The Daily Show with Jon Stewart uses humor to explore, analyze, and criticize current media and political trends, politicians, and campaigns. Reappropriation uses video as an argument against the original producers of that content, one of the tools used to highlight the problems with the political and current media coverage. The effectiveness of using reappropriated video is analyzed through a rhetorical analysis, combining argumentative analysis and functional analysis. Through this analysis a structure is developed for three types of arguments used by The Daily Show: highlighting absurdity, the political fact check and highlighting contradictions, and exposing social and media patterns. The analysis explores the strengths and weaknesses of each type of reappropriation, and the structural form of the argument.

En metastudie som använder sig av en specifikt anpassad tolkning av grounded theory för att undersöka The Daily Shows satiriska kritik och funktion, samt hur detta relaterar till det sociologiska perspektivet. Fynden visar på en problematik som väl överrensstämmer med mer allmänna sociologiska teorier hos Foucault, Bourdieu och Habermas. Satiren visar sig utöva en serie meningsfulla funktioner som har potential att verka som en populistisk samhällskritik med stort inflytande. Satiren visar sig dock inte vara en problemfri diskurs och ett antal problem identifieras som behöver adresseras för att diskursen ska kunna åberopa någon form av legitimitet. / A meta-study which uses a specifically tailored interpretation of grounded theory to explore The Daily Shows satiric critique and function, as well as how it relates to the sociological perspective. The findings show a complex of problems that well corresponds to the more general sociological theories of Foucault, Bourdieu and Habermas. The satire is found to perform a series of meaningful functions with potential to act as a populist form of social criticism with a large influence. However, satire is also found to be a problematic discourse and a series of problems are identified that needs to be addressed for the discourse to invoke any form of legitimacy.

The Daily Show är ett halvtimmeslångt amerikanskt humorprogram som sänds på kabelkanalen Comedy Central. Programmet tar upp nyheter, främst om politik, på ett humoristiskt sätt med hjälp av klipp från etablerade nyhetskanaler. Vår undersökning syftar till att ta reda på hur The Daily Show förändrats efter valet 2008 då Barack Obama valdes till president. Vi har jämfört inslagen i 32 The Daily Show-avsnitt från hösten 2005 med lika många från samma period 2009. Extra fokus har lagts på hur programmet behandlar nyhetsmedier. Dessutom har vi undersökt programmets gästlistor från hela dessa år, samt tagit hjälp av en tidigare studie från 2007 för att se vilken sorts gäster som får framträda och om det skett någon förändring. Vår studie visar att The Daily Show gått mot att kritisera och rikta satir mot nyhetsmedier som CNN och Fox News i större utsträckning än tidigare. Särskilt Fox News har fått en mycket större andel av programmets uppmärksamhet. Färre underhållare finns med som gäster, till förmån för fler politiska kommentatorer, journalister och författare. Programmet fokuserar till största del på sakfrågor och inte enskilda personer.

Shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, Saturday Night Live, and even South Park represent an underresearched subfield of discourse about political communication and persuasion. These shows manage to reach audiences not traditionally known for high levels of political engagement and draw them in with their comedic framework. This thesis investigates the impact of televised political satire on public perceptions of presidential candidates and campaign issues and the direct result these impacts may have on presidential elections. This thesis first gives some background in the types of communication and personalities of the front-men and women of these shows and then moves into a historical account of how the exigence for this recent explicit hybridization between comedy and news emerged. It then analyzes how these comedians view their own role within media and politics. It provides a thick account of the liberalizing force televised political satire has been for the American political climate so far, and where it will likely lead us in the near future with the growth of new communication technologies.

This study analyzes 2008 presidential election coverage on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report to determine how they confront the tension between the genres of news and entertainment. To this point, much of the scholarly work on political entertainment news has focused on examining its effects on viewers' political attitudes and knowledge. A rhetorical analysis reveals the actual messages they convey and the strategies they employ to discuss contemporary American politics. Through comedic devices such as satire and parody, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report offer a venue for social commentary and criticisms of power at a time when traditional venues are dissipating, and these shows provide a place for serious political discourse that encourages dialogue that promotes civic engagement. / Master of Arts

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2018-12-14T13:30:30Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Victor Manoel Fernandes_.pdf: 1268347 bytes, checksum: e887aa9ed3f37aacb3975c704fdaaddc (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-14T13:30:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Victor Manoel Fernandes_.pdf: 1268347 bytes, checksum: e887aa9ed3f37aacb3975c704fdaaddc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-07-19 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / A presente dissertação de mestrado tem por objetivo investigar as críticas de Kierkegaard à Ciência da Lógica de Hegel contidas em seu Pós-Escrito. A respeito da relação Kierkegaard-Hegel, foram diferenciadas duas perspectivas frente a ela: a primeira é a que visa a relação do ponto de vista psicológico, isto é, que pretende saber se Kierkegaard estava contra Hegel, se ele escrevia seus livros com o intuito de atacar Hegel; e a segunda, por sua vez, que visa a relação do ponto de vista filosófico ou teórico, isto é, concentra-se em saber se as críticas de Kierkegaard cabem à filosofia de Hegel, sem pretender saber se esse autor era o verdadeiro alvo kierkegaardiano. Para atingir seus objetivos, essa pesquisa adotou a segunda perspectiva. Esta dissertação também analisou a posição de Niels Thulstrup e Jon Stewart acerca dessa relação. A atenção foi concentrada no segundo deles, tido como o status quæstionis sobre a relação investigada – resultando, no posicionamento frente a ele, um objetivo secundário para essa pesquisa. A fim de oferecer uma outra interpretação a uma pequena parcela de sua visão geral e também a uma interpretação específica a respeito da relação Kierkegaard-Hegel, essa dissertação investigou a relação filosófica entre Kierkegaard e Trendelenburg. Os resultados da pesquisa são os de que há aspectos importantes da Ciência da Lógica de Hegel contidos no Pós-Escrito de Kierkegaard e que aí são criticados – fazendo com que a relação Kierkegaard-Hegel também seja teórica e crítica, e não apenas passiva ou inexistente acerca da lógica; item relativo à visão geral de Stewart –, que Kierkegaard e Hegel não têm a mesma posição a respeito do início da lógica – item relativo a uma interpretação específica de Stewart – e que as condições colocadas por Kierkegaard em "(a) um sistema lógico pode haver" têm influência trendelenburguiana e, assim, são incompatíveis com princípios defendidos por Hegel. / This Master’s dissertation aims to investigate Kierkegaard's criticisms of the Hegel's Science of Logic contained in his Postscript. In regard to the Kierkegaard-Hegel relationship, two perspectives have been differentiated from it: the first one is that which relates to the psychological point of view, that is, whether Kierkegaard was against Hegel, if he wrote his books for the purpose of attacking Hegel; and the second one, in turn, is concerned with the relationship from a philosophical or theoretical point of view, that is, it focuses on whether Kierkegaard's criticisms fit Hegel's philosophy, without pretending to know whether this author was the true Kierkegaardian target. To reach its objectives, this research had adopted the second perspective. This dissertation also analyzed the position of Niels Thulstrup and Jon Stewart on this relationship. Attention was focused on the second of them, considered as the status quæstionis on the investigated relation – resulting, in the positioning before him, a secondary objective for this research. In order to offer another interpretation to a small part of his overview and also to a specific interpretation of the Kierkegaard-Hegel relationship, this dissertation investigated the philosophical relationship between Kierkegaard and Trendelenburg. The results of the research are that there are important aspects of Hegel's Science of Logic contained in Kierkegaard's Postscript and criticized there – making the Kierkegaard-Hegel relationship also theoretical and critical, not just passive or non-existent about logic; item on the general view of Stewart – that Kierkegaard and Hegel do not have the same position regarding the beginning of logic – an item relating to a specific interpretation of Stewart – and that the conditions put by Kierkegaard in "(a) a logical system can be given" has a Trendelenburgian's influence and thus are incompatible with principles defended by Hegel.

In this paper, I consider the success of Jonathan Swift’s The Drapier’s Letters and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show in changing the political climate of the world around them. By analyzing the political background of America in the 2000s and the Irish reaction to William Woods’ patent in the 1720s, I prove the influence of Stewart and Swift’s satire. I then analyze the specific tactics each employs in order to achieve an audience and influence change, concluding by comparing the similar tactics that each use, including persona, irony, and humor as a veil of serious intent.

Thesis advisor: William Stanwood / The Daily Show with Jon Stewart's ascendance into the mainstream consciousness has reached a point where many not only consider it to be a source of news, but also Stewart to be one of the most respected and important journalists in the country. This study investigated The Daily Show’s impact on the general public using the theoretical framework of agenda-setting. After grounding the study in existing scholarly research, data, content and textual analyses were performed on 12 Daily Show episodes, as well as data analysis on the corresponding network news broadcasts. It was then concluded that The Daily Show has no significant impact on what people think about no matter what variables were analyzed. Thus, Stewart likely has been right all along in his claim that he and his team are not journalists – rather, they are merely producing a comedy show that happens to involve news and parodies news broadcasts. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2011. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: Communication Honors Program. / Discipline: Communication.

Master of Arts / Department of Communication Studies, Theatre, and Dance / Timothy R. Steffensmeier / The 2008 presidential campaign controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons had the potential to derail Barack Obama’s candidacy. At the heart of the controversy was race, specifically Whiteness. Obama’s speech “A More Perfect Union” is perhaps one of the most significant political speeches addressing race to date, and warrants analysis. However, Barry Brummett’s book Rhetorical Dimensions of Popular Culture (1991) argues the critic should not be limited to discrete traditional texts, rather should be able to break outside such traditional speaker-focused boundaries. Brummett’s mosaic model allows an exploration of the intersection between popular and political rhetoric of Obama and The Daily Show. I will argue from the intersection we see the emergence of the comic frame as a homology that links the disparate texts of Obama and TDS. I will argue the reason the comic frame emerges from the texts is because there is a societal mandate for the comic frame. Thus, I will ultimately argue the mandate for the comic frame can be better understood as a social movement. However, it is a movement comprised of numerous individual movements, and warrants a new term: meta-movement. Obama and TDS are not leaders of this meta-movement, but instead should be seen as contributors. Brummett urges the critic to consider “the political or ideological interests served by ordering a rhetorical transaction in a certain way” (1991, p. 98). I will argue constructing the rhetoric of Obama and TDS with the comic frame serves the ideological interests of those who are fighting for social justice and working to subvert Whiteness. Thus, I have named the meta-movement to which Obama and TDS contribute a critical optimist movement, because the comic frame provides the tools to be critical of hegemony while ultimately reinforcing the optimistic assumption of the comic frame: all humans are ultimately both flawed and good.

Jon Stewart, the anchor and purveyor of “fake news,” has catapulted television's The Daily Show into prominence. The show functions as both a source of political humor and a vehicle for political commentary. This thesis explores how the program visually and rhetorically problematizes the hegemonic model of traditional television news, and how it tips the balance between what is considered serious news and what has become cliché about the broadcast industry.