Mass Media: Faux Versus Real News - Essay Example

Mass Media: Faux Versus Real News Introduction In the past becoming a television journalist involved tasks such as attending journalism school, paying one’s dues on the lower level and then being sent to undesirable positions in the field. The ultimate award to a television journalist was an anchor position.These days, however, it seems as though the requirements for television journalism have changed. All one needs is a background in stand-up comedy and an understanding of current news and political trends.

Mass media programs such as the Daily Show with John Stewart, Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert are holding the general media accountable for accuracy in reporting. Many times, given the growing biases of so-called “news networks” such as Fox News and MSNBC, viewers are turning to such shows not only for entertainment, but to get an ironic, if not truthful, take of the news. ObjectivesThe paper is aimed at discussing the literature about the so-called “fake” news and what popular cultures are saying about these different programs.

From that literature, and the programs themselves, we’ll determine if there is more truth to the critical take on the news than what comes from mainstream journalists and network news. Literature Review“It’s not easy being a fake newsman in 2010,” remarked Time magazine columnist James Poniewozik in late 2010). “Reality keeps stealing your best material.” Poniewozik has a point – trying to find unbiased news on the so called “news” networks is becoming all but impossible. Turn on Fox News and one is likely treated to the ultra-conservative view of everything ranging from the higher price of gas (President Barack Obama’s fault), jobless rates (also the President’s fault), to turmoil in the Middle East.

Flipping the channel to CNN or MSNBC is not a whole lot better. On those networks, viewers can be treated to rhetoric blaming of the Republicans, Big Business and the George W. Bush Years for everything that’s wrong today. The big talk that is being talked throughout on these networks is creating a new type of “news” program: The faux news program.Programs such as HBO Real Time with Bill Maher, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report are meant to be news analysis concealed in entertainment, humor and irony.

Yet more often than not, it seems these stand-up comedy hosts are doing a better job of reporting the real news than their more “serious” counterparts. Maher, on his show, tackles deep political issues with panels representing both sides of the political spectrum. Stewart is well knowledgeable in sarcasm on a particular issue of the day and interviewing guests of current interest. Stephen Colbert, as an ultra right-wing character, points out the fallacy of a great deal of political and journalism reporting.

It is said, in fact, that a thinking person who wants to get a true version of the news should probably tune into one of these programs.Despite this, much of the scholarly literature is still not sure what to make of this particular mass media outlet. Painter and Hodges (2010) in their analysis of the Daily Show, point out that host Jon Stewart is more than a stand-up comic; he’s an individual who “is holding those who claim that they are practicing journalism accountable to the public they claim to serve . . .” (p. 257).

Colletta (2009) in her discussion about the “reality” of political irony in this day and age, agrees that Stewart and Colbert stretch their irony to the point that it can mimic realism to a somewhat scary degree. She points out, for example, that much of Colbert’s material is not a whole lot different from the so-called “news” offered by conservative commentary Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Network. The difference is that Colbert introduces his material understanding its irony and satire, whereas O’Reilly is quite serious when he considers that his big talk is “real news,” and fashions his nightly show as the “No Spin Zone.

”\Borden and Tew (2007), however, do not agree with this assessment. Rather, these authors believe that hosts such as Stewart, Colbert and Mahar, to an extent, are “fake” journalists; though they do acknowledge that, at times, “they are interesting because sometimes they do a better job performing the functions of journalism than journalists themselves” (p. 300). However, the authors point out, Stewart and Colbert and their type don’t share the same moral commitments that journalists do (it’s interesting that Borden and Tew don’t apply O’Relly, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to the same litmus test).

In the meantime, Mike Flaherty, who interviewed Bill Maher for an article in the New Yorck magazine, points out that his news panel of individuals consists of a “motley assemblage of outspoken celebrities, politicos and intellectuals . . . pointedly both liberal and conservative” (p. 3). Flaherty did allow that Maher is a fair, if a cranky host, distorting both President Obama and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the same breath. Flaherty also points out that Maher’s show represents “progressive frustration” with both the Obama administration and the Democratic congress (Flaherty, 2011).

But Flaherty, in his interview and questions, doesn’t seem to take Maher too seriously about much of anything. There is a reason for this – Maher is an avowed left-leaning progressive, who has been outspoken in his beliefs that the 9/11 terrorists were actually brave men. He’s in favor of legalizing marijuana. But again, like Stewart and Colbert, he doesn’t take sides when it comes to reporting the news or commenting on it. He’s an equal-opportunity grouser. Hypothesis Does the mass media give faux news to the public?

For long the mass media and the media houses had been enjoying the privilege of public trust to give the public genuine news, and informing the masses about the incidences that are taking place in the planet. There is a possibility that the news of today is biased and satirical. This shows that the media houses could have breached the public trust. The invasion of Iraq shows that the media personnel have failed in their roles of critically analyzing the objectivity of their coverage. This is in contrast to what happened during the Presidency John F Kennedy.

