In a recent episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, host Stewart satirized the criticism of the Obama administration’s efforts and new policies. Stewart called the audience’s attention to recent criticism of Obama’s nuclear policy, and how he has communicated this in his foreign diplomacy. Specifically, he comments on the recently released Nuclear Posture Review (discussed in The Census, Consensus, and Communication, Oh My!), and the recently signed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (also known as START) between the United States and Russia.
Given the focus of my previous post, I thought a segment of this skit was highly significant:
Jon Stewart: A year ago Obama made this outlandish statement –
Clip of Obama: “the United states will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.”
Jon Stewart: Now this statement can be seen as one of those “high in the sky”, “love your brother”, (sucks in imaginary joint) hippie statements. But Obama is a very shrewd linguistic expert. “Steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.” Is that our world, or is he planning an invasion of a nuclear-powerless, defenseless world? Or, perhaps, it is about Earth, and he will take concrete steps – yes, the kind of steps where your feet are in concrete. Or, perhaps he is talking about eliminating our nuclear weapons through detonation, creating a radioactive socialist utopia! Or maybe it was option four:
Clip of news coverage: “President Obama arrived in Prague, Czech Republic overnight where he just signed a new treaty with Russia. It’s a major move in his push for a nuclear free world.”
In my opinion, Jon Stewart has a knack for making news entertaining, if only at the expense of the news media’s credibility. But the manner in which he does it – by making news RELEVANT – is noteworthy as well. Stewart personalizes news stories that often sound like broken recordings from over-play in the news media, often by telling the audience why it should matter to them.
Stewart also personalizes news events by raising the public’s (often subconscious) questions about these policies, and then answering them, all in the context of comedy. For example, he addresses the question of how recent nuclear summit declarations constitute “progress,” describing the START agreement to destroy a certain amount of both the United States’ and Russia’s nuclear materials as leaving “barely enough to annihilate the planet 7 to 12 times!” In considering this concession in terms of its destructive capability, Stewart implies the significance of this agreement, which otherwise sounds considerably less important (and more like yet another political agreement without any functional impact).
However, Stewart’s program is unapologetically partisan, and unabashedly criticizes the policies of his adversaries: “the Right.” However, he makes these newsworthy subjects interesting, to the effect of engaging an audience in the public discourse.
But is this redeeming enough of a quality, that he engages the public at the expense of objectivity? Is this what our news media has come to, appealing to the lowest common denominator of entertainment?
I like this post. A very interesting and relevant topic. I think it is interesting what kind of role satire play in influencing bases surrounding politics. Yes, there is a certain degree of understanding necessary to get the jokes in shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, but essentially people remember these satire and often mistake them for the real thing.
ReplyDeleteDoes that seem like a loose grip on responsibility? One specific example that comes to mind was Tina Fey's spoof of Sarah Palin. Whether or not it was accurate is not the point. When people try to recall issues surrounding Sarah Palin, Fey's portrayal is usually what comes to mind. I think there is a certain degree of power in terms of persuasion for more entertainment shows like this which people have not yet understand the complete power of.
Being a member of the right side of the political spectrum, I have an enormous problem with the way the Daily Show has changed since it began. When the Daily Show first started out, Jon Steward really focused more on the comedic aspect of the show and kept it more "fair and balanced" than it is now (it was originally very similar to The Colbert Report now). My problem does not stem from the fact that another member of the media is bashing on the right, as I am rather used to this, but it is in the way that Jon Stewart started his show (more obviously) as a form of comedic entertainment that poked fun at current events, and turned it into a way for him to push his own political agenda so strongly. In essence, I feel like Jon Stewart pulled a fast one on the public because there are definitely people out there who use the Daily Show as part of their news viewing and are unaware of the absurd biases.
ReplyDeleteI think that what's interesting about The Daily Show and the Colbert Report is that people say that they are just comedy shows, but so many people, especially young people get their news from these shows. I think that young people like these shows because it turns politics into something that is understandable and something that we can make fun of.
ReplyDeleteIt is true, however, that it makes fun of the right and that has been a theme with the show ever since the beginning. It originally sprung up out of the Clinton days and thoroughly made fun of the Clinton scandal. It found its true form, though, when Bush came into office. Since, obviously, there was so much to make fun of during his administration.
The Daily Show may be a satire, but it is also one of America's most trusted forms of news. A 2007 Pew Poll that asked to name the journalist they most admired found Jon Stewart (admittedly a fo news anchor) tied for 4th with reputable journalists Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN. So in the eyes of the American public, the Daily Show certainly is news.
ReplyDeleteBut, as you indicate in your title, the Daily Show also maintains a sitcom-like sensibility to keep the audience entertained and light spirited. This format of dynamic news recounting has enlisted a change in journalism. Now cable news anchors (Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann) strive to bring drama and controversy to their programs. Yet, what is disheartening about their programs is that they are being serious in their biased telling of the news.
I think it is important to make the distinction between news media and comedy shows. As John Stewart recently pointed out on his show, it is Fox News whose slogan is "Fair and Balanced," something they are obviously far from.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Show makes no claims of being a legitimate source of news. It is a comedy show for entertainment on a cable network. Saturday Night Live also features comedic sketches about politics and other news stories but always for the sake of comedy and entertainment, not with the goal of being informative.
I don't think, as you claim in your question, that objectivity is a goal of anyone on Comedy Central. The bottom line is that the goal is entertainment.
I also don't believe, as some of the above responses say, that there is a danger in people mistaking The Daily Show or The Colbert Report for serious sources of news. It is quite clear to anyone that has watched either show, that they are satire and parodies of the true media outlets. As if the live studio audience providing a laugh track isn't enough, it's laughable that anyone could believe that Stephen Colbert's or any of The Daily Show field reporters' personas are their true identity.
Bottom line: The Daily Show might be biased, but so are the sources that claim not to be. I think this is far more dangerous than a show created for entertainment could ever be. John Stewart is not a member of the news media, just as Bill Maher, Conan O'Brien and Tina Fey are not. They may all make jokes about political news but there is no intent to claim neutrality or objectivity.
And Scott, if you think the Colbert Report is fair and balanced, you need to take some time to watch it again.