Some researchers say you and your peers get a great deal of your news and information from sources like The Daily Show. Some could argue that Jon Stewart embraces journalistic values, such as skepticism, as he does in this challenge to claims of readiness and gender bias involving Sarah Palin.
How much to you rely on these sources? What about other sources, newspapers, magazines, etc.? How does that inform you as a citizen? Does it matter?
Friday, February 27, 2009
What is journalism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I feel that a clear line needs to be drawn between pundits and journalists. I think of journalism as the process of accumulating and reporting fact, not formulating ideas.
A given person functioning in one of these roles doesn't mean they are exclusive to it--I can be a reporter one day and issue judgments the next (in function, not necessarily profession).
I don't look to the Daily Show for news so much as I look to it for a highlight reel of the stupid things happening at the hands of the U.S.
I never found Stewart that funny--I think the correspondents make that show go, but he has surprised me as a pundit/analyst type.
His ideas warrant media attention because he is a formidable representative of a school of thought that has disappeared into the Nacht und Nebel amid a sociopathic society enslaved to free market worship.
I think that stuff like this is fine. If you know what's going on, you think it's funny. If you don't, at least with my friends, they often don't understand the humor and change the channel. I obviously go to other sources to get my news (BBC and CNN) but Colbert and Stewart are able to take stories and make them funnier. I don't think they're necessarily reliable, but they are funny and relevant.
I believe that The Daily Show and Colbert report often act more like 'watchdogs' then the regular reporters. If you do not know what is going on in the news then their commentary will not make sense to you. I think it is almost impossible to get news from them. They are not reliable as news sources but they are very innovative in their commentary.
Often times while watching the news, I will see clips and commentary that I know to be wrong or offensive. Those clips usually end up on the daily show and I am so happy that someone of notoriety rips these 'real news casters' ideas in half (when needed). For instance, Bill O'rielly is full of **** and until you show people a side by side comparison of all the contradictions he makes, you may think he is a legitimate news caster.
It informs you as a citizen that you need to continually question the news. It is not all knowing.
To find the Daily Show funny, I think a viewer needs to have a basis of the actual news story before watching Stewart. It can be used as a great complementary source, to get different opinions on issues, but even John Stewart doesn't consider himself a journalist. He says he's an entertainer and talks about the differences between his show, and one like CNN's Crossfire.
http://www.spike.com/video/jon-stewart-on/2652831
Post a Comment