Jaden Lessnick " McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled. "



Download 488.48 Kb.
Page10/10
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size488.48 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

Satire Bad

Satire renincribes existing political differences and hurts democracy


LaMarre, et, al 9 – an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s School of Journalism and

Mass Communication, where she studies political communication, strategic communication, and entertainment media. LaMarre’s research examines the persuasive influence of political entertainment media on individual-level attitudes and opinions. (Heather L. "The Irony of Satire." Apr. 2009. http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf)//IS

These results suggest that assumptions previously held regarding the role of latenight comedy and political satire might not be accurate and that perception plays a significant role in way audiences interpret the comedy. Extending this to other forms of political satire such as late-night comedy programs, stand-up comedians, animation, movies, and political cartoons, we must consider the possibility that these political messages are influencing audiences in differingways and that audience perceptions play a much stronger role that previously thought. More importantly, political satire may not affect people in the way that it has historically been assumed (i.e., satire has been feared and banned because it is seen as a powerful force, Feinberg 1967). It is quite possible that this type of political entertainment is processed with biases and reinterpreted in ways that serve to reinforce political viewpoints. It 226 International Journal of Press/Politicsappears from these results that biased processing serves a function of reinforcing individually held political beliefs and attitudes. Thus, when conditions for biased processing exist (e.g., Colbert’s deadpan satire) polarization is likely to result. As individuals on each side of the political issue interpret the source as targeting the opposition and agreeing with their own viewpoint, the two opposing sides are likely to strengthen their own position as “the correct position,” thereby leading to a deeper divide between the two groups. This type of polarization effect has been found to have negative consequences for democracy (e.g., Cigler and Getter 1977). While it is important to consider that much of the political satire offered by comedians includes contextual cues to aid audiences in interpreting the messages, it is equally important to note that when biased processing takes place the effects of such processing will likely play a significant role in strengthening attitudes (Krosnick and Petty 1995). The post hoc analysis revealed the mediating role that biased perceptions of an ambiguous source can play between individual political ideology and individual political attitudes. While this was a cursory analysis and more work in the area of biased processing and political attitudes is needed before conclusions can be reached, it does appear that conservative’s biased perceptions of Colbert’s attitudes had a significant influence on their individual attitudes about the same attitude object. Strong conservatives were significantly more likely to perceive Colbert as having personal political attitudes that were consistent with their own. These biased perceptions of Colbert’s personal attitudes were a strong predictor of individual attitudes, such that the individuals’ attitudes were significantly more likely to remain consistent with perceptions of Colbert’s attitude. In sum, conservatives’ personal attitudes were influenced by their perception of Colbert’s attitude, and relatively strong conservatives were more likely to report attitudes consistent with their perceptions of Colbert’s attitude. Although we are far from suggesting that perceptions of Colbert’s attitudes are driving individual attitudes, we can conclude that biased perceptions are playing an important mediating role in this process that merits much more investigation. From these analyses, it appears that biased processing is serving two potential roles: attitude formation and strengthening. Thus, we suggest that future studies focus on these two roles of biased processing in the study of political entertainment and attitudes. In addition to examining the potential influence of biased processing on attitudes, future studies should also examine biased message processing and long-term recall of the satirist’s political position. For example, do people who watch late-night political comedy and consume ambiguous political messages from The Colbert Report have accurate recall of Colbert’s political viewpoint at a later time? Or, is there a potential sleeper effect that should be examined? It might be possible that even those who accurately identified the satire and understood Colbert was joking experience difficulty in accurately recalling the comedian’s political messages.

Satire Fails

Satire fails to change mindsets – Colbert and data proves


LaMarre, et, al 9 – an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s School of Journalism and

Mass Communication, where she studies political communication, strategic communication, and entertainment media. LaMarre’s research examines the persuasive influence of political entertainment media on individual-level attitudes and opinions. (Heather L. "The Irony of Satire." Apr. 2009. http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf)//IS

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.


