Regardless of ones feelings about receiving political news from these quirky comical hosts, the fact is that many citizens are watching these programs, so therefore the need to be taken seriously. It is fair to say that more people are watching Comedy Central, HBO, and MTV than C-SPAN. However, audiences of the political programs on these television channels must be fully aware that this information may and probably is biased and skewed. "For Neil Postman, the problem is epistemological-television is an inferior(even dangerous) means of knowing the arena of politics. Due to the technological biases of electronic communication(as opposed to his privileging the written word), television offers little more than amusement, entertaining and distracting because the medium is incapable of helping us think in another way."(p8) This critical outlook on televisions news process is certainly understandable and probably correct, however, the fact remains that people are STILL watching which can only leave room for improvement on the stations part. It is the responsibility of the hosts of these shows and the stations to provide reasonable information that will keep the viewer involved. In a New York Times Article, "Is Jon Stewart The Most Trusted Man in America?", the idea that these shows serve as a way of dealing and filtering with upsetting issues is key to not only their success but also what they're intentions are. If Jon Stewart is the most trusted man in America, what does that say about our actual politicians?
This ability to hone in on all of the audiences needs and wants are the real reason for the success of these programs. The perfect balance between humor, drama, raw information and criticism allows the reader to watch with an open mind and with an intent. An intent of not only getting informed about issues effecting the country but also enjoying yourself while you do it. This is why viewers keep coming back and why they will continue doing so in the future.
Sources:
Jones, Jeffrey. "Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture."
Lanham: Rowman and Littlefiel, 2005. 1-14
Kakutani, Michiko. "Is Jon Steware the Most Trusted Man in America?" New York Times. 15 August, 2008.
Most people do not follow politics because it is often considered boring and dry news, however popular talk shows such as The Colbert Report and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart have revolutionized the way in which people view politics. According to Jeffery Jones, “the conventional lines between the “serious” and the “entertaining” in television programming have become remarkably blurred,” and as a result the comedic approach to politics captures the public and is able to convey a once boring and dry topic in a more engaging way (4).
ReplyDeleteTelevision personalities such as Jon Stewart and Robert Colbert report on politics and current events and interview prominent politicians in a light hearted way that provides a different perspective on politicians. I agree with you when you say, these shows strike a balance between humor, drama, raw information, and criticism. Most importantly, I feel like these hosts are able to effectively inform the public of current events despite the satire.
Comedy and politics are two very different things. While political comedy shows are becoming more and more popular, I can’t say that I am one of those tuning in to watch. I don’t watch television often and when I do, I find myself watching juicy soap operas and brainless reality shows.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, these political comedy shows I feel only interest a certain demographic. Most people I know, especially my age, are not interested in watching shows such as these. While “It is fair to say that more people are watching Comedy Central, HBO, and MTV than C-SPAN”, I still feel that this number is not as significant as the article leads on. Although I don’t consider myself a fan of politics on a normal basis, many of my friends and family feel the same way.
While our society is so fast pace, I wouldn’t count out the older methods of news. While these shows may be the popular “buzz” right now, I can’t see how they will stay popular for long. Jeffery Jones states, “the conventional lines between the ‘serious’ and the ‘entertaining’ in television programming have become remarkably blurred” (4). Therefore, politics as we know and understand them will eventually become blurred as well. These shows put there own spin on stories and are overdramatic.
When people come home from work they want to relax and unwind. While I don’t find any talk about politics relaxing, I have to imagine there are others that feel the same way.
With a new age of technology comes a new age of how people receive the news. It used to be for decades that the 'Big Three' networks controlled the news on television, and American watched their news by anchors they grew "to know." With the age of the Internet and cable television, millions can get news ASAP and not have to wait for the Evening News. In Jeffery Jones' article "Entertaining Politics," Comedy Central, MTV, Bravo, CourtTV, HBO, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Fox News have all become respected news outlets (5). There are many theories as to why "infotainment" has become so popular. In this day and age there is a misconception many people between 18-49 years old don not want to get their news from television anymore. It would be more correct to say "18-49" tend to not want to get their news from network television but from cable shows instead. Jon Stewart has done a fantastic job creating his own political agenda by adding humor and satire to his late night news show. The Colbert Report, a spin off of Stewart's show, was created to poke fun at Bill O'Reily, the right wing Fox News anchor. Both these shows have talented hosts and writers who try to reach out to people by being able to relate to them.