The government was pushed by the media until it admitted making a mistake by tempering with the affairs of Cuba. Today, serious personnel are being replaced by the comedians in their role because their news reports are faulty. TheoriesFunctionalists recognize the crucial role of mass media, the role of adaptation and integration of the society. The media play a central role of gathering information and dissemination of the same to the citizens. Further the media socialize people into the dynamic social order, and it transmits the basic values and norms and cultural heritage.

Other functional roles of the mass media include entertainment, reinforcement of shared ideals, individual freedom, justice and democracy. This theory recognizes the vital role of the mass media in the society without a single critic. However, conflict theory proves that the media houses produce biased news that is satirical and which is controlled by the dominant groups in society. AnalysisSatirizing the news on television isn’t new, of course. Comedians were poking fun at politics and news since the 1950s.

During the late 1960s, the Smothers Brothers’ variety show was cancelled by CBS because of the brothers’ concealed sarcasm when it came to politics and the Vietnam War. Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, another late 1960s variety show, also satirized the news but in that particular show, the quips were so fast, people weren’t too focused on them and what they were saying.But satirizing news became an art form on Saturday Night Live beginning in the mid-1970s when the “Weekend Update” was hosted by a variety of comedians who knew how to deliver satire with a straight face.

The something strange began to happen in the late 1980s and early 1990s – the serious news itself became a joke. When news networks began breathlessly dropping everything to cover issues such as the O.J. Simpson trial during the mid-1990s and later in the decade, President Bill Clinton’s affair with intern Monica Lewinski, it became difficult for thinking citizens to truly take journalists seriously. Why the focus on obviously biased, obviously fluffy stuff? Part of the reason was that news organizations in the very latter part of the 20th century ceased to be news-gathering organizations and instead became parts of vast mass-media conglomerates; and those conglomerates were headed up by some individuals with very precise opinions.

Fox network’s Rupert Murdoch, for example, is a known die-hard conservative who hired equally conservative Roger Ailes to head up the news division. Furthermore, news became less about reporting facts and more about “infotainment” as better ratings meant more advertising, and more advertising, of course, meant more dollars. Newsmen such as Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, legends in their times, would have been considered too “boring” by these new networks. However, as newsrooms became more beholden to their corporate masters; rather than to reporting the truth, the truth got lost in the shuffle.

Perhaps the best example of this involved the events leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. During the weeks when President George W. Bush and his administration were making the argument for invasion, not one journalist thought to question the basis for the arguments which, as it turned out, was faulty CIA intelligence. Nor did any journalists think to ask about an exit plan. Instead, the mass media, both right and left-leaning led the cheer toward the invasion, believing the administration when it told the American people that U.S. troops would be greeted with flowers and chocolates upon arrival in Iraq.

When one compares this to the news coverage of the Bay of Pigs invasion during President John F. Kennedy’s tenure in the early 1960s, when the news media was critical of that administration’s efforts to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba, there is a marked and disturbing difference. In the Bay of Pigs, the news media continued holding the Kennedy administration’s feet to the fire until it acknowledged it made a mistake. When it came to Iraq, however, news journalists seemed to stand aside and let the president’s administration take the tone.

In the corporate-owned newsroom era, therefore, it made sense that satirical journalists and ironic news reporting have become more popular among thinking individuals. The likes of Colbert, Stewart and Maher not only satirize and comment on the ridiculous events in politics, entertainment and news, they also criticize the “serious” journalists who are supposed to report the news and who are supposed to be accountable to the American public. It’s no wonder that more people are likely to tune into the Daily Show or HBO Real Time with Bill Maher to get a balanced view of the news of the day (even if that view is cloaked in humor and satire).

Unlike serious journalists and reporters, the likes of Colbert, Maher and Stewart aren’t beholden to a newsroom that is owned by a corporation.ConclusionIt’s a somewhat sad a situation that so-called “serious” journalists aren’t really taken seriously anymore, while their comedic counterparts are being praised for telling it like it is. For many people, the satiric news is actually becoming the reality because the real news is becoming a satire, a caricature of itself. Does this mean we’ll continue to see stand-up comics taking anchor news roles on major networks?

Probably not, no self-respecting newsroom would go quite that far. But if newsrooms must continue to shade the news toward the politics of their networks’ corporate owners, audiences will likely continue turning to faux anchors for real news. Work CitedBorden, Sandra L. and Tew, Chad. The role of journalist and the performance of journalism: Ethical lessons from “fake” news (seriously). Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22.4 (2007): 300 Print. Colletta, Lisa. Political satire and postmodern irony in the age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

Journal of Popular Culture, 42.5 (2009): 856-874 Print.Flaherty, Mike. The best of times. New York 17 Jan. 2011. 3. Painter, Chad and Hodges, Louis. Mocking the news: How the Daily Show with Jon Stewart holds traditional broadcast news accountable. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25.4 (2010): 257. Poniewozik, James. Can these guys be serious? Time 1 Nov. 2010. 18. Print.