The Daily Show and Colbert Report are, and continue to be, viable news sources for many americans. While based around comedy, the truth, and the way it’s reported, is usually comedic in itself. The Daily Show and Colbert Report don’t have a political spin, they take other organizations’ spin and turn it on their head, thereby giving the viewer a more objective viewpoint of how the news actually operates. The Glen Beck rally in August is a great example of how the Daily Show and Colbert Report can take a news organization and turn it on itself.
The Daily Show’s coverage of the Glen Beck rally was not only informative, but absolutely hilarious. During Jon Stewart’s “report” he first points out the pompous nature of Beck scheduling the rally on the same day as the “I Have a Dream” speech by Martin Luther King Jr. Then Stewart goes on to identify Beck’s arguments about government and progressives, while immediately after showing Beck’s hypocrisy in using the same tools he discredits on his own audience. Through making fun of Beck you get an honest representation of what Beck stands for and what the rally will represent; some holy bullshit conservative fear fest. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann reported on the same event. While explaining detailed information on who and what will be funding the operation, there would still be some confusion if you hadn’t heard of or knew that much about Beck and his terror campaign. While Olbermann does a great job, the Daily Show gives you almost entirely clips of Beck’s shows, while Olbermann brings in commentators to talk about it. This gives even more credibility to Stewart’s reporting because you can’t disagree with clips from a show, they are factual, unlike the opinions of Olbermann and his guest. I don't think I really need to delve into how Fox, the company sponsoring Beck, reported on the event. They are obviously biased in the realest sense, and have not earned, in my opinion, the right for any more than this mention.
The Daily Show and Colbert Report are viable because they satirize the truth, something which is muddled and twisted by most major news organizations. Smolkin says in her article, “Stewart and his team often seem to steer closer to the truth than traditional journalists. The "Daily Show" satirizes spin, punctures pretense and belittles bombast.” This is the point, that because the Daily Show and Colbert Report are exposing spin, you can see through it and get to the heart of the issue, “He's sort of looking at the raw material and making a common-sense assessment of what it means.” The Daily Show and Colbert Report show us what is going on in politics and what is going on in media. It is a critical look at the way the government and news organizations function, whether that criticism comes in the form of satire or not.
What I find most interesting is the amount of viewers who are more informed that watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report. In her article Smolkin cites a Pew survey which, “found taht 54 percent of regular viewers of “Daily Show” and “Colbert Report” scored in the high knowledge category” where only 35 percent of all people surveyed got a rating in the high knowledge category. A score almost 20 percent higher shows definitively that the substance people see in the Daily Show and Colbert Report exists.
Without a doubt the Daily Show and Colbert Report are viable news sources. They are revered by journalists and news organizations, winning awards and are recognized by the public. They have statistics and experts backing their credibility and worthiness as a news organization. Though not in the traditional sense, the Daily Show and Colbert Report’s satire is biting and gives people (especially youth) a view of what’s actually going on in politics. The Daily Show and Colbert Report continue to be a personal news source for me, and should be for more people.
Bib.
Smolkin, Rachel. "What the Mainstream Media Can Learn From Jon Stewart." AJR (June/July 2007).
The Daily Show Video - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/27/stewart-beck-rally-civil-rights_n_696758.html
The Keith Olbermann video - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/27/olbermann-keeps-up-mocker_n_697244.html
Friday, October 22, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Analog v. Digital
It’s too early to tell whether we are truly shifting from print to an oral and visual society. It is also too early to truly tell whether one of those media sources are better then the other. I believe most findings are both grossly overstated and grossly overemphasized. I don’t believe it is a matter of reading v. watching, I think the content in each is what’s driving the perception of ignorance. Tv and videos are always geared more to entertainment, if they were geared toward information getting, like news print sources, then print media wouldn’t be valued so highly.
While there have been plenty of studies testing the general knowledge of people who watch media vs. people who read print media, it is truly too early to tell the impact. On a very basic level, my generation is the first to be absolutely immersed in audio/visual media. Most people from my generation get their information from videos, our intelligence cannot reliably be tested against those who have lived longer and collected more information. I think Howard Gardner said it best, “Literacy -- or an ensemble of literacies -- will continue to thrive, but in forms and formats we can't yet envision.” New media like the Kindle and Ipad are reviving “print” media. We have to wait until the impact of these new technologies is realized before we make any broad, sweeping generalizations about the validity of digital/visual media.
Moreover, most of these doomsday illiterate american convictions view any digital media source as visual, “…the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media…)” How exactly can you discount reading an article on the internet or a book on a kindle? Some studies show we read “differently” because we scan down instead of flip a page. I can’t see this being any worse than completely losing track of what you just read when you flip to “A4” from the front page while reading a newspaper. Just because it isn’t paper, doesn’t mean we aren’t reading. Convictions about the knowledge of people who view this media is discounting their intelligence, and giving the real problem; the content of most TV and web videos, a break.
These shifts and changes have been greatly overemphasized. I do not disagree with the statistics because the numbers exist. What I do disagree with is their importance. Eric Havelock, while discussing about the creation of the greek alphabet wrote, “ Have the outward social and political effects of full literacy really been as important and profound as is sometimes claimed? Our later examination of oral cultures and the way they function may throw some doubt on this.” I believe the same thing is happening here, the print media is being held up while visual media is being thrown under a bus, when really the shift isn’t that important. Let me return to the idea that the content of the media is what is driving the statistics, not the media itself, and that it can be easily fixed.
Before I go on to discuss the content of the various audio/visual media outlets, I will discuss whether this shift is actually detrimental. While I don’t entirely agree that the shift is happening, if it is, some scholars say it is presenting a new wave of thought that is actually positive. Walter Ong suggests we are entering an age of “secondary orality.” This new way of thinking brings with it group-mindedness, “The individual fells that he or she, as an individual, must be socially sensitive.” It also ushers a somewhat faux spontaneity, “We plan our happenings carefully to be sure that they are spontaneous.” Both group-mindedness and spontaneity are, at least in my view, refreshing and good compared to what it would be like without it. This new “secondary orality” might just be what this country needs.
The real issue with “anti-intellectualism,” as Susan Jacoby so eloquently puts it, is not the differences between what audio/visual media and print media are at the base level, but their content. We seem to be comparing two very different things. Information contained in a thirty second YouTube video of some cat playing piano cannot be compared with a national newspaper (but maybe some local publications). The same as we can’t compare a romance novel with CNN. These are intrinsically different things, and to say all audio/visual media is making us less intelligent because people who watch more cat videos know less than those who read the Washington Post daily, is not a meaningful analysis.
Speaking of content, the way TV’s content is arraigned is not the same as newspapers. A video is almost always organized for entertainment first, and information second, for print media, the opposite is true. We have entered an age of “infotainment” where our news sources care more about how exciting their content is than the value of it. I reference here mostly cable news sources. Instead of reporting a new bill, they slander the president or report a rape all in the name of ratings. Though it might be initially more engaging for the viewer, it doesn’t increase their understanding, and leaves them without the knowledge to understand the policy changes that actually effect their lives. This problem increases exponentially when we realize that cable news has a larger audience because of its availability and syndication. It is much easier to flip to channel 55 and sit on the couch than engage in reading online news articles. Not to mention, cable news is more entertaining than reading articles. There are plenty of articles citing the divide in general knowledge of people who get their news from online sources and cable news. Those who read online articles tested better than any other news source, including print media. Those who watch Fox News and local news programs are the least informed. Unfortunately, Fox News and local news programs have the highest amount of viewers.
This divide explains Jacoby’s view America’s ignorance. It isn’t the type of media, but what is being displayed to the viewer. If major TV news broadcasts began displaying the news in the responsible fashion that print media and online sources regularly do, then general knowledge would greatly increase. Though it seems the viewer should be responsible, find multiple sources and view media critically, hasn’t it been shown throughout history that this doesn’t happen? Propaganda, by definition, shows that people are influenced heavily and will not challenge the validity of whatever is being advertised. Which is when we come to the unfortunate conclusion that large media outlets need to be responsible on their own, for the good of our people. Instead of advertising ideology and party politics, they need to report truth.
The differences between analog and digital media, and their ramifications, are extremely complex. I really feel constrained while writing this. I feel that I can’t dive deep enough without writing a two-hundred page dissertation on the subject. While we can cite facts and quickly explain away ignorance, it’s important that we understand there might be multiple things contributing to these startling statistics. The comments in the articles cited are valid and are due more examination. But most importantly, we need to keep thinking critically and examining all sides of media, to find the true reason for the declining levels of knowledge in this country.
Bib.
Gardner, Howard. "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading.." Washington Post 17 Feb 2008, Print.
Jacoby, Susan. "The Dumbing of America." Washington Post 17 Feb 2008, Print.
Ong, Walter. “Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Pearson Education Inc, 2010. 49-55. Print.
Havelock, Eric. “The Greek Legacy.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Pearson Education Inc, 2010. 38-43. Print.
While there have been plenty of studies testing the general knowledge of people who watch media vs. people who read print media, it is truly too early to tell the impact. On a very basic level, my generation is the first to be absolutely immersed in audio/visual media. Most people from my generation get their information from videos, our intelligence cannot reliably be tested against those who have lived longer and collected more information. I think Howard Gardner said it best, “Literacy -- or an ensemble of literacies -- will continue to thrive, but in forms and formats we can't yet envision.” New media like the Kindle and Ipad are reviving “print” media. We have to wait until the impact of these new technologies is realized before we make any broad, sweeping generalizations about the validity of digital/visual media.