Satire fails – audiences see what they want to see


LaMarre, et, al 9 – an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s School of Journalism and

Mass Communication, where she studies political communication, strategic communication, and entertainment media. LaMarre’s research examines the persuasive influence of political entertainment media on individual-level attitudes and opinions. (Heather L. "The Irony of Satire." Apr. 2009. http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf)//IS

Recent work in social psychology demonstrates that individuals process information in ways that personally benefit them and that people tend to see what they want to see when the information is ambiguous (e.g., Balcetis and Dunning 2006; Kunda 1990; Long and Toppino 2004). Because satire is often ambiguous, biased information processing models provide an excellent framework for understanding how audiences see what they want to see in Colbert’s political satire.As such, the present study uses ambiguous message processing theory (Balcetis and Dunning 2006) to address two core questions: (1) what role does individual-level political ideology play in processing political satire, and (2) are individuals driven by in-group favoritism or a similar need to reinforce the favorable status of their political group to “see what they want to see in political satire?” Taken together, these questions raise the possibility that individuals, motivated by their needs for political affiliation and self-enhancement, engage in biased processing of political messages offered in ambiguous form (i.e., deadpan satire or parody). What follows is an overview of these concepts and ideas, results of an online survey with an embedded clip of Stephen Colbert, and a discussion of the findings and their implications for political entertainment research.


Visibility

1NC

Revolution will be destroyed as soon as it becomes visible- an invisible movement solves the aff best


The Invisible Committee 7 (The Invisible Committee, 2007, an anonymous group of French professors, phd candidates, and intellectuals, in the book “The Coming Insurrection” published by Semiotext(e) (attributed to the Tarnac Nine by the French police), http://tarnac9.noblogs.org/gallery/5188/insurrection_english.pdf)//RTF

From any angle... Whatever angle you look at it from, there's no escape from the present. That's not the least of its virtues. For those who want absolutely to have hope, it knocks down every support. Those who claim to have solutions are proven wrong almost immediately. It's understood that now everything can only go from bad to worse. "There's no future for the future" is the wisdom behind an era that for all its appearances of extreme normalcy has come to have about the consciousness level of the first punks. The sphere of political representation is closed. From left to right, it's the same nothingness acting by turns either as the big shots or the virgins, the same sales shelf heads, changing up their discourse according to the latest dispatches from the information service. Those who still vote give one the impression that their only intention is to knock out the polling booths by voting as a pure act of protest. And we've started to understand that in fact it’s only against the vote itself that people go on voting. Nothing we've seen can come up to the heights of the present situation; not by far. By its very silence, the populace seems infinitely more 'grown up' than all those squabbling amongst themselves to govern it do. Any Belleville chibani1 is wiser in his chats than in all of those puppets’ grand declarations put together. The lid of the social kettle is triple-tight, and the pressure inside won’t stop building. The ghost of Argentina’s Que Se Vayan Todos2 is seriously starting to haunt the ruling heads. The fires of November 2005 will never cease to cast their shadow on all consciences. Those first joyous fires were the baptism of a whole decade full of promises. The media’s “suburbs vs. the Republic” myth, if it’s not inefficient, is certainly not true. The fatherland was ablaze all the way to downtown everywhere, with fires that were methodically snuffed out. Whole streets went up in flames of solidarity in Barcelona and no one but the people who lived there even found out about it. And the country hasn’t stopped burning since. Among the accused we find diverse profiles, without much in common besides a hatred for existing society; not united by class, race, or even by neighborhood. What was new wasn’t the “suburban revolt,” since that was already happening in the 80s, but the rupture with its established forms. The assailants weren’t listening to anybody at all anymore, not their big brothers, not the local associations assigned to help return things to normal. No “SOS Racism3 ” could sink its cancerous roots into that event, one to which only fatigue, falsification, and media omertà4 could feign putting an end. The whole series of nocturnal strikes, anonymous attacks, wordless destruction, had the merit of busting wide open the split between politics and the political. No one can honestly deny the obvious weight of this assault which made no demands, and had no message other than a threat which had nothing to do with politics. But you’d have to be blind not to see what is purely political about this resolute negation of politics, and you’d certainly have to know absolutely nothing about the autonomous youth movements of the last 30 years. Like abandoned children we burned the first baby toys of a society that deserves no more respect than the monuments of Paris did at the end of Bloody Week5 -- and knows it. There’s no social solution to the present situation. First off because the vague aggregate of social groupings, institutions, and individual bubbles that we designate by the anti-phrase “society” has no substance, because there’s no language left to express common experiences with. It took a half-century of fighting by the Lumières to thaw out the possibility of a French Revolution, and a century of fighting by work to give birth to the fearful “Welfare State.” Struggles creating the language in which the new order expresses itself. Nothing like today. Europe is now a de-monied continent that sneaks off to make a run to the Lidl6 and has to fly with the low-cost airlines to be able to keep on flying. None of the “problems” formulated in the social language are resolvable. The “retirement pensions issue,” the issues of “precariousness,” the “youth” and their “violence” can only be kept in suspense as long as the ever more surprising “acting out” they thinly cover gets managed away police-like. No one’s going to be happy to see old people being wiped out at a knockdown price, abandoned by their own and with nothing to say. And those who’ve found less humiliation and more benefit in a life of crime than in sweeping floors will not give up their weapons, and prison won’t make them love society. The rage to enjoy of the hordes of the retired will not take the somber cuts to their monthly income on an empty stomach, and will get only too excited about the refusal to work among a large sector of the youth. And to conclude, no guaranteed income granted the day after a quasi-uprising will lay the foundations for a new New Deal, a new pact, and a new peace. The social sentiment is rather too evaporated for all that. As their solution, they’ll just never stop putting on the pressure, to make sure nothing happens, and with it we’ll have more and more police chases all over the neighborhood. The drone that even according to the police indeed did fly over Seine-Saint-Denis7 last July 14th is a picture of the future in much more straightforward colors than all the hazy images we get from the humanists. That they took the time to clarify that it was not armed shows pretty clearly the kind of road we’re headed down. The country is going to be cut up into ever more air-tight zones. Highways built along the border of the “sensitive neighborhoods” already form walls that are invisible and yet able to cut them off from the private subdivisions. Whatever good patriotic souls may think about it, the management of neighborhoods “by community” is most effective just by its notoriety. The purely metropolitan portions of the country, the main downtowns, lead their luxurious lives in an ever more calculating, ever more sophisticated, ever more shimmering deconstruction. They light up the whole planet with their whorehouse red lights, while the BAC8 and the private security companies’ -- read: militias’ -- patrols multiply infinitely, all the while benefiting from being able to hide behind an ever more disrespectful judicial front. The catch-22 of the present, though perceptible everywhere, is denied everywhere. Never have so many psychologists, sociologists, and literary people devoted themselves to it, each with their own special jargon, and each with their own specially missing solution. It’s enough just to listen to the songs that come out these days, the trifling “new French music,” where the petty-bourgeoisie dissects the states of its soul and the K’1Fry mafia9 makes its declarations of war, to know that this coexistence will come to an end soon and that a decision is about to be made. This book is signed in the name of an imaginary collective. Its editors are not its authors. They are merely content to do a little clean-up of what’s scattered around the era’s common areas, around the murmurings at bar-tables, behind closed bedroom doors. They’ve only determined a few necessary truths, whose universal repression fills up the psychiatric hospitals and the painful gazes. They’ve made themselves scribes of the situation. It’s the privilege of radical circumstances that justice leads them quite logically to revolution. It’s enough just to say what we can see and not avoid the conclusions to be drawn from it.

