Please follow the link below to a NY Times article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html
Please discuss by 4 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 11, whether and how "The Daily Show," as described in the New York Times article and as you have possibly experienced it on TV, confirms, modifies, or refutes Postman's thesis in Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
“The Daily Show” confirms Postman's notion that America is experiencing a “dumbing down” of sorts, with the media acting as our main source of information, and that we are living in a “peek-a-boo world” of a barrage of interesting, but ultimately useless information. While the show itself is an example of Postman's notion, it also makes an example of news shows as highlighting Postman's ideas. The show's anchor Jon Stewart has admitted to the satirical nature of his show, the ludicrous nature of segments, the often ridiculousness that goes on in the half hour the show airs; that the American people see Stewart as one of the most reliable news anchors on television wholeheartedly confirms Postman's ideas. In the chapter “Media as Epistemology,” Postman discusses a scenario in which a man delivering his thesis cites spoken word, but it is ultimately argued to be an unreliable source; however, as Postman says, our ways of gathering information has shifted from print to television media—not only has spoken word become seen as trustworthy, but television has as well. America has created a culture in which such ludicrous shows as “The Daily Show,” an admittedly fake news show is epistemology. Political satire has become a trustworthy source of news. The doomed fate of fact-gathering in America which Postman speaks of is emphasized by “The Daily Show” gaining the trust, beyond interest, of American people and becoming a staple in American news culture. This is a show that features segments following Anthony Weiner's alter-ego “Carlos Danger” and argues that the way Bashar Al-Assad speaks is the reason why he should not be in power.
On the other hand, as Kakutani states in the article, Stewart's show forgoes the “entertainment” segments featured on true news shows, which details the personal lives of celebrities, or even politicians, exemplifying Postman's notion that the media America uses for knowledge gathering has lowered its standards. Stewart “reports” the “news,” as the article says, “in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking truth to power in blunt, sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious.” The show often points out, in turn, the ludicrous entertainment business politics has become, such as Postman points out in his opening chapter with the example of an obese man being unable to run for office in an age of visual-based entertainment. In this way, Stewart uses a blunt truth to convey news stories without the round-about coverage in true news organization; albeit, Stewart's show is meant for entertainment, but that only makes it all the more satirical. Although the show may be more blunt in its deliveries, “The Daily Show” is still an example of the “peek-a-boo” era, as it, like true news programs, gives its viewers a mound of information about which nothing is done, and often has no relevancy to the average viewer's everyday life.
I agree that "The Daily Show" as described by The New York Times affirms Postman's thesis of his book. He states in his book that Americans are "entirely devoted to the idea of entertainment," and that, similar to what Emily said, everything needs to be dumbed down for people to not only understand, but find interesting.
"The Daily Show," even though it is a satirical news show, is portrayed in this article as one of the most popular "news programs" on television. Political leaders, authors and other celebrities even appear as guests on the show.
Because of the show's over-the-top and up front nature, people find it entertaining, and therefore, worth the watch. People can't be provided with straightforward news anymore because it is seen as too boring. Even Jon Stewart himself is quoted in the article as describing his show as one that is meant to entertain rather than inform.
Similar to what we discussed in class today, "The Daily Show" incorporates the use of puppets and real-life political figures in sattirical positions (George Bush as a superhero) as a way to get information across in a funny, peek-a-boo world kind of way.
Stewart says that he takes a blunt approach when speaking on his show, which is something people enjoy hearing. Many news shows don't take sides, which forces the audience to take their own and be more informed about a topic before they make a decision, but there's something about information being fed to you, even in the form of jest, that makes it so much easier to digest.