Moreover, most of these doomsday illiterate american convictions view any digital media source as visual, “…the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media…)” How exactly can you discount reading an article on the internet or a book on a kindle? Some studies show we read “differently” because we scan down instead of flip a page. I can’t see this being any worse than completely losing track of what you just read when you flip to “A4” from the front page while reading a newspaper. Just because it isn’t paper, doesn’t mean we aren’t reading. Convictions about the knowledge of people who view this media is discounting their intelligence, and giving the real problem; the content of most TV and web videos, a break.
These shifts and changes have been greatly overemphasized. I do not disagree with the statistics because the numbers exist. What I do disagree with is their importance. Eric Havelock, while discussing about the creation of the greek alphabet wrote, “ Have the outward social and political effects of full literacy really been as important and profound as is sometimes claimed? Our later examination of oral cultures and the way they function may throw some doubt on this.” I believe the same thing is happening here, the print media is being held up while visual media is being thrown under a bus, when really the shift isn’t that important. Let me return to the idea that the content of the media is what is driving the statistics, not the media itself, and that it can be easily fixed.
Before I go on to discuss the content of the various audio/visual media outlets, I will discuss whether this shift is actually detrimental. While I don’t entirely agree that the shift is happening, if it is, some scholars say it is presenting a new wave of thought that is actually positive. Walter Ong suggests we are entering an age of “secondary orality.” This new way of thinking brings with it group-mindedness, “The individual fells that he or she, as an individual, must be socially sensitive.” It also ushers a somewhat faux spontaneity, “We plan our happenings carefully to be sure that they are spontaneous.” Both group-mindedness and spontaneity are, at least in my view, refreshing and good compared to what it would be like without it. This new “secondary orality” might just be what this country needs.
The real issue with “anti-intellectualism,” as Susan Jacoby so eloquently puts it, is not the differences between what audio/visual media and print media are at the base level, but their content. We seem to be comparing two very different things. Information contained in a thirty second YouTube video of some cat playing piano cannot be compared with a national newspaper (but maybe some local publications). The same as we can’t compare a romance novel with CNN. These are intrinsically different things, and to say all audio/visual media is making us less intelligent because people who watch more cat videos know less than those who read the Washington Post daily, is not a meaningful analysis.
Speaking of content, the way TV’s content is arraigned is not the same as newspapers. A video is almost always organized for entertainment first, and information second, for print media, the opposite is true. We have entered an age of “infotainment” where our news sources care more about how exciting their content is than the value of it. I reference here mostly cable news sources. Instead of reporting a new bill, they slander the president or report a rape all in the name of ratings. Though it might be initially more engaging for the viewer, it doesn’t increase their understanding, and leaves them without the knowledge to understand the policy changes that actually effect their lives. This problem increases exponentially when we realize that cable news has a larger audience because of its availability and syndication. It is much easier to flip to channel 55 and sit on the couch than engage in reading online news articles. Not to mention, cable news is more entertaining than reading articles. There are plenty of articles citing the divide in general knowledge of people who get their news from online sources and cable news. Those who read online articles tested better than any other news source, including print media. Those who watch Fox News and local news programs are the least informed. Unfortunately, Fox News and local news programs have the highest amount of viewers.
This divide explains Jacoby’s view America’s ignorance. It isn’t the type of media, but what is being displayed to the viewer. If major TV news broadcasts began displaying the news in the responsible fashion that print media and online sources regularly do, then general knowledge would greatly increase. Though it seems the viewer should be responsible, find multiple sources and view media critically, hasn’t it been shown throughout history that this doesn’t happen? Propaganda, by definition, shows that people are influenced heavily and will not challenge the validity of whatever is being advertised. Which is when we come to the unfortunate conclusion that large media outlets need to be responsible on their own, for the good of our people. Instead of advertising ideology and party politics, they need to report truth.
The differences between analog and digital media, and their ramifications, are extremely complex. I really feel constrained while writing this. I feel that I can’t dive deep enough without writing a two-hundred page dissertation on the subject. While we can cite facts and quickly explain away ignorance, it’s important that we understand there might be multiple things contributing to these startling statistics. The comments in the articles cited are valid and are due more examination. But most importantly, we need to keep thinking critically and examining all sides of media, to find the true reason for the declining levels of knowledge in this country.
Bib.
Gardner, Howard. "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading.." Washington Post 17 Feb 2008, Print.
Jacoby, Susan. "The Dumbing of America." Washington Post 17 Feb 2008, Print.
Ong, Walter. “Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Pearson Education Inc, 2010. 49-55. Print.
Havelock, Eric. “The Greek Legacy.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. Ed. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Pearson Education Inc, 2010. 38-43. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)