Adrienne Roberts: A slow jam situation

Watching Seth Meyers spew some scarily accurate jokes at a comedy show the other Friday night made me realize that we, as a country, are not terribly self-aware. We get what we want, and then we hate it and complain, just like that. Most of us don’t realize that we sound like whiny, little children.

While this tendency may just be human nature, it’s more pronounced in America because in politics, we have two options. And usually, they’re quite extreme. Left or right. A capitalist-conservative or a hippie-liberal. Completely out of touch or just too cool.

As young people who will be voting for president in a mere six months, we want a politician that can speak to us in a language we can identify with and discuss topics we care about. Things like foreign policy are extremely important, but they aren’t what we, as college students, deal with on a daily basis.

When President Obama appeared on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” and “slow jammed” the news, it was a refreshing break from the generalized speeches that we hear on a frequent basis. It was funny, yet effective. And it hit home with college students. Not surprisingly, the Stafford Loan interest rate increase received much more attention from the press, as young people are more likely to watch a nighttime program. Obama’s “slow jam” was the third and fourth most searched item on Google for days after it aired.

Appealing to a younger generation is not solely reserved for the Democratic Party. Mitt Romney went on “The Late Show with David Letterman” to recite a “Top Ten List” in an obvious attempt to identify with the younger voting generation and make himself appear less uptight.

While both candidates have pandered to the youth vote, they have criticized each other’s methods as being insincere and condemning them as desperate attempts to relate to the younger voting generation.

But the thing is, while the goal of comedic endeavors from politicians is to ultimately persuade you to vote for them, research shows that receiving information in a humorous manner actually causes viewers to retain more information.

So, though it may appear to be just another campaign strategy, viewers are most likely learning more than they would when watching a typical debate, and may have an easier time remembering it. More viewers will tell their friends about it in the morning or post it on Facebook, all because it is a nontraditional — and funny — form of presenting news.

It’s understandable how singing about Stafford loans, which are a major concern for many students, may come off as insensitive. But it may actually be beneficial to young people who had no concept of the severity and urgency of the issue before. It’s by no means a funny issue, but a funny delivery brings about necessary thought and action.

It’s surprising, then, that we turn around and criticize these same actions that draw attention to an issue and make it seem as though politicians are dumbing them down for our demographic. The complexity of the issue remains the same — what changes is the style in which that message is delivered.

If we desire politicians that speak to us on an understandable and relatable level, then we should appreciate the fact that humor is an effective manner to get people to listen, and hopefully care.

Once we start calling presidents “too cool” when they attempt to relate to a younger generation, we risk keeping many voters in the dark.

With almost every new president, we complain that they are out of touch and have forgotten about what the youth vote needs to make an informed decision. If we continue to criticize presidential nominees Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, we should expect that their concern over issues important to us would dwindle.

As a country, we will most likely continue to be the annoying kids in the backseat on a long drive. A line needs to be drawn, however, between constructive criticism and just plain bitching.

Adrienne Roberts can be reached at adrirobe@umich.edu.