fun, if they used the serious faces of politicians.
Satirical television attracts many people to the screens because many would believe that what they see is the other side of a politician. They mastered on their techniques on how to bring out the comedy. The beginners first used rival political faces and put them together having fun. People could not believe that it was true, and it got many people talking. Some felt it was a big joke, while others were surprised with the outcomes of these programs. The authors insist that comedy in politics was also interesting for people because they were tired of the many pranks politicians try to play on the citizens. The comedians try to bring to light the pranks but in a comical way. This way, no one gets offended, and people are entertained.
Viewers really must understand that whatever they see on such shows is meant to entertain and not for any defamation cases. This is by giving examples of these shows that are found in different countries. They should also understand that comical politics on TV is found in many countries. All leaders are used in these comedy programs. This is why very few politicians have ever come out to sue or claim anything from them. The politicians find it entertaining and talk about it as if it was nothing important. In the conclusion, Gray, Jones and Thompson warn people about what they say in public. They might say something regarding a certain politician, and end up being in trouble because they think that it is comedy. This is a median that explains that not everyone has the right to do so. Only the comedians who have acquired some specific rights and are not allowed crossing certain lines when it comes to presenting the funny part of the politicians.
In Kuwait, for example, many people have chosen to step out on taking part of a political event, and some of those were ex-Parliament members, that have started this. They swear on never voting towards parliament members and who deserves to be a member within the Kuwaiti trademark parliament that is known as the first within the gulf of the Middle East and people who disobeyed this important event, also went out and protested against how the Emir of Kuwait, which is the president has changed the voting system and this made chaos till this very day, starting from late 2012.
Kuwait is also known for freedom of speech, but there are still lines that cannot be crossed; those ex-Parliament members have defamed the ruling family in Kuwait since it first was a country, in the mid-1800s. These members have said to the ruling family that if they do not wish to rule the country, they should tell the Parliament; this, to many Kuwaitis, is a red line discussion and it is well known that Al-Sabah family are the only family to govern and rule. This discussion has put many of these ex-politicians into court issues as well as the use of special troops that have stood strong against the false protests and that have also blooded out many of the protesters due to the miserable talks they were handing out to teenagers and women, on how the presidency is weak and that they won’t allow people to do what they do, as they are also partners in estate funds and also the presidency.
There have been several relationships that can be talked about such as the Egyptian revolution within the past two years or so and how Bassem Youssef that is well known for his sympathy towards revolutionists and how he gives them this extra over dosage of power within themselves by commentating on what happens in the country with a touch of comedy, and has many people following him, through the median put out, which is his own TV show “Al Bernameg”. This is an example on what should be done in Kuwait but with a slight change, as Kuwaitis need someone by the side of the government and the ruler. This might help cool down some of what is going on.
Comedy and politics can be a really effective mixture, especially where media and news are concerned. When comedy and politics are mixed, American audiences can laugh at the political situations that they find themselves in, rather than being upset by them. It also helps make dialogue between the different sides of political groups. Americans have nothing to argue about on the political side as they are one of the top elites in their planning and are well known around different states along different continents, therefore it is easy to see that reflective issues are mostly current events in the country and less of International politics. This can be a really good idea on maintaining a community and having people united, as this is observed already and its results are really good. This is all said in result of what has been discussed about such as the Daily Show and what relates to comedic-political hybridized shows.
Guggenheim and Campbell write that non-traditional news sources like satire television shows have become more and more popular in the United States in recent years and it is easy to see why that is. They write, “Although past research suggested that entertainment viewing may weaken political trust, only a few studies have investigated this outcome for specific types of nontraditional news shows findings indicate that viewing satirical news programs appeared to be related to systemic cynicism, while exposure to all three shows was either directly or indirectly associated with distrust in politicians. Mistrust in the news media, on the other hand, appeared for comedy talk shows and satirical news use only in particular contexts” (Guggenheim and Campbell). In short, there is a close link between how cynical American viewers have become and their love for satire television shows. This may explain why there are so many new satirical television shows in the United States today-- because Americans are becoming more and more cynical about the political process, and are turning to comedy and satire to escape from the reality of the political scene.
