Slashdot Mirror
Measuring the "Colbert Bump"
An anonymous reader writes "Democratic politicians receive a 40% increase in contributions in the 30 days after appearing on the comedy cable show The Colbert Report. In contrast, their Republican counterparts essentially gain nothing. Moreover, even a cursory analysis demonstrates that despite being a comedy program The Colbert Report appears to exercise 'disproportionate real world influence' — likely due to the 'elite demographic' of its audience." In my home we refer to Stephen as "Loud Daddy" because my child would scream bloody murder when we paused him (and only him) on screen. Even at 8 months old the kid has strange taste.
Yes, because celebrities-turned-politicians have such a great track record
The first person to actually question the Bush regime said it right to his face at the press awards banquet.
And he gave Scalia the finger and made him laugh.
And then he basically called the sheep like media whores to their faces.
And everyone who had been keeping their mouths shut woke up
Many Republican and a few Democrat politicians don't realize that they are the joke.
My guess would be that not many Republican supporters watch that show or find it humerous as he is making a mockery of their recent stances on a variety of things. It isn't like he is representing any of their ideas that aren't completely moronic. (Both sides do have a few from time to time).
So it leaves what is probably a largely left leaning audience watching a Democrat "handle" the over the top Republican insanity in a humerous way.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Have there been many attempts at "liberal humor". I don't think the Daily Show counts. Jon seems to make fun of whoever would be...er... funny. It is not surprising that Bush fits the bill most of the time. Any show that plans on being funny in a "conservative" or "liberal" way is probably going to be terrible. Picking a side just reduces the possible objects of ridicule.
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
This may come as a surprise, but Stephen Colbert isn't a republican. He's a character, played by a man who also happens to be named Stephen Colbert. This man? He is what we call a satirist.
Although he makes fun of both sides, it is much easier to make fun of the republicans - since their politics (under introspection) aren't very good. All he does is bring it to the front.
Also, many democrats are younger and don't have 'time' for politics, but do have time for comedy. If they're watching the Colbert Report, then they get a dose of politics in with their laughter (or laughter with their politics?).
Perhaps this is the only way to get young people interested in Politics - to make the stupidity that goes on at capitol hill equally accessible to everyone... through satire.
China is a super power. Is criticizing China somehow "being an asshole"? Colbert wasn't stomping all over someone who was already down. He aimed it squarely at the one of the world's most powerful nations. He kicked up, now down.
But it is not diplomatic
And he's not a diplomat.
Be fair, it's not slashdot that's the problem.
It's the corrupt assholes that pay lip service to the electorate during campaigns and then go right back to screwing them for money the minute it's all over.
The big two party systems is the problem, not the people that it's driven to cynicism.
Limbaugh's success is almost entirely due to his sense of humor. He was basically a Colbert/Stewart of the Right, before Comedy Central was a political humor channel. Now, humor is somewhat subjective, and Limbaugh has a mean streak that comes out at odd times and spoils the party. His mask only slips occasionally though, and he can usually convince his loyal listeners that he was joking or that the monster they saw was just misunderstood. (for example, when he made fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease, or expressed glee at the suicide of Kurt Cobain.)
Even so, Limbaugh has a great sense of the absurd, and his selective reporting of the news has been great at finding things that are both idiotic and obviously "left-inspired." Now, he's dishonest to a degree, so he'll lie, exagerate or misreport when it suits him. Still, it's actually fairly easy if you go to the right places to find some absurdity related to environmentalism or feminism. Shooting fish in a barrel, it is. Frankly, he doesn't outright lie that often, because he doesn't have to. Clowns attach themselves to any political movement that has any power.
The new young Turks of Right Wing talk haven't been humor oriented, they've been revenge oriented. So people like O'Reilly and Hannity come across as hate-filled trolls without anything resembling a sense of humor. This is all to the good, because people with no sense of humor make perfect straight men victims for satirists.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
"In contrast, their Republican counterparts essentially gain nothing."
Well there's a shock. I've always thought that Republicans going on Stewart's or Colbert's show was a complete waste of time, unless their aim was to be mocked mercilessly with no benefits whatsoever. Stewart at least tries to be somewhat balanced (as much as his politics will allow him), but Colbert wastes no time with such ideas.
It'd be like a liberal Democrat going on Rush Limbaugh's program. Just what do you think you're going to get out of it? You're certainly going into hostile territory with little hope of reward. You're not going to sway that audience's opinions... they're pretty well set. I think a Republican going on Colbert's show is not only a waste of time, it's worse. He has a young liberal audience, and if anything changes their opinions, it'll be time and experience. Nothing you say is going to sway them.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Can anyone else reason out a better explanation?
