Hey everyone,
Here are this weeks blog post and questions (be sure to watch the video before reading/commenting):
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/10/republican-debate-magnets-and-men.html
1) Did watching the video make you dive into the article with certain expectations? Did it further your understanding of the topic at hand? Why might the author have decided to incorporate the video in her article?
2) How is humor used throughout the article? Is the use of humor effective (i.e. does it aid your understanding of the article or does it just overshadow the author's message)?
3) How does recapping the exchange between Bachmann and Anderson Cooper add to the article?
Comment Away!
"He put us in Libya; he is now putting us in Africa."
ReplyDelete~Michelle Bachmann's stupidity
My first impression of the article could be summed up in three words: "What the hell?!" Honestly, I feel as if moving to Canada would be the best plan of action if any of these people actually (god help us all...) managed to beat Barack Obama in 2012.
Of course, my awareness of the debates only stems from this current article, therefore everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the video alone displays how confused and hostile these people are about the topics at hand, as well as their peers' standings on issues. This should be expected from a political debate of any kind, especially a Republican debate, but Amy Davidson, the author, probably intended to emphasize the confusion through the use of such rhetoric.
Unfortunately, while sitting in the library reading and watching, I laughed hysterically. Now, I say "unfortunately" not out of self-embarrassment but out of shame. These people help run this nation, yet their ignorance is unyielding. Granted, place most people onto a live CNN broadcast and it'll be like an updated version of the 90s show Kids Say the Darndest Things. That is the only leeway I can give them, because these people are supposed to be professionals...at least, I thought so...
~Chris
first off, i dont necessarily like reading articles like this for two reasons..one being that i hate anything involving politics and two i hate articles that try to shove the authors opinion down my throat...after reading this you cant help but feel disgruntled,annoyed and as angsty as the author does. so that being said..
ReplyDeletei dont feel like the humor was effective...i feel like politicians are the most misunderstood breed of human. understandably i dont even understand them. but i also cant imagine being the person who is solely responsible for our countrys well being. so i am never really amused by articles that tease and taunt politicians because there might be some out there that deserve it..but i feel like generally their every word and move is extremely overanalyzed and it annoys me.
i feel like the recapping was just another opportunity that the author seized to make more cheap, easy jokes. to be fair that politician in particular set herself up for that one
I definitely doved into the article with certain expectations. The video was very "entertaining", and I thought the article would feed off of that same energy as the video, but it falied to do so. I think the video really did help me with the topic because I'm not interested in politics and I only watched a few debates before, but presenting a video made it more interesting to read, even though I felt the topic of the arugement wasn't the highlight of the main issues in America. I think the author added this video to give the readers a sense of how debates are ran and bring some type of humor to polictics, but I honestly thought it was embarrassment to our country.
ReplyDeleteThat video left me stunned. I usually hate watching television that has anything to do with politics because everyone just ends up yelling over the other person. When I was younger, we used to call them "blah blah shows" because you could never understand when they would yell over each other. (Here's an image I saw recently that related to this idea: http://i.imgur.com/XHXPk.png) But this video, it shocked me. Our politicians are extremely immature, and I for one would be embarrassed to have anyone like that running our country. It definitely led me to reading the article with certain expectations because I was appalled.
ReplyDeleteThe humor distracted me a bit, but I could understand how some people with strong opinions might be able to appreciate it.
The last portion with Cooper... I don't even have words for how embarrassing that is.
When I watched the video, I was immediately drawn in. I wanted to read the article because I thought it was going to be as amusing as the video, but unfortunately it wasn't. I don't think the article did a good job with trying to be "funny." I didn't laugh at all while reading it, but I sort of chuckle while watching the video. To answer the question, I do think the authors attempt to be funny over shadows the message of the article. I can honestly say I'm not quite sure what message the article is trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteI went into the article with a curious attitude, waiting for what just happened in the video to be explained a little more further. It was a good setup to the article, and was a very good technique to getting the reader’s attention. The author may’ve decided to incorporate the video for two reasons: 1) To give background knowledge about the debates before reading the article and 2) to get the reader’s attention because, let’s face it, who doesn’t like a good old argument?!
ReplyDeleteHumor is used throughout this article in a kind of smart, witty sense. I feel like the article was exposing the republican debaters for lacking reasoning and seriousness, while having a sarcastic sense of humor at the same time. I mean, let’s get real about the whole Libya not being in Africa thing and the apples and oranges tax analogy. Both of those examples seem to lack some reasoning and seriousness to me, and the way that they’re presented in the article makes it seem like the author thinks so too. I think the use of humor is effective, simply because if the author didn’t recognize how far-fetched some of this stuff was and utilize it’s humor in the presentation of the article, it might’ve not been as interesting/entertaining.
The debate is between magnets and men. From the article, we see that Bachmann doesn’t present the most logical answer to a question Cooper asks. Congresswoman Bachmann, a woman with an opinion, totally goes off on this Libya tangent when asked about budget cuts. Maybe the title has a little sexist connotation as in women should stay out of the debate because its between magnets and, specifically, men. Through the little back and forth session of Bachmann and Cooper, the article almost makes an argument for why that should be, simply because of what the Congresswoman said and how it was completely irrelevant to the question asked.