Satire television shows are common in the United States, as well as particular countries in different regions. Jon Stewart is an excellent example of a fantastic satirist; he reflects on the way that authorities deal with political issues as well as current events happening in our daily lives. Baym writes, “This [study] first locates The Daily Show within an emerging media environment defined by the forces of technological multiplication, economic consolidation, and discursive integration, a landscape in which “real” news is becoming increasingly harder to identify or define. It then offers an interpretive reading of the program that understands the show not as “fake news,” but as an experiment in journalism. It argues that the show uses techniques drawn from genres of news, comedy, and television talk to revive a journalism of critical inquiry and advance a model of deliberative democracy. Given the increasing popularity of the program, this discussion concludes that The Daily Show has much to teach us about the possibilities of political journalism in the 21st century” (Baym). Politics takes a matter of time to deal with as people want change, and change needs specialized people within different authorities to have a positive effect on the material given to them for a better change but for the greater part, satire television reflects on how people might have a delicate state of mind and might be lost within the world of current events such as the Ferguson protests or even the build up of ISIS and how Stewart reflects on them in a amusing approach and a way that many age groups would like to see on a daily basis and this is what many people want to see, which is the sympathy of a brilliant character that is in control of the satire television sector.
The coverage that the Daily Show has exceeds any other shows that are on existing TV channels. People wait for Jon Stewart on a daily basis and he also tackles the society’s frustrations as many people want their words to be taken into consideration and we can see that the median between the community and the higher authorities are the media representatives and especially the effective ones that have many followers. Cao et al. write about how political content is being utilized in comedy programs-- these programs present political humor to the public. The study mentioned that comedy programs based on politics are influential and capable to alter the public opinion about politics. Political comedy programs can reduce the participation of public in real politics because they are more focused on criticizing political actions than creating awareness on politics.
The use of present day directing and producing techniques is also existent within the Comedy Central channel and it also progresses within every year and gives us a better understanding on montage and many much more technical ideas that are related to media, media nowadays is well known for its inequality and how the news channels are given a certain direction to whom they might follow and how one channel differs from another and many people take different sides. News channels are also full of contradictions when it comes to news headlines, as we see many text differences on air as well as the way the presenter works his way through sentences with the use of dissimilar emotions.
If it weren’t for the media nowadays many might predict that there is no sympathy with whom ever is penalized illegally and some people might have not had any major support back in the day, when there was no effectual and operative media that can take critical decisions against what is right and what is wrong and it might have changed many consequences back in the days, whether it was a major warfare or even protests that many sympathized with. In this vein, Tsfati et al. write about how talk shows create problems for national security in America, and comedy decreases the trust of people in politics and politician.s However, political content in the news is not positively related to security concerns and mistrust. Tsfati et al. are very useful in understanding the relationship between politics, entertainment and comedy; however, they note that the connection does not go in the other direction. That is, a lack of talk shows or comedy shows do not necessarily increase the trust that people have in politics, politicians, and their own political power (Tsfati et al.)
The media gives us an absolute critical point of view without hurting any side of the argument and this happens throughout facing a number of obstacles and in our present time there is a huge advantage over how political authorities might have a positive reaction. It is easy to heavily reflect on how the media might give an incentive and motive to the people to go out and protest for their wants in a well memorable way as well as having the media as an elite median to exercise constitutional rights and that is done by expanding democratic play and having a say to share thoughts and try to make them considerable to the higher authorities. Satirical television shows provide people with the ability to laugh at the things that they are most afraid of or intimidated by, and this is a very powerful thing. Countries in turmoil have to turn to people like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert because these individuals make them laugh about the things they are most afraid of, like government intervention in people’s personal lives, and so on and so forth.
This is what might have happened in satire television shows as Jon Stewart heavily reflected on how unwise news channels were towards the case of the Ferguson killing that occurred months ago and that there was a bias, and he went out there and gave the Ferguson supporters a major recovery after what they saw from news channels, and it can really be astonishing on how a satirical show might have more effect on a person than a real news channel as people want reflection on what’s happening and a firm point of view that they would like to follow. The whole idea of making people hear what they need to hear is to be united no matter what a country or political party stands for, because at the end of the day guiltiness and innocence should be shaped correct no matter what, and people do not want news channels and editors being dishonest with them.
Baym, Geoffrey. "The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism." Political Communication, 22(3) (2005): 259-276.
Cao, X., and Brewer, P.R. "Political Comedy Shows and Public Participation in Politics." Int. Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(1) (2008): 90-99.
Gray, J., Jones, J.P., and Thompson, E. Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era. New York: NYU Press, 2009.
Greene, Doyle. Politics and the American Television Comedy: A Critical Survey from I Love Lucy Through South Park. USA: McFarland & Company, 2008.
Guggenheim, L., Kwak, N., & Campbell, S.W. "Nontraditional News Negativity: The Relationship of Entertaining Political News Use to Political Cynicism and Mistrust." Int. Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(3) (2011): 287-314.
Matthews, Nicole. Comic Politics: Gender in Hollywood Comedy After the New Right. New York: Manchester University Press, 2000.
Tsfati, Y., Tukachinsky, R., & Peri, Y. "Exposure to News, Political Comedy, and Entertainment Talk Shows: Concern about Security and Political Mistrust." Int. Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21(4) (2009): 399-423.