I assume appearances on the Colbert show are correlated with increased campaigning which results in increased contributions. I like Colbert, but to me, this sounds like exactly the sort of meaningless pompous statistic he would have fun with and mock.
Republicans aren't humorless, but they generally don't gravitate towards comedy writing or performing either (leading to a dearth of comedy shows with conservative writers and performers). It's unfair to blame Comedy Central for that. Republicans tend to gravitate towards business school and political science, liberals tend to gravitate towards the liberal arts and more artistic fields (including writing and comedy). There are plenty of exceptions, of course, (including the aforementioned Colin Quinn) but let's not kid ourselves. Asking Comedy Central why it has so many liberal comedy writers would be like asking Wall Street why it has so many conservative stock brokers.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Unfortunately, the joke is on us.
She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF
That's the problem with conservatives, they can't approach things without an intensely partisan mindset. [...] just because it's a lot easier to make fun of republicans than democrats, that's what the shows do more of.
Funny, because that's the same thing I hear Conservatives say about Liberals and they both back it up with the same "proof".
See the point yet? They're both wrong.
The greatest thing that's wrong with politics right now is this team sport cheerleader mentality. You're either a Democrat or a Republican. You have to show up to games wearing your team colors or be chastised by the other fanatics (aka "fans") of the team. And god forbid that you might actually be a fanatic of the other team! That will result in nothing less than the tossing of stereotypical derogatory chants back and forth which, of course, will lead to some parking lot brawl.
Don't dare try to have a different opinion other than the teams party lines, otherwise, they'll try a hostel take over of your position. Just ask Joel Liberman, who supports the Iraq war and some tax cuts and was attacked by his own party by them running and financing another Democrat to take his seat.
Don't dare try to say you support the right to abortion, gay marriage or that you're agnostic or atheist, as a Republican. You'll be similarly cast down from the rank and file.
The point is, the problem with politics are people you the parent. Those people who actually THINK one side is better than the other by default. That one side a bigger joke than the other or what have you. Sadly, the true joke are these people and these are the people that Colbert and Stewart make fun of. These people are blind to the obvious and sheep of the proverbial Shepard. These are the people who make easy targets for jokes because others can clearly see their blind ignorance and stupidity on ISSUES, not political affiliation.
People who think like the parent are the one's who think with an intensely partisan mindset. They're the one's, are there are a lot of them, who keep these political charades going. Nothing is going to change until we break down the walls of party affliction and the team sport mentality. Politics are not a game that's played on Sundays and Monday nights. Competition and competitiveness only amongst people only lead to a loss for everyone as important issues get ignored for a few small mindsets of a minority of people who are bullied and repressed into taking the same stances as the party out of fear or reprisal. This is the true killer of independent thought and critical analysis, yet it'll be the last thing anyone will be willing to "fix".
Either that or the Republicans can take a joke. I'm pretty sure they knew exactly the type of material Colbert would go for.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I think being "respectful" is 90% of the reason this country is a mess right now. The fact that the public is too scared of calling their politicians and politicians of other countries hypocritical lying murderers to their face out of fear of being called "disrespectful" or worse "un-American" is disgusting. Maybe you sir need a ball transplant since yours have obviously failed.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
He mocks everyone constantly, but there is a bit of a difference in how he does it that betrays his bias.
His mockery of republicans is usually along the lines of "what are those crazy people thinking?"
Whereas against democrats he tends to be more "come on, guys, I was counting on you and then you sucked."
He doesn't give anyone a free pass (which I greatly appreciate) but he does betray his bias a bit.
Dude, *lighten up*. Stephen Colbert is a comedian and satirist. Is roasting China along with everyone else in the room him being undiplomatic or him doing his thing?
If China can't take some ribbing from a comedian, what kind of super-power does that make them? Remember when that guy got a monkey to throw up just like Bush? Hilarious! Did we get on his case for lacking in diplomacy?
The only "misstep" diplomatically was putting Colbert in the room with that many powerful people, and then handing him a mike and asking him to do his thing. If the people in that room couldn't handle some humor, then he shouldn't have been asked to do the speech.
And frankly, I'm getting tired of everyone pussy-footing around China. Welcome to the World stage, China! You wanted to be a super-power? You wanted recognition and a bigger say in how things go? Well guess what, my Chinese friends? Along with greater visibility and decision making power comes a lot more criticism, outrage, and being mocked.
