Post your questions, comments, and position statements here.
What does it mean to take seriously, in our present conjuncture, the thought that cultural politics and questions of culture, of discourse, and of metaphor are absolutely deadly political questions?
-Stuart Hall, “Subjects in History”
Media & Conflict Student & Alumni Blogs
Categories
topics
"What is at issue here is not, 'What are the facts?' but rather, how are the facts to be described in order to sanction one mode of explaining them rather than another?"
-Hayden White, "Fictions of Factual Representation"
Recent Comments
- Shaylyn on Defining Deviance, Otherness, & Difference Spring 2010
- Shaylyn on Defining Deviance, Otherness, & Difference Spring 2010
- Kiko B on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Marika on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Katelyn R. on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- brittany s. on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Kevin N. on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Monica R. on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Caitie M on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Kendra on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Willa Kroll on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Willa Kroll on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Chris Engell on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- A. Barraza on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
- Desiree Benet on Satire & Fake News Spring 2010
“[D]iscussions of the practice and study of journalism have lost sight of the varied forms through which journalism makes its name. Particular, the communicative role played by journalism has pushed aside both its cultural and critical functions. This has prevented the establishment of a broader understanding of all that journalism does beyond the information relay established via its communicative role”
-Barbie Zelizer, "Journalism, Communication, Culture, Critique"
Archives
"Don't start from the good old things, but the bad new ones." -Bertolt Brecht
Boler “The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth”
Position Statement
“Hence we come to the Crossfire moment as the watershed: the most trusted name in fake news speaks for the masses” (p. 6).
Boler’s statement about Jon Stewart going off subject on the CNN’s Crossfire bi-partisan talk show has validity because he was a public figure who was able to reveal the truth for the masses. This is important because the masses are not popular public figures that have the power to be able to speak on broadcasted television and reveal their opinion. I agree with Boler that this statement allowed Stewart to take the opportunity as a trusted figure in “fake news” and stand up as a fellow citizen for the rest of us. It is an opportunity that is seen little to none on cable television.
I would support Boler and like to add that it was Jon Stewart’s speech was more powerful because he is a funny man who people turn to for fake news and something wise and truthful. Therefore it was much more surprising and stuck with people coming from a guy that is always seen as funny and became serious and gave a real talk on the Crossfire Show, revealing a problem with the media as they do not display civilized discourse nor a responsibility to public discourse. Jon Stewart therefore went off track to open up that opportunity for citizens because he represented a voice that had not been heard in a long time.
The importance behind his comments on Crossfire was that Jon Stewart was arguing for public deliberation and the show elicited on a response. Boler laid out evidence of a magnitude of responses on blogs and the Internet. This is important for opening up what Stewart was trying for, public deliberation. The Crossfire Show with Jon Stewart did spark a huge response of viewers, especially on blog sites, which created a chatroom for deliberation and discussion about the ethical implications behind the media and news. He sparked a debate that now requires journalists to step up their game and seek the truth.
However,I think that just because he invited journalists to step up to the plate, also means that the general public should have a responsibility to play and hit back. I think it is important to have conversations with and about the media to challenge the news and what it is revealing to the public. Therefore I would like to ask that now that a public figure has done his part by acting on behalf of fellow citizens, what efforts are being done by the masses to keep demanding the truth from the media and not giving way to corporations?
Position Statement: Boler, “The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth”
“However, in line with my argument that there is a new expression of demands for truthfulness, Jon Stewart is not simply the court jester. A recurring theme in the online discussions is that, in the current climate, truth can only be achieved through this kind of humor…While “real” news shows refuse to check political claims against reality, it has taken a “fake” news show to do actual research necessary to prove many of the lies politicians tell.”
I agree with this statement. It seems to be that journalists have become more concerned with being objective and less concerned with performing their duty as a “watch dog” for the public. Mainstream media has failed to “speak truth to power.” John Stewart uses comedy to say the unsaid for the unheard. He represents the people, which is what journalists should be doing. He is able to be critical of politics because his role as “court jester” allows him to say what he wants because he is not meant to be taken seriously. In contrast, journalists are fearful that their reporting will be seen as biased if they question the truthfulness of U.S. politics. John Stewart speaks on behalf of the masses, which believe that the mainstream media is not trustworthy. By using actual news clips, combined with satirical commentary, Stewart is able to hold mainstream media accountable for their failure to truthfully represent democracy. He uses comedy “as a vehicle to speak the truth.”
John Stewart is credible as someone who can speak for the people because he is perceived as a caring citizen. This was evident in his appearance on Crossfire. He represented “the feeling of most Americans.” Also, his refusal to be funny and his switching of roles gives him credibility. It was apparent that he was serious and passionate about the topic of journalism, even though he is a comedian.
Some questions to consider are: Can a comedy show be held accountable to the same standards of journalistic integrity? Should or can a comedian be expected to play the role of a serious journalist? Is objectivity getting in the way of the real purpose of journalism: to represent the unheard American people?
