Measuring the "Colbert Bump" 674
An anonymous reader writes "Democratic politicians receive a 40% increase in contributions in the 30 days after appearing on the comedy cable show The Colbert Report. In contrast, their Republican counterparts essentially gain nothing. Moreover, even a cursory analysis demonstrates that despite being a comedy program The Colbert Report appears to exercise 'disproportionate real world influence' — likely due to the 'elite demographic' of its audience." In my home we refer to Stephen as "Loud Daddy" because my child would scream bloody murder when we paused him (and only him) on screen. Even at 8 months old the kid has strange taste.
I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Moreover, even a cursory analysis demonstrates that despite being a comedy program The Colbert Report appears to exercise "disproportionate real world influence" -- likely due to the "elite demographic" of its audience.
I saw this news a few days ago and must confess I couldn't draw a logical conclusion from it. I find the explanation in this article to be unsatisfactory also.
... and it would take just one nutjob billionaire who loves The Colbert Report to make those donations. Or it could be like a Hollywood joke for the rich and famous to build a fund.
... ah, what am I saying, there's a real lacking sense of humor on that side of the parties in my mind.
Perhaps it's interesting but little can be learned from this 'study.' There's just too many factors to say
To expound upon the conclusion of the article, what about Democratic guests of The Daily Show which is just a half hour earlier on the same channel with (probably) the same "elite demographic"?
Maybe it's really about Democratic politicians looking really good against Colbert's over the top ultra-conservatism? Just as speculative (and easily dismissed) as the article's conclusion though. Can anyone else reason out a better explanation?
Has the study looked at shows with over the top ultra-liberal hosts interviewing Republican politicians
Demographics? (Score:4, Interesting)
But perhaps Conservatives don't watch the show in the same numbers that their Liberal friends do, equating to the "gain nothing" for the right side of the aisle?
Re:Colbert is the only Liberal in America with Bal (Score:5, Interesting)
That speech was the reason I started to watch the show and then the Daily Show. :)
Since I don't have cable I don't get Comedy Central.
Even if I did have cable, I wouldn't get the US Comedy Central since I live in in the NL
So now I have a daily ritual of watching TDS and TCR online the day after it aired
One of the best things of the Daily Show imho is that they call the politicians on their stupidity and hypocrisy (sp?) every time they do something they said they wouldn't. :)
Colbert is just fantastically funny, his book is funny, the Tek Jansen DVD is funny. I just love the guy
"despite being a comedy program" (Score:5, Interesting)
Both the Colbert Report and the Daily Show are not mere news parodies or simple comedies. They're actual news shows that also happen to be funny. They don't make stuff up like SNL or the Onion, they present real news.
Sort of like the movie Shaun of the Dead. Despite what people think, it was not a parody of zombie movies, it was a real zombie movie that also happened to be really funny.
Re:Demographics? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why Colbert 'bumps' donations to Democrats and not Republicans--individual Democrats appear to have more money to spend on donations this year.
Re:Not a big Republican demographic on Comedy Cent (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm rather conservative. I watch both Colbert and Stewart because I find them both funny. Their bias is quite obvious, but I don't mind. The fact they are open about it (as opposed to trying to pretend to be neutral) makes me like them more.
Rarely do I not find something funny because of my views. I'll disagree with some of the things Stewart says (for example), but I don't take him seriously enough to be put off by it (and it doesn't happen that often).
What they spend most of their time doing, making fun of the media and politicians doing dumb things, works just as well for either party. If they ignored the Dems I would be turned off, but they are always right there to poke fun at Pelosi if she does something notably stupid.
Re:Not a big Republican demographic on Comedy Cent (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW, I'm an independent who's a social liberal (I don't care who you sleep with or marry) and government conservative(government should be the last resort for any problem outside of what's explicitly stated in the Constitution and even then it still spends too much money).
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that they invited Colbert to host the Correspondents Dinner [wikipedia.org] shows they don't have a fricking clue. (If you live under a rock and haven't seen the video of it linky linky here [google.com]...The man has balls of solid steel).
As per the "bump" I imagine it's more because Colbert is specifically looking for it, and trumpeting it. Free publicity is almost always going to create funding opportunities for politicians.
Re:Not a big Republican demographic on Comedy Cent (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Relevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it's news for Nerds and stuff that matters.
The Colbert Report is a popular show among a lot of demographics (nerds included). I'm sure if John Stewart or Stephen Colbert dropped dead today the story would make it onto Slashdot's front page and nobody would complain that it wasn't truly Slashdot material.
On top of which, the story connects with politics so that adds just of a little of "stuff that matters."
1/2 Hour News Hour (Score:5, Interesting)
" And Fox News did a Daily Show-esque show called the "1/2 Hour News Hour" [wikipedia.org] that was just abysmal to watch and not even close to funny (it ran for 13 episodes before the Fox conservatives abandoned their opposition to euthenasia long enough to grant it a mercy killing)."
Hell, I'm a conservative, and I'll be the first to tell you that show wasn't just bad, it was plain embarrassing. Bad skits. Canned laugh tracks. Every bad trick in show business you can think of, that abomination had it. It couldn't die fast enough for me.
That show was a prime example of somethings conservatives sometimes do that they never should... try to make a right wing version of a successful liberal phenomena. "Hey, we'll make a conservative Daily Show!". No, you wont. You'll make a cheap knockoff that nobody likes and is done badly. And to be fair, liberals also do this stuff as well... how many attempts have we seen to try and do a liberal version of Limbaugh's program? There's a long and distinguished list of utter failure on that front (Hello, Air America!).
For whatever reason... one sides' success.... The Daily Show, Limbaugh, pick your example... just doesn't seem to translate well to the other side. Any attempts to "reverse engineer" it and make your own seems destined to fall on it's face.
Wait a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
"That's the problem with conservatives, they can't approach things without an intensely partisan mindset"
Uh, some can, some can't. Are you actually going to claim liberals are any different? Because I'd love to point you to several major liberal websites where the denizens will readily prove to you that if it ain't liberal, it's downright evil. No room for gray areas. Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Truthout, Alternet... there's a pretty long list here. So if I were you, I'd reconsider this notion that liberals are all capable of tolerant, non-partisan thinking. They're just as human as the conservatives they oppose.
Re:Not a big Republican demographic on Comedy Cent (Score:5, Interesting)
Even when conservatives do come on Stewart or Colbert, it's generally a very uncomfortable interview (polite applause from the audience, host trying desperately to think of something good to say).
Eh, John McCain did pretty well on The Daily Show, and when I saw him a few years ago Bob Dole was absolutely awesome.
But that's The Daily Show, which has a slant sure but is perfectly willing to tear Democrats and liberals a new one whenever its appropriate. I think mostly it's because Stewart and the show came unto their own during a period when Republicans were in power and thus provided the majority of the targets. Stewart is liberal in his politics, but I don't think that dominates the show which is mostly about deriving humor from the news. It's not the same as 'liberal' or 'conservative' talk shows.
Colbert Report, though, is obviously dominated by its slant. There's no avoiding it, as his character is a caricature of a conservative talk show host. He "praised" the President to his face for going with his gut instead of facts, saying "reality has a well-known liberal bias".
But yes, even though they're different shows, I don't doubt that their demographics are largely the same, and that it doesn't include a lot of Republicans.
Re:Colbert isn't republican... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait till the Dems get into power in November (unless there's some awesome economic news in the next two months; they got it.). Then these shows will start making fun of them.
Actually what both programs do is make fun of right-wing extremists and the media that enable them. I suspect when Democrats get in power that won't change.
But hey, vote for Obama in November and help prove me wrong!
Re:Colbert isn't republican... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Demographics? (Score:4, Interesting)
Quoteth Alexander Tyler:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
The true reason for the "Economic Stimulus Package".
Re:Colbert (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, this would have been +1, Funny (Double Entendre) if we were talking about the UK, and you could be referring to both the North and South sides if the isle. As it is, though, it's merely -0.25, Bad Spelling (Aisle vs Isle) and -0.25, Bad Spelling (Reagan vs Regan). Apparently the moderators round down.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always thought that Republicans going on Stewart's or Colbert's show was a complete waste of time, unless their aim was to be mocked mercilessly with no benefits whatsoever.
I don't know, I thought Mike Huckabee's appearances were gold. The guy showed a real sense of humor. I was really disappointed when I read about his little "10 commandments are the only laws we need" speech....
Re:Not a big Republican demographic on Comedy Cent (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, his least contentious/biggest softball interview? Lynn Chaney, by far.
Eh, I actually think that was appropriate on his part. Lynn Cheney doesn't set policy. I don't see the point of beating up on someones wife just because you disagree with his policies.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson did so many times, and every time he crashed and burned horribly, establishing beyond any doubt his public image as a monumentally absent-minded posh Wodehousian buffoon. Now he's the Mayor of London.
Johnson's continued appearances on that show, long after it became clear that he himself would be the source of all the comedy, at least left him perceived as a good sport. Thoroughly bloody nice bloke. Not like the rest of those awful Tories. Certainly not up to anything nefarious or corrupt because he'd forget his own master plan five minutes into it. A harmless idiot who will probably sit in his office blithering, delegate pretty much everything, and not actually do very much. In other words, the perfect man to run the global economic hub.
Perhaps the Republicans hope for the same. Their party is perceived as a bunch of godbothering warmongering fascists; turning up on comedy shows and laughing along when the jokes are at your own expense tends to soften that image. It makes you appear more human.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Perhaps if you actually watched the show your statement would appear more informed. Colbert is just as hard on democrats as republicans, which is why Pelosi banned democrats in congress from going on his show."
I have watched some his (and Stewart's) episodes. Despite my distaste at their politics, both men are obviously very talented, and it's hard to ignore that. And while both of them make a point of skewing Democrats that are in trouble, I think you're pretty blind if you don't see the meat of both shows is liberal edged satire, with conservatives usually being in their crosshairs. They make no claim to being fair and balanced, which is one reason their audience adores them. Just like Limbaugh.
"Comparing Colbert to Limbaugh is pretty ignorant."
It's not quite apples and apples, but it's not apples an oranges either. All the hosts are essentially entertainers playing to one political slant; one is upfront about it, while another uses a device (playing an over-the-top conservative) to enhance the comedy. One has a political show that's funny, the other has a comedy show that's political. Again, since the two sides apparently have some different tastes, you're not going to get opposing analogues that are both successful... but there are more similarities than differences here considering both shows are at their core entertainment, and both men are entertainers.
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:1, Interesting)
Bashing the armed forces usually isn't cool.
Actually, it's very cool. It's just not popular among those criminals who control the military and those scum who sign up to be used as their tools against our country.
Of course scum don't like honesty. Having the balls to stand up and state the unpopular truth is extremely cool. We need far more of it if we're to have a chance of saving our once great nation from it's greatest enemies: our government and the weak willed traitors who join the military to leech off of my tax dollars while working against the interests of this country.
Re:Colbert (Score:2, Interesting)
"taking something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time you use it isn't my thing."
Is that even true?!?! I seem to hear this "info" about various drugs via our (US) government ant-drug propaganda, partnership for drug free America, esp when it is in the headlines.. like Ectasy, i knew people who had done it many times 10 years before all the news stories about it being a "problem", then when they realized kids were taking it you started hearing reports of people dying from trying it once.. ONE PILL!!! OMG!
Acid makes you go crazy, pot is worse than cigs and fund terrorism, you can go from starlet to crypt keeper in less than 6 months on speed (before you jump down my throat consider this, 2.5 million kids were given speed in 2003 for ADHD), coke will kill you if you try it... does anyone actually lend any credence to this stuff anymore?
My wife and I just laugh when we see the current spat of anti-drug commercials because they are SOOOO far from reality.
Re:Colbert (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, yes, I agree that disinformation is actually way worse than just saying the truth. But prohibition does make the drugs in the streets unhealthier than the should.
Go look for friedman's video in America's Drug Forum. The old bastard had it so well thought out, that he has me convinced that people die from bad drug use, mostly, because drugs are illegal.
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Colbert isn't republican... (Score:3, Interesting)
I kinda wish they spent more time on the content rather than developing CG flare and gargantuan LCD displays (in an attempt to mimic or surpass the Daily Show).
Re:Colbert (Score:2, Interesting)
It really is true that people drop dead from a heart attack taking coke. My grandfather died at 64 from a heart attack. I'll pass.
It may have to do with the quality of the coke but the fact is there is a subgroup of people whose bodies over and under react to anything (alchohol, grain, meat, shellfish, peanuts, cocaine). Amazingly, pot seems to be an exception (I think reported death ever). If it were legal, I'd do pot over alchohol in a heartbeat since I'm on the edge of being diabetic.
The problem with the lying anti-drug campaign is that it makes people skeptical of the very real drawbacks of using various substances (impotence, dependency, death). But what are we going to do??? Live in a 5' box our entire lives fed pap through a straw? No- you inform yourself on the risks of your activity (I will *never* skydive for example- the odds are worse than coke for sure) and then you decide if it is worth it.
Re:Colbert (Score:5, Interesting)
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
--Ronald Reagan
Reagan has all these great libertarian quotes.. but he shrunk the size of government NOT AT ALL. Even if he really believed what he was talking bout, he didn't really fix any problems. (No Reagan did not kill communism, its a popular myth but it was the unworkable system of communism that killed communism.)
They say the power of the state changes people.. I seen a cartoonist liken it to The One Ring from Lord of the Rings.. as to say those who get power are unable to destroy that power.
The cartoon is here. http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2007/12/14/no-more-kings/ [anarchyinyourhead.com]
Re:Colbert (Score:3, Interesting)
as long as the pro-drug boosters are pretending like it can't be addictive...
The definition of addiction at no point states that pot can't be addictive
Right. People can exhibit addictive behavior about virtually anything.
Lets put it this way - I am aware of no credible scientific basis that pot is any more addictive than chocolate.
And for a little amusing non-scientific research:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680,000 for chocolate addictive [google.com]
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,530,000 for pot addictive [google.com]
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,610,000 for chocoholic [google.com]
Results 1 - 10 of about 286 for potoholic [google.com]
(Interesting - apparently there are Phantom Of The Opera POTO-holics, chuckle)
Results 1 - 10 of about 61,300 for "chocolate addict" [google.com]
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,240 for "pot addict" [google.com]
Results 1 - 10 of about 41,600 for "chocolate addiction" [google.com]
Results 1 - 10 of about 9,780 for "pot addiction" [google.com]
Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "chocolate cost me my job" [google.com]
No results found for "pot cost me my job" [google.com]
Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "chocolate ruined my marriage" [google.com]
No results found for "pot ruined my marriage" [google.com]
Results 1 - 10 of about 325,000 for "death by chocolate" [google.com]
Results 1 - 10 of about 173 for "death by pot" [google.com]
(Most of those links are say "not one documented case of death by pot", and quite a few talk of pot roast, pot pie, pot noodles, or pot hole hehe)
-