Archive for October 2011

We are the 1%   Leave a comment

Surfing the internet, I came across a huge tidal wave of satire. Written by Michael Kindt, this blog post on Cagle is a great look at the wealthy 1% of Americans, and additional players and figures, that sparked “Occupy Wall Street” protests around the world.

Read the post here.

Posted October 20, 2011 by justindcastillo in Uncategorized

Colbert on Oct. 5th   Leave a comment

The episode opens with Stephen passionately blowing kisses to devoted crowd, which according to Jones, he has pumped up before the taping to mock the empowering effort of conservative talk show host. Colbert bask in the glory that is owed to him for delivering the “right”wing information. After the introduction, Colbert switches his focus to Herman Cain, the “dark horse” candidate and current “black Star,” subtly evoking racism that’s prominent in conservative news broadcast and the host blatant attempt to not sound racist. He discredits Palin’s attack on the “working class” background of the candidate, by exposing the fact that she said “Herb” instead of Herman. Continuing his attack on conservative values, Colbert shows a clip of Cain stating that gay is a choice. Using Jones rhetoric of incongruity, Colbert utilizes self effacing humor by stating that after watching Nixon on TV, he chose to be a right handed, straight Caucasian, which disheartened his gay, left handed, Latino fathers. His final message is “Dont judge someone by their skin, but by the way he pretends to have someone Else’s character.” Reiterated when he wags his finger at Mexico City for passing temporary marriage licenses, standing in for conservative talk show host and usual response of defending the sanctity of marriage. He gives a thumbs up to Call of duty: Modern Warfare 3 for making a pro-war with ties to consumerism. The warmongering hunger of conservatives is represented by the European centered war simulation. Also, the capitalist minded conservatives value of product placement, such as Doritos and mountain dew, is exposed even though its a health threat to citizens. The final lesson is “anything worth achieving through hard work, you can just buy,” exposing the class warfare argument exposed in the interview with Black Star.

When interviewing Black Star, he explains them to be underground rap stars, which he defers to corporate rap stars. He incorrectly labels mark twain as one of the greatest hip-hop artist of his time, resembling conservative talk show host rudeness. Yasiin Bey starts to explain that the rap duo simply wants to do their own their own music for remaining independent from labels, but Colbert interrupts by exclaiming them to be anti-corporation. In fact, Colbert explains, im acting as a label right now for you. The message that the show is really presenting is class warfare, where the rich keep getting richer, and the middle and lower class remain stagnant. This is explicitly stated by Talib when he hands over the classy warrior attire.

Posted October 18, 2011 by drewlyles in Uncategorized

The Colbert Report: October 4th   Leave a comment

In this episode of the Colbert Report, the main controversy addressed was that of the media’s interaction with Governor Chris Christie.  Regarding the Chris Christie issue, Colbert took the role of a Republican supporting the idea of Christie running for president, which mimics the position of many news organizations.  In this way, Colbert demonstrates his own position, as Jones points out, through taking the viewpoint of the opposition and purposefully ridiculing himself to show the flaws in this opposing argument.  He shows great enthusiasm and excitement about Christie, all while showing numerous clips of Christie saying explicitly that he will not run for president.  With this, he criticizes the way that the news organizations often invent news to add drama and make their shows more entertaining by taking that very role himself.

Another smaller issue Colbert mentions is the decision made by ESPN to pull Hank Williams Jr.’s Monday night football song because of comments he made on Fox and Friends comparing Obama to Hitler.  He seems to go more for a comedic effect in this piece compared to the other, but I think that he subtly criticizes a couple of things.  For example, he mentions how the people of Fox and Friends were surprised to hear something like that coming from someone who didn’t work for the show, and later goes on to say how they cut the song.  This points out the hypocrisy of the media.  In addition, he trivializes the situation as a whole by sarcastically complaining about the song not being played.  By doing this, he makes a similar point as in the earlier issue that the media exaggerates everything for the purpose of entertainment.

Posted October 18, 2011 by sarahgoin in Uncategorized

Colbert Report – October 6th, 2011   Leave a comment

Hey fellow rhetoric of satire friends,

Anthony here, and i have decided (completely on my own, with absolutely no urging from Sara) to re-do my analysis of the Colbert Report that I did last night.  There’s a slight chance that it may have been lacking in the content department, along with many other departments.  So here goes my best shot at sounding intellectual in this class for the first time ever.

In this episode of The Colbert Report, he talks about a PAC and a Super PAC, both connected to each other somehow through some guy who’s head apparently looks like a ham loaf.  I can’t remember his name.  He talks about the fact that although most PAC’s have to list where they get their money from, but some certain one’s don’t have to.  Apparently this ham loaf guy was in charge of both and he was taking money from the first PAC, and giving it to the other PAC (the one where he didn’t have to disclose where the money came from) and Colbert was giving him crap for it.  Of course, he was doing this in his own little Colbert-y way where he pretended that he was making his own 2 PAC’s so he could do the same thing.  I remember at some point he talks about how Mr. Ham Loaf was essentially money laundering by doing what he was doing, but i don’t quite recall the specifics.

One thing i paid attention to in this episode that i had never noticed before was the fact that the entire set points toward Colbert.  I would have never noticed this if it weren’t for the chapter we read about Colbert.  And yes, this was one of the few readings for this class that I actually read, but that’s not important right now.  But yes, the self-hubris his character has really shines through when you notice Colbert sitting in the center of the screen with rays of color shining out from his head.  The portrait above the fireplace might also help that.

The interview portion of this episode really wasn’t all that funny.  It was a serious interview between Colbert and an officer (i think?) from the special forces (maybe?) unit of the army (possibly?).  It showed that although Colbert is obviously a comedian, he can be serious at times too, and is not always making fun of people on his show.

So uh… hopefully that was better than my first attempt at analyzing an episode of The Colbert Report.  Just remember, i did this for my own good, not because Sara told me to :p

Anthony

 

Posted October 18, 2011 by rizzwapow in Uncategorized

Daily Show   Leave a comment

I watched an episode of The Daily Show that discussed whether or not the religion of a presidential candidate should matter.  Different views were satirized to make humor of the situation and the fact that most Americans don’t know the differences of certain religions was also brought into light.  By exposing ignorance, the show was insightful and humorous in dealing with this subject that some people find as an interesting topic.  Jones’ comments about satirical news shows seem fair but a little more against traditional news shows that I would be.  He brings up some ideas that I haven’t thought about before that I find myself agreeing with.  I believe that satirical news shows have some advantage over traditional news in being more entertaining and able to focus on more specific details of speeches and debates.  He brings up some good arguments for both sides of the news spectrum.

Posted October 18, 2011 by mylesbeltran in Uncategorized

“The Daily Show” on Presidential Debates -Bryn Stotmeister   Leave a comment

I will be analyzing an episode of The Daily Show that aired on September 26 and describing which controversies and what strategies Jon Stewart uses and how they relate to Jones’ claims about the show.

The episode starts out by reporting on the Republican Presidential candidates gathering in Florida for yet another debate. He states that the Fox News Google Debate is “the 83rd such debate so far this year.” This statistic, as Jones would probably agree, is one that other news sources would probably not comment on showing that a fake news source can be a source of information that you wouldn’t get from other real news sources. This number also points out the rediculousness of having so many debates, a point he drives home when he asks what we can learn about the candidates through yet another debate and answers himself, “Probably nothing.” This is also an example of what Jones claims about the show, “Stewart offers not just the facts, but also draws conclusions from those facts.”

Stewart then covers a debate question asked by a gay soldier on the issue of “don’t ask don’t tell.” But instead of taking the normal reporting route, he chooses to comment on a certain audience member’s reaction to the question, screaming “boo” loudly. This is another instance where Stewart reports on something that other real news sources would not find newsworthy. He shows next Rick Santorum’s response to the question where he says “sex is not an issue.” Stewart comes back, as Jones would predict, with his own opinion and draws his own conclusions when he responds, “What planet do you fucking live on? Where sex is not an issue?” Here he focuses on the candidate’s rhetoric and breaks the show of usual un-bias reporting by clearly giving his own opinion on Santorum’s answer.

