• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Colbert Study: Conservatives don't know he's joking

Tricky said:
Both Colbert and Stewart have a liberal bias, but they basically make fun of politicians. Both had a field day with Elliot Spitzer and Blago. The first law of political humor is, "attack whatever is on the front page".
Click to expand...
I wasn't implying they don't make fun of any liberal or liberal topic. I would, were I in their shoes, be making fun of all sorts of left wing nut jobs like the homeopaths and 911 CTers.

But such satire would clearly be easily recognizable by 'we liberals' (if I may generalize for the sake of the discussion) here on the forum. Would you consider a joke on Blago to be a joke on you? Of course not. But a joke on Palin or Bush? I think that would be generalized to be a joke on the conservatives in the study which would be a joke they failed to recognize.

And GreNME implied Colbert jokes equally about the left and right as if the satire was not mostly about conservative themes.
 
GreNME said:
Exactly. A lot of Colbert's over-the-top-isms are ambiguously double-entendre-like in their make-up, in order to make both extremes look ridiculous. ....
Click to expand...
I'm not buying that. Can you point to some examples? You can find all of Colbert's clips on his website if you aren't in a country they are blocked in.

I'm not predicting whether the number of jokes will shift politically given the change of the guard in DC, but show us some typical examples you have seen in the past.

For example, when he interviewed Eleanor Holmes Norton, she thought (at first) he was insulting her. I saw that as her not recognizing he was making fun of the right by role playing a right winger.

Of course that is similar to my not recognizing Landover was a joke. The confirmation bias is in the direction of expecting the worst, so you believe the extreme is real, rather than failing to recognize the jokes about you. So this is not a comment about who is smarter at recognizing satire. It's about confirming what you expect.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Looks like projection on the part of some posters:
They have no sense of humor, and can't believe that anyone can laugh at themselves...
Click to expand...
That misses the point. I think the semantics issue with the title is less of an issue now that I think about it further. The conservatives in the study interpreted jokes on conservative views and personalities to actually be jokes on liberal views and personalities. The fact conservatives found it funny suggests they were laughing at liberals, not laughing at themselves.
 
m_huber said:
Ok, speaking of sites where it's hard to tell if it's satire or not, how about godhatesfags.org? It looks stupid, but...
Click to expand...
You are talking about Poes law, a related but different issue.

That would be when it isn't satire but it looks like it is. This study was about satire that looked real.

But it brings up an interesting hypothesis. Could it be that rather than confirmation bias per se, if you are so radical one cannot tell if your views are satire, perhaps you don't recognize satire because it actually does look real to you rather than because you think it is real because of distorted perception of confirmation bias.
 
arthwollipot said:
Well, they lampooned the "LHC is going to destroy the earth" guy.
Click to expand...
That goes with those liberal crazies like the 911 CTers. Clearly being a liberal is no guarantee one is not a nut job, or that one understands science or critical thinking.

And now perhaps some of the 'normal' right wingers will extricate themselves from the radical right of their side of the isle. The thing is, however, the liberal nut jobs are more likely the fringe even being more likely to be in the Green Party where as the right wing nut jobs were the mainstream right wingers and not many Republicans protested that fact.

There is still talk that Sarah Palin would make a good Republican President. That's on par with saying Harriet Miers was qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge. Not qualified, political views irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
That goes with those liberal crazies like the 911 CTers. Clearly being a liberal is no guarantee one is not a nut job, or that one understands science or critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Libs are at a disadvantage. They are assumed moonbats until proven otherwise.

And now perhaps some of the 'normal' right wingers will extricate themselves from the radical right of their side of the isle. The thing is, however, the liberal nut jobs are more likely the fringe even being more likely to be in the Green Party where as the right wing nut jobs were the mainstream right wingers and not many Republicans protested that fact.
Click to expand...

You just exhibited the same confirmation bias.

There is still talk that Sarah Palin would make a good Republican President. That's on par with saying Harriet Miers was qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge. Not qualified, political views irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To be qualified to run for POTUS you need to be a natural born citizen, have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Fortunately, the Constitution trumps skeptigirl's nasal appraisal of who can become POTUS.
 
