Thursday, April 30, 2009

Study finds conservative viewers of Stephen Colbert's comedy show think he's on their side

Of course.

Study finds conservative viewers of Stephen Colbert's comedy show think he's on their side

"Our results aren't that conservatives don't get the joke. It's that how you see the joke depends on who you are," says Kristen Landreville, a PhD student in communications at Ohio State University and one of three co-authors. "If you're conservative, you think the joke's on liberals because he's openly making fun of liberals."



hiho
Mp

11 comments:

ProfUgo said...

No. The results ARE that conservatives don't get the joke.

James Dionne said...

No, it's really the notion that "liberals" are so consumed with their own egos and paradigms, that anyone who challenges or questions their basic political views cannot possibly be human or intelligent and also have a sense of humor. It's really pathetic to take a survey that suggests that someone has no right to connect with political humor and parody. These attitudes of "with us or against us" even in entertainment settings could very well destroy our countries principals of discord and comprimise of which parody has been a driving force for a long time.

Mpeterson said...

I'm not sure the current economic collapse, precipitated by the last 8 years, had much to do with "liberal paradigms."

James Dionne said...

What does the current economic collapse have to do with the lack of common decency in a totally craptastic study that reports people would like to believe in what they watch on TV??
ProfUgo smugly ridicules the survey respondents as "not getting the joke?" This is the epitome of the elitist attitude that many people dislike about the left. I'm just asking for us all to at least consider and respect the other sides opinions before dismissing them as unintelligent. I believe that this political secularism we've backed ourselves into will eventually destroy what makes this country great.
(By the way, since you brought it up, the congress is just as much at fault over this mess and last I checked they are all Democrat controlled. HUD/Fannie Mae/ Freddy Mac legally forced lenders to give mortgages to anyone with a pulse and wouldn't you know it, when they couldn't afford the house payments, they walk away. It really does wonders to an economy when people take the equity and run. Then more and more people cannot afford to buy the low quality, yet insanely overpriced American cars and the unions refuse to compromise on wage or benefit packages- surprise-this overpaid labor force actually bankrupts the domestic car industry. Way to stick it to the man, UAW! Good luck finding a job with even half the wage or benefits of the job you just destroyed by not compromising. I'm not saying Bush wasn't at fault, but we sure did replace him with someone who's making the same stupid mistakes by not standing up to congress....but he's more eloquent in front of a teleprompter so he must be a better leader, right?)

Mpeterson said...

Actually, the study was statistically valid. It's just ironic, that's all.

And you and I don't disagree about Congress also being at fault, but for 6 of the last 8 years Mr. Bush enjoyed complete control of that Congress and turned budget surpluses into record deficits.

If you look into the causal structures that developed derivatives in the first place it was pressure from Wall Street firms to use mortgages as investment leverage mechanisms -- those regulations, despite some kickstarting from the Clinton era, were only seriously loosened starting in 2003. No one held a gun to any lender's head -- except for the dizzying and spectacular profits they made in the early going. What's clear now is that those responsible for doing due diligence on underwriting the value of those crappy mortgages is where the blame can be focussed -- but, so long as the money was pouring in, nobody asked too many questions.

I don't know whether Obama will be a better leader, but I am pretty sure he'll at least follow the laws of the country -- and that might be a nice change.

So, you don't think workers should be allowed to unionize to negotiate a price for their labor?

hiho

James Dionne said...

Workers can form unions all they want, but they should be aware that when they place unreasonable demands for compensation on an industry that is competing with forgien non-union operations with superior products, they shouldn't be surprised when the jobs disappear.

As to the study being statistically valid- they interviewed 350 or so communications major students. How many communications majors do you know are conservative? I bet less than 10%. Also how many students are going to fill out a survey seriously? I can think of a few people who would write that they are conservative and them answer opposite just to be funny. Again, this study was just an attempt to make conservatives look stupid.

Other Side said...

Again, this study was just an attempt to make conservatives look stupid.I agree. Studies are not needed.

Whoops.

Mpeterson said...

I have to confess that I too miss real conservatives... what we've had for much of the past 30 years has been a minstrel show version of fiscal and social responsibility -- and don't squeak about the Democrats.. at least they erred on the side of the little guy.

Truthfully, when the neoconservative leadership launches a national 'teabagging' they deserve whatever they get.

James Dionne said...

Thanks for that briliant contribution to the discussion "Other Side". You stereotype well. I Hope you giggled at that. Do you actually feel superior to people you disagree politically with because you think that they are stupid? I try to respect the intelligence of people whom I do not agree with politically. You may not. And yes, I am aware that all Republicans do not.

Mark- I agree that the religious right has hijacked the Republican party but to dismiss the people who believe ideas of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom from government as "wackos and crazies" because some loudmouths in the party are religious fanatics is misplaced. I know that there are a few wacko crazy loudmouths in the Democratic Party as well (Keith Olberman comes to mind) but I certainly wouldn't release a shoddy study in which all democrats are described in those terms. BTW, using the obscene double-entendre "teabagging" to describe protesters is really just petty name calling. It makes your other fine arguments on the tax subject look immature and sophomorish.

Mpeterson said...

I wish I could disagree with you more on some of your points James, but I acknowledge your observations re: teabagging.

What continues to astonish me, however, is that the radical right fails to understand the degree to which they sound immature and sophomoric. In order even to address some of that nonsense, the only recourse is sophomoric discourse.

I have people who haven't read Milton Friedman (or even Adam Smith) ridicule me for failing to understand trickle down economics. I have people who haven't bothered to read either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers, and with no moral compass beyond their taxable income, ridicule me for failing to understand the ethical foundations of the United States.

So be it. I'm content.

--but every once in a while I get to shoot back with ammo they understand.

I think what worries me more than these amusing little polls is that we all of us have to rely on comedy programs to get real news.

hiho

James Dionne said...

A point we can agree on. People forming opinions about government from comedy shows is a scary thought.