Spartz_Debate_Comedy_News

Debate Paper #2: Does comedy news enhance political and environmental literacy?

In the past, people have gained their knowledge of the news through papers and major news networks. As politics becomes less reliable and media becomes less viewed, more and more people have been turning to other sources of information that turns the bias the other way (Smith 1). Recently, there has been a shift in accepted media taking place, and because of this major news like politics and the environment must also make the shift in order for the issues to be heard. Print has been disappearing; major networks are losing viewers. On the other hand, the internet has been expanding as more people add their opinions to society (Smith 1). The other way people are considering news now is through comedy news sources like “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart. There are many stakeholders involved in this shift. The primary stakeholders of this issue are the major “real” news programs as well as the comedy news programs. As the two main sources of information other than the internet, according to Chris Smith, they clearly have some influence over how thought processes and cultural ideals are produced and executed. The government and the citizens of the U.S. also play a major part in the development of how ideas are formed in this country. In order for the issue to be resolved, I think it needs to be generally accepted that comedy news has become an inevitable source of information. I think that it is dangerous for people to accept the statements of these programs as fact, so we have to make sure to inform them of the other side of the argument somehow. For right now, however, I think we just need to make people aware of the issues of the bias presented to them by other news sources.

According to Chris Smith, Jon Stewart has transformed media by becoming a leader in political satire with “The Daily Show” which was developed in 2000 (Smith 1). Other networks were already twisting the news to fit their own ideals so stretching even further with political satire does not seem like a bad idea since at the very least the audience will know that it isn’t serious. “America’s politicians, willingly or not, often seem like they’re actors in scripts created by cable producers.” This is describing Fox News and how exists as a strongly biased resource (Smith 1). The public doesn’t like being lied to so people will look to Stewart and others like him to clarify certain exaggerations of other news resources (Smith 1). “What has separated Stewart from ordinary carpers… is his willingness to call bullshit to the face of the bullshiters” (Smith 4). If we don’t have this, then the public will be restricted to the blinders that major TV corporations are insisting on. So long as people are not trusting the sources they have available to them, these comedy news sources will be important. Now that the suspicion of important news topics has started, people want to continue being told what they feel they need to hear. Since Stewart has developed a name for himself as someone who reports what others aren’t saying, people keep going to him for answers even if he is tired of it (Smith 2). As the show is based around comedy, there may be fewer restrictions on what can be said; therefore more news stories can be presented. It allows topics that may be considered too controversial to air on official news programs to be heard. As important as it is to bring up other topics, it is important that these shows remain comedic. Stewart and other comedy newscasters can’t truly believe that they are important to media because then the show turns into just another news source (Smith 3). As soon as these shows believe that they are necessary for their counterprogramming, they will just add to the already biased collection of news stations and then it will most likely cease to be a source of counter-information. The most important aspect of these sources as long as they abide by these guidelines is that they encourage viewers to start questioning what they are being presented. “But I know the difference between real social change and what we do. You know what we are? Soil enrichers. Maybe we can add a little fertilizer to the soil so that real people can come along and grow things” (Smith 6). Stewart is saying that the best way to get change to happen for our information systems is to cause people to start questioning what is going on by themselves. If they can’t start looking at issues objectively, major TV stations will be able to continue their biased reporting because someone is still watching.

As promising as it is that comedy news causes more and more people to question what they are being told, there are a few problems. The first is that “The wisdom of the masses is not always…wise” (Smith 3). I agree that not everyone is the most knowledgeable about all political issues. We need someone who can look at the bigger picture which is why we have government positions. I think that people for the most part have developed a desire for knowledge. Unfortunately I believe that most people don’t tend to look at all sides of the issues so their frustration with the government about moving slowly to get things done may not be completely founded. Politicians are able to get into office playing off the limited viewpoints that some people have. Once we get TV programming like this however, people start to see other sides of issues which then of course turn them away from the people they have elected into office. Once people start doubting the ability and competency of those in office, I think those holding government positions often spend a lot of time on damage control rather than still working to accomplish the job they set out to complete. Also, while I understand that Stewart wants to “add something to the world that is clarifying and not obscuring”, I have a hard time understanding why he thinks comedy news is the best way to go about doing this (Smith 6). Is it not just going to be treated as another piece of media that has invaded our lives? People are getting overwhelmed by the information they are trying to absorb and throwing more on top of that may get confusing which is counterproductive. It may be the source that people listen to for answers, but it is still just adding to the skewed opinions that are already trying to overwhelm viewers. Finally, I strongly believe in the idea of confirmation bias. Smith brought up the idea that “you can fall in love with your own idea of common sense” (Smith 5). Confirmation bias is almost inevitable since people choose what they want to watch and more often than not they watch something they know they will like. Stewart believes that part of the reason these shows are so successful is that they don’t try to influence your opinion one way or another. They just try to point out where the misconceptions lie and let the viewers make their decisions from there. I really don’t believe that is true; in order to watch a show one has to follow the thought process which may result in thinking the same way.

While there are some like Smith that think that the changing of social norms is calling for new news sources, others like Matt Welch disagree. Jon Stewart has made his mark on the U.S. when he encouraged congress to pass a bill that would give benefits to 9/11 first responders (Welch). Welch is of the opinion that it is not good that one person should be able to influence that many people. Especially when it seems that he has some sort of vested interest in the matter. According to Welch, everything is just a game to Stewart. “[Stewart]’s a real New Yorker, which means he doesn’t take any bullshit and at the same time bullshit doesn’t bother him, depending on the circumstance” (Welch). When he finds an issue he cares about and disagrees with what is happening, he will say something without worrying about the consequences. These sorts of games aren’t productive towards developing ways of thinking. Stewart tries to remind everyone that he is a comedian and not to be taken seriously, but it is dangerous to still be feeding into the idea that there is something wrong with America. People seem to be encouraged that they are being told that there is a problem and someone needs to step up to fix it. The problem with saying that someone is “just a comedian” implies that no one takes them seriously (Welch). Since he is bringing to light major issues, it must be assumed that someone is listening therefore thinking along similar lines. Once you have started to have people listen to the issues brought to the table, it isn’t something you can back away from (Welch). Now that society has that expectation of him, he may feel a certain level of responsibility to keep up with those ideals. I don’t know many people who are capable of completely ignoring what society is saying about them or expecting of them. This problem does not just apply to Stewart. All other news comedians will most likely experience similar problems as they develop a fan base.

Again, I find flaws with this argument. While I don’t think that one person should be able to influence the government that much, the point is that he is encouraging them to do something. Often times you hear that bills are going around in circles and that doesn’t seem very productive for our government. I also doubt that too many people take everything Jon Stewart says without a grain of salt. Stewart doesn’t appear to take what he is saying seriously and I highly doubt that he announces his own opinions on every topic. Sometimes things are just said for entertainment purposes. Viewers know that he is there as a satirical complement to the news that is already being produced. Welch seems to be under the impression that Americans will follow his twisted ideals blindly which I don’t think is true. He may bring forward topics that others have either ignored or skewed and people like that they are no longer being lied to, but I don’t think that people will go by just his word when they form their opinions. Besides, it is better in my opinion for someone to have a slightly skewed opinion of something rather than no opinion at all. Finally, I don’t see biased news sources going away like I think Welch wants. People who are reporting the news as well as those who own the networks all have biases of their own which will directly or indirectly affect the accuracy of what is being said. People don’t like to listen to straight up facts. I have found that people tend to want the short version though, so they can move onto other things. Short versions of news have to be picked through to find out what is important and at that point something will be left out by all news sources. Stewart and others like him are known for calling to light the stuff that isn’t being said and the need for that, I think, will always be around.

My goal when choosing another article was to focus on the statistics of influenced decisions as a result of comedy shows. Patricia Moy’s article focuses on the effect of “nontraditional” news sources (late night comedy) on the 2000 presidential campaign. This article presents data found about the extent that comedy sources influenced voters on different political issues. It says that the most effective thing that these shows can accomplish is displaying candidates in “humanizing” ways which will make them more personable to voters (Moy 198 and 206). Welch would say that this is unproductive towards making informed decisions. In 2000, David Letterman and Jay Leno each had between three to five million viewers every night (Moy 199). As of 2000, “47% of Americans under 30 years of age get some campaign news from late-night shows…” (Moy 199). This agrees with Welch since it implies that everyone in that age group is a potential target for the bias presented in these shows. However, it agrees with the Smith article when it argues that comedy news is just one of the ways viewers collect information. The study presented had people rate from 0 to 100 the favorability of the candidates. According to the study, initially viewers of late-night comedy had a much lower favorability rating of Bush, but the ratings of viewers increased to be much higher than those of the non-viewers after he appeared on the //Late Show// (Moy 202). Gore’s ratings on the other hand were significantly higher over the whole period by the viewers of late night comedy shows (Moy 203). The survey also showed that the perception of Bush as a caring individual increased a lot in a statistically significant way after he appeared on Late-Night comedy shows (Moy 204). This agrees with both articles in that watching shows influences viewer’s opinions. However, it further shows that Welch is right when it comes to the fact that the decisions are based more on personality than the issues being presented. Moy says that “highly issue-laden” topics like the death penalty, terrorism, and the environment aren’t going to affect understanding and beliefs (Moy 206).

I think that w hether a good thing or not, comedy news has become an integral part of society. Most people I know have watched at least one show at some point. While people may not completely believe what’s being said, I don’t believe that people can walk away from those shows without having their views influenced in some way. I think that it is very important to try and let people develop their own opinions as they watch the media. If people are so focused on what they are being told is happening, they tend to overlook everything they are not being told. If people can begin to again think for themselves and question what they are being told, comedy news wouldn’t be necessary to point out blatant errors. This is what Jon Stewart wants news to develop into and I agree that that would be best for the sake of decision making in this country (Smith 5).Since many people primarily get their “trustworthy” information from these comedy news sources, it shouldn’t really matter whether or not political and environmental news is enhanced by comedy news sources. Sometimes you have to know how to reach people. If this is the only way people are willing to listen, it may be required to present news this way. While I agree that there are many dangers to bringing issues up just to mock them, the program is still bringing it up as an issue. There needs to be a certain process to getting people to care about an issue. Having someone care enough to report on it in the first place is the first step in getting people to listen. Only after people know that it’s an issue can you begin trying to get them to care and educating them on the problem.

Works Cited

Moy, Patricia; Xenos, Michael A.; Hess, Verena K. “Priming Effects of Late-Night Comedy.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 18 No 2. Oxford University Press. 2005. Pg 198-210.

Smith, Chris. “America is a Joke.” //NY Magazine//. 12 September 2010.

Welch, Matt. “The ‘Jon Stewart Game’: Everyone Loses, Except Him!” Reason.com. 19 September 2011. <[]>

Final Draft: Rough draft notes: