The Irony of Satire
Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report
- Heather L. LaMarre
- The Ohio State University, HLaMarre@gmail.com
Abstract
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.
On Using “Americans” to Describe People from the U.S.A.
It makes sense to me that people might take issue with people from the U.S. using “Americans” to describe themselves. The reasoning I’ve heard is that “America” is used to describe the large land mass stretching from Canada to Argentina. Because it is used to describe this one continent, we shouldn’t call ourselves “Americans” when really everyone from every country therein is also an “American”.
Some people have gone as far as to say that people from the U.S. think they own the entire continent. I’m no expert on foreign policy, but there’s no denying that the U.S. is an incredibly influential and also controversial force in the world. But we’re not the only ones.
Well, that’s fine with me. For that reason, when I’m in an international situation (almost always) I use the term “U.S. Americans”. It’s not worth it to me to have the conversation, which almost never is pleasant. As an expat living abroad, lots of people from different countries all over the world have gone out of their way to criticize my government, all the while making assumptions about me based only upon my nationality. I’m all for critique, I really am, but if these people were really as aware as they purport to be, they would approach me as anindividual, not an “Ugly American”.
Trust me, I entered this expatriate life with a huge amount of humility, knowing how the U.S. has impacted the world negatively. I became more aware, over time, of the shortcomings of other countries and how interdependent we all are. We hang in a delicate balance, and no matter how much you can criticize the U.S., we are not the only guilty ones. Furthermore, we do a lot of good. What sets us apart, from my limited point of view, is the fact that critique of our own government is an intrinsic value to us.
So, out of respect for people who see the world that way, I’ll call myself a “U.S. American” sometimes, and an “American” other times as I see fit. The reason is that I’ve been taught to call the land mass in question “North America” and “South America”. I am from the “United States of America” and we call ourselves “Americans” referring only to our country, and not claiming ownership of North and South America. Incidentally, I live in “Los Estados Unidos de Mexico”, or “The United States of Mexico”. By the same token, they call themselves “Mexicans”. Makes sense to me.
So don’t assume that if I call myself an “American” I’m doing it out of ignorance or exclusion. Check your own assumptions, and don’t push your ideas about what I should call myself onto me.
For me drawing has always been the most fundamental way of engaging the world. I am convinced it is only through drawing that I actually look at things carefully. The act of drawing makes me conscious of what I am looking at. If I wasn’t drawing I have a sense that I would not be seeing.
I’m working on a book called “Drawing Is Thinking”, it basically explores this idea. The introduction is by a guy named Frank Wilson who wrote a remarkable book called “The Hand”. I went to a lecture of his in Boston a few months ago and at the lecture he said, “When children are prevented from drawing their brains do not develop fully”. I found that a very compelling argument for why drawing is essential to understanding form.
Right now drawing seems to be so alien from the idea of making a living. The art schools basically abandon drawing as an activity because they could not deal with the number of computer programs that they had to institutionalize. Now while people have what they need (perhaps) for their professional life, what they don’t have is a fundamental instrument for understanding the reality of that life.
For me drawing has always been an absolutely primary way of encountering reality. I am astonished by drawing. I always think of every drawing as a miraculous occurrence. It takes a while to make a drawing you find interesting. Curiously people think that the difficulty is making things look accurate. Accuracy is the least significant part of drawing, but you have to learn to draw accurately before you can draw expressively.
Via Fish McGill
About me
"Yes, I do need another microblog. I'm that interesting."This is just a collection of inspiring photos I come across while reading the millions of blogs I follow. Most of the contents do not belong to me. If you find your work here and would like me to remove it, simply contact me.