Welcome to our world. People have been beating on the US for years. Sometimes it was just whining (hey, I wanted to be in charge instead of you!), and sometimes it was because we used our power to run rough-shod over people. Regardless, the world didn't spare us anything--and they shouldn't.
But China? Oh, poor China! Everyone is so insensitive, so judgmental! Poor, poor China! They only own everyone on the planet through trade imbalances or by owning the country's debt. When people start to complain about China's policies, a Chinese representative reminds them that China owns them lock stock and barrel, and then an apology along with copious amounts of back pedaling ensues (see US toy makers after the lead paint fiascos).
So pardon me if I don't feel sorry for them. No one in the rest of the world is treated with as much fear and trepidation as China. And when they don't feel they get enough respect, they come down on people hard. They are big-boy country. They can clearly take care of themselves.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
Yeah, all those failures like President Ronald Reagan, Senator Fred Thompson, Ambassador Shirley (Temple) Black, Congressman "Sonny" Bono, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Mayor Clint Eastwood... I don't agree with their politics, but it's hard to say they were all bad or completely unsuccessful.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
I'd like to see the data for Hukabee's or Ron Paul's appearances separated from the aggregate. While Republicans on better-know-a-district probably don't benefit from being lampooned, I bet Hukabee and Paul had a bump in polls or online support after their appearances.
Mayor is fine...the splatter damage area is greatly reduced to maybe no more than the tri-county area. Regan fscked us with onerous debt and Sonny Bono gave us unconstitutionally long copyright terms.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Could the appearance on Colbert's show be part of a wider ranging media blitz by some of these candidates? Could they be appearing on Colbert, Leno, Letterman, Meet the Press, The Muppet Show, and Larry King all over the course of a week or two? Then following it up with a few high profile public publicity events coordinated with a few big fund raising events?
Its called a media blitz.
If there is a 'Colbert Bump' then we need a controlled experiment. Have a Democrat and a Republican appear on Colbert's show, and make no other public appearances for a month after word. Then measure the outcome.
I think it is just an artifact of campaign style differences between the two parties. The Democrats have been fond of the Madison Avenue marketing blitz style for a while (lots of flash and no substance). Republicans are more of the smoke filled back room style. (Have third parties funded by wealthy friends and talk radio media figure-heads smear your opponent with a constant feed of lies and innuendo).
I really doubt the bump in donations is attributable to an appearance on Colbert's show alone.
-- likely due to the "elite demographic" of its audience."
Nice job feeding into the media narrative that Republicans are pushing: That liberals are elistist snobs. Slashdot should not do politics.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Am I the only one bothered by an 8 months old being close enough to a TV for long enough to be noticeably affected by it?
That's a growing consumer, alright...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I would rather vote to Stephen Colbert and John Stewart than either Barack or McCain. At least they are honest and actually answer questions and don't try to play the people. I would definitely trust them in the position of power over the choices we have now. Which is actually kinda sad that politicians have disappointed us that much.
The funniest thing that Limbaugh ever did was call for harsher penalties for drug users then get himself busted for being an oxycodon addict.
The icing-coated irony was delicious for everyone.
I'm watching the video again right now, and the video shows people laughing quite a bit. I'm only half-way through right now, but I've personally witnessed Bush laughing several times at his own expense. So far, the only time crowd seemed offended was at the China crack.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I thought it was even funnier that his doctor shopping got a slap on the wrist, thus illustrating the way the law operates differently for the Haves and Have Mores than for the rest of us.
Well, no, that wasn't funny... that was more stomach turning than funny.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Colbert asked Kevin Costner if he would run for office and Costner laughed and said something like, 'No... I've lead a colorful life."
I think that would probably be the issue with *most* people like Colbert and John Stewart. The facts of Bush's "colorful" youth were largely ignored when he was running for election. I couldn't believe he got away with "I haven't used cocaine since January of 1987." but more power to him since i think cocaine and pot should be legal. I'd never do cocaine-- taking something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time you use it isn't my thing. But wise men throughout history have altered their conciousness. And suddenly we disallow it and insist that only the most prissy, straight-laced people who don't even match 90% of the population in actual behavior should be our political leaders. Basically-- PRIESTS should be our leaders. The kings and lords and barons of industry had strong passions and lead bold lives and it gave them the strength of character needed to truly do the right thing.
Perhaps it is time to stop throwing away good leaders because they lead "colorful" lives and aren't priests. I imagine most leaders throughout history were alpha males and lead colorful lives filled with fighting, boozing, womanizing, and drinking. Since our memory is now much longer and much more through, it may be time to adjust the rules to the new "no privacy" reality.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Let's face it, the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are both the equivalent to the Fox channel shows for the Democrats. Before you flame me, know I'm a Democrat.