I also agree that “The Daily Show” confirms what Neil Postman is saying in Amusing Ourselves to Death. In his book, Postman talks a lot about how we all ultimately are just looking to be entertained, even when it comes to receiving our news. In chapter one he states how the second half of twentieth century has seen “the decline in the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television.” I believe that shows like “The Daily Show” prove that this is becoming increasingly true when it comes to news. People are no longer looking to newspapers and articles to find out what is going on in the country or the world, which is causing a rapid decline in the Age of Typography. People just aren't turning to print anymore, not even to get their news, which used to be the main source. They’re turning to shows like “The Daily Show” for all of their news, which can ultimately be a scary thing. This is due to the fact that while, yeah, the show does inform and teach people about some of the current events in the world, the main focus is to entertain. The fact that it’s stationed on Comedy Central says enough.
The New York Times article talks about a survey done in 2007 where Americans were asked the name of the journalist they most admire. Jon Stewart was tied for fourth place in this survey, which is a little shocking to hear considering he is ultimately considered a “fake news anchor.” It would actually be interesting to see what the survey would pull up now, six years later. Ultimately, when it all boils down to it, Jon Stewart is a comedian. He’s there to make people laugh and to provide some relief from the stresses they’re feeling, as he states in the article. It’s crazy to think how much power he has in the political realm. But in the end, people just want to be entertained. Regardless of if it is news or not, they want it to entertain them in some shape or form or else they’re not going to watch or listen.
"The Daily Show" does confirm the thesis of Postman’s book. What originally started out as another form of entertainment has turned into one of the top trusted news sources in the country. The New York Times article describes a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press where it asked Americans to name the journalist they most admired, [Jon] Stewart, the fake news anchor, came in at No. 4, tied with the real news anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN (1).”
The article argues that “The Daily Show” resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because its “keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era in which cognitive dissonance has become a national epidemic.” This seems to show that people really can’t handle news in its purest form: print and honest sometimes dull-facts reporting, and turn to a comedy medium with entertainment value that seems more truthful.
Even Stewart himself describes his job as “throwing spitballs” from the back of the room and points out that “The Daily Show” mandate is to entertain, not inform. This backs up Postman’s thesis that “Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, without protest or even much popular notice (4).”
To be fair, although the show started in 1999 as an entertainment-based program, it has transformed into a real fact driven show. Following 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the show focused more closely not just on politics, but also on the machinery of policy making and the White House’s efforts to manage the news media. In a way, this is doing the opposite of Postman’s thesis by having an “entertainment” show look into the media to expose the...well...the bs. Even though his platform is a “fake” comedy news broadcast, Stewart has gained respect from “real” reporters and the highest levels of politicians go on his show.
Even though “The Daily Show” generally lines up with Postman’s thesis, his blunt, honest satire approach to real topics is something that the audience appreciates, especially in a media world where it is hard to pick out hidden agendas.
The Daily Show is definitely something that merits attention while considering Postman’s views. While Postman has stated that America is becoming less interested in news and more interested in entertainment, the Daily Show might actually use that truth to the advantage of the people who do want to understand the news. The Daily show is a comedy program with the intention of entertaining. This cannot be overlooked. What’s important to remember though, is that a vast amount of Americans receive their news from television as well as newer, more interactive media. When these outlets become notably biased and methodological in their ways of conveying the truth, they lose their authenticity in the eyes of the viewers. This adds to the growing apathy towards world news. People in this culture don’t know where to get it, which makes entertainment all the more alluring.
While Postman would likely be critically skeptical about the Daily Show, I believe he would come to understand in present day that sometimes the only way of conveying the truth in world news is being entertaining. The Times article stated, “Mr. Stewart regards comedy as a kind of catharsis machine, a therapeutic filter for grappling with upsetting issues.” I think anyone can appreciate the fact that apathy is cured with entertainment value. When world news becomes less face-value and more entertaining, it becomes more bearable for the population. This isn’t the same as a news program that lies to make stories sway the viewer, it’s simply blunt truths sprinkled with comedy. A quote from Stewart said, “The absurdity of what you imagine to be the dark heart of conspiracy theorists’ wet dreams far too frequently turns out to be true.” This shows that Stewart is using the reality of situations as his comedic subjects. Although he intends to entertain, he does so by informing first and then giving his admitted opinions.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the writers on the Daily Show had read Postman’s work. I see the show as fighting back America’s departure from world news using exactly what the people want (to be entertained). This is illustrated in the article, “New technology providing access to more video material gave them growing control over the show’s content; the staff, the co-executive producer Kahane Corn said, also worked to choose targets “who deserved to be targets” instead of random, easy-to-mock subjects.” The Daily Show entertains through the use of putting out the information that people should be concerned about and helps them deal with it through comedy. For this reason, I think Jon Stewart is a man that Postman could come to admire as someone who helps cure America’s ignorance using the entertainment that makes them ignorant.
The thesis in “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman is essentially that technology (TV in particular) has become the main form of public discourse and communication. Since television is the primary medium, that means the public was getting a majority of their information such as politics from TV as well. Now, we all love TV but Postman explains in his book that the only way it holds our attention for so long is because it is entertaining, forcing news and politics to join the movement and become entertaining as well. Long story short, we watch tv to get the news and the only way the news can hold our attention is to somehow make it entertaining.
The article “Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?” by MICHIKO KAKUTANI supports this thesis even farther and explains the severity of the idea that serious matters must be entertaining in order for the public to actually listen. The Daily Show is centered around a fake anchorman, Jon Stewart who brings the public the “daily news” with a twist by turning it into something funny or just making a mockery of the news and media as a whole. However, what started as a show devoted to just comedy and parodies of the news became a “genuine cultural and political force” (1), people started trusting the show to learn about the actual news around the country and world. There was a poll conducted in 2007 where the public was asked who their most trusted journalist was, Jon Steward landed the 4th spot on the list. This quote alone is enough to prove that the article confirms Postman’s thesis. Our fourth most trusted journalist in the country is a comedian whose famous slogan is “promising to bring you all the news stories — first ... before it’s even true.”
This article provided an excellent supporting argument for Postman’s thesis in his book. It illustrates how our country is so centered on being entertained that anything serious is found boring and anything intellectually challenging will have us changing the channel in a heartbeat.
I agree that the article on Jon Stewarts "The Daily Show" agrees with the main thesis Postman is attempting to argue in his book. Postman argues that the public in the end is just trying to find the best ways to be entertained. Whether it is receiving the news or anything. Postman used an example in his book to illustrate how society has become. He used the city of Las Vegas for an example. People to go to Vegas to gamble, view comedy shows, music shows, you name it. It can be debated that it is the entertainment capitol of the United States. That is how Postman thinks the public has become in forms of the need to be entertained.
I think that "The Daily Show" just confirms Postman's argument. Jon Stewart puts a satirical twist on presenting the news. He presents the news but in a way that shows comedy which hooks a wide range of audience, even the groups of people who do not necessarily are political savvy or up to date with current events. Jon Stewart is funny and entertaining and it somewhat down-scales the urgency of some current events. This is what I think is a prime example of Postman's argument.
Identified in the “Introduction to the Twentieth Anniversary Edition” stated by Neil Postman’s son questions us that this book is still resonating it’s relevance with the world today. “Is it really plausible that this slim volume, with its once-urgent premonitions about the nuanced and deep-seated perils of television, could feel that this book about how TV is turning all public life (education, religion, politicians, journalism) into entertainment; how the image is undermining other forms of communication, particularly the written word; and how our bottomless appetite for TV will make content so abundantly available, content damned, that we’ll be overwhelmed by “information glut” until what is truly meaningful is lost and no longer care what we’ve lost as long as we’re being amused…”
With that being said, The Daily Show justifies that it is indeed true that we as a society have been shaped to only digest the media in a form of entertainment, whether it is in the genre of comedy (like The Daily Show), violence, drama, etc. The host, Jon Stewart is described as a notable journalist, admired by the public; with help from his team of pure talent to sift through the media and find what is appropriate for the show then convey it with a comedic form. From the article a metaphor describes the process of how this show obtains its information, “It isn’t that hard to get a ton of corn into a gallon of sour mash, but to get that gallon of sour mash down to that one shot of pure whiskey takes patience” as well as “discipline and focus.” This formula of news delivery is good for the public to consume because it is as if it ‘dumbed down’, not necessarily meaning that the information being given is dumb, but spoken in a language that is relatable rather than the same, consistent theme always given on the regular network channels. With further explanation from the article of why this show is so successful with the public, “ “The Daily Show” resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because it’s keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era in which cognitive dissonance has become a national epidemic.” This show is a perfect example of what Postman predicted the consumption of media to be like. It is not as if the general public now-a-days chooses to pick up on the news unless it is going to be specifically and conveniently geared towards them. The Daily Show’s continuing success proves that we as a public want our news given in a form of entertainment. And I am guilty of being one of those consumers.
I think that Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" is in a different category of blindly entertaining ourselves to death.Many of the shows that I would categorize into Postman's theory are reality TV and talk shows that focus on celebrities and useless gossip. "The Daily Show" along with shows like "The View" are different in my opinion. They may have comedic aspects, and the glitz and glam of Hollywood, but they discuss information and events that are important for viewers. After all, it is TV. They have to have ratings, but in my opinion, there is a nice balance between funny and intellectual conversation. In the New York Times article, Stewart was quoted, in regards to his show prep meetings, "It’s really a gathering of curmudgeons expressing frustration and upset, and the rest of the day is spent trying to mask or repress that through whatever creative devices we can find.” He is fully aware that the issues that he discusses are heavy topics and he finds it his duty to talk about them without making people feel inferior or depressed. He almost takes on some kind of super hero role where he bears the pain for everyone. Sort of.
Although Jon Stewart makes the blows easier on his viewers, I still stand to my opinion that he is doing a service to America by not focusing on Justin Beiber's new hair and focusing on foreign policy and legal affairs. Additionally, I think that he has put himself into a different category as well because of the guests he has on his show. The caliber of guests that appear on "The Daily Show" is much higher than say, "The Wendy Williams Show" or even "Rachel Ray."
In defense of Jon Stewart, he doesn't shelter his viewers by producing fluff entertainment featuring cute puppies and the newest men's fashion. In our current media, that's as real as we are going to get.
I believe The Daily Show confirms and is an example of Postman’s thesis. Even though Postman wrote many years before Jon Stewart was on television, he noticed the shift to the television age, and the fact that America is becoming more interested in entertainment than the actual news. Even some of the “news” we watch, can sometimes be entertainment disguised as news. Some people receive their news from The Daily Show alone, proving that they would rather get some of the facts and get a good laugh, than read a paper or get the news from any type of media. In the New York Times article, the fact that Jon Stewart is so trusted and admired surprised me. I am a fan of the show, and of him, but if there is a tragic or important event in the political world and I am looking for news about it, that is not the first place I would go. It provides entertainment and a comedic relief to the heavy subjects sometimes faced in the news, and Stewart says himself that they are there to entertain, not to inform. The show is smart, and he doesn’t try to tell anyone that it is anything other than entertainment, but just as Postman says; that’s all that the people want anyway. I think perhaps another reason why he is so trusted is that some become so skeptical of how trustworthy the news actually is. They may believe that if they’re being lied to anyway, they might as well be entertained and get a good laugh out of it.
I believe Neil Postman’s expressed worries throughout Amusing Ourselves to Death are exemplified well in Michiko Kakutani’s article. The “emergence of ‘The Daily Show’ as a genuine cultural and political force” echoes Postman’s thoughts on a society transitioning away from our old ways of obtaining news into our new methods, a transition that is inevitably then shaping what we see our news and how we respond to it. The article really brings this abstract theory to life when it cites that in a 2007 poll, John Stewart, the “news anchor” that hosts The Daily Show, was one of America’s top news anchors. This clearly demonstrates that America considers a comedian, who performs on a show aired upon a comedy television channel, one of the best news anchors in an entire country. If this wasn’t what Postman was referring to, I really don’t know what is. Whether or not people truly believe Stewart is a real news anchor, or just heavily feel the information he conveys validates his position, is not the point; although, it is a scary thought to consider. What is the point is the fact that a show with the main objective to amuse people is now many people’s primary source of news. “Sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious,” Stewart said in the article, claiming their best stories “suck in all the toxins and allow you to do something with it that is palatable.”
