But there is still something that bugs me . . .
I know many people disagree with this, but I find the fact that Jon Stewart is now one of the most trusted news anchors in America very troubling. The Daily Show is not a legitimate news source, and Jon Stewart is not a journalist.
Stewart insists that his show is merely satire -- intended to mock the political elite -- but, over the years, it's become much more than that. Younger audiences have increasingly turned to the Daily Show for political commentary, and mainstream media organizations have lauded Stewart for his journalistic skill.
All of this would be fine if The Daily Show was slowly accepting higher standards of journalistic integrity as it earned more of the public's trust. But no one expects this. Instead, we expect hard-hitting stories that we can trust, without any journalistic accountability to justify that trust. We want to have our cake and eat it, too. And The Daily Show is more than happy to let us think we can.
There is a real irony here. Anyone who's listened to Jon Stewart talk knows that this is precisely the line of attack that he uses against the mainstream media. Cable news stations especially have abandoned actual reporting in favor of infotainment. But this kind of news doesn't actually inform its audience; it simply gets us riled up. It doesn't allow us to examine the facts on our own; it force-feeds us the news from a certain perspective.
During his scathing interview with Jim Cramer, Stewart conceded, "You know, look, we're both snake-oil salesmen to a certain extent. But we do label the show as snake oil here. Isn't there a problem selling snake oil as vitamin tonic?"
There certainly is. But if Stewart identifies himself as a snake-oil salesman, why do so many people seem to think he's selling vitamin tonic?
13 comments:
Excellent post.
What people like about The Daily Show--aside from the fact that it is funny--is that Jon Stewart takes the government and the media to task, exposing hypocrises, in a way the media cannot or will not do. (Having lots of video at their disposal helps.)
Cable news, to me, is essentially worthless most of the time; they spin their wheels 'round and 'round, and is only useful if you need an excuse to roll your eyes.
Jon Stewart's comments about his role as a newsman have always been self-effacing, downplaying whatever influence he has and indeed insisting that he's just trying to be funny, but almost no one believes that anymore or takes it serious, effectively giving him a lot of power. Maybe it's the same thing at work when Tina Fey was elevated for playing Sarah Palin: she managed to get to the truth of the matter in a way no one else could, plus she was funny. And being funny gets points across so much better than a sober report or a long rant.
I agree with MM, but I also think that the very fact that most people on the news are snake oil salesmen helps Jon Stewart in being (seemingly) more trustworthy. Because, just like what he told Jim Cramer, he fully admits that his show is infotainment. So when we're entertained, we're supposed to be. When he has a guest on and shilling a product - a movie, a book, a policy, a whatever - it is clear that the person is on to shill the product, that they are there for that reason and that it doesn't violate the show because that is part of the point of the show.
But I also think part of the reason is that I don't know if you're right about this:
we expect hard-hitting stories that we can trust, without any journalistic accountability to justify that trust.
Does anyone really expect an expose from Jon Stewart et al? Because I don't. I expect Jon Stewart to riff on the clearly entertastic "expose" that passes itself off as something more than what it is.
But the sad truth is, as MM points out, Jon Stewart's show does a lot better at actually exposing lies and falsehoods and rewrites of history by pulling out the relevant footage than a lot of actual news shows do. The sad truth is, people trust Jon Stewart because he does the Cassidy "REally?" so well.
And I do think that the people who "get their news" from Jon Stewart are people who otherwise wouldn't be interested in news at all, so it isn't like these people used to watch the CBS Evening News and then decided that Stewart was a better and more truthful anchor than Katie Couric.
But what do I know? I watch The Newshour with Jim Lehrer for my news. And on fridays, Bill Moyers!
By the way, I realize there could be a seeming contradiction between this:
Jon Stewart's show does a lot better at actually exposing lies and falsehoods and rewrites of history by pulling out the relevant footage than a lot of actual news shows do.
and this:
Does anyone really expect an expose from Jon Stewart et al? Because I don't.
But I don't really think it is, because we don't expect Jon Stewart to go out and do that hard reporting and fact-finding himself. We just expect him (or someone on his staff) to remember when someone said something entirely contradictory and who isn't being called out for it. For my money, that second one is (or should be) a lot easier than the first, because all it requires is a vague inclination you've heard something else before and the ability to YouTube (or google).
But, if that's true, why do people put Jon Stewart's name down when they're asked questions like this?
I think people expect a lot more from The Daily Show than you're suggesting. Otherwise, Jon Stewart's name wouldn't consistently rank up there with Brian Williams and Katie Couric.
I think people expect a lot more from The Daily Show than you're suggesting. Otherwise, Jon Stewart's name wouldn't consistently rank up there with Brian Williams and Katie Couric.
See, I approach it from the "I think people expect a lot less of Brian Williams and Katie Couric than you're suggesting" perspective. Because I honestly don't think anyone really expects a hell of a lot from Brian Williams or Katie Couric.
I like Katie Couric. A lot. But I think that the new crop of news anchors don't imbue their broadcasts with the same amount of gravitas and trustability as a Walter Cronkite, or a Dan Rather - or my personal favorite of the Big Three, Tom Brokaw.
I also think that what people remember about Cronkite now isn't the fact that he consistently reported the news, with as little bias as he (or anyone else) could. What people remember are the big moments, the tears at the Kennedy Assassination, the declaration that we couldn't win Vietnam, the excitement over the Moon Landing, the reporting about Watergate when no one except for two reporters at the obviously left leaning Washington Post was. What I think people see is a contrast between Cronkite's most politically salient moments, the moments where he cashed in on the trust he built by just reporting the news during all of those less important times, when he decided to offer the weight of his opinion.