2NC

The movement has to stay invisible- visibility allows it to quickly be crushed


The Invisible Committee 7 (The Invisible Committee, 2007, an anonymous group of French professors, phd candidates, and intellectuals, in the book “The Coming Insurrection” published by Semiotext(e) (attributed to the Tarnac Nine by the French police), http://tarnac9.noblogs.org/gallery/5188/insurrection_english.pdf)//RTF

Stay invisible. Put anonymity on the offense. In a demonstration, a unionist pulls the mask off an anonymous protester who had just broken a window: “Assume responsibility for what you’re doing instead of hiding yourself.” To be visible is to be out in the open – that is, above all to be vulnerable. When the leftists of all nations continually make their cause more “visible” – whether that of the homeless, of women, or of immigrants – in the hope that it will get taken care of, they’re doing exactly the opposite of what they ought to. To not be visible, but rather to turn to our advantage the anonymity we’ve been relegated to, and with conspiracies, nocturnal and/or masked actions, to make it into an unassailable attack-position. The fires of November 2005 offer a model. No leader, no demands, no organization, but words, gestures, complicities. To be nothing socially is not a humiliating condition, the source of some tragic lack of recognition (to be recognized: but by who?), but on the contrary is the precondition for maximum freedom of action. Not signing your name to your crimes, but only attaching some imaginary acronym – people still remember the ephemeral BAFT (Tarterets53 Anti- Cop Brigade) – is a way to preserve that freedom. Obviously, one of the regime’s first defensive maneuvers was to create a “suburban slum” subject to treat as the author of the “riots of November 2005.” Just take a look at the ugly mugs of those who are someone in this society if you want help understanding the joy of being no one. Visibility must be avoided. But a force that gathers in the shadows can’t escape it forever. Our appearance as a force has to be held back until the opportune moment. Because the later we become visible, the stronger we’ll be. And once we’ve entered the realm of visibility, our days are numbered; either we’ll be in a position to pulverize its reign quickly, or it will crush us without delay.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page