The Daily Show and Misinforming the General Public - Essay Example

Why Programs like "The Daily Show" Cannot Bring the Correct Information to Public Introduction Recently, a growing number of Americans have shifted from relying on mainstream media sources for information and turned to other sources that can be termed as fake news programs, for instance, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. However, cleverly, they blend comedy with coverage of events that are newsworthy; such programs attempt to create a kind of entertainment in the form of news. However, these kinds of entertainment form of news have already certain significant unique ethical questions. The question is whether the information is good for people, whether the information has an effect that is negative in the media and the culture at large. More of concern is whether the show can bring correct and reliable information to the public. The essay argues that these programs do not provide information that is worth to be trusted by the public (Zinser 363). Justification as to why Programs like "The Daily Show" Cannot Bring the Correct Information to Public The actual problem is the assessment of the overall outcomes of information from the comedy programs like The Daily shows. It is important to care where people get information because it is essential for people to be properly informed. More so, the dissemination of information is extremely significant in a democratic society. However, to justify this point, there are damaging effects media controlled by the state might have for instance in North Korea, Iran, and Iraq under Husseins regime. However, a public that is more informed is the grease that keeps on democracy to run properly (Zinser 363). The most two disturbing challenges coming from the comedy shows or programs are the deception and dilution. For example, The Daily Show uses events that are real as a vehicle for the comedy. More so, The Daily Show is billing itself as a series that is unburdened by a journalistic integrity, an objectivity, or accuracy. Therefore, it is unrealistic for the show that is unburdened by objectivity to provide a well-informed and reliable information to the large swaths of America about national and foreign news events. However, this can be described as the challenge of deception that cloaks a real news program as an entertainment. Another concern is the problem of dilution. The Daily Show, now, enjoys success because it attracts more than 1.4 million for their daily dose. However, these programs might prompt traditional journalistic venues, for instance as the nightly news programs on key broadcast networks, to infuse the hard news with entertainment and this might dilute the reliable news media at large (Zinser 365). In addition, The Daily Show is shaping the perspective of peoples on the world. Once this is realized, it is justifiable to question the quality of the news the viewers are receiving. Although, the incidental imparting of news may be seen as beneficial, but because of how it these programs functions, because of its use, or is taken to perform, these shows do not hold itself to similar journalistic levels traditional news agencies do. It makes sense to argue that a program that is concerned with getting ratings through comedy cannot be expected to provide responsible and objective coverage of global events (Zinser 364). It can be assumed that these shows’ audience are intelligent to thresh the wheat from the chaff. However, people may think they are sufficiently informed as they watch these programs news segments. From a realistic point of perspective, no one can get a quality report from a comedy shows. This is because a comedian does not have the expertise standards of communicating events that are reliable. In addition, the problem with information from the comedy shows are that they are diluted, therefore, undermines the substance and integrity of the hard news. The two ways that these programs might contribute to such dilution of the mainstream mass media is the fake news, along with blogs and alternative forms of media. Therefore, they make fragments on the face of journalism, hence makes it hard to decide which news sources to trust (Zinser 366). In addition, the style of dilution might be as a result of The Daily Show influence on the media at large. It is important to note that The Daily Show mainstream media is part of a profit-driven corporate world. The pattern of mixing entertainment with news, mastered if not created by The Daily Show, might and already has spilled over to the hard news, although whether The Daily Show is to blame. The more the popularity of the fake news programs become, the more likely traditional media would continue to the follow suit, softening hard news with mixed and mere entertainment. To echo Fenton, the fiddling becomes even louder (Zinser 366). Important but uninteresting information events might not be covered unless they are made funny somehow. Similarly, the lack of the journalistic standards enables these programs news the liberty and the tools of informing the audience in a way that is unavailable to mainstream media. However, both of these are true. In addition, the Daily Show are limited in the scope of events they cover, it always describe insightful things about the events it does cover. This is true for the Daily Shows, and other various programs disseminating fake news as well as other forms of new media: quasi-documentaries, blogs, and cable news programming. One significant difference between the traditional media sources and programs like The Daily Show is that these programs does not gather news but instead comments on stories that have been reported by the traditional news (Zinser 370). Some of these shows have been heavily criticized on the basis of the impact of the commercial breaks that interrupts that are frequent in any provided episode, for instance, say, 24, a show that’s majorly for a nutritional program. The show was also recently criticized for recent controversies surrounding the programs representation of a Muslim terrorists and its implicit endorsement of the torture. The show, preferably, concentrates on how to make inferences, pay attention, and to track shifting social relationships. However, such a program can be described as a fictional programs connection to actual-life political events like the racial, torture and profiling one of the social relationships. Such shows should not be paid attention because they keep on challenging their audiences cognitive faculties with rapid-fire information and intricate plotlines. At the same time, they actively discourage the audience from thinking much about the vigilante ethic it is portraying. Therefore, it can be deduced that these programs should not be relied on for information (Zinser 365). Information provides empowerment. The Steven describes themselves as people who grew up in caveman days, fashioning crude stone tools. However, in his opinion watching Hutch and Starsky, are indeed better-positioned than their forebears to follow complex narrative fare as with The Sopranos. Although the analogy is a fault in that The Sopranos is one of the high-end, sophisticated shows of its day, better compared to 1970s offerings like Soap and Mary Hartman, it does that make them any smarter (Steven 1). Also, it can be argued that television programs are viewed as tools for the brain enhancement, these television shows have grown more and more to be complicated over the last two decades. Therefore, now they can be described as like the rats that are in a behaviorists maze. Viewers need to differentiate among 12 distinct plotlines in programs, for instance, The Sopranos. Alternatively, watching television is a truth that it has been already grasped by the childrens programming makers, for instance, the Teletubbies that is essentially a tutorial that is instructing toddlers vegging out basics. Therefore, information reported by these programs need not be trusted due to its unreliability (Steven 1). Conclusion In conclusion, it is everyone’s responsibility to be properly informed. However, this can only happen when there are available news sources, which are legitimate. From the essay analysis, it can be deduced that there were many media choices that are legitimate and existed before programs such as The Daily Show became a key cultural force. However, sifting for these resources may seem to be harder now than it was before. In addition, distinguishing between a fact and spin is also another challenge but instead of substituting mainstream news, these shows need to enhance understanding of the mainstream media (Zinser 365). In addition, from the vantage point of a person who watches most of these programs, it can be seen as a brain-liquefying poison. Certainly, children are most targeted by the advertising industry; it can be assumed that most of these shows are purposely for commercial purposes instead of disseminating information to the public. Moreover, reviewing the potential hazards of the fake news that include dilution and deception, while the potential benefits include informing an otherwise inattentive audience and providing informed individuals with a variety of information than that of traditional hard news. For these reasons, The Daily Show has been praised, and both condemned for being unburdened by the objectivity. Critically speaking, lacking of the traditional journalistic requirements does not require the fake news to be thorough or even impartial. Work cited Steven, Danan. "Thinking outside the idiot box." TV and Popular Culture 25 April 2005. Web. 6th May 2015. Zinser, Jason. "The good, the bad and the Daily Show." The daily show and philosophy: Moments of Zen in the Art of Fake News 2007: 363-376. Web. 6th May 2015. Read More