The video definitely dives me into the article with a certain expectation. The video shocked me with the debate between these two candidates. I find they are extremely funny and changed my view to the political things. However, I don feel the article developed the humor effectively. This article helps me understand the argument during the debate and more funny politics stories. But in my point of view, the humor use just overshadow the author's message and makes me a little bit confused about the American politics. Whatever, this video refresh my mind with the American politics and it's so impressive.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I just want to say that all these republican candidates are a bunch of quacks who don't know what they're talking about. My respect for each candidate decreased drastically after reading this article. I don't think there has been a group of republican candidates this bad in a long time. I personally tend to lean a touch on the conservative side, but as of now, I can't see myself voting for any of these candidates. With her comment about not knowing that Libya is in Africa, Michelle Bachman has confirmed my belief that she is unfit to run this country. She has to be the most uninformed presidential candidate in recent memory.
ReplyDeleteRick Perry is just a huge hypocrite from Texas. He attacks other candidates based on information that may or may not be true. The only candidate I remotely like is Mitt Romney is the only candidate I remotely like. I feel like he doesn't put his foot in his mouth as much as the other candidates do. His policies seem to be the most realistic, and actually seem like they could be completed while in office. Policies like Herman Cain's 9 9 9 plan is an okay idea I guess, but if he were somehow elected, it would never happen.
I did enjoy the humor in the article. I always like a good joke at Michelle Bachman because, let's face it, she has as much of a chance of getting te nomination as a chimpanzee does. All in all, I really enjoyed this article
-Collin
After watching the video, I was pretty interested in what the article had to say. I felt that the part of the debate in the video was ridiculous. Although I did find it humorous. I think the humor in the article is semi-effective. I feel the recapping of the exchange between Bachmann and Cooper add to the article by showing how ridiculous some of these candidates are.
ReplyDeleteThis article/video basically highlights the ridiculousness that is American politics. Having said that, I think that the humor included in the article meant to highlight this, but seemed only to try to downplay the seriousness of the situation.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, including the exchanges between Cooper and the other candidates did help to drive the point home. To me, it emphasized the point that the event is less of a debate as much it is just a platform to spread propaganda.
My family is very involved in politics and I have always vowed to stay as far away from it as I can and I think article supports my decision. After watching the video I was expecting the article to be about the immaturity that some politicians exhibit during debate. But really, they couldn't even let each other speak. The humor, in my opinion, gives the article a tone of judgement on the current political players in America, and makes fun of their supposed incompetence. The exchange between Bachmann and Cooper only supported this.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really into politics, but the video definitely was intriguing and made me want to read the article. I think the video did raise my expectations for the article, although I did not really find the article humorous. The article did not meet my expectations because it was not as interesting as the video. The author may have incorporated the video into the article to grab readers' attention.
ReplyDeleteThe video brings up a major point of the entire debate, and that is illegal immigration. Perry accuses Romney of hiring illegal immigrants to mow his lawn, but Romney fires back saying Perry provided for illegals during his government work. This brings up the fact that illegal immigrants have become a major issue in our society, as they could be doing even the most minuscule things and people would not think anything of it, but once they demand equal rights, a great debate is sparked.
ReplyDeleteThe video definitely draws the reader in and makes them want to know more about the debate, even if they are not particularly interested in politics.
Humor is used throughout the article to point out how off topic politicians can get when debating, simply just to maintain conversation and keep the floor. The author's use of humor to describe things also helps to keep the audience interested by providing mental images to maintain interest.
The recap at the end shows that the politicians involved in debates have things planned out to say, and if they see the opportunity to plug in their desired comment, they will, even if it does not pertain to the question at all. This may make the politicians seem ignorant or that they don't care about the debate, but they have certain things they want to say and will say them even if it is not an opportune time.
I think the article didn't seem that humorous to me, especially compared to the videobut I do think the situation is humorous. The fact that the politicians only arguments were to talk over each other leading from nervousness I'm guessing. I don't really understand politics and the article was a little confusing for me, and the video link made me think the author of the article would go more in depth of what was going on. The recap of the argument just made the politicians seem silly and immature as they barked out random thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThe video was actually really interesting to watch. It seemed like the two politicians were arguing instead of having a civil debate like I thought politicians have. The video managed to capture my attention and make me feel curious about what I was going to read next in the article. However, I was disappointed because the humor in the article didn't speak to me. It was a good idea for the author to put the video in front because it draws people's attention to the article.
ReplyDeleteI've never been into politics so I think it was very surprising that the video actually caught my attention.
I thought that the video was pretty funny. To see these people, who are trying to run for office, yell at each other like little kids was quite humorous. By watching the video, I was expecting a funny reaction by the author. I think that the author incorporated the video to grab the reader's attention, as well as to show exactly how part of the debates went down.
ReplyDeleteThe author's style of writing in this article is humorous, and it helps the article tremendously. Without the humor, this article is just a boring summary of the debates. Instead, the author makes it funny, almost mocking the attitudes of the potential candidates.