ReplyDeleteWhile Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert discuss politics in a light-hearted way, I think entertainment and politics is very beneficial to the country. Many of these shows are geared toward younger audiences who may be less interested in politics. And although these shows are satire and have their biases, it is at the very least a method of engaging political conversation with its audience. Stewart and Colbert, as well as more other shows such as The West Wing and 24 raise important political issues to its audience, whether it is by humor or drama.
ReplyDeleteJones says in Entertaining Politics, "television has begun to explore multiple avenues for presenting politics in imaginative ways, treatments that can offer voices, positions, and perspectives not found in traditional television presentations of politics" (p.9). While the traditional news shows on CNN and Fox are still important, entertaining political programs can also get messages of political issues across to the public in a more laid-back, relaxed setting.
You bring up some good points. I have to say, though, that almost everyone I know watches The Daily Show and The Colbert Report no matter what other news sources they also consult. Some people put more effort in getting a rounded view, such as my brother who watches these programs along with FOX News and then reads the New York Times online. Others do not put so much effort or time into this, such as myself, and this is when I see benefits to watching these satirical programs. I usually do not have the time to keep up on the national news, much less the interest in listening to it, but watching John Stewart and Steven Colbert is easier as I can watch them while I do homework, and in my opinion they do a pretty good job of balancing their need to entertain their audience with getting out factual information the American public should know, all the while pointing out some of the flaws that occur not only in our government but in the actual media as well. I think Jeffrey P. Jones book, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television & Political Culture, explains this idea well on page 9, as it discusses how politics can truly be “pleasurable” and “engaging” rather than dry and much too focus on horse races and numbers. I think that’s where the media loses viewer interest, and the brutal campaign ads we are seeing now are making it worse. Stewart and Colbert seems to strike a balance between entertaining and informing, and they do it in a unique way with sarcasm and other tools that actually cause the viewer to engage in what they are hearing and understand the humor by understanding the issues. In fact, as I’m writing this I am watching John Stewart. I’m glad I’m watching because they got a few average Americans together, all with different opinions, and the guys from the show were trying to get them to engage in unreasonable arguments because that is apparently what happens in America. Well, the people all agreed that they thought America was a very reasonable country and there’s no reason they can’t have a healthy debate and not yell in each other’s faces. They believe it is the media portraying the country as unreasonable and divided because they are focusing on the few people who hold extreme views and act in outrageous ways that make good television. Although The Daily Show was technically trying to do the same thing and get these people to argue, they did so in an elaborate and sarcastic way to drive home the point about the media’s portrayal of the country and where its people stand. The reason I mention this is that I think these satire shows, although they are meant to entertain, can have real effects on people and their critical understanding of media outlets. You would never see FOX News, CNN, or any other news network admitting that they are responsible for portraying Americans in a way that isn’t that accurate.