Position Statement: Johnson, del Rio, & Kemmitt, “Missing the Joke”
“The increasing popularity of satire, particularly political satire, raises concerns about the argumentative implications of satirical messages. Many critics, both popular and academic, warn that satire can backfire, potentially reinforcing the very views it seeks to critique.”
While I do agree with the findings of this study, I think there is a major impact on whether or not viewers are aware of the author’s intent before viewing or reading the piece. In this study, the audience was not told that what they were viewing was a satirical message. They were left to interpret the message without any information about of the piece. It was found that literal readings for all but one of the videos shown occurred. Most of the viewers thought the messages being portrayed in the videos were not of satire, but rather took their messages literally. This caused viewers to have negative evaluations of the messages, and the messages actually worked against the producer’s actual argument.
I think messages of satire, especially political satire, could get their messages across to the audience if the audience is aware of its satirical nature. I think to say that audiences often misread satirical messages is not fully accurate. I agree with the study in that audiences tend to misread satirical messages, but I think this mostly the case when they are unaware of the author’s intentions. Take The Daily Show with John Stewart for example. I think we could assume that most of the audience is aware that his show is “fake news” and a show focused on political satire. Yet, his messages about the failure of the mainstream media’s failure to accurately represent the public seem to get across to viewers. One can assume that his messages are not taken literally, but as a way to fulfill the role that mainstream journalists should be doing.
The question I have about this study is: would the audience still have a literal interpretation and negative evaluation of the videos’ messages if they were made aware of the producers’ intent?
Position Statement – The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth
“…Whether a comedy show like The Daily Show can or should be held accountable to the same standards of journalistic integrity that Stewart is demanding of a serious news show” (The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth).
There are many reasons why I believe The Daily Show should not be accountable to the same standards of journalistic integrity that “serious news shows” are. First off, The Daily Show is a complete satire; it is not a real news show, with real journalists and reporters, but rather it is a comedy/a show to entertain an audience. This is why it is shown on the Comedy Central channel, not CNN, ABC, FOX, or NBC. Moreover, as Megan Boler states, The Daily Show is a “highly popular news satire” that uses “ ‘real’ news clips from mainstream media—generally about Washington D.C. politics—commented on through Stewart’s satirical and ironic commentary about the media representations as well as about the actions and speech of the politicians represented.” In his show, Jon Stewart addresses and discuses “news” stories with the assumption that his audience has already watched/read the news. He is not trying to act as a reporter or as a journalist and report to the public the political (and non-political) occurrences of the day/week. Jon Stewart constantly rejects the idea that The Daily Show is a source of news. During his appearance on Crossfire, Begala and Carlson get upset and argue with Stewart after he accuses them of “partisan hackery.” Stewart then says to them, “You’re on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls!” Stewart makes this statement to emphasize the fact that his show is not on CNN, like Crossfire. Stewart wants to point out that his show is immediately after another comedy show. Another point to notice is that merely because many people (especially from ages 18-31) are watching The Daily Show as their main source of news, does not make it Jon Stewarts job to provide them with the proper information/news. One of the main reasons for Jon Stewart’s attack on Crossfire and on Begala and Carlson was to illuminate his (and many other’s) opinion on our current media crisis. The idea that many people are turning to “fake news” as their primary means of attaining their information on our world, nation, on politics, etc, is detrimental to our society. It shows how reliable and how important “real” news is to the majority of society. Hence Stewart felt it was his duty to “deliver a scathing critique of the talk show for performing a disservice to America and to the function of the media. He accuses them of hurting America through partisan hackery theatre, failing to engage genuine civilized debate, and not serving news television’s responsibility to public discourse.” Stewart feels that it is their (journalists, news reporters, etc) duty, not his, to get accurate and correct information out to the public. I completely agree with Stewart. Merely because his show is extremely popular and he talks about “real news issues,” does not mean that The Daily Show is the same thing as watching CNN or NBC nightly news. However, the question remains: should a comedy show like The Daily Show be held accountable to the same standards of journalistic integrity that Jon Stewart is demanding of a serious news show? I think not.
“Part of the reason for Stewart’s popularity is that people feel a fundamental lack of trust in mainstream news media, and Stewart’s comedy validates the reasons for this mistrust: ‘Jon Stewart, with his fake news show and honest look at government, is much closer to being a journalist than the whole sorry pack at CNN.’” (The Daily Show, Crossfire and the Will to Truth)
For this entire semester we have been asked to look at media and conflict through a critical lens. Here I don’t think Jon Stewart is any different. He is critical of the media and the news stories (mostly politics) of the day and I think his show is an important part of public discourse. The author makes it clear in his research throughout the blogosphere that many Americans feel distressed about the “truth” of the news. It is troubling that the American public distrusts news media because its main journalistic function is to report the truth.
However, the Daily Show should not be looked at as a source of news information but an extension of satirical commentary. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart should not be held to the same journalistic standards as other news media because its main function is not to report the news to the public. The Daily Show is a comedic satire which comments on the news of the day. It is an essential part of discourse that has been lost in the media world of corporate ownership and professional bias. Jon Stewart’s the Daily Show offers the public a critical standpoint that picks out the operational bias and professional bias that occurs in mainstream media. The article points out the trouble with the Daily Show in that many people may perceive it as a “truthful” source of news. It is not. The Daily Show can only be understood properly if the viewer has already been accustomed to the news of the day. One blogger in the article sited, “Jon Stewart is credible simply because he mirrors the critical observations of viewers’.” While he may not be a credible source of news I certainly think that Stewart is a credible source of critical reflection.
“The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth”
Megan Boler
“…part of the reason for Stewart’s popularity is that people feel a fundamental lack of trust in mainstream news media, and Stewart’s comedy validates the reasons for this mistrust: ‘Jon Stewart, with his fake news show and honest look at government, is much closer to being a journalist than the whole sorry pack at CNN” (5).
While satirical news is not necessarily an entirely unbiased form of journalism, I would have to agree with Boler in this article that Jon Stewart’s stance on the political events he discusses on The Daily Show do have some raw accuracy and validity. Many Americans, from my experience, do fear our mainstream media coverage of democracy and if they do not yet, they should approach such sources with a more detailed inspection of the messages being conveyed. It is no secret that news reporting programs like FOX and CNN are funded heavily by corporate and governmental figures who construct the “news” that can or cannot be delivered to our citizens. Therefore, if those that are considered newsworthy are the same people responsible for producing the messages sent to news audiences, how much of this ‘factual’ information is actually legitimate and not framed for a particular response?
This being said, formal journalism, or the type of news we Americans are used to accepting as untainted or lacking bias, must in fact be just the opposite. Boler’s excerpt above further illustrates this notion defending that Jon Stewart is “much closer to being a journalist than (others)” because his reports are honest and frank, presented without attempting to protect one political party or another.
The majority of television media is “pampered, out of touch and VERY well care for by their corporate masters” (5). The Daily Show on the contrary, simply seeks out the truth in any and all political issues or scandals about which the public deserves to know detailed information. One blogger mentioned, Tim Grieve, even calls Stewart’s comical news show “an oasis of sanity” and “a public service” (5). The Daily Show represents and perpetuates a populist demand for actual accountability and reliability from news media in American culture. At which point I must beg the question, will mainstream media ever identify this public need for pure, equitable reporting? Or will conglomerates and Western government continue fulfilling its own desires before those of citizens, by furthering the privatization and censorship over popular media?
Ali T.
May 2010
Position Statement #2
“The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth”
“If news organizations are looking to Comedy Central for cues on integrity…we’re in bad shape.’ Interestingly, in online discussions this particular concern is not often expressed—rather, people feel that indeed, TDS sets a new standard for journalism, by essentially doing a better job than does the mainstream media.” (Boler, 3)
In line with the outbreak of citizen journalism and the blogosphere, John Stewart’s The Daily Show needs to be considered as a critical source of journalism and an important asset to the steady growth of a concerned public sphere. The Daily Show is often considered as ‘fake news;’ a television show that uses satire and irony to comment on ‘real’ news stories from mainstream media. Boler argues that despite this stigma, The Daily Show, edged by Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire, was a monumental moment in media criticism history. Stewart’s use of comedy brilliantly criticizes the mainstream media for many of its inevitable faults; Stewart points out during his Crossfire appearance that mainstream media has become nothing but theatrics, in which journalists are bound to the desires and beliefs of political elitists and corporations. In doing so the media’s “responsibility to the public discourse,” (Boler, 3) or their function as a critical outlet and public informant, is lost.
The Daily Show is perhaps one of the best widely circulated ‘news’ programs that comes close to serving its public through critique, inquiry, and integrity and escaping from official and strategic bias that often hinders mainstream media. To reference our second reading from this week, it is rather a form of ‘public journalism,’ or a media outlet that “fosters public participation and public debate” while “improving the quality of public or civic life.” (Glasser & Craft, 204,205) The internet, in particular the blogosphere, has challenged mainstream media as a critical and honest source of journalism. The Daily Show, despite its wide circulation through mainstream culture has nevertheless maintained a close connection the ‘real America;’ through its satirical and ironic commentary Stewart is able to challenge authority and tap in to the opinions held by average American citizens. “These comments are echoed throughout the blogosphere discussion of his appearance on Crossfire, reiterating again and again the notion of Stewart ‘representing the feeling of most Americans: ‘Stewart IS the face of most of America…in desperate need of honest discourse about the issues…” Stewarts show, with particular regards to the Crossfire episode and its critiques, has been able to breach the limitations of ‘one-dimensional’ TV journalism (Boler, 7) and has rather connected with the public sphere of civic journalism and the critical outlook it provides. As the rise in the blogosphere suggests, average citizens are striving to have their voices heard, and Stewart’s Show is an effective medium in which the opinions of many average American citizens can be recognized and reiterated.
