Satirical Shows and Internet Bloggers - Thesis Example

?Introduction Before the advent of the Internet, people got their news from the media, be it the local news, national news or daily newspapers. And, as such, there was no checks and balances for these media outlets. All this has changed. From Matt Drudge outing the Monica Lewinsky affair, to the millions of Internet bloggers, to satirical shows such Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert’s shows, to other satirical shows such as South Park and The Family Guy, to documentaries by Michael Moore, individuals are getting their news in different ways than ever before. In the process, individuals are becoming informed while being entertained. Which is not to say that any of this is absolutely positive progress, for bloggers can spread lies and innuendo that spread like wildfire throughout the net. Witness the issue of the death panels in the health care plan – while there was no basis for these so-called death panels, rumors of them caught fire in the blogosphere, and soon even non-blogosphere people like Rush Limbaugh took the bait and ran with it. In the end, there were no death panels, but people still believe that there are. Witness also the issue of the Obama citizenship. Internet bloggers will not leave the issue alone, which has made problems for the President, even though there is no basis for claiming that Obama is not a citizen. Inaccurate information can spread very quickly, even more quickly than in the mainstream press, so one viral rumor can cause a lot of damage very quickly. That said, there is value to this type of information spread, and the pros and cons are what this paper will be concentrated upon. Discussion According to Arthur Hayes (2008), citizen press critics, which are the citizens who blog, are to be defended as an effective democratic rabble that keeps the mainstream press in check. Before the Internet, according to Hayes, “the mainstream press in the United States has swatted away its critics, even those it employed as ombudsmen and media reporters, as illegitimate interlopers in its relationship with its audience” (Hayes, 2008, p. 1). An example of this was CBS’s reaction to the blogosphere after the infamous “Rathergate,” in which Dan Rather was caught publicizing unauthenticated documents on the air. Dismissing the blogosphere as “some guy in his pajamas,” Jonathan Klein, the vice-president of the CBS News, stated “you couldn’t have a starker contrast between checks and balances and some guy in his pajamas in his living room stating what he thinks” (Dasselaar, 2006, p. 11). The press before these checks and balances was arrogant and dismissive of those with whom they disagreed. The press felt that their only checks and balances were the free market, and individuals were free to watch them or not, buy their newspapers and magazines or not. Monitors on what they reported were considered a violation of free speech (Hayes, 2008, p. 2). Even now, according to Hayes, these professional press critics, who are those that work for the mainstream press, are arrogant and dismissive of the citizen critics, who are the bloggers, stating that these bloggers are driven by ideology and threaten press freedom and democracy (Hayes, 2008, p. 2). Hayes essentially accuses the professional press critics of democratic elitism. Democratic elitism means that the people are not to have a voice, even if they do play a role in the democracy. This is because the people – unsophisticated, irrational, and shortsighted – cannot be trusted to support democratic rights (Hayes, 2008, p. 2). Extrapolating this, the democratic elites believe that ordinary citizens do not have the right to press criticism, due to their lack of sophistication, education or training. Therefore, they are a threat to a stable democracy and the free press (Hayes, 2008, p. 2). Hayes believes just the opposite – these individuals are the backbone of democracy, and they are strengthening democracy by criticizing the institutions that affect us all and the officials who govern us. Moreover, they strengthen democracy by bringing accountability to the mainstream media by bringing the wrath of public opinion to bear on the topics and issues that affect us all. And, even though the voices in the blogosphere can be shrill, contemptuous, overly partisan and uncivil, these voices are necessary to continue a national dialogue while holding the mainstream media accountable for what they report. As such, they are “important members of the Fifth Estate, monitoring the powerful watchdog news media that some have argued act more like lapdogs submissive to status quo political and economic authority or like guard dogs acting as a sentry not for the community as a whole, but groups having sufficient power and influence to create and control their own security systems” (Hayes, 2008, p. 3). This last sentence forms the basis for how Hayes sees the Fifth Estate citizen critics – that the mainstream media is shaped by power, and it is important that this power not become absolute. The citizen critics insure that this will always be the case. Lopez (2010), has a similar view of the citizen critics. To her, “e-democracy” is important, because of the view that anybody can contribute to the political and civil discourse. Further, culture is raised by this participation in e-democracy, because of the fact that the content is mixed, aggregated and assembled. E-democracy also contributes to a richer on-line experience, as the news is now interactive. This is contrast to the news of old, which Lopez considers to be “passive, unidirectional and and monotonous” (Lopez, 2010). Further, the hallmarks of the e-democracy, according to Lopez are that the news is no longer pre-packaged and closed propaganda, but dynamic and shared; the news is backed by open data that anybody can access, in contrast to the news of old that was simply accepted because there was no data available to refute it; the message is no longer controlled, as it is diffused through the peer-to-peer networks; the citizen is acknowledged as somebody who can be trusted; and that ideologies are constructed via real-time feedback (Lopez, 2010). Cornfield (2005) studied the impact that citizen critics had on the 2004 presidential election. Cornfield states that bloggers were important in the 2004 presidential election because they were the purveyors of “buzz.” Buzz is when a multitude of individuals are talking about the same thing at the same time (Cornfield, 2005, p. 4). The examples that he used were the issue with John Kerry and the Swift Boaters and the issue with Dan Rather, where Rather was caught reading unauthenticated memos about George Bush’s National Guard Service, and this led to his early retirement (Cornfield, 2005, p. 4). Cornfield holds these two examples up as examples of when bloggers buzz helped keep issues alive. In the case of Kerry and the Swift Boaters, bloggers were very influential, as the Swift Boat issue was a major issue in the campaign and was considered by many to be the turning point of the election. In the case of Rather, the Internet buzz magnified the issue and turned it into a meme, which is defined as a “net-borne buzz object” (Cornfield, 2005, p. 27). Considering that both of these issues were hot-button issues during the 2004 presidential election, it would not be too far afield to state that bloggers, in effect, decided the presidential election. The citizen critics are coming at a time when the mainstream press is increasingly facing dire straits, both in lack of circulation and lack of credibility. The signs of the decline of traditional news are everywhere. Knight Ridder, a newspaper giant, has been dismantled, with its individual newspapers being sold to the highest bidder, which is just one sign that the newspaper is in decline. Television network news programs, facing similar problems, are slashing their budgets, laying off workers and closing foreign bureaus, while facing declining and aging viewership (Ryfe, 2007, p. 723). These developments, combined with the rise of the bloggers and satirical news shows, where younger people are increasingly getting their news, shows that the news world is fundamentally changing (Ryfe, 2007, p. 724) Another sign of this fundamental change, besides the rise of the citizen bloggers, is the rise of the satirical news shows. Jon Stewart, the star of The Daily Show is probably the most influential and popular of these news shows. First airing in 1996, The Daily Show achieved popularity when it added Jon Stewart as its anchor in 1999 and started focusing on politics and media. With the help of Jon Stewart, the show has morphed into a “news show framed by comedy” (McCarthy, 2009, p. 2). It currently has over 1.5 million viewers each night (McCarthy, 2009, p. 2). Studies have shown that the regular viewers of The Daily Show are more informed than non-regular viewers about the issues of the day (Painter & Wilkins, 2010, p. 5). A 2009 poll shows that Stewart is the most trusted news person in the post-Kronkite era (Jones & Baym, 2010, p. 278). One of the reasons why Stewart is so trusted is because mainstream news media programs, such as Fox and MSNBC, are seen by many as being havens for uncivil political discourse (Jones & Baym, 2010, p. 278). Although Stewart has been criticized for blurring the lines between social commentary and comedy, he points out that the comedians role has always been that of a social commentator (Jones & Baym, 2010, p. 278). Jones & Baym (2010) argue that Stewart’s show, along with Stephen Colbert’s and Bill Mahr’s shows, actually do a better job of promoting civil discourse between the participants of the show. This civil discourse is vital to upholding a democratic society, argue Jones & Baym. Moreover, these shows further encourage democratic involvement from its views because the tenor of the shows tend to be much less hostile than the tenor on partisan news shows on Fox and MSNBC (Jones & Baym, 2010, p. 279). Jones & Baym (2010) further argue that, on the surface, Stewart’s and Colbert’s shows appear to be a post-modern way of disseminating news. This is because these shows are a hybrid of entertainment and information. They weave comedy and spectacle with hard news. This has the mainstream press worried that these shows are “infotainment,” and this is worrisome because these shows are seen as a corruption of mainstream news (Jones & Baym, 2010, p. 281). However, Jones & Baym argue that these shows are actually an example of modernism, in that they are not really infotainment, but, rather, represent a critique of the mainstream press, in that they demand facts, accountability and reasoned discourse from the mainstream press (Jones & Baym, 2010, p. 281). Harrington (2009) would argue that Stewart and his ilk represent a kind of “critical intertexuality,” which is a “specific sort of antagonistic satire with the power to reevaluate, ridicule and teach other genres” (Harrington, 2009, p. 2). Echoing Jones & Baym, Painter & Wilkins (2010) state that Jon Stewart and The Daily Show function as a way to hold the mainstream media accountable. News accountability is defined by Painter & Wilkins as the mainstream media’s obligation to provide complex and truthful information to the citizens at large, and that the mainstream press must answer for what they do (Painter & Wilkins, 2010, pp. 4-6). A media holds itself accountable when it offers corrections and feedback, such as letters to the editor (Painter & Wilkins, 2010, p. 8). Painter & Wilkins further argue that Jon Stewart is “mad as hell” at the mainstream press and their inability to live up to its ideal of informing the public, and that his comedy is essentially an extension of this anger (Painter & Wilkins, 2010, p. 3). Further, the comedy in the program acts as a kind of “spoonful of sugar” that helps the medicine of hard truths go down – comedy makes the delivery of hard news more palatable and makes Stewart seem less mean-spirited in his news delivery (Painter & Wilkins, 2010, p. 3). Painter & Wilkins state that there were traditionally three ways that the mainstream press was forced into answerability, which means that they are made to answer for their mistakes and foibles. The first way is through market share – if a certain news outlet is deemed less than credible, then it loses viewership, and this is one way to hold the news outlet accountable. The second way is the call for explanation, which is when people, in an outcry, ask news outlets to explain themselves. This would be considered external criticism. The third way is through professional self-regulation, which takes the forms of rebukes and criticism from other members of the press. This is considered to be internal criticism (Painter & Wilkins, 2010, p. 9). To this, Painter & Wilkins adds a fourth way of forcing the mainstream press into answerability, and that is the existence of The Daily Show and other types of “fake news” (Painter & Wilkins, 2010, p. 9). Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, argues Painter & Wilkin, bridges the gap between external criticism, which is criticism by non-journalists, and internal criticism, which is criticism by fellow journalists. They are able to do this because, while they are not a member of the news media per se, therefore they have the characteristics of journalism outsiders, their programs are produced by individuals who are familiar with the ethics of journalism and bona fide journalists often interview the stars. In this way, Colbert and Stewart are both insiders and outsiders, so they have the best of both worlds. They are seen as pseudo-journalists, so they have credibility, yet they are able to get away with criticism that bona fide journalists cannot (Painter & Wilkins, 2010, p. 9). McCarthy (2009) echoes these critiques of The Daily Show. He feels that The Daily Show is just as credible as any other news source, especially since mainstream news sources have, themselves, taken to framing, influencing and re-telling the news, having diverged from the typical format of objectivity and reporting ironically in response to shows like The Daily Show (McCarthy, 2009, p. 2). In fact, McCarthy points out that The Daily Show has almost as much substantive news as a mainstream news show – during the 2004 election, mainstream news shows had 28% substantive news, while The Daily Show had 22% substantive news (McCarthy, 2009, p. 3). To McCarthy, The Daily Show makes news “relevant again,” which implies that news was becoming irrelevant before the advent of The Daily Show (McCarthy, 2009, p. 2). McCarthy argues that The Daily Show offers a critique from inside the system of journalism, as opposed to outside of it. Because the show is dependent upon the mainstream media for its humor and insight, it does not desire to actually tear down the mainstream media. Rather, argues McCarthy, its function is that of a goad, in that it actually wants to make the mainstream media better. It does this by gently pointing out to the mainstream media where its foibles lie and how to counteract them (McCarthy, 2009, p. 3). Moreover, McCarthy sees The Daily Show as a way to build a kind of civic literacy, which is vital to a free democracy, as it enables the average citizen to become a competent citizen, while giving the average citizen political knowledge that helps him better participate in the political process (McCarthy, 2009, p. 4). This is in contrast to an illiterate populace, which contributes to political disenfranchisement, as the illiterate populace is not able to freely participate in democratic processes. Jon Stewart, McCarthy, is able to reach individuals who are not interested in typical news formats, simply because he entertains while he informs. Stewart, through reaching individuals who would not otherwise be interested in the news, therefore is able to expand the literacy quotient of the populace, which makes it easier for more citizens to participate in democratic processes, such as voting. In this way, his show is essential to a functioning democracy. Further, argues McCarthy, Stewart’s show helps the average populace as it guides them through what is important in the mainstream news, and what is not (McCarthy, 2009, p. 5). These authors make the point that Jon Stewart’s show, along with Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher, are actually great assistances to a functioning democracy, because they are reaching more people than standard news formats ever could. At the same time, they are aiding the functioning of democracy by emphasizing civility on their shows, a civility that is lacking in both mainstream news sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC and the blogosphere. Individuals may not want to watch the nightly news, because it is boring and repetitive and there are too many teasers and commercials. Yet the same viewer will watch Bill Maher every Friday night, because Maher is hilarious and irreverent, has funny “New Rules” and a funny opening monologue. Maher’s guests never engage in put-downs of one another, and do not necessarily try to talk over one another and interrupt, as on the cable news shows. Yet each show is current, with current, serious, topics that are debated in a serious way. In this way, the viewer is treated to a variety of perspectives on the same issue, which helps the viewer become well-rounded on the issue and informed. Some critics may deride this as “infotainment,” and state that it does not have a place as far as providing serious news. Nevertheless, Maher, Stewart and Colbert are the only way that many people, especially young people, get the news. Therefore, the reality of the situation is that these types of news formats are here to stay, and this is a good thing. As McCarthy pointed out, any way that our populace can go from being generally uninformed to generally informed cannot be a bad thing, and, in fact, is the best way for the majority of citizens to fully participate in democracy. Conclusion Mainstream journalism is increasingly being replaced by news sources that are relevant to the general populace. There are a variety of reasons for this. One reason is that mainstream journalism is often seen by some as beholden to special interests and those in power. Another reason is that the discourse on some mainstream shows, such as, for instance, Sean Hannity on the right, and Keith Olbermann on the left, is increasingly partisan and shrill. People can watch these shows, and come away not knowing who to believe. The bloggers are one cure for these issues, because the blogosphere can create buzz around a certain issue, which keeps the issue in the press. This is true even if the mainstream press wants to bury the issue, as what arguably almost happened with John Kerry and the Swift Boat controversy. In this way, the bloggers acted as citizen journalists, in that they did the job that the mainstream press did not. The bloggers therefore aided in democracy, in that they informed the blogosphere about events that were essentially covered up the mainstream press. Further, satirical news shows, such as The Daily Show, The Stephen Colbert Show, and Real Time with Bill Maher also serve to enhance democracy by getting people interested in the news who were not interested previously, while enhancing political discourse by encouraging their guests to be civil to one another. By entertaining the audience, while simultaneously informing them, they are reaching out to the portion of the populace that would be otherwise uninformed. By informing individuals in this way, they assist in making American citizens competent, which, in turn, helps Americans make informed decisions about political processes. That said, it is arguable that the satirical news shows are better at their jobs of being part of the Fifth Estate, simply because the satirical news shows undoubtedly have more checks and balances, including fact-checkers, then do bloggers. Unfortunately, bloggers latch onto issues that have no credibility, like the issue of the “death panels” mentioned above. When bloggers create buzz about such an issue, it gives the issue a certain air of credibility that should not be there. The satirical news shows, on the other hand, will not engage in this type of wild speculation, simply because they are professionals, and, as such, must act like professionals. This would include fact-checking. In this way, the satirical news shows are important to a functioning democracy. Bloggers are as well, but bloggers can also be dangerous when they disseminate disinformation. Sources Used Cornfield, Michael, Jonathan Carson, Alison Kalis & Emily Simon (2005). “Buzz, Blogs and Beyond.” 3 April 2011. < http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/ wwwpewtrustsorg/News/Press_Releases/Society_and_the_Internet/PIP_Blogs_05160 5.pdf> Dasselaar, Arjan (2006). “The Fifth Estate: On the Journalistic Aspect of the Dutch Blogosphere.” 3 April 2011. < http://www.isopeda.nl/thefifthestate.pdf> Harrington, Stephen (2009). “Chasing Infotainment, Intertextuality and Media Satire.” 3 April 2011. < http://eprints.qut.edu.au/26299/> Hayes, Arthur (2008). Press Critics are the Fifth Estate. New York: Praeger. Jones, Jeffrey & Geoffrey Baym (2010). “A Dialogue on Satire News and the Crisis of Truth in Postmodern Political Television.” Journal of Communication Theory, 34.3: 278-294. Lopez, Ismael (2010). “Goverati: E-Aristocrats or the Delusion of E-Democracy.” 4 April 2011. < http://ictlogy.net/articles/20100506_ismael_pena-lopez_-_goverati_e- aristocrats_delusion_e-democracy.pdf> McCarthy, Mark (2009). “The Daily Show: Journalism’s Jester.” Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2090. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/2090. Painter, Chad & Lee Wilkins (2010). “The Fifth Estate: A Textual Analysis of How the Daily Show Holds the Watchdogs Accountable.” 3 April 2011. < http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/4/3/3/9/6/p433960_index.html> Ryfe, David (2007). “The Future of Media Politics.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 10.4: 723- 738. Read More