Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. -- James Madison
“When a dog bites a
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
About Me
Followers
forthcoming
- "A Newspaper Is a Collection" (poem)
- "News Today" (music video)
- 20th Century Man
- A Walk Back Through a Day's New
- BBC Facebook Parody
- Breaking News
- Bullshit
- Citizen Journalism -- What Is It?
- Civil Rights Movement
- Class Project: Media Parody
- CNN War (music video)
- Colbert versus Keen
- Dead!
- Dirty Laundry (Remix)
- Electronic Book Burning
- F the CC (music video)
- FCCFU
- Future of Book Publishing
- Internet Art!
- Interview With Andrew Keen
- Journalism Back in the Day (short movie)
- Journalism?
- Locus Novus
- Logorama (short film)
- Monoculture
- Murrow Broadcast From London
- Neil Postman on Cyberspace (YouTube)
- New York Times Home Page
- Newsboys
- Newsboys Shooting Craps
- Newsies
- NPR (Your Brain on Computers)
- Penn & Teller on Marketplace of Ideas
- Penn & Teller's FCC
- Perez Hilton
- Postman Comic: Orwell vs Huxley
- Reconstruction of American Journalism
- See It Now
- Story of Electronics
- Story of Stuff
- The Yellow Kid
- Turkel
- Video Game Faces
- Whackamurdoch
- Who Owns the Media?
- Who Owns the Web?
- World of Blogging (music video)
19 comments:
I do not personally believe that "The Daily Show" is amusing us to death. Rather I see the show's formatting and take on the news as a refreshing and honest look at current affairs. What makes Jon Stewart an effective journalist, is the same thing that makes his show so amusing; he is one of the only anchors at there that routinely points out idiosyncrasies and hypocrisies of the current administration and of popular politicians.Yes, the show is often silly, and most his program is far from "hard hitting investigative journalism," but for the most part I think his use of humor through satire, is an effective one. Jon Stewart uses laughs to appeal and inform the American public, rather than the scare tactics used by many "real" news programs (you know the whole, "what you're eating, may be killing you" promo lines). That said, I do NOT think that Postman would agree with me. I think that he would find "The Daily Show" to inane, silly, and possibly disrespectful of journalistic integrity. If America to Postman is now nothing more than neon slot machine, than to him, I do not think that Stewart would be anything more than a Ron Burgandy like character.
I believe that Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" is exactly what Postman is speaking about in "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Postman states that there is a dramatic switch from the Age of Typography into the Age of Television, and the fact that people are relying more on Jon Stewart's half-hour "news" show rather than legit newspapers is a perfect example of that switch.
Everyone always complains that the news only contains the bad, depressing stories, but with "The Daily Show," those stories are sugar-coated into hypocritical and satirical examples of the government, society, etc. Specifically, take the instance of how Stewart exposed the fact that Bush's 2003 preinvasion meeting took the same length of time as "'it takes LensCrafters to make you a pair of bifocals' to discuss 'a war that could destroy the global order.'" It is a serious issue that society should be concerned and furious about, but the show makes it an example of how ridiculously some things are handled.
With this show being on the air, people feel as though they can obtain the news that they need to or should know without buing or opening a newspaper, but by turning on the television during dinner and recieving the information in an entertaining and hilarious fashion. I know people who solely rely on Jon Stewart for news because they believe that whatever makes it into that half-hour timeslot are the most important and crucial pieces of news of the day. I believe that Postman would definitely have used Stewart as an example of how the Age of Typography is changing into the Age of Television.
After reading the article about Jon Stewart I feel that Postman might have had huge respect for him on some level. Jon Stewart to me means balance. He points out the tricks and practices of politicians and the mass media. By pointing out how trivial and childish particular leaders can be or how unprofessional or disrespectful the news media can get is a very important service for America. Jon Stewart got popular not for just jokes, but for what those jokes bring up. His comedy is definitely bias, however he does this for the good of the country and not for the left. What changed Stewart from a comedian to an active political contributor was when people began to quote or discuss particular segments on the Daily Show. People had a new way of learning about main events and people without the depressing structure of common media outlets. As his ratings went up, there was no way for the rest of the news media and Washington to ignore. Jon Stewart began to have extraordinary political guest among the standard of Hollywood celebrities which was unheard mixture for a show like his. Jon was able to keep important issues in the headlines, by insulting or discussing how someone is a “shit head” or “fucked up”. By using more adult themes and his 11 o’clock time slot he was able to express his point of view unlike people are normally used to with their news. This format refreshed and empowered many people and helped get more interested in politics. However, from another point of view I do see how it is kinda sad that people flock to a comedian for important debate. To me it seems that the American public will take anything else that is not standard media. Have we lost so much faith the Comedy Central is now considered part of news media? I do feel that Postman would of been upset on what it took for average citizen to care about their government and the news. In my opinion, as long as people know the issues and are discussing them on some national level, we are better off then ignoring them and relying on unreliable mediums.