Sean K
Media and Conflict
Position Statement #2
“Another central focus of online discussion is the question of whether a comedian should or can be expected to play the role of a serious journalist […]‘Jon Stewart, with his fake news show and honest look at government, is much closer to being a journalist than the whole sorry pack at CNN. And the talking heads at CNN and the rest of the television media, indolent, pampered, out of touch and VERY well cared for by their corporate masters, are much closer to being clowns’”
. Mainstream news media is going in the direction of conforming to elitist interests of the mega corporations, and consequently people are not receiving the real news. People are annoyed and frustrated that they turn on the “news” to only to hear a fabricated truth, when all they want is a viable and credible source of information. So, there is no reason why Stewart’s statements were so popular and well received, because finally someone was speaking the frustration of the people. Someone was calling out mainstream news media, in their attempt to present news in a theatrical manner just to appeal to and to be partial to politicians and other elites. The article alludes that a high percentage of Americans turn to The Daily Show to get the news, and the fact that people turn to the so-called “fake” news says something about the news media. If people are turning to a show of entertainment rather than tuning in to a show of journalist nature, shouldn’t there be something done?
I’m not saying, however, that The Daily Show should be held up to the same standards as journalists should be held up to. I feel that the show had a necessary creation to confront the on-goings of the mainstream news media. The program is a satirical piece that comments on the daily news; it is not a program that literally reports the news. Stewart offers a reality check to the “absurd theatre” of media and politics, acting as a voice of the people in their pursuit to get the truth. But isn’t that what a journalist should be? A voice of the people? A person commenting on topics of interest? A person who delivers truth to people? The blogger’s statement is therefore absolutely logical in that Jon Stewart is picking up the pieces that journalists leave behind in caring more about pleasing elites and “corporate masters”. The question is not whether or not Jon Stewart should be held up to the same journalistic standards, the question is, is Jon Stewart setting new standards for journalists that they should strive to amount to?
Desiree Benet
May 5, 2010
Media & Conflict
Position Statement #2
Boler’s piece The Daily show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth really opened my eyes to the magnitude of America’s problem of open discourse and democracy. The piece outlines the discussion that took place between John Stuart and the two hosts of CNN’s Crossfire program. Boler’s analyzes the argument Stuart made and the effect it had on the public, particularly in internet blog forums. One topic found in blogs was the point that Stuart made in his discussion that was in reaction to the host accusing him of not posing difficult question and practicing responsible journalism himself. Stuart’s reply was, “…it’s interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility…I didn’t realize that – and maybe that explains a lot … if news organizations are looking to Comedy Central for cues on integrity…we’re in bad shape “(Boler). This raises the question, who can and should be held accountable for journalist integrity and accountability?
This is a really interesting question and I am sure after this public discourse between Stuart and a headline new agency, it has been debated profusely. I agree that we are in are “bad shape” if the general public is looking towards comedy shows for truth in the news. I also believe that, this is growing reality and the increased rating of shows like, “The Daily Show” (TDS) prove that this show is becoming more and more popular as a source for news. I’ll admit it, I’ve watched TDS for my daily dose of news before and it fact I’ve come away with more perspective and knowledge than watch Anderson Cooper on a CNN special. The fact is people are turning to Comedy Central for their news, it’s in not the best situation, but it is what we are dealing with. Even though TDS is meant to be a satire of the news, it is still source of news and Stuart as defined by the public, is a journalist, he presents the news. Therefore, Stuart should be held to the same standard accountability and integrity of a CNN, BBC, or Washington Post journalist. Stuart’s show may not have been intended to become a reliable source for news, but it is one now.
My position is particular to this situation; do you agree or disagree should TDS be held to the same standards and corporate new? Also, using the example of TDS does that mean all Comedy Central news shows should be held to a high standard? Do you agree with the reality that more people are turning to TDS for truth in news or are they drawn in for another reasons, like humor, that doesn’t relate to news?
Position Statement 2: The Daily Show
As I do my research for the final project in this course, I have encountered several critiques calling out the major “news” networks, as Stewart does, for their inability and/or disinterest to serve their purpose as informants. As we discussed in class, it is truly troubling to see that the only person on television criticizing the media for their unproductive antics is a comedian on a comedy-based network.
I am by no means saying he is the only person out there trying to redirect journalism back to its intended course, though. Various journalism reviews available to us on USD’s database do an amazing job at investigating and revealing just how misguided, intentionally or not, the major news networks are. For example, a source I am using for my final paper is a report filed by Terry McDermott in the Columbia Journalism Review. McDermott did an analysis of the content of Fox, MSNBC and CNN during a 24-hour period this past December. His dismal findings illustrate “one overwhelming similarity among” the three networks: “Whatever it is that dominates cable news, it is largely not journalism.”
Most of what he saw in Fox and MSNBC’s programming was news pieces as an adjunct to discussion and opinion, as opposed to news with commentary as a complement. While CNN provides more actual news, it is nowhere near as much as it should be. Most of what he found on CNN was news and commentary on political strategy when it should be news and news alone.
People need to understand that what is seen during primetime broadcasting on Fox and MSNBC is purely opinion, not news. Unfortunately, these networks have designed their programming this way because most people cannot tune in during the day when actual news is being provided. They come home from work, turn on Glenn Beck and Mathews and make that their only source of information about current events and the world.
The Daily Show has gone on a mission to bring light to this issue with great success. The problem is that it should not take a comedian to guide people’s attention to this serious problem. Monday night, for example, Stewart mocked the media and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for the press conference they held Saturday night after the foiled car bomb attack. Bloomberg began his brief by talking about the Vietnam vet t-shirt vendor who called about the smoking car, the officer who responded mounted on his horse and the name of the horse (Miggs, I believe). If I remember correctly, Professor Lew always taught us to provide the most important and relevant information as a lead into the story. Not to take the credit away from the police horse’s ability to stand for so long with a cop on his back or the vigilant t-shirt vendors who called it in, but this is information a news piece would have as second or third-grade facts at the end of the story. The people of NYC want to know what was in the car, where the suspect is and if they should worry about other car bombs around the city.
Stewart should not be the only person on television pointing out the incompetence, hypocrisies and uselessness of the mainstream media so many Americans look to as a source of information.
Chris Engell
Media & Conflict
5-4-10
Position Statement
“The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth”
“Whether a comedy show like The Daily Show can or should be held accountable to the same standards of journalistic integrity that Stewart is demanding of a serious news show”
The mainstream news media is going in the direction of conforming to the interests of the big corporations, and sadly people are not receiving the real news. Because these big time corporations own most of the media outlets, the information that is reported on is skewed to the beliefs of these corporations. This in turn makes the public frustrated because when they turn on the news, the only thing they hear is this skewed truth and not the real truth.
I believe that “The Daily Show” and John Stewart are not any different from other news outlets. He takes a comedic approach to many important issues that are going on in the world. “A recurring theme in the online discussions is that, in the current climate, truth can only be achieved through this kind of humor: ‘Jon Stewart and the excellent writers of The Daily Show have also given anyone paying attention an essential piece of strategy: sometimes the truth can ONLY be delivered through comedy (Boler 6).” The Daily Show is a comedic satire that reports on the news going on at that time. The article points out the trouble with the Daily Show in that many people may perceive it as a “truthful” source of news. I feel that The Daily Show should still be held to the same standards of journalistic integrity because the “Truth” you get from Stewart still has a bias and may not be the actual truth.
Response: The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth
“Moreover, Stewart’s voice carries legitimacy because he holds this position as commonsensical fellow citizen.”
“And the talking heads at CNN and the rest of the television media,
indolent, pampered, out of touch and VERY well cared for by their corporate masters.”
Jon Stewart is so wonderfully popular amongst the common human in our society because he makes us laugh, vocalizes our concerns and more often than not removes the wool from over our eyes. While I do agree with the article author, Megan Boler, that Stewart often functions as the speaker of my fellow citizen, I must praise the greater good for choosing a man of such wit and genius. It isn’t just any one that can pull humor out of some of the situations he evokes laughs out of.
A travesty to my generation, I do not consider myself an avid follower of the news via television programs. It’s not that I dislike them; I see them as a bit of trickery. In America, one of the key elements of journalism is to remain as objective as possible. As we’ve recently learned, due to the inherently loaded meaning behind any words strung together to make a sentence in the English language, it may be possible there is no such thing as objectivity thereby implying subjectivity rules our daily lives. To me, watching a news program in which I am meant to believe these news anchors are telling me ‘the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help them God’, is a recipe for confusion and mockery of the public. I think this outlook on media coverage is belittling the public by assuming their ignorance and stubbornness at not being able to watch politically associated programs without following or bashing them blindly based upon affiliation.
As far as my knowledge of the subject stretches, I recall London (or the entirety of England for that matter) has a host of various news organizations that all pledge allegiances to a certain point on the political spectrum. Recognizing the grand difficulty in being completely unassuming, they allow the public to peruse articles of authors and programs knowingly with their similar political agenda as well as the opposing in order to get their bearings straight on the subject at hand overall. I believe by seeing the immense popularity with Jon Stewart, a relatively liberal journalist, it is time America changes their ways and adopts this principle. This tactic destroys any hidden agendas by those high up in the media room run by the corporate world and keeps every citizen in the know. I pose the question to America and the citizens that love to be in the know, are we capable of watching news that is openly liberal or conservative without causing even more of a political gap?
Response: Public Journalism and the Search for Democratic Ideals
“One day is separated from another because news is what is ‘new’ today”- 204
Striking a rather harsh chord within me upon reading this line it immediately brought me back to previous discussions in the classroom regarding the cyclical nature of history and the media that covers it. It shocked me last week to find there are historians who believe each element in history is separate from what precedes it and occurs after that when, to me, everything that happens within our world is the catalyst for another life changing event. To see news as separate from day to day completely disregards the ‘butterfly effect’ I do believe we all fall victim to. Even stories themselves can cause various stories in the news to surface thereby translating that no news story is an island. In further defense of the importance of public journalism, no opinion is an island either. If the press has an obligation to the community to report what is needed for the public to hear, the public are those making the decision on what is deemed pertinent to be clear on in our society.
I am fully aware of the presses responsibility to function as the fourth estate and keep strong with their “watchdog” post within the government, but wouldn’t relating on the entirety of the facts, including those leading up and possible consequences post-telling of the tale, need to be included to relay the whole story, no biases implied? Why can’t the public be included as the “watchdogs” partner in crime. The more eyes and ears the better because watching out for the justice of humanity is quite a large job for one occupational group. The public doesn’t need to take sides on certain issues if journalists object to this aspect of civic journalism, but contributing to all that should be covered in the media would enhance the efficacy of the newsroom.
Kendra Osburn
Media and Conflict
May 5, 2010
Position Statement:
The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth
“TDS sets a new standard for journalism, by essentially doing a better job than does the mainstream media.”
Most Communication Studies students have heard that “journalism is the fourth estate.” If Dr. Gina Lew or Ron Bon did not sear it into your subconscious, here is a quick review: The idea behind “journalism being the fourth estate” is that journalism is the unofficial “fourth branch” of government. Journalists are there to perform the “watchdog function” (we talked about this in class when we watched the Irish reporter interview former president George W. Bush) and make sure that the other three branches of government are doing their jobs. Journalists are supposed to ask the hard questions, get all of the information and inform the public. However, as Jon Stewart explained on Crossfire, journalists have not been performing their “forth estate” duties. They have not been adequately informing the public.
This is where The Daily Show comes in. Because news stations “fail miserably” (p.3) at accurately informing the public, The Daily Show has become a place where many Americans turn to get accurate, unbiased information. The Daily Show has turned into a “fifth estate” responsible for keeping journalists, the “fourth estate” in line.
Theoretically, The Daily Show could become like it’s news station counterparts and fall down the corporate rabbit hole as well (I mean they are apart of Viacom…) and then we would need a “sixth estate” to keep them in line. I guess I just want to know where it stops? We should be able to rely on the government’s moral compass and commitment to the people, but they don’t have the best track record (hence “the fourth estate”). So we should be able to rely on journalists’ moral compass and their commitment to the people, but they have also let us down. We are currently relying on Jon Stewarts moral compass and his commitment to an informed public (but that is not even his job). Is it unreasonable to believe in people in general? Will we all one day get sucked into the corporate rabbit hole too? As graduation is right around the corner, I keep wondering – where will we all be in a few years? Right now we all want to go out there and change the world and make it better (at least I hope we do), but I have to wonder, how long will it be before we too, get sucked into this cycle?
While I whole-heartedly agreed with what Boler was saying, there were some other aspects I considered that were not included. First, while Stewart is definitely able to adequately address frustrations with news sources, it must be noted that he is expressing the sentiments of a very niche audience. I was surprised that she did not mention that Jon Stewart fans are predominantly liberal—and in turn, they are also paying attention to the real news in order to get Stewart’s jokes. Second, she is using commentary on political blogs to as evidence for her research—someone who is looking at and actively engaging in political blogging will probably tend to have more of an intense interest in politics that the average person. Therefore, they are going to be more vigilant in critiquing the media.
The article places an emphasis on Stewart’s ability to speak the truth; as a fan of The Daily Show, I will say that Stewart definitely has a talent for giving a comedic spin on the news while still maintaining honesty regarding the substance of the story. However, I think it also must be noted that he often shows very brief clips from real news events, and then adds his own funny interpretation. Oftentimes, unless you’re paying attention to the real news, some of his jokes will go amiss. And again, the people who are paying close attention and acting as engaged citizens will also be the ones who are critiquing. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that Stewart is voicing America’s concerns, but perhaps giving them the concerns they ought to think about.
With that being said, I think that Jon Stewart is a relevant, necessary voice of our time. To truly appreciate his jokes, one must pay attention to current events—something that people ought to be doing. In this way, maybe Stewart will not act as the catalyst that changed the framework of newsgathering, but rather he will function to be the voice that will inspire us, as citizens, to act.
“The frustration expressed by Stewart clearly resonated with the sentiments of thousands of viewers who were keenly grateful that John Stewart had the status and authority to represent the ‘average citizen’ and broadcast their views”.
This article looked at satire in television news, specifically John Stewart’s show and his encounter on Crossfire. The article praised Stewart for finally speaking up for the people and calling out CNN. I agree with what was stated in the article about the tactics used by Stewart and his means of telling the truth, but I disagree with the above quote about broadcasting the ‘average citizen’s’ view. I catch the daily show every once in a while and I think it’s hilarious, but, it’s only really funny if you know what is going on in the news that day. To really capture the spark, wit, and intelligence of the satirical show, you must be up to date with your information. It’s almost like being part of an inside joke.
That being said, there are times I have watched the daily show without watching the news, and I think that a lot of audience is in that position as well. I’ve heard somewhere that people my age get their news from shows such as a The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, if they are doing this then they are only getting half of the story.
The article by Boler used comments from blogs to bolster her argument. I have a feeling that these people who comment on blogs about The Daily Show are people who also keep up with other news sources as well. These are the people who Stewart represented when he told off the hosts of Crossfire and called them partisan hacks. The intelligent people who can see past the BS in news media (much like the students and teacher in Media and Conflict). I argue that the ‘average citizen’ doesn’t question the news like Stewart did on Crossfire, he was not broadcasting their views. He was broadcasting a smaller more educated and dedicated section’s views. That being said, I think that Stewart did an amazing service to those who maybe only watch TDS or only half heartedly watch the news. He was able to open their eyes to the fact that maybe news today isn’t fair and autonomous from corporate interests.
Boler, The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth – Position Statement
–
“Public outrage about U.S. news media is powerfully
illustrated in the remarkably extensive on-line discussion of Jon Stewart’s ambush of Crossfire, and his decrying the
partisan hackery and lack of civil discourse that pass for news.”
–
When one searches for alternative news – news outside of mainstream influence what exactly is he/she looking for? The ideal would be an unbiased retelling of the stories of the day, just the facts and allow the public to decide what side they support. Unfortunately, the way that media operate in the U.S. is any but this idealized notion.
There is the so-called “liberal media” and the increasingly visible “conservative media” and it is two competing ideologies that saturate news and determines what is newsworthy. ‘The Daily Show’ host Jon Stewart, has all the right to critique the role of partisan news because while ‘The Daily Show’ is not seen as a credible news source in the traditional sense of the word, it does highlight the obvious partisanship of news media reporting. ‘The Daily Show’ then serves this purpose of being that alternative news source. Because who says humor cannot be educational?
Stewart, and the shows’ producers feel that they have one role in traditional news: to mock the news. Because to mock something, one brings its shortcomings to light and expose it for what it really is: a thinly-veiled, bais-ridden anecdote meant for the sole purpose of editorializing the public. For ‘The Daily Show’ nothing is off limits. Which attributes to its popularity, when content is not limited the ‘Truth’ of what is exactly going on comes to the forefront.
Therefore, is Stewart wrong in critiquing ‘Crossfire’ and other news sources? No, because mainstream media has done such a sub-par job at giving the public the facts, the responsibility might as well be handled by a comedy show.
Position Statement
“The Daily Show, Crossfire and the Wil to Truth
“No, you’re not too rough on them. You’re part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.” -Jon Stewart
I found this Stewart quote to be very extremely interesting. I personally have always looked to CNN to be a more neutral source for news. So, to me, it really says a lot that he makes this comment to Begala of CNN. To me, it is very symbolic of the fact that the majority of media is supporting big business and more conservative political agendas.
I agree with with Boler when she says that “TDS sets a new standard for journalism, by essentially doing a better job than does the main stream media.” I find it fascinating how TDS uses humor to ask questions that the media should be asking. Given that the mainstream media cannot seem to appropriately do this, it makes me wonder about what it is that the American people are actually demanding. For me, TDS raises issues that I have already questioned or leads me to question them. TDS seems to do a better job of fulfilling the media’s role as the fourth estate by bringing controversial issues to the attention of the public. Why is that mainstream media doesnt question the same issues but in a serious manner? Should the finger ultimately be pointed at the American people? Given that material covered on the news is chosen by what drives ratings, it seems to me the American people are also to blame.
The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth
Megan Bole
“In online discussion, there is frequent commentary on how Stewart’s ‘fake news’ is more effective than so-called ‘real’ news: ‘The comedian parades around as a fake journalist. But his fake journalism is far superior to anything else out there. Stewart doesn’t make up fake news. The satire is in the jokes and the way Stewart adds humorous commentary to real news. The news is real. The reporting is fake.”
I think there is a very valid argument in this passage. From reading this article it does appear that The Daily Show, which is ‘fake news’ has far more of an impact on audiences than does the ‘real’ news. This is a quite an alarming realization. It is obvious that when people start to turn to a comedy show to learn about politics and what is going on in the world, that there is a major problem with in our media. However, it is not just the big business and the CEO’s who are causing harm to our media system, but it is the journalists themselves who are doing a disservice to America. A journalist’s job and responsibility is to find out the truth and to inform the public. They are supposed to give an un biased report and expose corruption. Clearly, some journalists today are not living up to those responsibilities and instead are acting as a mouth piece for large corporations and the government,
The fact that John Stewart’s fake journalism is far more superior than that of a real journalist is a good indicator that something needs to change. Although it is hard to see where or how that change will start. With news stations being funded by big corporations with government ties, it is unlikely that we will begin to see journalists going against funders of their own company and report something that would portray them in a negative light. The question is now, what has to happen in order to break journalists out of these barriers and to put the truth back in the news again?
The Daily Show, Crossfire, and the Will to Truth, by: Megan Boler
“The frustration expressed by Stewart clearly resonated with the sentiments of thousands of viewers who were keenly grateful that Jon Stewart had the status and authority to represent the ‘average citizen’ and broadcast their views.”
This statement really stood out to me as I read through the text, possibly because I too feel frustrated with the current state of news media. Professional journalism, though it has positives such as objectivity, has in more ways negatively affected the information the public gets from the news. The way stories are framed and the topics discussed and deliberated are also questionable. As an ordinary citizen, the news is one of the only ways to access political information and current events. This proves how important it is for the public to be gaining real insight on what is going on so we can make better and more informed decisions and choices to play a true part in our democracy. A majority of the time, government hides or “censors” important information that could be improving public knowledge on various levels, which in turn leaves citizens misinformed or just simply uninformed. Another challenge with the news media is the mass coverage and popularity on celebrity life and other frivolous topics that are discussed. These stories take away and distract audiences from news that should be addressed, which if eliminated could help make our society more educated. It also, in one sense, makes it okay for citizens to focus their attention on superficial topics that have no real significance to people on an individual level or as a collective society. When the news media discusses celebrity scandals, breakups, or other mishaps it normalizes entertainment news; which should really be time spent deliberating over educational news.
This is why I think the statement above is so important. We need people like Jon Stewart that are in the public eye to stand up for the people. On an individual level it is basically impossible to defend oneself as a citizen who deserves real public knowledge and information from the news. The Internet has served as a great tool for citizens to openly discuss their opinions and views, but it takes masses to create change. This is why it is crucial for people like Jon Stewart and other well-respected and well-educated celebrity’s to fight for public opinion. In this case, Jon Stewart was able to directly attack a news show that made a bold statement to the people. An ordinary citizen would have never had the opportunity to get on a show and defend the public like Jon Stewart did, proving why popular public figures like Jon Stewart need to act as a public service so people’s opinions are heard. It is a little discouraging that situations, such as in this specific case with Crossfire, are not happening more frequently, but at least this is a step in the right direction. Satire is a great vehicle to at least get citizens thinking on a more informed level. In today’s society news satire is also one of the only ways “real news” and news stations are critiqued, by making a mockery of the topics discussed on the deliberative agenda. At the same time, should we as citizens be holding these satire news shows and hosts at such a high standard? I believe citizens are also partly to blame for the poor news coverage and as a whole we need to take responsibility and take a stand against the current state of news media. If there’s such a strong public opinion for better and more informed news, why are we all not coming together to fight for it? Should news satire be the only vehicle taking a stand in acting as a public service?
Position Satement 2
“Interestingly, in online discussions this particular concern is not often expressed — rather, people feel that indeed, TDS sets a new standard for journalism, by essentially doing a better job than does the mainstream media… In relation to this inquiry about demand for truth, it is clear that audiences perceived Jon Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire as revealing not only the truth about the problems with this talk show, but about the failings of the mainstream media more generally.” –Megan Boler
As the conclusion to Boler’s paper, I believe that this statement more than “sums it up.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, while looked at as a parody and satire, is by far one of the best “news” shows currently on the air. While he isn’t traditional in the way that he accumulates his stories without a team of journalists, the way in which he uses broadcast from major news corporations like CNN and FOX is effective. Through his parody of broadcast news and his appearance on Crossfire, Stewart uses current news coverage and public figures to make a clear critique of the biases and insufficiencies of America’s news media.
When reading this I recalled a video we watched in class earlier this semester. It was a documentary-style informational video about The Daily Show and Jon Stewart’s success with the program. At a point towards the end of the clip that was shown, one of the men being interviewed said that rather than being flattered by the fact that the show is relied upon so much for news, he was quite depressed. This is what the media has come to; we simply can’t trust on the “real” news to get the job done and to get it right. In relevance to this article, the man was absolutely correct: this is sad.
As someone who find’s Crossfire amusing enough already, it was interesting to read the arguments made against Stewart and how he was able to shoot back so dominantly with ease. The fact that the people on this show, the regulars who are hired to be informed and to “ask the hard questions,” stumbled over Stewart’s statements and arguments was more than embarrassing. “The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls,” was a well needed slap in the face that couldn’t have been delivered more blatantly. It is interesting that these news corporations defend themselves by being “the real thing” and criticize The Daily Show for being purely satire with no actual fact. No actual fact? Jon Stewart is clearly the most informed man currently in news broadcast because he takes the product of the mainstream news media and tears it apart logically. It’s almost like a student grading a paper in front of the entire class, and all the other students are laughing.
The fact of the matter is Jon Stewart is extremely influential whether we realize it and other news corporations agree with it. So what does that say about America? As Stewart said on Crossfire “you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.” As I’ve seen in this course and as I’ve seen in other media classes, I realize more and more everyday how true this is. We turn to the media for important, unbiased, rich information and instead we get news channels that are distinctively conservative, or “breaking news” on an old woman who has managed to accumulate 20 pet cats in Utah. As far as news goes, America’s mainstream media have failed us and disregarded all those who have the guts to put them on the chopping block. Jon Stewart has one of the sharpest tongues in current events and broadcast news continues to decide that his points are irrelevant. So what will it take? With increasing ratings of existing and new audiences everyday how can the media deny that Jon Stewart may be on to something? Furthermore, if they won’t take him seriously simply because he’s on the comedy network, what hope is there for people like us, the audience, regular people to have a say in the change needed to finally provide us with news broadcast that actually stands true to their responsibility to the public? And if that will never happen, when will they stop pretending that they do?