Postman could likely agree with most skeptics of The Daily Show’s credibility as a news source, and say interjecting of such style will take what was once news and mangle it so badly, the end product should not ever be referred to as such. Like I had mentioned in a previous blog post, however, Postman foresaw this occurring. While some may have at one point scoffed at the embarrassing fact that one day most American’s would be receiving their news from a clearly comical, essentially actor, Postman saw that the news track and the amusement track would eventually collide, and most American’s would be all be riding one train toward the bias and over simplified kernels of info Stewart is feeding his audience. While the article lead the reader to question how valuable The Daily Show is as a news source, Postman focuses more on where our misplaced trust in Stewart is leading us as a nation.
Postman’s thesis in Amusing Ourselves to Death is that “as typography moves to the periphery of our culture and television takes its place at the center, the seriousness, clarity and, above all, value of public discourse dangerously declines.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart confirms this thesis in a peculiar way. The Daily Show talks about serious political news in an unserious, comical, often satirical way. We were once a culture of typography and print. These forms of communication manifested a serious tone in public discourse. As media shifts to television, we are left with a comedic sideshow of the news. Why?
Wouldn’t someone looking to politically enlighten themselves go to the “real” news for serious, clear, valuable public discourse (since television has dominated print as the main form of media)? I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that The Daily Show confirms Postman by being exactly what it is—a television show. It entertains. It’s funny. But it ultimately exists as a direct result of the steadily decreasing seriousness, clarity, and value of the news media. In this way The Daily Show paradoxically both confirms Postman’s thesis and finds a nice “middle ground” between serious and satire—between information and entertainment. The show pokes fun of the methodology of broadcasting in the 24/7 news cycle, yet it also embraces the cycle itself. The Daily Show isn’t a terribly serious show (although it certainly can be at times), and its goal is clearly to entertain (it’s on TV), but the show does have an underlying “good” in that it helps bring important political issues to light in what is perhaps a more “accessible” form than listening to two heads bicker their opinion back and forth down each others throats between commercials.
As described in the NY Times article “Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?” by Michiko Kakutani, The Daily Show confirms Neil Postman’s thesis in Amusing Ourselves to Death. In his book, Postman clearly states his distaste for how Americans are constantly looking for ways to entertained. In a way, his thesis can be summed up by the city of Las Vegas: A place built solely on the infatuation with entertainment and the hedonistic lifestyle of modern Americans. As opposed to searching for information so as to stay informed on the daily ongoings of American politics, for example, the American public would rather gamble, drink, and laugh their problems away. The Daily Show’s format clearly reaffirms this notion. Jon Stewart, who has stated in the past that his job is like “‘throwing spitballs’ from the back of the room”, was determined to be the fourth most admired journalist in America in 2007, placing him in a tie with Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Anderson Cooper. The American public decided that a man who hosts a cable TV show with a purpose of entertaining, not informing, was the fourth most admirable journalist in the country.
The morning routine of the Daily Show employees begins with reviewing “material harvested from 15 TiVos and even more newspapers, magazines, and Web sites” in order to find stories with the most “potential”; That is, stories that could be difficult to review, such as serious or sad conflicts, but that could still have a comedic spin put on them. This is another point towards Postman’s thesis. The American public almost needs to be treated as if they’re children, like watching Sesame Street, in order to absorb the information on The Daily Show (and the Sesame Street comparison isn’t so far off; The Daily Show has used Gitmo, the Elmo puppet from Guantanamo Bay, to talk about the torture there). While The Daily Show has and often does tackle tough subjects, the necessity to “dumb down” and put satirical spins on the content in order for the American public to be entertained heavily confirms Postman’s thesis in Amusing Ourselves to Death.