And then they contrast it to the anchors who have yet to put any capital on the line for any larger point, who haven't decried anything, who just report the "news", even if what an official is telling them today is different than what they told them two days ago. And in comparison, Jon Stewart looks better, looks like he's more likely to tell us when shit's about to go down if he has any knowledge of it.
Michael Moore does the same thing, but he shouldn't be considered a "trusted" journalist because he cherry-picks facts and presents information from a particular political perspective.
The Daily Show does essentially the same thing. Jon Stewart is not an objective journalist, and we shouldn't "trust" the information that he presents in the same way that we trust information coming from Katie Couric or Brian Williams.
We need to recognize that Jon Stewart does not adhere to any standards to journalistic integrity, whereas Katie Couric and Brian Williams do. In fact, Jon Stewart explicitly refuses to accept any journalistic responsibility for his "reporting."
Maybe the quality of reporting has diminished since Cronkite, but that doesn't mean that Jon Stewart should be "trusted" over legitimate news anchors.
I agree with Pet; a lot of people who watch the Daily Show get their news from him, so the information is presented with a slant, yet they may not be aware (or care) about that slant, unless they disagree with it or it offends them.
The more I think about this, the more I don’t see the contradiction in answering that Jon Stewart is the most trusted news anchor is America, and that is precisely because he exposes hypocrises in the way the MSM don’t. Frank Rich’s column last week spoke to Pet’s point that anchors today don’t put anything on the line the way that Walter Cronkite did; a lot of journalism’s scandals and major mistakes over the past few years has really spoke to the fact that people don’t feel that the news is trustworthy, especially when the news is clogged with reports of celebrity scandals itself, infotainment and opinions galore, not with investigative reports. Investigative reports are stand-alone specials on television and occasionally are in print, but they take time, money and expertise that is increasingly in short supply.
You said, "a lot of people who watch the Daily Show get their news from him, so the information is presented with a slant, yet they may not be aware (or care) about that slant, unless they disagree with it or it offends them."
I'm very confused. I think this is a huge problem. Slanted news shouldn't be "trusted" -- whether or not it's more daring.
Do you disagree?
I'm not sure if you're trying to (uncritically) examine viewer psychology or if you're actually trying to justify this mindset.
It's a terrible sentence, granted. I should have been clearer.
I think it's easy for you to see how biased The Daily Show is, but if the average viewer shares in its viewpoint, he or she doesn't see it as biased, and therefore doesn't care--especially if the average viewer is not a news or political junkie. People prefer to read and follow stories that affirm their own way of seeing the world—this is also largely true of the people they choose to associate with—and it’s often an unconscious process. (Forgive me for not citing the correct terminology for this concept; I’m not up on my media theory. I can offer up Nicholas Kristof’s excellent column on this, though.) So many of those that love The Daily Show do find it trustworthy for all of the reasons that have already been elaborated. And even when people notice a slant, if they agree with it they don’t mind, but if they disagree, they do: You don’t watch Olbermann, O’Reilly or read William Kristol unless you want to burst a blood vessel.
It’s also important to point out that The Daily Show is useful to its audience--it shows and explains the news and provides entertainment--and that is why so many people find it trustworthy. A Katie Couric or a Brian Williams doesn't have as much utility as Jon Stewart does, and neither does David Letterman etc. al provide that value of understanding.
I have a few issues with what you're saying.
First, I don't think it's true that people 'unconsciously' choose news programs that affirm their worldview. Do you really believe that most people who listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Keith Olbermann are unaware that the reporting is slanted?
Second, as I said, I think this is a big problem. People shouldn't trust slanted news sources. Nick Kristof seems to agree with me. He says that the upshot of this "selective truth-seeking" is "polarization and intolerance."
So, let me ask again: Do you think it's a problem that people find information sources that justify their own opinions? Do you think it's a problem that people may find these bias sources more 'trustworthy'?
I'm troubled by the notion that "daring reporting" or "entertaining reporting" is somehow akin to "trustworthy reporting." This is, at best, an epistemologically questionable premise.
Do you really believe that most people who listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Keith Olbermann are unaware that the reporting is slanted?
Yes and no. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, on their respective programs, like Jon Stewart, are not reporters, and most people acknowledge that they are entertainers and are giving their opinions. But people do gravitate toward outlets that reward their version of the truth, as Kristof explains, and news outlets still do have a worldview. When faced with the same story on a number of outlets, why do you choose the one you choose? Is it because you trust that organization more?
It’s an important distinction to make, though, that just because an organization, story, or person has a bias or a slant doesn’t make it unreliable or untrustworthy. Can’t Jon Stewart, or Keith Olbermann, for that matter, be right even when taking into account their biases? Of course.
Yes, it would be wonderful if we all got our news from unbiased sources, but that’s imperfect. What if the choice is to get either no news or biased news? Does that depend on the story?
You said, "It’s an important distinction to make, though, that just because an organization, story, or person has a bias or a slant doesn’t make it unreliable or untrustworthy."
I disagree. Bias information sources filter facts, and push viewers toward a particular perspective. This makes bias information sources unreliable and untrustworthy. I think people need to acknowledge this.
You said,"What if the choice is to get either no news or biased news?"
This is a false dichotomy. There are lots of objective information sources. I trust NPR, for example, because I think it's an objective source of information.
There is a big difference between getting your news from Jon Stewart and getting your news from, say, Sean Hannity's America.
Sorry, I screwed up that last sentence:
*There is a big difference between getting your news from NPR and getting your news from, say, Jon Stewart or Sean Hannity.
Post a Comment