Political Culture Jamming: The Dissident Humour of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

This blog is about the article of Political Culture Jamming: The Dissident Humour of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart by Jamie Warner. The reading was based upon politics and their ideas of influencing to the masses. A popular example from the text was “political branding.” Politicians used this idea to market themselves just like how advertising corporations brand themselves. The idea was to gain unreflected and automatic trust. In addition, a reason why political branding would work is because citizens are “busy people”, thus allowing them to quickly brand themselves within a political affiliation without understanding or questioning their political affiliated ideas. Furthermore, politicians also use emotional appeal to gain their audience. This is where “Culture jamming” and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart comes in.



“Culture jamming” is the rise against mainstream advertisement and corporations, in this case political branding. A group committed to culture jamming is Adbusters who are the loose collection of media activists rebelling against the hegemony of messages promoted by global capitalism (Warner, 2007) According to the article, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a great example of culture jamming. The reading shows that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart promoted three ways of cultural jamming.

1. Parody Format: A parody allows the receivers to engage in laughter and take the show as a comedy. Even if the cast is speaking upon political affairs.
2. Strategic Use of Video: Intervenes within actual news footage to share the idea. Nothing like this happens within actual news performances.
3. Stewart’s Socratic Interview Style: John Stewart uses “Socratic Irony” as a rhetorical tactic to point out incongruities, inconsistencies, and internal contradictions in the interviewee’s argument without directly offering his own opinion as well as without being confrontational (Warner, 2007).

Finally, one of the main points stated in the reading was the power of laughter. “Literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) agrees: “Laughter demolishes fear and piety before an object, before a world, making of it an object of familiar contact and thus clearing the ground for an absolutely free investigation of it.” (p. 23). If we can laugh at it, we can examine it, evaluate it, and even critique it. Laughter has the power to disrupt any analytical paralysis engendered by fear. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart demonstrates that we overlook this powerful and interesting phenomenon at our peril” (Warner, 2007).

Thanks for reading.

Independent Media in a Time of War

“U.S. deaths in Iraq, war on terror surpass 9/11 toll”. This was a headline used in 2006 by CNN while reporting on the growing amount of American soldiers killed in Iraq. 9/11 is doled as having taken 2973 lives, at the time of the report the soldier casualty had risen to 2974. Although the amount of soldiers lost in Iraq is a legitimate concern the report makes no mention of the amount of Afghan civilian causalities. Amy Goodman describes this concept in her film “Independent Media in a time of War”, where American military personnel are glorified in media, portrayed as being heroes or martyr like, and Afghan by-standard deaths are reported rarely if at all.

The aspect that I found most interesting is that the CNN article is able to name the first American casualty over-seas “The first U.S. service member to die in the Enduring Freedom campaign was Air Force Sgt. Evander Earl Andrew, 36, of Solon, Maine”. American press is quick to notice the first death of one of their own soldiers on foreign soil, however there are no reports by American media about the first Afghani soldier killed.

- Michael Griffith

Amy Goodman's Independent Media in a Time of War

Amy Goodman’s film Independent Media in a Time of War depicts the corporate media’s coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. The US media focused on glorifying military combat while downplaying the amount of civilian casualties. Goodman also focuses on the ethics of journalism. She believes that journalists should do what they can do figure out the facts, question those in power and ask questions that no one has asked before. Goodman presents the audience with the question of the possible impact of the media industry on journalism and democracy.


Amy Goodman is a progressive broadcast journalist, investigative reporter and author. She is best known for her role as the host of the radio show Democracy Now! , an independent global news program which broadcasts on radio, television and the internet. She has received many awards for her work including the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the George Polk Award.

-Leila Raposo

Independent Media in a Time of War

Independent Media in a Time of War is a film by Amy Goodman that describes the news coverage of the Iraq war. The US media made light of the civilians that were dying and glorified the American military combat. It is Goodman's belief that journalism and reporting should be done ethically and present only facts, question those who are in a position of power and to "go where the silence is, and say something". The media applies a technique of inattention and intimidation to the viewers to push its own agenda. Certain channels and leaders will manipulate the media to achieve the goals they wish to achieve, without necessarily using facts.



In class we examined the statement that were made after the initial attacks on September 11th. They were filled with anger and aggression, intended to get the country on board with the battle that was about to ensue. Once the war had begun, the news coverage was spun, according to Goodman, to try and keep the citizens thinking that they should be supporting the war. Tuesdays reading stated that America used the news not as an informational outlet, but as a melodrama. What it comes down to is the media adjusting stories, leaving out information and twisting what is being told to produce the results they want.

- Krista Rabjohn

Where Have all the Feminists Gone?

Current Portrayals of Women on Television

In a society where television is dominated by reality TV series, feminist representations are becoming few and far between. Currently, new representations of feminist characters on television seem to be a thing of the past. From the 70’s through to the early 2000’s, women were more likely to be portrayed as strong and independent. With shows like Maude, Married with Children, Murphey Brown, The Simpsons, Law and Order: SVU, and Sex and the City dominating prime time television; our culture was flooded with positive representations of women. Each of those shows had at least one character that could be regarded as feminist. However, now it could be interpreted that representing strong opinions about women’s rights has been put on the back burner.

There are current television shows out there that have strong and independent women. On the other hand, feminism isn’t just about being strong and independent or having the appearance of it. For instance, Greys Anatomy has several strong female leads. They are all equally accomplished and fought their way to get into their medical program. What prevents them from being characterized as feminists however, is how some of them allow the men on the show to lord over them. The show started out with a majority of male attendings and one female; the male attendings quickly paired up with the lead female interns and over the episodes/seasons became romantically involved. Before they knew it, they went from interns to “prostitutes”; trading surgery preference and increased medical knowledge for sex. Thus, it is hard to believe that their original autonomy disappeared at the sight of a handsome face.

Check out the banter between two of the interns mentioned above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYIla0x6LOU&feature=BF&list=PL74770B79B711ECD3&index=15

Or take a look at the intern-attending relationship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J-mt26FiOU&feature=BF&list=PL74770B79B711ECD3&index=50

The article Television’s new feminism, outlines several issues with the portrayal of women on prime time television. It focuses mostly on Law and Order: SVU’s depiction of today’s feminist woman i.e. Lead character Olivia Benson. Overall, the article states that SVU does depict feminist perspectives on the causes of rape; however, they couple that with supposed female traits which demean the women they are empowering on the show. For example, Olivia Benson is unmarried, lives alone and work oriented; whereas her male counterpart contrasts these characteristics by being the opposite of her. In the past such roles would have had the male detective as single and living alone while the female would have the family. In my opinion, such uncommon representations of females in the workplace serve to further feminist ideals. However, the article takes issue with how some of the episodes condemn aspects of feminine behaviour like empathy and intuition. When Olivia is overly empathetic it is regarded as a weakness but excused because it is identified as a feminine trait. Regardless of what the article states, Law and Order: SVU is a feminist show through and through. Olivia Benson is a character that can carry her own story, she’s three dimensional, and represents an idea; so what if the show has a few kinks. Shows like Law and Order are what feminism is now.

That being said, the current representations on television are the outcome of feminist movements overtime. Television characters don’t need to throw feminism in your face. As a result, we are now able to see primetime shows where the majority of doctors are female, a precincts lead detective is female, and the district attorney is a women. These professions were once regarded as a man’s profession. In the past women on television were stay–at-home moms, teachers, and nurses etc. Now, we are beginning to see more female characters integrated into different roles. This is more present in dramas than comedies, but overtime we will see equal depictions of men and women. Thus, the representation of feminist characters might not be bold and in your face, but they are present. Probably more present than they were before. Female characters no longer need to shout the words chauvinistic pig like Jessica Spano in Saved by the bell, in order to demonstrate they are feminists. Nor do they need to wear a shirt saying FANG (Feminists Against Neanderthal Guys) like Marcy D’arcy in Married with children. Feminism is widely represented to different degrees that we as a society now understand that women are equal to men.

Below is Scrubs’ tribute to strong women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03UiLg9Az0

- Peta Francis

A New Man Has Emerged

A fresh image of the perfect man has emerged in our society and the media is largely responsible. Popular culture is an always changing phenomena and the changes influence most of us, if not all of us. A perfect example of this is the new and improved man. This new and improved man is toned and ripped but weighs only 150 lbs. A good looking man has no hair on his body and rocks a spray on tan. This new look is a far stretch from the rough and tough men that were considered desirable by society just a few years ago. As a male, I find this issue fascinating because I notice the changes in friends and their appearance. The media certainly influences most of us in one way or another.

Hollywood pictures and stars do their part for pop culture. It seems that the days are largely gone when young stars were considered for their individual charisma (Al Pacino and Jack Nicholson). An on going trend that started just a few years ago has become so widespread that we are now blessed with icons that all look, act and talk alike (Ashton Kutcher, Jake Gyllenhaal and Zac Efron). "New male beauty" is a precise and exact thing. Sexy is now a specific look thanks to the media. Ten years ago a chest full of hair (David Hasselhoff) was driving women crazy. Men wanted to maintain that rugged look which meant having strong features. It is the exact opposite (softer features) today. The "new man" is everywhere.

In class we are constantly discussing the media and how it effects our culture. With major corporations comes advertising and marketing is very influential on our society. Personally, I don't know to many people that shape their images as a direct result of popular culture but I do notice it with friends. Just over the last two years I have become aware of the "new man" look. Some of my 30 something male friends shave their chests because it is cool. Ten years ago that type of grooming was unheard of. This illustrates the fact that media can and does effect society. Popular culture shapes our world.

My posted photos demonstrate the difference between the "new man" and a good looking man ten years ago. The differences are clear with little to no similarities. This is a direct result of our ever changing society and popular culture. In ten years the image of a desirable man will evolve again. The media is and will most likely continue to be influential on our society and popular culture.

-Scott Baker-