"The Daily Show" is certainly a part of Postman "Peek-A-Boo World" but I still find it to be a positive force of public enlightenment. Like nicotine gum, it contains the same active ingredient/s as it’s malevolent parent, but the active ingredient, in my opinion, is more justifiably benign. . Stewart's methods align with entertainment, he typically does not deeply analyze or suggest serious answers to the problems of our day (directly on the show), but he uses a comedic sense of sardonic to expose the absurdity and corruption of the modern world and how it is presented to us falsely by politicians and the media. This is absolutely necessary in our media environment. Personally, I don’t see Stewart's show as another distraction or abstraction from real world pressing issues that people in a democratic society should be enlightened on, rather I see it as a sense enhancing tool. By watching this show (granted its main objective and methods are entertainment), people will be more apt to smell and recognize the shit that the media and politicians try to feed us every day. The man simply sifts through a lot of shit, tell us why its shit, and what makes it smell so shitty. What is disheartening and dangerous is the fact that many of us use these kinds of shows as our main or only source of news. On news parody shows information is presented in a brief and comedic format that caters to a 21st century attention span. These shows may briefly bring people’s attention to important issues, but there is no way in hell people will come out with enough knowledge to form well thought out accurate opinions or decisions based on ample facts.
The fact that Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" was written in 1985 is impressive and almost creepy in a way. It seems to me to be more a premonition of things that were to come. In my opinion as a young adult living in the Kardasian age, his ideas seem all the more relevant today. Postman states that the "content of much of our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense" which in my opinion is truth in present day America. Relating this to "The Daily Show" I would say that yes, the show does affirm Postman's beliefs because of its entertainment value and the way in which the news is presented. It is entertainment more then it is news, as Stewart blatantly says that his goal is "to entertain". However, when given news in this easily digestible way, people will watch it. Maybe they will hear something and go look more into it later, or maybe the way in which Stewart or Cobert or whomever presents the information gets someone's attention who would not have ordinarily paid attention to that same piece of news given by another newscaster because sometimes the truth is carefully hidden behind a veil of political correctness. Shows like Stewart and Cobert also serve to point out the absurdity that is the "real" news. If you watch Cobert and another news show one after the other, in my opinion, you will not be more or less informed by one or the other its just a different way to serve up the material. However it is slightly concerning that Stewart was named number four on the list of "most admired" journalist of 2007 by the Pew Research center because I think that discredits or demeans the work of journalists and reporters who work harder and for less money then Stewart who is less a journalist and more a talk show host.
The fact that Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" was written in 1985 is impressive and almost creepy in a way. It seems to me to be more a premonition of things that were to come. In my opinion as a young adult living in the Kardasian age, his ideas seem all the more relevant today. Postman states that the "content of much of our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense" which in my opinion is truth in present day America. Relating this to "The Daily Show" I would say that yes, the show does affirm Postman's beliefs because of its entertainment value and the way in which the news is presented. It is entertainment more then it is news, as Stewart blatantly says that his goal is "to entertain". However, when given news in this easily digestible way, people will watch it. Maybe they will hear something and go look more into it later, or maybe the way in which Stewart or Cobert or whomever presents the information gets someone's attention who would not have ordinarily paid attention to that same piece of news given by another newscaster because sometimes the truth is carefully hidden behind a veil of political correctness. Shows like Stewart and Cobert also serve to point out the absurdity that is the "real" news. If you watch Cobert and another news show one after the other, in my opinion, you will not be more or less informed by one or the other its just a different way to serve up the material. However it is slightly concerning that Stewart was named number four on the list of "most admired" journalist of 2007 by the Pew Research center because I think that discredits or demeans the work of journalists and reporters who work harder and for less money then Stewart who is less a journalist and more a talk show host.