I believe "The Daily Show" is a perfect example of Postman's claim that the age of television is taking over traditional forms of information exchange; however, I don't think this particular example is necessarily bad. There is a difference between relying on television for news and information and only absorbing the "fluffy" entertainment-esque bits that don't have serious relevance to what is going on in the world. Celebrity gossip and mindless entertainment obviously pales in comparison to the serious issues that are affecting our society and the world. "The Daily Show" at least takes relevant news and puts a twist to it. If people watch the show because they find it entertaining and in the process realize something about what is going on in the world politically, economically or socially than so be it. I'm not saying we should rely on Jon Stewart to tell us what we need to know or that he should have been rated No.4 in a poll of the best news anchors, but at least he is conveying some type of newsworthy content while putting his own satirical and sometimes corny and cynical twist to it. "The Daily Show" is proof that the world is becoming increasingly electronic and reliant on forms of news consumption that go against traditional methods. While it is not comforting to know that it may be some people's sole news source, it could be a lot worse. People could be relying on Perez Hilton's Web site for "reliable" news.
For me I think The Daily show is and is not what Postman is talking about. Postman calls the chows "junk' which is true. you can consider teh Daily show junk television. The Daily Show was never truly meant to be a place for people to get their news. it was made to make fun of teh news and entertain the viewers. The fact that people watch it for news is just funny because it is showing how fake and uninforming the real news programs are. The Dailyt Show then becomes more factual than the news programs because it points out the flaws and idiosyncrasies of the so called news programs.
The Daily show can also prove one of Postmnan's main points which is that television is taking center stage over written forms. This change as Postman states does change that content that is being discussed. The DAily Show will only do stories that they can spin and add humor to, which may not be the most urgent current news.
Overall I think that The Daily Show can be used as an example to Postmans' book, but I don't thin it is the best choice. There are definitely television shows that are purely junk.
I think that Postman would think that Jon Stewart is spreading Postman’s message through the very means that he doesn't agree with. (Irony, a specialty of Stewart's) Stewart mocks the media and the way it is used. He seems to be on the same page as Postman, but to reach those who are blinded; Stewart uses the very thing that he mocks the TV media by having a mock news show. Because things (shows, speeches, political events) are recorded and taped, he has the power to show those things to his audience and explain how ridiculous they are and point out the problems. Stewart's show, I believe is not a news show. It is a show that proves to its audience that even when they watch, say NBC News, it is not news; it is entertainment and is often full of falsehoods. The things that are supposed to be "good" TV are just as bad as everything else.
The New York Times article on "The Daily Show" was a perfect and in-depth description of the show. It explained every aspect of it and as a fan I enjoyed reading it. I feel that "The Daily Show" modifies Postman's thesis in Amusing Ourselves to Death. In so far as I've read, Postman believes that Television has mostly negatively effected our lives in regards to attention spans and common knowledge among other things. Although I do agree that a lot of shows on television nowadays have no educational or moral value, there are some shows that break this mold. I think any response to whether or not this modifies, confirms, or refutes Postman's theory also depends on your interest and knowledge about Politics. If someone's passion is politics and government policies, they might find "The Daily Show" offensive or a waste of air time, as Postman views most shows on television. However, I feel this show is more targeted towards people who can take an insult to our current president with a grain of salt. There is no doubt that John Stuart is more than qualified to voice his political opinion and it is good in a way because he serves as a voice of the people. He talks about things that effect our daily lives and things we are frustrated about as Americans. Some of the content on the show would go along with Postman's theory, for example "Gitmo" the Elmo doll from Guantanamo bay. "The Daily Show" is a politically based show that is meant not strictly to inform, but mainly to entertain so you have to expect some kind of mindless "bathroom" jokes. Personally I believe anchors who work at intense political shows that are shown on Fox and CNN should find another hobby. It's great to know about your government but from my standpoint it's obvious our government is corrupt and there are thousands of truths that the people of America aren't aware of. "The Daily Show" provides a way for us to see the light at the end of the tunnel of lies war and taxes. I am curious to know what Postman would feel about shows like this because they didn't exist during the time he wrote the book.
I enjoyed the New York Times illustration of The Daily Show and found it to be quite accurate for all intents and purposes. The article touches on some of John Stewart’s personal explanations and relationships to the show and what it means to him. In relation to Postman’s first three chapters however, I feel as though John Stewart, as a comedian and “news” anchor, modifies some of Postman’s arguments in terms of the differences between functions. While Postman see’s much of television as a “truth….drowned in a sea of irrelevance” The Daily Show and John Stewart specifically, as he is the managing editor and host, seem to date some of Postman’s arguments. To me, The Daily Show seems to organize the irrelevance of the current news media in a way that is presentable and potential powerful if observed intelligently. The argument that John Stewart’s satirical approach and delivery of the “news” has downplayed the extremeness of its content is one that I disagree with, but Postman might not. I believe that The Daily Show outdates much of Postman’s early points due to the fact that people have stopped asking questions, or so it seems to me. You see, you can’t really watch the Daily Show without some sort of understanding of current politics and major media outlets failure to deliver topics as objectively as possible. The Daily Show has its biases, no doubt, but the content welcomes as it requires questions about our current “news” media. In my one sentence opinion, people who can’t “understand” the Daily Show, or are bored by it, tend to be the same people who watch ignorant “comedy” shows that play off on degrading and tasteless stereotypes like Mind of Mencia.
The beauty of the Daily Show, and even of The Colbert Report, is that they know exactly what it is they are doing. There is never to be any assumption that they are serious newscasters, and they don’t want to be taken as such. And I think people can trust Stewart for just that reason. He makes no claims about having the answers, reporting fairly or giving people the information that they need to know. The idea behind claiming Stewart as the most trusted man in America is that his audience can trust a man that automatically throws himself to the wolves, by acknowledging and living up to the fact that he is a comedian and not a newscaster. He doesn’t claim to be “fair and balanced” or any sort of crap like that and then renege on it like other channels and shows. He simply does what he wants, and lets you know that he’s going to do it that way. People are tired of being lied to by the media, or exploited by it, and it seems, to everyone who watches Stewart, that he does neither.
Perhaps Postman would find him to be crap then, as Stewart knows that he IS just crap on the television—something that Postman regarded as one of the shining parts of television, and something that Erica brought up above. The Daily Show isn’t news per se, but it is as much news as other media outlets. They’re all just talking about each other anyway. Stewart just tells you that that’s all he is doing—regurgitating news, in a chewed up, easily digestible way.
As far as Postman is concerned, he would be more upset with the environment that fostered the development of Stewart and his cohorts. That is to say, he would be pissed that we even needed Stewart to chew up and spit our “news” back to us in the first place. If we lived in a Postmanian utopia, we’d all understand the news perfectly, and see the fucked up parts of it, the humor in it and the seriousness of it all without Stewart guffawing and pointing at it. And we’d see all of that without ever turning on a TV. Perhaps he’d admire Stewart’s ability to manipulate the media to his own satirical whim, but overall, I think Postman would think that the American people were impossibly crude in their information gathering.
On another note, to list Stewart as a “fake” news person, but Anderson Cooper as a “real” one in the same breath is just ridiculous. Both are entertainment figureheads, one just passes under the guise of being taken seriously because he’s backed by a "news organization" and not a comedy network.
The New York Times article on “The Daily Show” was an interesting article on how news can be made entertaining. Instead of having a news and have professional news anchors reporting; the Daily Show has a comedian report on political, social and economic issues.
I think Postman would use this article and defend his ideas that new forms of media, such as Television is used to spread “irrelevance information” yet people have the option of believing John Stewart. What Stewart talks about on his show is all opinionated and delivered as pure satire. There are no mixed messages that what Stewart is saying is fact or should be considered as news.
What is a more saddening about the Daily Show is that people rather turn on their television set to watch Stewart because viewers feel that they may be getting more information from entertaining shows then actual news. Stewart touches on subjects that no news anchor is allowed to address or is not given the free will to do so. Shows such as the Daily Show and Conan O’Brien are all entertained based, yet more informative then the news, who is to blame then? Television can be a distraction but it can also shed light on issues that are not addressed on news programs; instead news programs will have the “top stories” based on Paris Hilton’s new reality show.
Postman’s main point in Amusing Ourselves to Death is that print media is declining and TV media is on the rise. That is also true for “The Daily Show.” Even though it contains real news, “The Daily Show” is another way for people to get their news without having to read. Instead of using celebrities to get people to watch the news like FOX and every other news station, “The Daily Show” uses comedy to gain an audience. For people today it is a way to get real news mixed with the entertainment they’re looking for. Even if, “He really does care,” and “He’s a guy who says what he means,” said Ms. Corn, Jon Stewart is part of the TV media. The article thoroughly describes “The Daily Show” but only confirms Postman’s thesis on the media change from print to TV.
The only reason I feel The Daily Show does not confirm Postman’s argument is that the show is not meant to be “news” and I think that is vital to recognize. At the core, the Daily Show is a comedy program that pokes fun and criticizes public officials and others in the media spotlight. The downfall of the show would be if Stewart did consider himself a journalist. Although, to many this is the news and a big reason they like this form of news is because they are entertained. In that sense, the show does fall into Postman’s argument rather well. In order for most people to watch the news, they need to be entertained. The Daily Show does this with exact precision. The fact that most people hate news broadcasts, but like the Daily Show, conveys the need to be entertained. Television is show business and Stewart certainly knows a thing about show business. Entertainment is the intent of the show, but there are some fairly investigative journalist veins pumping the blood of the show. Some of the things they point out are things other news broadcasts seem to neglect. Yes, they do this in a satirical manner, but maybe you need humor to digest the hard truth at times? Maybe we need humor to obtain troubling information now? In many ways this does support Postman, but I feel even he would give a nod to Stewart and tune in to see what he does next.
It makes sense "The Daily Show" is recognized by the American public as "a genuine cultural and political force" because it does its job as a television show- it grabs attention because of its humor, its not too long of a program, and it comments on issues considered important to the American public, with an emphasis on politics. John Stewart was branded a "fake news anchor" in The New York Times article, but how so? He is entertaining while at the same time informs the public, and he writes his own material, for the most part. To call him a "fake news anchor" while every newscast "routinely mixes news and entertainment" is to shine a more positive light on news anchors on not only television stations such as Fox but also on tabloid news, all of which pose serious threats to the credibility of journalism.
However, the point remains that Stewart is still a television personality, with all of the glitz that any other television broadcaster has. Its truths are swayed by opinion, its news reporting is brief at best, and Stewart is first and foremost commended for his personality and comedic ability.
"When in doubt, I can stare blankly," said a Stewart quote from the New York Times Article. Stewart knows how to grab the attention of his viewers; when tackling an issue that is perplex and baffling, he knows he only has to make a facial expression and does not have to say anything in order to connect to his viewers and show them he is thinking about the issue rather than openly expressing his comments on it, a true characteristic of television today.
The Daily Show has all of the qualities of a news broadcast, only it tackles issues in a non conventional way while still following conventional characteristics of a television broadcast. "You have an enormous amount of material, and you have to distill it into a syrup by the end of the day," said Colbert. In a culture where nothing is really delved into anymore, even when it truly should be (President Bush and American allies took only an hour to discuss pre-invasion strategy in Iraq?!) Stewart does a good job in the best way we as citizens of America, as well as American media, will allow him to.
In the first few pages of Neil Postman’s book he reflects on a quote from Dr. Ruth Westheimer. “I don’t start out to be funny,” she said. “But if it comes out that way I use it. If they call me an entertainer I say great. When a professor teaches with a sense of humor people walk away remembering.” While the quote is true, Postman is left to ask what do they remember. Furthermore, he asks what use is their remembering.
When analyzing the effectiveness of The Daily Show as a “news program” I feel Postman would apply this sort of thinking. However, The Daily Show does not set out to be a news program. It is pure entertainment; however its entertainment is unique from most other forms. The Daily Show’s entertainment relies on sorting the ridiculousness of everyday politics and presenting it in a humorous manner. In other words, it’s really only half the news.
I think Postman would be rolling over in his grave if he knew people relied on The Daily Show as a news source. I mean, he’s probably already rolling in his grave. I feel The Daily Show is most appreciated by people who’ve already gotten their news from somewhere else. The show can than be enjoyed and better understood by these people.
When people rely on Jon Stewart for their source of news, Postman’s question of what use is their remembering becomes particularly relevant. If people are relying on Stewart for their news: one, they’re only getting half the story, and two, they can’t really understand the half of the story they’re getting. They only understand a particular segment because Stewart presented it in a matter that made them laugh (and I’m not really sure if these people would even understand why they’re laughing?).
Overall, for people who are well-informed the Daily Show can be seen as a sort of comedic relief to living in a media culture of absurd hypocrisies. It makes the outrageous more digestible and easier to live with through its use of satire. However, if you’re not informed and watching the Daily Show for news, it would be really difficult to define where news and entertainment stop and begin since they’re so skillfully blended.