He again focuses on a candidate’s rhetoric, as Jones showed he did when reporting on a speech made by Bush. Stewart does what Jones calls “illuminat[ing] the contradictory nature” and “returns the focus to the [candidate’s] rhetoric…” when he shows a clip of Perry stumbling through a response in another debate. Perry tries to show the fickle nature of his opponent when he says no one knows “which Mitt Romney they’re dealing with,” and goes on to fumble through an illustration of Romney’s opposing views. Stewart draws his own conclsuions stating that after 3 botched debates Perry is “demonstration an incredible unlearning curve.” He goes on to give evidence of this opinion and supports his conclusion by playing a string of clips where others also say how much Perry is failing. In another clip from a different debate, Stewart again focuses on Perry’s rhetoric and “illuminates the contradictory nature” of his argument when he points out the discrepancy of Perry’s views. Stewart reminds his audience of Perry’s stark pro-life stance and then immediately plays a clip highlighting his great use of capital punishment.

Stewart uses a rhetorical analogy when he reports on the issue of Chis Christie possibly joining the Republican candidates. He compares the increasing numbers and ridiculousness of the Republican Presidential candidates to a season of American Idol in reverse. “Every week you just add some other idiot,” says Stewart. This analogy is a clear rhetorical device used by Stewart that appeals to the pop culture that his audience most likely knows and aligns themselves with, making this analogy very effective. This is also another example of Jones’ claim that Stewart draws conclusions beyond simple reporting, an educational characteristic that you only find on a fake news or op-ed piece of journalism but nowhere in traditional t.v. news sources.

Finally, Stewart uses another rhetorical strategy when he speaks directly to the camera and appeals directly to an audience in a conversational manner. However, I don’t think he appeals to his audience exactly. He appeals and talks to the Republican Party, an audience that probably watches his show in few numbers.  He comments on the increasing candidate numbers while stating, “First you wanted Bachmann, then Perry, now Christie… have you ever considered that maybe you’re the problem? Maybe It’s you? You’re unrealistic.” Here Stewart does what Jones calls asking the viewer to step outside the staged event and make an assessment based on information excluded in other news sources. Stewart tries to get his viewers to look at the whole picture, why are there so many Republican candidates? He again draws his own conclusion and gives his answer, that the Republican Party doesn’t know what they want, and that what they actually do want is unattainable. He explains that the “Republican base is at war with their own talking points,” and goes on to describe all the opposite characteristics that are wanted in their candidate. He parodies, “I want someone who is going to cut taxes and balance the budget, someone who’s a skilled orator but doesn’t talk all fancy…” As Jones claims, he points out the artifice of things, going a step further than real news sources who just report, and he delves deeper into the reasoning and cause of things to give his audience a lasting message that informs on the issue but also educates on the impact. He ends his report with a message of his own directed to the Republican audience he criticizes. “You need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and not come away thinking, there’s something wrong with this mirror.”

Posted October 18, 2011 by brynstotmeister in Uncategorized

October 6th Episode of Colbert   Leave a comment

I watched the October 3rd episode of The Colbert Report. In this episode, Colbert first pokes fun at Rick Perry. He begins his jokes by saying that he supports “Rick Parry” with an “A”. This signifies that Colbert is joking and does not actually support Perry. He then exposes the old name of Perry’s family’s hunting ranch, which at one point bore a very racially offensive name. He plays on this by saying that the name is not that bad, even though it obviously is. He then addresses the issue of ObamaCare. He pretends to take the stance of a conservative who is against universal healthcare, and sarcastically states their arguments. He lists all of the things that the government can do that we don’t complain about, but then says, however, that they cannot give us something small (healthcare). He then brings in Jeffrey Tubrin (might have spelt this wrong), whom defends universal healthcare while Colbert interrogates him. Colbert plays an ignorant conservative, and because of this Tubrin, and also healthcare, look appealing to the audience.

Posted October 17, 2011 by hannahvoss in Uncategorized