Watchers of The Colbert Report are the Most Informed About Campaign Finance and the Role of Money in Politics
-
“It’s the first study actually showing that Colbert is doing a better job than other news sources at teaching people about campaign financing,” said Bruce W. Hardy, Ph.D., lead author of the study and a senior researcher at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. “Consistently, we found that Colbert did better than every other news source we included in our model.”
“Colbert did better than any other news source at teaching,” Hardy said. “There were two reasons. First was the narrative structure. He walked us through creating a super PAC and every episode was a continuation of that story. And second was the use of humor and satire.”
lol... says good things about actual news
-
wait for it...................................................................wait for it.................................................................Most American's are stupid
-
So Woody and Browns tell me something about campaign finance, or super PACs or whatever that you learned The Colbert Report.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Colbert did a pretty good job at explaining a Super PAC in a way that the average person would understand, and why they should really be illegal.
-
Colbert did a pretty good job at explaining a Super PAC in a way that the average person would understand, and why they should really be illegal.
Colbert did a pretty good job at explaining a Super PAC in a way that the average person would understand, and why they should really be illegal.
"and why they should be illegal" is the key phrase in my opinion. Most viewers of the Colbert Report I would imagine are well on the left who mistakenly believe that super PACs are a demonic creation of the Republican Party and I'm sure Mr Colbert slanted his explanation that way.
For example if I did an in-depth series about why the Pittsburgh Steelers are dirty rotten cocksuckers but never added anything that was an outright lie you could say the same thing.
WSS
-
Colbert did a pretty good job at explaining a Super PAC in a way that the average person would understand, and why they should really be illegal.
"and why they should be illegal" is the key phrase in my opinion. Most viewers of the Colbert Report I would imagine are well on the left who mistakenly believe that super PACs are a demonic creation of the Republican Party and I'm sure Mr Colbert slanted his explanation that way.
For example if I did an in-depth series about why the Pittsburgh Steelers are dirty rotten cocksuckers but never added anything that was an outright lie you could say the same thing.
WSS
"and why they should be illegal" is the key phrase in my opinion. Most viewers of the Colbert Report I would imagine are well on the left who mistakenly believe that super PACs are a demonic creation of the Republican Party and I'm sure Mr Colbert slanted his explanation that way.
For example if I did an in-depth series about why the Pittsburgh Steelers are dirty rotten cocksuckers but never added anything that was an outright lie you could say the same thing.
WSS
While I know that both sides use super pacs, I can't say what the average person knows(specially after your other thread)....
Also wasn't it mostly republicans who wanted Citizens United to win in the Supreme court case, that opened it up for Super PACs?
-
"and why they should be illegal" is the key phrase in my opinion. Most viewers of the Colbert Report I would imagine are well on the left who mistakenly believe that super PACs are a demonic creation of the Republican Party and I'm sure Mr Colbert slanted his explanation that way.
For example if I did an in-depth series about why the Pittsburgh Steelers are dirty rotten cocksuckers but never added anything that was an outright lie you could say the same thing.
WSS
While I know that both sides use super pacs, I can't say what the average person knows(specially after your other thread)....
Also wasn't it mostly republicans who wanted Citizens United to win in the Supreme court case, that opened it up for Super PACs?
While I know that both sides use super pacs, I can't say what the average person knows(specially after your other thread)....
Also wasn't it mostly republicans who wanted Citizens United to win in the Supreme court case, that opened it up for Super PACs?
Yep.
You're starting to understand! Right now I believe Democrats are taking the lion's share of super PAC money but I might be wrong and who cares if I am? I remember when the Democrats were frothing at the mouth about each and every dead soldier who died in a useless war. Until, of course, Obama decided to free the Afghans or some such shit.
Or when Obama was railing against raising the debt limit.
The road goes ever on and on.
There are 2 sets of hats for the parties totrade when the other guy gets elected president.
WSS
-
Having not watched the show I don't think you can comment on its content.
Yes, generally you may see more conservative policies being ridiculed than liberal ones, but both sides get it. The goal of the show is to make fun of things in our country and govt, to use satire to point out their flaws. If one side happens to have more targets to make fun of than the other, then it will be made fun of more.
-
While I know that both sides use super pacs, I can't say what the average person knows(specially after your other thread)....
Also wasn't it mostly republicans who wanted Citizens United to win in the Supreme court case, that opened it up for Super PACs?
Yep.
You're starting to understand! Right now I believe Democrats are taking the lion's share of super PAC money but I might be wrong and who cares if I am? I remember when the Democrats were frothing at the mouth about each and every dead soldier who died in a useless war. Until, of course, Obama decided to free the Afghans or some such shit.
Or when Obama was railing against raising the debt limit.
The road goes ever on and on.
There are 2 sets of hats for the parties totrade when the other guy gets elected president.
WSS
Yep.
You're starting to understand! Right now I believe Democrats are taking the lion's share of super PAC money but I might be wrong and who cares if I am? I remember when the Democrats were frothing at the mouth about each and every dead soldier who died in a useless war. Until, of course, Obama decided to free the Afghans or some such shit.
Or when Obama was railing against raising the debt limit.
The road goes ever on and on.
There are 2 sets of hats for the parties totrade when the other guy gets elected president.
WSS
In 2012 it was about even for Super PACs 347.3mil(for reps\against dems) vs 261mil (for dems\againstreps) http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2012&disp=O&type=S&chrt=P
-
Don't misunderstand woody I have seen many episodes of that and The Daily Show. I do occasionally enjoy it and think that it's often bright and witty.
still I give it no more weight when developing my political opinions then I would Sean Hannity.
I also watch up to a couple hours of m_s_n_b_c a day.
doesn't pay to bitch if I don't know what I'm bitching about...
WSS
-
So Woody and Browns tell me something about campaign finance, or super PACs or whatever that you learned The Colbert Report.
WSS
So Woody and Browns tell me something about campaign finance, or super PACs or whatever that you learned The Colbert Report.
WSS
I watch that show to laugh.
I don't know much about campaign finance or super PAC's .The Colbert Report making fun of such things is just funny to me
-
greater than politics are memories that endure....
-
just took a look at the Pew poll again and noticed there's a little cherry picking going on here. Up there with the most knowledgeable, like those who listen to John Stewart, were viewers of the O'Reilly Factor and listeners to Rush Limbaugh.
WSS
-
The sad thing is, on of those is a comedy show on comedy central, and the other is an actual news show.
And the title doesn't say they blow everyone else out if the water, just that its the highest
-
The sad thing is, on of those is a comedy show on comedy central, and the other is an actual news show.
And the title doesn't say they blow everyone else out if the water, just that its the highest
The sad thing is, on of those is a comedy show on comedy central, and the other is an actual news show.
And the title doesn't say they blow everyone else out if the water, just that its the highest
actually they are all political commentary. The news, like CNN and even worse the local news broadcast or at the bottom.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login