ReplyDeleteAs Jones said in chapter one, we are experiencing a fundamental change in political communication -- politics is now an integral part of entertainment programming. Jones addressed numerous claims to why critics believe the mixture of television entertainment and politics is "inherently detrimental to democracy." As Andrew mentioned in his blog post, the information on political comedy shows is sometimes considered to be biased and skewed. I would agree with Jones' assessment that such criticisms are faulty. While some people might believe shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are biased, the essence of these shows is to present the facts in a satirical manner.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Stephen Colbert's character on his show is a parody of right-wing conservative talk show hosts. When presenting information, he tends to put an extremely conservative spin on it. However, since the show is known to be a satire, the audience should understand that his extreme views are not meant to bias the information, but to parody the fact that "real" news shows really do present information in a biased or skewed manner. While there is a difference between straight news shows and commentary shows, that line seems to be quite blurred on Fox News and MSNBC. People watching Sean Hannity typically do not watch his show for the "comedic" factor like that of The Colbert Report. They watch the show because they identify or agree with Sean Hannity's interpretation of the news. And that's what commentary shows like The Sean Hannity Show and the O'Reilly Factor are - interpretations of the news. On the other hand, shows like Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox are considered more straight news. However, sadly those types of shows have lower ratings since people seem to be attracted to more personality-driven news rather than factually-driven news. Many "real" news shows seem to be pushing an agenda or ideology that often creates a bias and skews the facts. The purpose of entertainment political shows may be to present information satirically, but these shows tend to be more truthful while "real" commentary news shows tend to rely more of "truthiness" as Colbert would call it.
The fact that Jon Stewart is the “Most Trusted Man in America” certainly signifies a shift in the way that Americans watch their news. It shows that Americans need to be entertained in order to appreciate their news outlet. However, there are a lot of people would say that Jon Stewart, Steven Cobert and Bill Maher are entertainers before they are journalists. But, I believe the same can be said for every other cable news anchor. Look at people like Glenn Beck, Rachael Maddow, Bill O’ Reilly and Keith Olberman. They may appear to have more credibility than Jon Stewart because they are not on a “comedy” network, but they are all serving the same two functions. 1. To deliver news to the public. 2. To draw viewers to their show.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of comedic political commentary shows is actually very exciting in regards to politics in general. A self-proclaimed political nerd, I can watch the cable news network’s and not be bored to tears. C-SPAN on the other hand can be slow, dry, and boring (and this is coming from someone who loves politics).
ReplyDeleteIt is then necessary to understand that the majority of Americans know very little about current and historical government. Politics is often viewed as challenging to understand and dry and boring. Unfortunately, this results in political knowledge taking a backseat in American culture when really it should be followed much closer than say the “Jersey Shore”.
However, with the introduction of these shows a new group of political junkies has emerged. Stewart and Colbert are both very funny individuals. The “news” they provide is often exaggerated or slightly skewed but it is impossible to ignore the underlying truth found just below the surface. There jokes also require the viewer to have some knowledge of current events which must be sought out by the viewer.
As Jones pointed out in the reading there is certainly a fundamental change occurring in the political realm right now. As Andrew pointed out and the reading these shows give us the ability to view the “news” in a different light and hopefully demonstrates the importance of politics and introduces a new demographic of “junkies”.
The turn of political media into a new age of pundit and comedy shows have been both detrimental and informative. Yet while strict news programs are limited to Journalistic accountability, the development of comedic shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" allow for greater freedom of expression. A news anchor is supposed to remain objective, but comedians are afforded the opportunity to provide a more honest portrayal of politics representative of common American sentiment. It would be difficult to find an individual who is not frustrated with several aspects of the political system. Comedy allows these concerns to be addressed, albeit in a sarcastic tone, but still relevant to political truths. Jeffrey Jones points out Bill Maher's post 9/11 comments and the reaction by the public as a new form of political commentary. They may have been crass or met with disapproval, but a statement such as Maher's could not have been said on a nightly news broadcast. It is exciting to consider the new opportunities in speech these comedy shows allow.
ReplyDeleteWhile this post contends that "audiences of the political programs on these television channels must be fully aware that this information may and probably is biased and skewed," I would ask the author to consider their more prestigious counterparts in shows featuring Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. They are taken as more factual, yet in reality are no less biased or skewed then their comedic rivals. The public often eats up the edited clips, sound bites, and misinformed commentaries as absolute fact. In my opinion this is more dangerous than the satirical programs; the popularity of pundit shows have made the political comedy monster what it is. They developed as a response to the current failures of media integrity.
More importantly these shows have raised public awareness, and while the issues covered may not always be the most poignant of our time, they echo the cries of defeated audiences fighting to overcome the impenetrable falsities they are provided with.