Of course they are.
They are making a mockery of the media. The difference is that DS and CR freely admit that that's what they're doing and the majority of their viewers know that.
Fox, pretends that they're a legitimate news source when they're nothing but anti-American propaganda and their viewers do not get that.
I didn't detect much of a partisan air back then---they made fun of Clinton a lot, but it didn't come across as if they were conservatives or anything. And in 2000 they were pretty equal-opportunity in attacking both Gore and Bush. These days they come across as distinctly left-leaning; even as a left-leaning person myself it's sometimes a bit uncomfortable when they seem to lapse from humor into some sort of political monologue. So I'm not sure they can successfully, given the corner they've painted themselves into, go back to the previous, less-partisan approach of just making fun of whoever's in power.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I think being "respectful" is 90% of the reason this country is a mess right now. The fact that the public is too scared of calling their politicians and politicians of other countries hypocritical lying murderers to their face out of fear of being called "disrespectful" or worse "un-American" is disgusting. Maybe you sir need a ball transplant since yours have obviously failed.
And I think that the general inability to forcefully disagree with someone without being disrespectful is, in fact, the biggest problem. If you think calling someone a hypocritical lying murder is a good way to get your point seriously considered, you are mistaken.
Courtesy and respect are fundamentals of civilized, intelligent debate and discourse. They're what's missing from our politics, and general policy discussions. They're not as much fun to read or say as ad hom attacks, of course. That's why you see and read and are reported so much of the sound bites and attacks. Sure, it feels good to accuse someone of being a liar or hypocrite, but it's much more productive to offer an attractive solution. The perception that anyone unwilling to denigrate the other side to make a point is a lack of balls contributes to the morass. If you can eloquently make a persuasive argument, you will advance not only your position, but the discourse. And advancing will get us out of the mess we are in right now.
In short, I disagree with your premise. I believe your position to be unenlightened, and generally contributing to the problem, rather than helping it. But if you read this, you'll see I didn't have to call you anything to get my point across. It's a shame this is too far down the page to ever get read.
Colbert asked Kevin Costner if he would run for office and Costner laughed and said something like, 'No... I've lead a colorful life."
I think that would probably be the issue with *most* people like Colbert and John Stewart. The facts of Bush's "colorful" youth were largely ignored when he was running for election. I couldn't believe he got away with "I haven't used cocaine since January of 1987." but more power to him since i think cocaine and pot should be legal.
It's unfortunate, however, that our status quo is one which makes a large portion of our culture into criminals, and then, they can get elected to office, so long as they claim that's how it should be.
I'd never do cocaine-- taking something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time you use it isn't my thing. But wise men throughout history have altered their conciousness. And suddenly we disallow it and insist that only the most prissy, straight-laced people who don't even match 90% of the population in actual behavior should be our political leaders. Basically-- PRIESTS should be our leaders. The kings and lords and barons of industry had strong passions and lead bold lives and it gave them the strength of character needed to truly do the right thing.
Umm...Priests have gotten away with things no politician could ever be forgiven for. Make no doubt about it, our politicians have to live up to a much higher standard than our clergy.
Pardon the talking out of my ass. A quick look at wikipedia gave me this:
Several of Bush's aides and supporters walked out during Colbert's speech, and one former aide commented that the President had "that look that he's ready to blow". Although President Bush shook Colbert's hand after his presentation, Colbert received an icy response from First Lady Laura Bush.
I believe there was other stuff about the media not picking up the story, etc, that I had read, but I'm not in the research mood, just the foggy memory and talking out of my ass mood. In fact, it's right there in the wiki article as well.
Sonny Bono gave us unconstitutionally long copyright terms.
Inigo Montoya would like a word with you.
With all due respect to the Supreme Court, if copyright outlives both the author and his peers, that effectively is an eternal period for anyone who was alive at its creation and would care enough to want to copy it, let alone ephemeral works which may cease to exist in any material form in under a year.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
In my home we refer to Stephen as "Loud Daddy" because my child would scream bloody murder when we paused him (and only him) on screen. Even at 8 months old the kid has strange taste.
Now that I think about it, this makes sense. Babies love faces, and Colbert's broad satire comes with some really broad facial expressions. Angry, hurt, sad, gleeful, and more angry. It's probably the only grown-up show on TV which spends most of its time showing a big full-screen shot of a man making goofy faces. Even the Daily Show doesn't compare: Stewart has to deliver most of his punch lines with a newsman's straight face.