Media's Effect on Democracy - Coursework Example

It is quite obvious that it may be difficult to do satire and remain objective since criticizing something often involves judgment from a personal point of view. However, similarly to the negative ads, The Daily Show has outdone itself in terms of subjectivity. Lamarre, Landreville, and Beam (2009) insist that the attempts to manipulate the views of the public have been performed for a considerable amount of time; so, there is no wonder that the show in question is engaged in this activity. However, the host often tends to manipulate the evidence and present it in a light that would prove his point. For example, recently he claims that in the last five debates there were two times when the President did not get the popular vote, and he kept emphasizing that a system that makes a mistake 40% of the time should be changed. However, the history of Presidential elections is much longer than 16 years; so, the percentage that Noah kept repeating is significantly smaller.

Simplification of politics

One should also keep in mind that The Daily Show can be accused of oversimplifying the Presidential elections in particular and the political world in general. Indeed, the host implies that the Presidential candidates tend to be flamboyant personalities that are capable single-handedly influence the future of the entire country, but the truth is slightly more complex. Thus, the show may talk about the political background of a person, but it fails to acknowledge that there have been some strategic goals that one was trying to achieve over the years. As a result, The Daily Show covered the Presidential elections as some sort of a reality show, giving a little credit to the background of the candidates and justification of their actions.

Determination to entertain

Finally, one should keep in mind that political satire is a part of the entertainment industry which means that some strategic financial goals have to be achieved. As of now, The Daily Show reports that the first month after Trump won the election has been disastrous to the United States, but this information seems to be exaggerated. Indeed, there have been some protests, but the show seems to analyze the information partially and distort it in a manner that would support its claim. There is no doubt that this is some to continue its bullying of Trump and attract the audience of those who are not satisfied with the result.

Another point that should be mentioned is that to a certain extent The Daily Show is feeding the protest sentiment and encourages people to protest. It is clear that when people who are in doubt about how they should handle the results of the recent election see that well-educated people on TV openly criticize President-elect. They are much more likely to protest.

Conclusion

It has been shown that while The Daily Show has both positive and negative impact on Presidential elections as a popular satire show, the disadvantages outweigh advantages. Thus, Baumgartner (2008) claims that such shows tend to help people learn more about the candidates and Freedman (2009) insists that political satire shows increase interest to elections. However, Richardson (2003) believes that such shows amplify the trend of negative advertisements. Lamarre, Landreville, and Beam (2009) insist that people tend to be misinformed by the subjective opinions of the hosts. Berry and Sobieraj (2014) assume that serious political matters are simplified and protest sentiment is sustained.