I do think that The Daily Show is in a way amusing us to death but in today's day thats how poeple want to learn about things, in an entertaining way. Its just a new way to get people that might not have been typically involved in watching the news to become more interested. I am not a huge fan of sitting and watching CNN or FOX news to learn about politics but i work in a bar and literally the older men sit there all day watching it. Each one chooses their station based on the opinions each station potrays and then as subjects come up they all sit around and debate. I am not into that, but at night when The Daily show is on i might put it on for a little while just to feel slightly filled in on what is going on in the world, and at least ill laugh a little bit while doing so.
I believe that Postman's main point in "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is supported by the success of the Daily Show in today's society. The daily show is a well written satirical news show, that's purpose is to entertain and inform. The people working at the show and John Stewart himself know that they are so popular because of how entertaining they make the news. Postman wrote about how the decline of print media and the rise of television media would change society and he was correct. I do enjoy watching the Daily Show but I do not use that as my only news source because I know that its sole purpose is to entertain and not be your number one source of accurate news information. That is why the show is on Comedy Central and not CNN or MSNBC.
The article about the success of John Stewart and the Daily show confirms Postman's thesis. That show has been able to remain on air for so long because of its popularity and the over the top news reporting. To watch the Daily Show for your only source of news would be ignorant and naive but if the show can get people that normally do not watch the news to get interested in what's going on in the world then at least the show has done some good.
I think Postman's thesis is stating that news has a new face. We have grown from relying on newspapers and are now dependent on the screen. In that aspect, "The Daily Show" is confirming his ideas. However, I also find John Stewart reaching people and informing while entertaining. I agree with what Joseph said, John Stewart has become the balance. Whether or not Postman would have great respect for him, I am not sure. Part of me sees Postman thinking that everything on television is junk. That he would not have respect for any of it because he is almost anti-screen. I think "The Daily Show" would be Postman's definition of junk. On the other hand, I see Postman arguing for information and integrity. Integrity maybe not so much, but "The Daily Show" is definitely informing people as stated in the New York Times article. Like we discussed in class, "The Daily Show," I would say, is a show about the media. It is criticizing the media just as much as the news (information). I find it humorous and ironic among anything to be reading Amusing Ourselves to Death and discussing it in relation to a television show on a blog. I almost think that Postman is rolling in his grave knowing the context that we are discussing his book in and the way we are discussing it, but after all, this is a new era. As much as Postman dislikes all of this, I think we are educating ourselves and using all of it as tools and mediums to discuss the underlying problem with the Press in America.
An excerpt from the second page of the article states that "'The Daily Show' mandate is to entertain, not inform." This is exactly what Postman is trying to get at when he talks about the conversion of the printing press to the television as means of receiving news and information. Postman claimed that what we get from the television is "silly" and is "nonsense." The news that we receive from television, spoken news, as opposed to the written news of the printing press, has lost all truth and meaning. These ideas of Postman's are confirmed by John Stewart "promising and bringing you all the news stories first...before they are even true."
Though the show is stated to be a "genuine and cultural political force" and a "substantive source of news," people must realize that the host himself is a comedian and the show is strictly satire. The show often is used to mock subjects, not give you updated information and news on them. "The Daily Show" prides itself on "juxtapositions of video clips and sound bites" used to mock political figures and world leaders, and then showing Stewart rubbing his eyes in dismay after the clip has been played. For example, the article mentions the famous segment when the program showed George Bush in 2000 as the Governor of Texas warning people that "the United States would end up 'being viewed as the ugly American' if it went around the world 'saying we do it this way-so should you' and then immediately following showed a clip of Bush from 2003 as President praising the importance of exporting democracy to Iraq.
The important thing to realize is that "The Daily Show" is not a provider of "news." I believe this can be related to Postman's "news of the day" excerpts in that the news of the day does not exist anymore. What we see on television programs are just "media events" that tend to be forgotten. None of it is relevant or important. As mentioned before, "The Daily Show" is meant to entertain, not inform.
Lisa Burdzy
I beleive that "The Daily Show" modifies Postman's thesis in Amusing Ourselves to Death" because it is clearly labelled as satire. Mr. Stewart himself points out that the purpose of the daily show is "to entertain, nopt inform." The only problem, which Postman would indicate, is that many people use "The Daily Show" as their primary means of receiving the news. However, the mere existence of "The Daily Show" does not support Postman's theory of amusement as the only way to reach people. The facty is, is that "The Daily Show" does entertain and as the article points out, simultaneously provide people incentive to think critically. In this sense it is a very positive thing because it can provoke people to investigate the news more deeply. To say the least, it is a form of entertainment that does explore important issues. I think Postman would support the existence of "The Daily Show" and hope tha more people watch that then programs like "Access Hollywood". Postman would respect that Jon Stewart puts entertainment to good use.
Post a Comment