Prometheus said:
How about P.J. O'Rourke?
Click to expand...

.
I love his work!
I've just finished (again) "Holidays in Hell" and started "Republican Party Reptile", both of which I first picked up in 1988. And sharing the reading time with "Best Science and Nature Writing, 2008".
Peej is really too intelligent to be a real Republican, and more cynical than any Dumbocrat.. Pretty much a Libertarian, but not a plank-owner of that philosophy either.
He's a lot like Stewart and Colbert with his insights into everyone's stupidities.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
I'm not buying that. Can you point to some examples? You can find all of Colbert's clips on his website if you aren't in a country they are blocked in.

I'm not predicting whether the number of jokes will shift politically given the change of the guard in DC, but show us some typical examples you have seen in the past.

For example, when he interviewed Eleanor Holmes Norton, she thought (at first) he was insulting her. I saw that as her not recognizing he was making fun of the right by role playing a right winger.

Of course that is similar to my not recognizing Landover was a joke. The confirmation bias is in the direction of expecting the worst, so you believe the extreme is real, rather than failing to recognize the jokes about you. So this is not a comment about who is smarter at recognizing satire. It's about confirming what you expect.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and don't buy it-- I'm not selling it to you. His 'Better Know a District' segments are typically a mix of humor and poking fun at the congressperson. In all of his interviews he plays the buffoon, but it's not always a partisan buffoon.

ETA: I highly doubt trying to point out specific instances is going to be very convincing to you. Not because they aren't convincing, but because Colbert's type of humor is a very good cipher for detecting ideological bias in those watching it. It's made to evoke a reaction of some sort, and typically the more partisan one is the more likely they are to get a one-sided view of the joke he's making of politics in general. The same applies to Stewart, but he's more obvious (and, in my opinion, funny) about it.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
The Irony of Satire - Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert ReportOne of the authors was interviewed on Olbermann tonight. It was fascinating. How could people not know Colbert was making fun of conservatives? The brain does funny things

This could have gone in entertainment or politics or brain science. So I sort of compromised putting it here. I want to talk about how a person's political views affect perception but I don't want this to be about which side is better or smarter or that kind of drivel. I know there are plenty of ignorant liberals and that's not what I'm trying to say. And there are obviously some intelligent conservatives. But why did the researchers get these particular results with Colbert viewers?

I am fascinated by how people completely distort the world around them to fit their world view. I'm tempted to say, well the liberals get the Colbert joke and the conservatives don't. So it isn't that we all are distorting the world to fit our views, just these conservatives are.

I wish there was an equivalent study to settle the question. Are both groups equally likely to get satire wrong or just the conservatives when it comes Colbert viewers? Wasn't there a YouTube or other Internet access song a while back that wasn't clear which political side the song was on? Does anyone remember which video I'm talking about?
Click to expand...

That is not what the report says:

Quote:
Heather L. LaMarre; The Ohio State University, HLaMarre@gmail.com, et al

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.
Click to expand...

The report says that both conservatives and liberals think he is joking. The conservatives think he is acting like an idiot who thinks he is a conservative and liberals probably think he is making fun of typical conservatives.

Colbert is always in character. So it is really anyones guess how he really thinks anyway.

Conservatives get tired of this and turn him off early. So they might likely think he is really a conservative pretending to be a jackass.
 
Colbert has made no secret of the fact that he's playing a jackass conservative on his show.
 
Cicero said:
To be qualified to run for POTUS you need to be a natural born citizen, have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Fortunately, the Constitution trumps skeptigirl's nasal appraisal of who can become POTUS.
Click to expand...
Fortunately the voters trump your imagination Palin is qualified.
 
GreNME said:
Go ahead and don't buy it-- I'm not selling it to you. His 'Better Know a District' segments are typically a mix of humor and poking fun at the congressperson. In all of his interviews he plays the buffoon, but it's not always a partisan buffoon.

