friezaess | (no subject)

Ignore this post, I just needed a place to stick an essay that someone wanted to have a read of. On the other hand, if you don't value your braincells and want to read my 2500 word analysis of The Daily Show, help yourself.

This essay will argue that the role of entertainers has changed to encompass that of the informer as well. In recent times, people have started getting more and more of their news from non-traditional sources such as satirical shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. This begs the question- why has a comedy programme become one of the most informative and influential news outlets?

In the world of American twenty-four hour news networks, the lines seperating news, opinion and entertainment are frequently blurred. The often partisan programming means that audiences are frequently sold a political agenda and ideology, which not only manipulates the audience but also separates them into stereotyped left and right categories, with very few networks catering to moderate demographics. Pundits with no formal background in journalism flaunt their egos on segments dedicated solely to bashing opposing views while selling their own opinion as fact, as evidenced by Fox News’s infamous Bill O’Reilly who outright insults people who do not subscribe to conservative values on his show.

However, as the rise of these networks has provided inspiration for satirical news programmes like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report which regularly poke fun at the shortcomings of mainstream media and present the issues of the day in a humourous light. In fact, studies have shown that audiences, particularly young people, are turning off Fox and MSNBC to get their information from these parodies on Comedy Central. During the 2004 presidential election, more people tuned into The Daily Show’s coverage than any other cable news show (Variety.com). In 2007, The Pew Research Center conducted a study which showed that people who got their information from the two fake news shows were more knowledgeable about current affairs than all other audiences surveyed including those of CNN, Google News and local newspapers (pewresearch.org).

While Jon Stewart claims to be just an entertainer, it is apparent that his role has become not just that of a comedian but also an informer. This transcends the old notion of infotainment (which cable news itself often employs) and challenges the definition of modern journalism- when a comedy show has become a more effective educator than mainstream news, the role of entertainer and reporter become intertwined.

This is illustrated in an interview Stewart conducted on March 12, 2009. As the global financial crisis dragged on and companies continued to fail, a small feud was inadvertently started between him and the financial news network CNBC after he showed footage of one of their reporters referring to people who were having their houses foreclosed on as “losers”. Over the course of a week the station refuted the claims while the comedian countered with both rational arguments about the legitimacy of their organisation and humour. He pointed to situations where their programming had told people to invest in companies that failed shortly after, despite the fact that the network touted themselves as the only experts “that [have] the information and experience you need”. The battle came to a head when Jim Cramer, one of CNBC’s financial gurus and host of the show Mad Money, made an appearance on The Daily Show to clear the network’s name.

Cramer had 29 years experience investing in the stock market and managing hedge funds. On his show, he regularly advised people on which shares they should be buying and selling. When the interview began, Stewart was quick to point out that while his attacks had been aimed at the network itself and not any one individual, the advice the “expert” had given was misleading at best and downright unethical at worst. One case in particular he used to illustrate this point was when Cramer told people to put their money into the collapsing investment firm Bear Sterns, even when its shares were going down. Cramer admitted that he had made mistakes but was quick to defend his position by saying that no-one could have predicted how bad things were going to get during the GFC and that all he tried to do was educate the public as best he could. It was at this point that Stewart pulled a classic Daily Show move and showed a video from 2006 in which Cramer talked with a group of executives about how to manipulate the market in an unethical fashion and promote stocks in a way that was legally dubious.

It is this method of connecting the dots that the mainstream media often lacks. People will tune into the news and see events being reported but rarely will they be given any more context or background on the story other than the bare minimum, whereas The Daily Show frequently highlights hypocrisy and bad form by showing videos like the aforementioned. In his interview with Cramer, Stewart showed several videos of him making incriminating remarks dating back to 2006. This is a shining example of investigative reporting which seems to go beyond searching for simple entertainment fodder and presents audiences with cold hard evidence for them to be able to make an informed opinion.

On top of this, Stewart usually makes comments to contextualise the footage, such as after showing the clips in question: “I want the Jim Cramer from CNBC to protect me from that Jim Cramer.” By doing this he is not just presenting the facts by themselves, he is also making viewers aware of the meaning of the situation. Professional journalists often fail in providing this sort of elaboration. Robert McChesney describes the problem of journalism as the conundrum faced when a reporter tries to remain objective while giving a story context. “ […] under professional standards, to provide meaningful context and background for stories, if done properly, will tend to commit the journalist to a definite position and enmesh the journalist (and medium) in the controversy professionalism is determined to avoid. Coverage tends to be a barrage of facts and official statements. What little contextualization professional journalism does provide tends to conform to official source consensus premises.” (McChesney pp33) Journalism is supposed to be objective in order to let readers make up their own minds about a story, however as McChesney points out, this often means feeding consumers only the bare minimum, without adding enough context for them to gain further insight.

In contrast, TDS has no such problem. As a fake news show without any journalistic rules to adhere to they are free to elaborate on stories, and with their aim being to entertain as opposed to championing any particular politics, they are not perceived as being biased. Further, as “…journalism has often degenerated to simply reporting what someone in one party says, and then getting a reply from someone on the other side of the aisle […]” (McChesney, pp32), it is helpful to have a go-between to give people not just the facts, but how those facts are applied to the big picture.

After showing people the facts, Stewart went on to argue how it showcased that CNBC appeared to be in bed with the CEOs instead of being a public service as they claimed. Once again, Cramer refuted the point by saying that he was lied to by his friends working at the companies he told people to invest in. It was at this stage that Stewart made two fundamental points: that the network did indeed know more than they were letting on due to their relationships with executives and that by taking the word of CEOs without doing any investigative research themselves, they had failed as journalists. “What is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street? Who are you responsible to- the people with the 401k’s [...] or the Wall Street Traders?” He asked, sounding more like a reporter than the man in front of him who was struggling to answer.

Cramer said that it was difficult for a reporter who had just come from an interview with an important executive to turn around and say “they lied their heads off”, to which Stewart replied “I’m under the assumption that... you don’t just take their word at face value.”
In this case, it would seem that TDS has a better team of investigative reporters than CNBC.
This shows a distinct failure on CNBC’s part to fulfill their duty to the public, however such behaviour is not quite as uncommon as one may think. “Journalists find themselves in a position where they cannot antagonize their sources too much or they might get cut off and become ineffectual.” (McChesney, pp 31-32) This is another non-issue for The Daily Show. Whereas people like Jim Cramer have to retain a certain amount of allegiances in order to stay in the information loop, a fake news programme that usually gets its content from outside sources does not need to pander to others to produce its segments. They can burn as many bridges as they want. This not only provides viewers with a kind of hard-hitting journalism that is getting harder to find these days, it also builds trust. By attacking everyone equally, TDS is objective (though the host does not hide the fact that he leans to the left). Many U.S. news stations are either on the conservative or libertarian sides of the political spectrum, TDS places itself firmly in the middle and pokes fun at whoever they feel deserves it.

Interestingly enough, Mad Money turned out to have one thing in common with TDS- it aimed to entertain in order to bring in a younger audience. Cramer often used sound effects and props to make his point, which Stewart quickly pointed out was not becoming of a credible news source. However, TDS does this through humour and satire while many news agencies rely on emotive, opinionated hosts like Glenn Beck, talk shows and sensationalism that creates a false sense of urgency. Mad Money combines all three to some extent, with the overly-excited host yelling at people to buy shares and chatting with CEOs as opposed to interviewing them. In this way Cramer is also an entertainer but it is at the expense of his reporting. He is trying to play a role that is hard to reconcile with his true position as an informer. Stewart is the opposite, having the role of an entertainer while inadvertently serving as a source of information.

By the end of the show, Cramer’s voice was cracking and he was offering to change the entire format of his show to reflect Stewart’s comments. The numerous media outlets that covered the show hailed it a resounding victory for the host in one of his most

The interview took up almost the entire twenty-two minutes of the show. Spending so long on a single issue would be unheard of on many news stations, yet “in discussing such topics, The Daily Show forsakes the “now this” model, often providing single-issue coverage for as long as 8 minutes.” (Baym) This allows for a more in-depth analysis which is usually set aside for showcase pieces on Sixty Minutes, however not only does TDS manage to delve deeper into such issues as bad reporting, it also holds the audience’s attention through humour. It makes people interested in the topic at hand and thus often performs as a better informer than the people who actually report the stories.

In this interview, TDS acted in a way similar to the ABC’s MediaWatch in assuming the role of watchdogs for society’s gatekeepers of information. This example of the media’s complete failure to their audience was brought to light by a comedian who verbally destroyed a professional finance commentator. CNBC’s shortcomings were not an isolated incident, and Feldman argues that “The success of The Daily Show has been permitted—or, alternatively, necessitated—by a confluence of technological, economic, social, and political circumstances, including, but not limited to: the convergence of mainstream news media, a healthier regard for narrowcasting or niche programming, the rise of the 24-hour news network, the abandonment by young people (and others) of traditional news sources, and the unseemliness of the 2000 presidential election.” (Feldman pp6) This indicates that people are no longer satisfied with what they are being presented by traditional news sources and as such are turning to a comedy show for information. Jon Stewart has said on numerous occasions that he does not see himself as a journalist in any way, however his role of being an entertainer and nothing more is constantly challenged by people in the media itself.

However, while Stewart’s audience can argue that the media is not representing the news effectively, this is not to say that TDS has better information. While no-one has judged the effects, the show’s constant lampooning of the government and media are quite cynical and if one were to get their news solely from Comedy Central, there is a good chance that they would have a very negative view of the aforementioned institutions. While it is good for a person to critically examine such things, being too cynical can be just as damaging as being too accepting, especially if such views are based on those of a single news source. This applies to any news medium, be it TDS, CNN or The Huffington Post- the more outlets a person goes to for information, the more accurate their view of the world will be. Any good journalist will tell you that relying on a single source is unprofessional and only gives you part of the story.
While cable news networks may be far from perfect, one should not consider a comedian a better “journalist” than those that physically go out and get the news he pokes fun at. Stewart himself has gone on record as saying “Our show would not be valuable to people who didn't understand the news because it wouldn't make sense. ... We make assumptions about your level of knowledge that... if we were your only source of news, you would just watch our show and think, 'I don't know what's happening.” (2007) Thus in order to “get the joke”, people must go out and actively consume the work of professional journalists, in the same way that you have to listen to the original song to fully appreciate a Weird Al parody.

This being said, TDS does offer a valuable insight on what is being reported and is helpful for putting some issues into perspective. The way in which they research and present stories can be thought of as a kind of journalism, in the same way that reporting on politicians or Hollywood are kinds of journalism. Baym suggests that “The Daily Show can be understood as an experiment in the journalistic, one that … has much to teach us about the possibilities of political journalism in the 21st century.” (261) It is above all an effective outlet for people who consume news from various sources and wish to have a laugh about it- after all, TDS has always been about entertainment- the subsequent role of playing informers is merely a side-effect. As real news becomes more fake, fake news is becoming more real. The failure of major news networks like CNBC to be informative, relevant and trustworthy has driven people to Comedy Central instead. Without any professional standards to adhere to, TDS is able to look at current events from alternative perspectives, however one should not rely solely on this point of view if they wish to be properly informed about current events.

TDS’s unique combination of entertainment and information has changed its role in society and it is now a blend of humour and content to an ever-growing audience, particularly young people who have become disillusioned with the mainstream. While he may not like it, Jon Stewart and his show have now become both an entertainers and informers to a significant number of people who turn to the show for an analysis of the evening news and a different perspective. The March 12 interview proves that he can be at times more hard-hitting than many other reporters who are often concerned with maintaining allegiances or are too accustomed to taking words at face value, both of which Cramer was guilty of. With its dual roles, TDS serves as both a form of amusement and as commentary to the more legitimate news programmes that it is symptomatic of.