I believe that “The Daily Show” from my personal experience and from the way it was described in The New York Times article affirms Postman’s thesis. As Postman stated in the book people have shifted from getting their news and information from print media to watching the news on television. People tend to shy away from things that are dry and boring so that is why “The Daily Show” is what is attracting viewers in these times, the use of graphics and multiple layers of visual aids to keep the viewer entertained all while they are being educated on world issues. John Stewart also has the ability to ask questions in a less tactful way because he is not considered to be a real news anchor. He asks the questions that viewers want to hear the answer to no matter how harsh they may be. Another reason that this show is consistently watched is because even though the show in essence is not a genuine news show, Stewart and his team still pack it with real news content. So this flashy, fake, show that is full of jokes is somehow the news that is educating our society.
It is clear that John Stewart has followed Postman’s vision about the evolution of media, and the communication of information. Even though Stewart self imposes the label of entertainer his show is used by many to give satirical perspective on how news and government is seen in America. Postman looks at the differences between written and oral information and how these forms of communication are received by the audience. When spoken much of what we say will never need our accountability. Once something is written then you must be accountable for the statement. The story about the protestant sect leader who would not write down the foundation principles because he did not want them to obtain such permanence. Stewart often combats this tendency by holding political leaders and journalist accountable for their previous statements. The evolution of technology has made spoken statements recordable and archivable. It shows how embedded the principle Postman explains is when these elected officials do not expect their words to ever be brought back up. Some of these leaders are shocked that things said years ago come back to influence the discussion. Many episodes of Stewarts show depict the media as the corporations they truly are and their motives. For the most part Stewarts show followed the evolution into entertainment news like everyone else. The style and execution Stewart uses though puts him into a slightly different category than Postman describes. I would consider Stewart to be a critical reporter whose beat is media. It’s healthy to be critical of such an important asset to human function. This satire proves effective in gaining prominence and trust from his audience.
After reading Postman’s thesis claiming that society has forgone any semblance of traditional typographic thinking is confirmed by The New York Times article about The Daily Show and John Stewart. As Postman states, with the advent of the telegraph and photography, society stopped seeking information presented typographically, and instead looked for “snapshots” of information. Postman says that while photos show an object or place, the image is only one moment, or instance, of that place in the long life of whatever object is in the photographer’s lens. Also, to go along with this sentiment, Postman claims that because the telegraph allowed for a constant flow of information, citizens in our society are being overwhelmed with useless information that does not pertain to their lives. This, compared to the typographic method of thinking where new information received pertains directly to the receiver’s daily life. It is because of this that Postman claims citizens have stopped looking for informational news that will enrich their lives, but instead seek news as a form of entertainment.
This thesis predicts exactly how the New York Times article portrays the Daily Show almost decades before it was even thought of. In the article, John Stewart is quoted saying that the purpose of the Daily Show is to “entertain, not inform”. However, the fact that it has grown into one of the leading sources for Americans to receive news, and relevant news, is exactly as Postman predicted. However, the fact that the reporting is at times better than “serious” news sources such as NBC and FOX is outside of Postman’s prediction. Even though Stewart’s intent in to entertain, this form of news is becoming more effective at reporting accurate news just because they can mock society. The fact that they mock the absurdity in social behavior as a way of coping with the difficulties of life, and are rewarded for it, show that the public often feels the same sentiments.
I think it both affirms and modifies Postman's thesis. It shows that we have gone more towards the carnival-esque sideshow act that the news has become, but it's done properly. The Daily Show and its spinoff The Colbert Report prompt real discussion and their hosts have crossed into the world of politics. While this all seems to affirm Postman's view that "the seriousness, clarity and... value of public discourse dangerously declines," one only needs to look at programs that are considered real news, broadcast on news stations to see that they are more guilty of Postman's sins than anyone.
Post a Comment