contemporary politicians
Entire chapter 20 primarily talks of contemporary politicians, who have enthusiastically taken the position of commercial branding techniques. The primary purpose of doing this is to spread the already tested emotional message to the public sphere that contrary work against the principle of a democratic field. By doing this, the politicians believe that they will quickly develop trust in fighting their political brand. The Daily Show With Jon Stewart portrays the faultless transmission of the prevailing brand messages through parodying the media on trouble-free dissemination of leading brand. Through these mechanisms, the media is demanded to broadcast dissenting political news that can easily open room for critique and questioning. It’s unfortunate to note that the chapter does not work with rational arguments that are supported by logic and facts. Instead, there is extensive use of funny parodic discourse whose primary role is to combat serious issues that need to address.
Politicians and political parties are equipped with a branding mechanism that is perfected in the commercial markets places with one aim to mask out the right message and instead politicizes their self-centred political policies. This instead is discriminative to the heart of deliberative patriots who argue and believes that at not at any time can the democracy endures in the absence of open and rational political conversation. It’s good to note that most of the fashionable democratic theory usually rests on two approaches. These two theories state that the public sphere will always remain to be populated with disparate and multiple voices that freely engage with each other resulting in rational conversation.
From this chapter, it is evident that every politician is now using all the existing commercial branding method to develop emotional, rather than factual or rational appeals to the general public all in an attempt to bring to an end the competing political messages. This form of a problem is everywhere in democratic theorists who demand that the numerous voices that engage in factual, reasonable and open conversation are a requirement for democracy. Nevertheless, what intellectual theorist such as Habermas needs to embrace and recognize is the right way of bringing to an end the prevailing emotional-laden images with different emotional-laden images that can effectively disrupt the leading model from the inside. In a case where the predominant political brands operate on fear of weapons or fear of terrorist or any other relevant destruction, it merely means that there will be additional destruction of traditional value systems.
In this chapter, it is clear that The Daily Show With Jon Stewart develops an alternative voice that instead utilizes emotional-laden conversation. Though this is the case, the discourse that has been engaged by the writers of the chapter is not the same mechanism of fear that has effectively been applied in the dominant political brand. As an alternative, satirical version of laughter and humour have been used. Humour is essential, and at any point, we afford to laugh, we can inevitably be able to evaluate it, examine it or even criticize. Through laughter, we prepared to disrupt any critical paralysis that is generated by fear. The Daily Show With Jon Stewart is a clear proof that we as human beings we always overlook this appealing an influential phenomenon at our peril