Jaime Fuller at WaPo points out the "Daily Show" bit where Jon Stewart acknowledges that Koch Industries is one of the show's sponsors and runs a parody of their ad in which the voiceover listing good things the company does is replaced by a list of bad things, like "rearranging polar bears" and "lubricating birds."
Fuller articulates the "lesson": "Make sure that the content surrounding your ad buy doesn't disagree with you and have the ability to try and neutralize the effectiveness of your ad. Because they probably will."
That's a thuddingly simplistic interpretation. It could be a perfectly good choice for Koch Industries to put its ad on "The Daily Show" even knowing that it would trigger the parody.
"The Daily Show" continually slams the Koch brothers, whether they advertise on the show or not. At least the ad provides some counterweight, some nudge toward skepticism about the world view presented on the show. And the parody is so heavy-handed that some listeners might begin to think: Is it really that bad? Or even: What are liberals so afraid of here?
Some independent thoughts might arise. Like: Dark money? Don't Democrats have their own "dark money"? And: There's something creepy about fixing upon and demonizing 2 particular American citizens.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
Well at least they aren't demonizing the Jews anymore.....
There's something creepy about fixing upon and demonizing 2 particular American citizens.
Exactly this.
I wouldn't mind critiques of the policies they are trying to enact (there are probably some I disagree with), but it seems to me that many of the Koch animus is very personal. Why?
"Some independent thoughts might arise."
See: Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber.
Well at least they aren't demonizing the Jews anymore.....
Those full-page ads the Jews took out in the Völkischer Beobachter helped.
"Some independent thoughts might arise."
Independent thoughts? From the Daily Show audience? Please.
There's something creepy about fixing upon and demonizing 2 particular American citizens.
It is creepy. Especially considering most people had never heard of these people and all of a sudden, overnight, they were blamed for every evil in the country by pretty much everyone on the democrat side. It's so creepy how they march in lockstep when the orders go out...
Some independent thoughts might get completely out of hand. Like: If Koch money is so evil, why are you accepting it?
Wouldn't advertising only to people who agree with you be a waste of money? Particularly, on the margins? Isn't it possible that the Koch brothers get a lot more bang for their buck if they impress 0.5% of the people who digree with them in the Daily Show's audience vs. 0.5% of the people who disagree with them in Rush Limmbaugh's audience? Note, I don't mean the whole audience, rather the percentage of people they want to influence.
I haven't seen the Daily Show since we got rid of cable. But it seems to me that the audience of that show isn't introspective enough to get to those two last questions, let alone delve deeply enough to reach an answer. At least the studio audience.
In the name of Barnabas Collins, at what point does dark, shadowy money become so documented and publicized that it is no longer dark nor shadowy?
Couldn't find any link to the "Daily Show" reporting the Harvard poll showing likely young voters are now trending Republican.
Along with generally low ratings, that had to come as a blow to Stuart.
The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints advertised quite a bit in the playbill for Book of Mormon. It was actually quite well done and effective.
If the money is good enough for Jon Stewart, it can't be that bad.
“some listeners might begin to think”: Stewart viewers think?
“Some independent thoughts might arise”: right, for you and one or two others in the audience.
“it seems to me that many of the Koch animus is very personal. Why?” Umm, 1. They support the other side; therefore, they must be destroyed. 2. Pour décourager les autres.
Harry Reid actually slams two American citizens on the Senate Floor, for things the Democrats take for granted every year. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/30/Dem-Senator-Reid-Slams-Koch-Brothers
"Some independent thoughts might arise."
Independent thoughts? From the Daily Show audience? Please"
Exactly. I know some typical members of The Daily Show audience. Critical thinking shows up nowhere in their toolboxes.
Like the old folktale of the giant who was subdued by tucking his feet into his mouth and rolling him into an ever smaller ball until he disappeared, hasn't The Daily Show now become more a meta-parody of itself and its viewers than of anything else?
I just can't think of Jon Stewart anymore without visualizing the Stanley Tucci character from the hunger games complete with rubber face, pompadour and ponytail.
Tom
Styer
*crickets*
Clap audience, clap.
"ut it seems to me that the audience of that show isn't introspective enough to get to those two last questions, let alone delve deeply enough to reach an answer. At least the studio audience."
I think many viewers ultimately get tired of the show, the way it's the same thing over and over, with Jon Stewart yelling at us and the audience braying endless approval. If the audience is a transitory group, full of young people who regularly mature past its level, then catching them in their formative phase could be quite effective.
If you think that liberals find fixating on whomever the latest two minute hate targets "creepy," you don't know many liberals. We both know that that is not true. Liberals don't find hate "creepy" at all.
"Why?” Umm, 1. They support the other side; therefore, they must be destroyed. 2. Pour décourager les autres."
Actually, he Koch brothers and their companies are basically libertarian in philosophy. I wonder of the attacks from the Democrats affect libertarians who might be inclined to vote that way ? The old "liberaltarian" might be a vanishing breed.
The main message is "we may be evil, but we aren't evil enough that these people will refuse our money."
Fuller assumes that the Koch brothers even care about Stewart's parody. Why would they? They're not doing anything wrong, and they're not the least bit ashamed of what they're doing.
Which is why they infuriate the left so much, I think. When they criticize you, you're supposed to be shamed and afraid. The Koch's are pretty much ignoring them, and trolls can't handle being ignored.
To keep it in perspective: It's much creepier to scapegoat poor people and/or poor people of a certain race, iow, those without a lot of power.
I'm not going to take to the fainting couch with my smelling salts because the Koch brothers or, on the other side, Soros, are being occasionally called out on teeeveeee.
Althouse wrote: If the audience is a transitory group, full of young people who regularly mature past its level, then catching them in their formative phase could be quite effective.
Like the Jesuits, but with Jon Stewart instead.
Good for the Koch brothers. Like Sarah Palin, they are far, far better people then those on the left who are trying to destroy them.
MadisonMan said...
"There's something creepy about fixing upon and demonizing 2 particular American citizens.
Exactly this.
I wouldn't mind critiques of the policies they are trying to enact (there are probably some I disagree with), but it seems to me that many of the Koch animus is very personal. Why?"
Because their hero Saul Alinsky sez:
RULE 12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
They are hateful people. Alinsky gives them the rationalization to hate with abandon while still telling themselves they are the "good guys".
Soros puts 10 times the dark money in that the Koch brothers do.
But the Kochs are nearly unique amongst billionaires in that they believe in smaller and less intrusive government. The overwhelming majority of billionaire money goes to the statist causes and Democrats.
Hence their special treatment. That are traitors to their class.
Stewart cashes their checks. He can go **** himself.
Do most television viewers even make the connection that programs are sponsored by the advertisers, or do they think that the networks control the ads? Anyway, if most Daily Show viewers are like the ones in my family, then they close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears when faced with information that defies progressive beliefs.
It is creepy to go after private individuals like Soros or the Koch's on a personal level, simply because they donate to causes you disagree with. Criticize their cause all you like, or public statements they make, but all they're doing is participating in democracy. Going after them as individuals for being on the wrong side of your idiot "red team, blue team" divide is functionally no different from attacking individuals because of the way they vote.
It's even creepier when you realize that many of the Koch's positions are mainstream on the Left, such as immigration, gay marriage, etc. The Koch's may be many things, but they are not remotely the caricatures that the activists make them out to be.
When the leader of a meeting, talk or class uses their relative position of authority to shut down a participant or questioner, they risk losing the sympathy of their audience--even if the audience agrees the participant is out of line and wasting their time.
There's something creepy about fixing upon and demonizing 2 particular American citizens.
Saul Alinsky was an American, right?
I don't know if this was the Kochs' motivation for buying the ad but Jon Stewart's reaction definitely sent a message to any other potential advertisers: if you're a profitable company and you buy ads from us, we're going to smear you. The Kochs may win this battle and Jon Stewart might be begging for advertisers soon.
Just the old rule at work that: If you're taking flak, you must be over the target. Gary North says the Kochs made a strategic error forty years ago by choosing Hayek over Mises. Fooled by the Swedish central bank? There is no Noble Prize in Economics.
"The Kochs have never accepted this crucial social truth: no movement can transform a civilization if this movement is based on the writings of a puzzler. Men will not sacrifice their lives, wealth, and honor for the sake of implementing the vision of a puzzler." http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/gary-north/the-puzzler/
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा