Cynicism, "Fake News," and the Mass Media-The Good, the Bad, and the Pointless
We have grown into a cynical people over the last few decades haven’t we? This is different from the cynicism inherent in our political system. Look at out entertainment. We’ve moved from traditional news outlets towards programs such at “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” and rightly so. We ask for objectivity in programming and instead we find the live debate shows and “No Spin Zones.” We ask our networks to pit liberals and conservatives against each other, perhaps so we do have to do the tough job of thinking for ourselves. It is rare that we as individuals are asked to separate the wheat from the chaff in political arguments. We usually don’t have the time since spin coverage and analysis are nearly instantaneous in our era of über-connectedness.
That’s why I like Stewart and Colbert. Their programs satisfy a need for an equal-opportunity mockery of our political system, so I appreciif only because politics is something I myself do not take seriously beyond the occasional consideration of gas prices (“I can’t go to the grocery store because my tank is empty, but then it pointless to buy groceries because I won’t have money anyway. Oh, how I love a good paradox.”). “The Daily Show” even for a while had its own debate-type segment entitled “Even Stevphen.” Many of the discussions were, at least on the surface, without purpose. But by acknowledging the ubiquity of this kind of programming and then poking fun at it is a decidedly harch criticism of the mass media, which spends so much of it’s energy elaborating on the gaffes of politicians and discussing the otherwise inane political stunts of those in office and on the campaign trail alike (I don’t care that Barack went bowling or that Hillary took a shot. It seems fit. You ever notice how drinking and sports tend to go together? Call me an idealist, but maybe there is still hope for the Obama/Clinton Dream ticket.)
What the mass media does is nothing more than a larger, more expensive and drawn out version of the debates of months past (Issues? There are issues? Fascinating.) So shows like “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” demand from their viewers at a half hour of critical thinking. The information is still valid, but because it is in the context of comedy, it is more specifically tailored to exact concerns. The humor lies in the specificity with which the jokes deal with issues, highlighting what is incongruous with the messages politicians are delivery. The best kind of humor is the kind that is based in the truth. If you want another, even more explicit example, I suggest watching a bit of Lewis Black. (Click here, too!) I had the opportunity to see his live show last Thanksgiving in
The cynicism of the people is not unfounded. I think the public does in fact want the truth and will turn to the outlets that seem to provide it to the fullest extent. Exploiting the objectivity principle is questionable because of the partisanship of our media. Comedy shows do not support anyone, and perhaps serve as the best watchdog because of it.
posted by Laura | 1:30 PM
4 Comments:
While I agree that comedy, such as Lewis Black and "The Daily Show" are watchdogs in many ways, I don't believe that we should necessarily be equating cynicism with objectivity (Maybe that's not the point you're trying to make, Laura, but that's what I'm getting out of it.) The question we must ask is why does it take comedians, instead of actual journalists, to be objective anymore? Even though there aren't rules anymore regarding journalistic integrity and objectivity, one would imagine that high standards would want to be maintained. I think the real problem is that the news has become a commodity, aiming for ratings and "exclusive coverage", as opposed to "just the facts" journalism of the past. As a result, comedians are able to make fun of this. That's what they do: make fun of stuff. And so they seem, and increasingly are, more relevant than the REAL news.
As I just stated in my post above, I like turning to the "fake" news because, like we said in class, the humor replaces the hype that general news stations provide us with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Fake News" show are for entertainment purposes and they often pull out gaffes that may not make it to main stream news. I think that they do have their benefits, and because they are so explicitly marketed as entertainment, they should not be held to the same journalistic integrity, that say, the New York Times is. One could even argue that this entertainment vs. news was upheld by the Supreme Court in Hustler v. Falwell, where Hustler magazine is known for it's crude humor, and therefore is not held to the same level of integrity as other news sources.
Post a Comment
<< Home