My question comes from reading the "Ads Under Attack" article. Mainly I just want to know if jammers see any and all ads as susceptible to their altering work. Or do they only target ads that are particularly "bad", such as cigarette, alcohol, or ones that push the perceived idea of female beauty. Or are any and all ads susceptible to their work simply based on the fact that they are intrusive and push, for the most part, conspicuous consumption?
After reading the article "Political Culture jamming" which analyzes the daily show as a type of political culture jamming i am wondering why politicans would want to go on the show to be interviewed by Jon Stewart? If they know this is a program which aims to derail their campaign why would they appear on the show? Furthermore how has the emergence of Steven Colbert's show changed the way in which Jon Stewart's show is seen as a culture jammer? Now that the Colbert report is on directly after the show do they speak to each other to create shows which play off each other and act to stop the political branding machine? Or has this new show created more of a need for Jon Stewart to state his opinion because an oppositional opinion may be proposed in the following hour? Also I wonder how this show can truly be seen as a culture jammer while it does mimic cable news shows it is obviously comedy how much of its message is lost because it is unable to completely mimic news broadcasts?
If the "Daily Show" is a "political Culture Jammer," according to this article, why has Jon Stewart been recognized as one of the best(if not the nation's best) journalist?
My question is from the article "Political Culture Jamming", where Warner described how The Daily Show fits into the model of culture jamming by rebelling against the dominant political messages presented in the news. What was confusing to me about this article were the different techniques used to rebel against hegemonic messages, and how they worked to change the audiences opinion.
How does Jon Stewart rebelling against hegemony? I feel as though his shows are meant to be thought about and just have a laugh but not have the public's opinions changed.
But I wouldn't consider Jon Stewart's Daily Show as news but rather a way to get all the stress from politics out.
I dont see the Daily Show as a culture jammer. The show often times shows the lighter side of political figures as they are having fun poked at them. It also gives these figures a chance to handle some harassment and defend their positions. Is this not a good thing for both the figures and the audience?
Just today as I was at the gym, I was watching the Today show with the part who has Kathy Lee as a host. Well these ladies talk just about very random things and I just don't ever see them as a serious figure or a show that I would go to for political information. Today though they has presidential candidate Michelle Bachman on. All I kept thinking while I was running is that politics has turned into nothing but publicity and advertising. Would these women's show be considered a culture jammer or is it different because they don't use comedy and parodies as a source of information?
I'm surprise that the Daily Show would be considered a culture jammer because it is main objective is to simply entertain. In the article it states that cultural jammers place themselves on a "revolutionary continuum". There are other shows that are similar to The Daily Show such as The Colbert Report or any other late night tv host that unveils or poke fun at politicians. How is The Daily Show different from these shows?
I am a fan of the Daily show but doesn't it seem to be less effective culture jamming than culture jammers whose messages are serious?
As we saw in the documentary "War Made Easy", the media has a huge influences on how we perceive the government around us.In the article "Political Culture Jamming" the author stated the Americans have turned to shows like The Daily Show for their political news. Do you feel because people like Jon Stewart are giving us the news and making fun of it at the same time creates a certain trust that audiences are engaging in, therefore making these types of shows more popular?
I feel like the author of Political Culture Jamming is trying to portray culture jamming as a negative thing. If all Jon Stuart is doing on his show is trying to make light of negative political situations and present a counter hegemonic view of shows on CNN and FOX, then shouldn't that be considered a good thing?
This page contains a single entry by Melody published on November 20, 2011 5:46 PM.
another football player's story was the previous entry in this blog.
Blog prompt this week is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.