Monday, April 27, 2009

When I was reading over a post for typos yesterday afternoon, a link from Real Clear Politics caught my eye. Blogging about the effects of the Daily Show? How salient. I've been defending a control variable for "politicized entertainment" for an analysis I've been working on for weeks.

So, I clicked on the article to see their analysis. Apparently, a political scientist at East Carolina University published a piece about the Daily Show, and how its harsh coverage of Republicans damages the party's brand.

RCP's contextualization of the article was great: they do a nice job of explaining the journal article in regular English, and why this might be important, and why it might not. And then, they link to a far worse piece in the Daily Standard. (Caveat: while, sometimes, the Weekly Standard does publish quality material, I'm not happy about linking to it. To me, it represents everything nepotistic and out of touch in Washington. I think a little piece of me just died inside.)

And then, a few more things bother me about the coverage. First, Morris is not the first person to write about this phenomena--not by a long shot. It's a bit frustrating to see him getting credit for an idea that's not particularly original.

Second, he uses the National Annenberg Election Survey. (Shout out!). But, Weekly Standard, I doubt his methods are "innovative." I'll have to take a look at the article to check, but longitudinal data is longitudinal data. The methods are not new. If anything, it's the survey that's great (*cough*), not the analysis.

Lastly, these are the lamest closing lines I've ever heard:
But conservatives should not abandon comedy in their political shtick. And given the current trajectory of unified Democratic party control in Washington, budding conservative humorists are going to have lots of material.
Here's a hint for "conservative humorists." The same old hackneyed lines about the "liberal media" and pork aren't particularly funny. Neither are tea parties.

No comments: