McNeilDebatePaper1


 * Does comedy news enhance political and environmental literacy? **

I remember as a young child I always despised the evening news. I could never understand why my parents would want to watch it. In my opinion, besides the weather, there was nothing stimulating or optimistic in that half hour. Every once in a while they would have a cute puppy or kitten that needed a good home but from what I could tell it was 30 minutes of depressing, local information updating my parents on what new regulation had been passed or how the Dow Jones did that day. As I grew older I started to see what the allure was. It felt good to be informed and know what the current state of the world was. As a teenager I discovered //The Daily Show// with Jon Stewart. // The Daily Show // is a satirical television program that advertises itself as “fake news”. //The Daily Show// draws its content from political organizations, news stories, or organizations. The Show begins with a short monologue from the show’s host, Jon Stewart. Stewart is more of a comedian than a news anchor, as he delivers news with added quips and comments to add an element of mockery to the headlines. Then Stewart will usually hand the spotlight to a corresponded that runs a story that is meant to be absurd or humorous, often times the story in question will contain witnesses or experts that are unaware that the news anchor’s main agenda is manipulating them for humor. Finally at the end of //The Daily Show,// Stewart will have a celebrity interview with anyone from a political figure to professional athlete. I used to come home from high school and tune into //The Daily Show// to catch up on current events and laugh at political officials that had been caught: in a scandalous behavior, or misspoke and put themselves in the crosshairs of contradiction. The next day I would converse with my friend in political discussion over the previous days show and bring our own points of view into the discussion. This demonstrates how “fake news” displays legitimacy and calls-out individuals who have exploited their position of power for their own good. Therefore through fake news, awareness has been spread to a group of people that usually wouldn’t have observed it. Many young adults are discovering “soft” news shows like //The Daily Show// and taking pleasure in the humor that comes with current events. Barry Hollander is a researcher studying the effects of new media like //The Daily Show.// Hollander conducted a study that began with a simple question; “do young people learn about a political campaign from such entertainment fare as late-night and comedy television programs?” Hollander concluded that younger views are drawn to such media is without doubt. Using surveys and anecdotal accounts Hollander determined that “younger people seek out entertainment-based programs to keep up with a political campaign and that watching such programs is more likely to be associated with recognition of campaign information than it is with recall of actual information”. Hollander also discusses the role that age has in recall and recognition, “Overall, younger viewers do appear to get more out of such programs as compared to older viewers, although in some cases it is a matter of diminishing returns. Beyond moderate levels of viewing late-night programs, the improvement in recall disappears while the improvement in recognition increases. Or to put it another way, late-night television viewing increases what young people think they know about a political campaign but provides at best modest improvements to actual recall of events associated with the campaign” (Hollander). According to Julia R. Fox, assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University “fake new” is just as substantive as network coverage. Fox completed a study that examined substantive political coverage of the first presidential debate and political convention in 2004 on //The Daily Show// with Jon Stewart and the broadcast television networks’ nightly news cast. Fox attempted to quantify how //The Daily Show// compared. Fox discovered that “The networks’ coverage to be more hype than substance and cover on //The Daily Show// to be more humor than substance. The amount of substantive information in //The Daily Show// with Jon Stewart and the broadcast network newscast was the same, regardless of whether the unit of analysis was news stories about the president election campaign or the entire half-hour program” (Fox). However, there is a debate among experts over soft news shows; researchers are questioning whether substance in soft news shows equals information (Baumgartner & Morris). Do news shows like //The Daily Show;// stack up against other networks when it came to informing viewers? According to the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election, surveys found young views of //The Daily Show// answered more political geared questions correctly than those who did not watch that particular show ('Daily Show' viewers ace political quiz). Researcher Mathew Baum concludes from survey research that soft news, like //The Daily Show,// may boost the number of viewers in an otherwise inattentive population. For these viewers it is difficult to watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. without noticing the networks’ political views. They provide information, but sometimes in a misleading way. On //The Daily Show// with Jon Stewart, material is presented in a fashion that is clear and amusing. The humor adds that extra flavor that is needed to retain the information. Baum also makes a clear point that many popular soft news shows do not deliver all the news of the world; it only selects portions of the news that cater to their point. Jon Stewart has stated publicly that he is a comedian and not a newscaster, but ironically enough this adds to his credibility. In my opinion, Stewart does not claim to have a serious opinion on any matter, as a result of this, viewers feel less influence and this increases the trust they instill in him. There are some viewers out there that strongly disagree with the Jon Stewart’s approach to news casting. These people still live by the old adage no news is good news, and they want no more of Stewart and his surly approach to dispersing information. Individuals like Reason Magazine’s chief editor, Matt Welch feel that his position in the news room is too “disingenuous”, and that “he (Stewart) has outgrown comedy and is no longer a comedian. But he's not saying what he actually is, because then he'd be judged. And Jon Stewart, to a degree unique in the culture, exists outside the realm of judgment.” In a way Welch is claiming that Stewart holds a unique position at //The Daily Show.// One where he can take a step back from seriousness whenever he wants and play the funny guy role. However, when there is an issue that sparks Stewart’s personal interest, he takes a poignant stand and uses his influence to his own agenda (Welch). Welch feels that this is unethical, for example Stewart took a personal stance on a bill that was pending in Congress that would distribute benefits to September 11th first responders who had been injured during the attacks. Congress was delaying the passing of the bill and Stewart found this to be an opportunity to voice his own opinion on the matter. Stewart was outspoken to government officials, and when the bill passed, he received much of the credit for the success. In return Stewart was honored by firefighters and had an article written about him in The New York Times comparing him to Edward R. Murrow, who was famous for his honesty and integrity in delivering the news. This seems somehow like an inconsistency, commending Stewart for his honesty and integrity when he’s a self-proclaimed funny guy, but Welch is right. Stewart does hold a unique position where can dance between comic and outspoken citizen. This is why he’s so admired. Who else on TV would be encouraged to speak out against the government? Not many other TV personalities would want to put themselves out there for fear their network would chastise them for it. Stewart it encouraged to speak about issues like this because it is one way for the American voice to be heard. In conclusion, I personally am a fan of //The Daily Show// and feel that I am more aware of what is going on nationally and globally because of it, and other soft news programs. Soft news is becoming more popular and its success is demonstrated by the fact the elected officials are recognizing that if they want to reach a younger audience they are going to have to adventure on to these newer forms of media. Seeing elected officials high up on the political latter discussing foreign policy with self-proclaimed comedians is not going to cause drastic change in the world. However, these comedians ask questions that shed light on dark issues. Stewart proclaims to be a comedian simply because he needs to be. I cannot image the pushback //The Daily Show// would receive if he declared himself a newscaster that delivered comedy, rather than a comedian that delivers the news. To quote Jon Stewart “I’m a snake oil salesman; but I label this show as snake oil”. As long as viewers are aware that some stories are taken out of context to aid the humors then I see no issue with condoning soft news and advocating people who wouldn’t usually tune into the news, to watch it. Works Cited

Baum, M. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: Hos soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 91-109 Baum, M. (2003). Soft News and Political Knowledge: Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence? Political Communications, 20, 173-190 Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. (2006). “//The Daily Show// ” effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367 Fox, Julia R., Glory Koloen, and Volkan Sahin. "No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in //The Daily Show// with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign." //Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media// 51.2 (2007): 213-227. //Communication & Mass// Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

'Daily Show' viewers ace political quiz. (2004, September 29). Atlanta GA: CNN.com []

Hollander, Barry. "Do Entertainment Programs Increase Political Campaign Knowledge for Young Viewers?" //Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media// December (2005). Print.

McFarland, M. (2004). Young people turning comedy shows into serious news source. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. [|http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/157538_tv22.html]

Smith, Chris. "Why the Worst of Times for Politics and Media Has Been the Best of Times for Jon Stewart and '//The Daily Show// ' -- New York Magazine." //New York Magazine -- NYC Guide to Restaurants, Fashion, Nightlife, Shopping, Politics, Movies//. Nymag.com, 12 Sept. 2010. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. .

Welch, Matt. "The "Jon Stewart Game": Everyone Loses, Except Him! - Hit & Run." //Reason Magazine//. Reason TV, 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. .