Late Night Talk Shows and the Internet Take Over Political Campaigns... For the Better

“It’s like they handed over the reins of commentary and reporting to comedians because we are the only ones that can makes sense of it; because out currency is one of insanity.” Madeleine Smithberg, co executive producer of The Daily Show.

In chapter five of Entertaining Politics, Jones starts off his section with this quote about politics and popular culture. He stated that the Pew Research Center in 2000 reported that 47 percent of people under the age of 30 got some information about the Presidential Campaign from late night talk shows. Furthermore, the internet has now become a leading source of campaign news for young people. According to 2008 Pew Research, the role of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook are playing a role in the information collecting of political news. Is collecting information from sites such as Facebook and shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart bad for the outcome of Presidential campaigns? Are people receieving credible information? I think so.

Late night shows are still places where people find information about candidates and political issues. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central is a show that addresses issues and things of political interest but in a different way. The younger generations are savvier on recognizing news biases, media framing and intentional political rhetoric. I believe that that has a huge effect on why people are relying more on political satire to gain political information. Yes, Jon Stewart clearly is a “fake” news show but he still reports on real life events… for the most part. People that watch his show are most likely up to date with politics and political issues or they would not find his humor that funny in the first place. Therefore, he can play on real news, assuming the audience will catch on for a laugh.

I do not see a problem with people watching The Daily Show and learning political information that way. I think Jon brings things to the viewer’s attention on purpose because a lot of it has to do with the media framing of a political candidate or just merely bias opinions. News is not always objective and Jon makes this clear by mocking the biased reports. He takes away the biases and the viewer is able to see the raw material; the true issue of the matter, whatever that may be. According to Jones, he is “speaking common sense through a common vernacular about politics yet retaining uncommon knowledge of trivial or arcane cultural references; being both a cynic and an idealist.” He attempts to offer insight and clarity and with laughs and jokes aside, that is exactly what late night entertainment television does. When media, the government and other outlets fail to offer understanding, the political comedy gives a common knowledge and familiarity to viewers that had before not been given the opportunity to comprehend. They provoke viewers to be savvy in viewing mainstream media and encourage them to be involved in something that may not spark an interest in them until they can laugh at the hypocrisy and idiocy of politicians and those in the spotlight.

Similar to late night television, the internet has a rise of attention for finding campaign information. According to2008 Pew Research, 42 percent of those aged 18 to 29 say they regularly learn about the campaign from the internet, the highest percentage for any news source. In the research taken in 2004 by Pew, only 20 percent of young people said they routinely got campaign news from the internet. It has aggressively increased with the knowledge and accessibility of computers. “Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee,” said Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of The Huffington Post. That is weird to hear. Our President now may not have even been recognized or glorified the way he was had it not be to the increase of use in the internet in politics.

Not only is the internet just easier information to attain usually, it is cheaper for campaigning and getting the politics out there. Clair Cain Miller for the New York Times said that Obama used free advertising on YouTube to his advantage. “The campaign’s official stuff they created for YouTube was watched for 14.5 million hours,” Mr. Trippi (who ran the 2004 campaign) said. “To buy 14.5 million hours on broadcast TV is $47 million.” On television, advertising can sometimes be overwhelming, as we have previously discussed about attack ads and such. With the internet, people can look for these advertisements, watch them over and over if they want to and create a thorough opinion, critique of admiration for the ad or the candidate. Internet is something that advertising is a part of but not only that, people who just usually watch television can actively participate in discussions and critiques. It is not just 5 major corporations in television ruling over what is seen and heard by viewers, it’s those viewers keenly viewing and deliberating with peers with what is happening in the political sphere.

I think internet research can be helpful and beneficial because people can look at several different perspectives of a candidate and their views. The Internet has readily available information from BBC news, National Public Radio, and a variety of news organizations. People can look at specific issues or get a broad range of views on particular political issues. It is harder to do so with television and it is less time consuming over the internet. You get what you want, when you want it (as long as you know what you are doing). Different perspectives are given, not only from the media representatives on the sites but from the feedback given if there is an option to do so. With television, unless you are with a group of people who are interested in the topic when you see something, it is harder to talk about ideas and opinions of politics. With internet it is easier to have open discussion. I noticed that Twitter was a popular internet site this past campaign for people to debate about politicians and political interests. I think that is great because I know that myself, I am not courageous enough to always discuss politics face to face and the internet creates a comfortable medium for debate.

The Internet also allows people to develop their own opinion and blog about it, creating dialogue about the issue and learning more about either their own position or the position of another person and why. It allows for a safe space of discussion for those questioning things or just looking for answers. It is an easily accessible medium for debate or just mere information. Late night talk shows, although they mock politics at times and laugh at the hypocrisy in the political world, create a basis of understanding and common knowledge of unclear issues. The media framing of the issue is eliminated and made fun of and the raw material of the matter is exposed. People can more easily identify with what is what and question what is not and develop a sense of what it should be.

Works Cited

Miller, Claire. How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics. New York Times. 7 November 2008. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/

“The Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008.” Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. January 11, 2008. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/689/the-internets-broader-role-in-campaign-2008