ETA: I highly doubt trying to point out specific instances is going to be very convincing to you. Not because they aren't convincing, but because Colbert's type of humor is a very good cipher for detecting ideological bias in those watching it. It's made to evoke a reaction of some sort, and typically the more partisan one is the more likely they are to get a one-sided view of the joke he's making of politics in general. The same applies to Stewart, but he's more obvious (and, in my opinion, funny) about it.
Click to expand...
Translation, you cannot point to any clips that support your claim. That's fine.

As for the Better Know a District, he plays a right wing buffoon. And when there is satire re individual nutjobs like some of the local politicians who have wacky positions, I don't see any of those translating to liberal core issues.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
...The report says that both conservatives and liberals think he is joking. The conservatives think he is acting like an idiot who thinks he is a conservative and liberals probably think he is making fun of typical conservatives.

Colbert is always in character. So it is really anyones guess how he really thinks anyway.

Conservatives get tired of this and turn him off early. So they might likely think he is really a conservative pretending to be a jackass.
Click to expand...
Thai is right, Colbert's character has been discussed both by him and by Stewart as playing the role of a really dumb conservative.
 
Re Colbert's character:

Stephen ColbertWP
The Colbert Report, a Daily Show spin-off which parodies the conventions of television news broadcasting,[14] particularly cable-personality political talk shows like The O'Reilly Factor and Scarborough Country.[3][33] Colbert hosts the show in-character as a blustery right-wing pundit, generally considered to be an extension of his character on The Daily Show. Conceived by co-creators Stewart, Colbert, and Ben Karlin in part as an opportunity to explore "the character-driven news,"

Colbert filled in for Sam Seder on the second episode of The Majority Report on Air America Radio, and has also done reports for The Al Franken Show.

Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Democrat.[70][71] In an interview at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard Institute of Politics, he stated that he has "no problems with Republicans, just Republican policies."[72] He is also a practicing Roman Catholic,[13] as well as a Sunday school teacher.[73][74][75]
Click to expand...

Stephen Colbert (character)WP
Described as a "well-intentioned, poorly informed high-status idiot,"[1] the character is a blustery, self-obsessed right-wing commentator with a strong distaste for facts. He incorporates aspects of the real Colbert's life and interests, but is modeled primarily as a parody of cable news pundits, particularly Bill O'Reilly.[2]

Described as a "caustic right-wing bully",[40] an "arch-conservative blowhard",[41] and by his creator and namesake as a "well-intentioned, poorly-informed, high status idiot," Colbert is egomaniacal, xenophobic and fiercely anti-intellectual. He claims to be politically independent, like his idol Bill "Papa Bear" O'Reilly; although in fact the character fawns over the Bush administration and the Republican Party, and frequently asks his guests, "George Bush: Great president, or the greatest president?" Since the election of Barack Obama, Colbert continues his right-wing views, but claims he will "support our new President as long as [he] remains popular". Colbert emphasizes that his character is genuinely well-meaning and wants to do the right thing, but does not have the tools to achieve it "because he has no curiosity, he doesn't like to read and he won't listen to anybody except the voices in his head."[42]
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

I see no suggestion there of being satire about liberals as a group. I think what may be confusing here is the fact not all Republicans are represented by the Bush crowd, Fox News, Limbaugh and so on. Trouble is, for the last 8+ years Republicans not represented by those wingers have been invisible.
 
skeptigirl said:
Thai is right, Colbert's character has been discussed both by him and by Stewart as playing the role of a really dumb conservative.
Click to expand...

I am just wondering which South Park character you identify with. I am leaning towards Principal Victoria or Jesus.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Translation, you cannot point to any clips that support your claim. That's fine.

As for the Better Know a District, he plays a right wing buffoon. And when there is satire re individual nutjobs like some of the local politicians who have wacky positions, I don't see any of those translating to liberal core issues.
Click to expand...

No, translation is that you are displaying an obvious case of heavy confirmation bias, and I tire of trying to reason with fanaticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom