Journalism research today shows devotees of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to be better-informed than watchers of cable news shows hosted by Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Larry King, thereby raising the question of whether it's more helpful to lampoon the news than slobber all over it.
Asked which party now controls Congress, who is the current US secretary of state and to name the new prime minister of Great Britain, Comedy Central viewers outscored those who watch most cable TV news programs as well as those who claim to read newsmagazines and daily newspapers.
On the weekend, the New York Times asked, "Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?" with critic Michiko Kakutani concluding the Daily Show "has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news.
"'The Daily Show' resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because its keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era in which cognitive dissonance has become a national epidemic."
What Stewart and Colbert tonight will make of two men aspiring to the most powerful position in the world being quizzed like schoolboys by a best-selling, pop culture clergyman remains to be seen, but it's clear that only connoisseurs of the ridiculous can do the sight justice.
Showing posts with label cable news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cable news. Show all posts
Monday, August 18, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Silence of the Hams
Like Sherlock Holmes' dog that didn't bark in the night, the MSM blackout on John Edwards' visit to his "mistress and love child" (particularly on the part of the cable news loudmouths) gets curiouser.
My assumption yesterday about "this morning's MSM reticence to what surely will be a cable news orgy tonight (Fox News in hog heaven over a fallen Democratic idol on Obama's VP list)" turned out to be stunningly wrong.
The reaction, or lack of it, on the part of the CNN, MSNBC and Fox operatic anchors and their endless panels of expert logorrhea is much more interesting than the story itself.
On Slate under the heading, "Edwards: The Agony of the MSM," Mickey Kaus asks, "If the MSM can discuss the charges in meta form ("It's so easy to jump to conclusions---and I admit, this looks bad") in blogs, chat rooms, and in press commentaries, why not on the front page in political commentaries?"
The most likely answer is a combination of fears about looking salacious and being insensitive to Elizabeth Edwards' medical condition. Even for a longtime non-admirer of John Edwards, this is understandable but not persuasive in the light of media reactions to previous political scandals, from Bill Clinton to David Vitter and Larry Craig.
The rationalizations, extending from "not proven" (the Enquirer today offers more details) to Edwards' privacy rights (he has been out front promoting his poverty campaign and hinting about being Obama's VP), fail to explain it.
As comforting as it would be to believe that all the media are developing more scruples about exploiting the personal lives of public figures, that explanation won't wash.
My assumption yesterday about "this morning's MSM reticence to what surely will be a cable news orgy tonight (Fox News in hog heaven over a fallen Democratic idol on Obama's VP list)" turned out to be stunningly wrong.
The reaction, or lack of it, on the part of the CNN, MSNBC and Fox operatic anchors and their endless panels of expert logorrhea is much more interesting than the story itself.
On Slate under the heading, "Edwards: The Agony of the MSM," Mickey Kaus asks, "If the MSM can discuss the charges in meta form ("It's so easy to jump to conclusions---and I admit, this looks bad") in blogs, chat rooms, and in press commentaries, why not on the front page in political commentaries?"
The most likely answer is a combination of fears about looking salacious and being insensitive to Elizabeth Edwards' medical condition. Even for a longtime non-admirer of John Edwards, this is understandable but not persuasive in the light of media reactions to previous political scandals, from Bill Clinton to David Vitter and Larry Craig.
The rationalizations, extending from "not proven" (the Enquirer today offers more details) to Edwards' privacy rights (he has been out front promoting his poverty campaign and hinting about being Obama's VP), fail to explain it.
As comforting as it would be to believe that all the media are developing more scruples about exploiting the personal lives of public figures, that explanation won't wash.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Huckabee, Health and Fitness Guru
The biggest winner among the 2008 losers is fielding job offers from cable news networks, but there is a better career move available. Richard Simmons turns 60 this summer, and Mike Huckabee is the perfect candidate to fill his tights, metaphorically speaking.
Unless he plans never to run for public office again (Is the Pope Baptist?), the worst thing Huckabee could do is leave a trail of political bread crumbs to YouTube him to oblivion (multiply "a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God" by thousands).
Instead, the man who stepped out of a fat suit five years ago and began running marathons would be the ideal TV proselytizer against America's obesity epidemic, as he was in Arkansas and elsewhere before coming down with White House fever.
With his communications skills, the author of "Stop Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork" would be the sensation of daytime TV, regaling audiences with stories about how, as a 300-pound Governor in 2003, he sat down at a cabinet meeting and broke the chair while inspiring them to slim down and stay healthy, even as he himself did throughout the fast-food temptations of a Presidential campaign.
He might not make Mitt Romney money, but Huckabee could earn enough to avoid having to lecture for pay, as he did over the last year, if he makes another run for the White House.
If he decides to do it, the Governor could profit from his Don Imus moment two years ago. When the I-man told him he looked "emaciated," Huckabee made a little concentration-camp joke that did not go over too well with Jewish advocates.
Like Richard Simmons, Governor, just keep it upbeat.
Unless he plans never to run for public office again (Is the Pope Baptist?), the worst thing Huckabee could do is leave a trail of political bread crumbs to YouTube him to oblivion (multiply "a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God" by thousands).
Instead, the man who stepped out of a fat suit five years ago and began running marathons would be the ideal TV proselytizer against America's obesity epidemic, as he was in Arkansas and elsewhere before coming down with White House fever.
With his communications skills, the author of "Stop Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork" would be the sensation of daytime TV, regaling audiences with stories about how, as a 300-pound Governor in 2003, he sat down at a cabinet meeting and broke the chair while inspiring them to slim down and stay healthy, even as he himself did throughout the fast-food temptations of a Presidential campaign.
He might not make Mitt Romney money, but Huckabee could earn enough to avoid having to lecture for pay, as he did over the last year, if he makes another run for the White House.
If he decides to do it, the Governor could profit from his Don Imus moment two years ago. When the I-man told him he looked "emaciated," Huckabee made a little concentration-camp joke that did not go over too well with Jewish advocates.
Like Richard Simmons, Governor, just keep it upbeat.
Monday, September 10, 2007
The YouTube Terrorists
Now, after Osama’s pathetic stand-up routine, the Al Qaeda video production company is announcing a special with “the last testament of one of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers, marking the sixth anniversary of the attacks.”
One of the classic American answers to TV network and cable trash is not watching and, even in our new unmediated media world, making editorial judgments about the value of enemy propaganda.
TV and cable networks, take note. We appreciate knowing about this garbage, but you are not compelled to rub our faces in it.
One of the classic American answers to TV network and cable trash is not watching and, even in our new unmediated media world, making editorial judgments about the value of enemy propaganda.
TV and cable networks, take note. We appreciate knowing about this garbage, but you are not compelled to rub our faces in it.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
What's Wrong With America's Newspapers?
If we had been fighting in Iraq 50 years ago, we might have never left. Back then, the morning printfest was the only game in town and, from the performance of American dailies today, there would have been no clamor to get out.
Today, some 51 months, 3600 military deaths and $441 billion after it started, a New York Times editorial finally says, “Enough.” Titled “The Road Home,” it begins: “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”
The Times took its time deciding that, yet even so it is in the vanguard.
According to Editor & Publisher, “very few newspapers in the U.S. have endorsed a withdrawal from Iraq or even a timetable for that, despite the overwhelming shift in public opinion on that question. Momentum has started to shift in that direction, however, with a handful of papers --from the Los Angeles Times to, just this week, The Olympian in Washington--backing a pullout.”
Why has it taken so long? Have newspapers under corporate ownership lost touch with their communities and the pain this war has been inflicting on readers? Back when A.J. Liebling famously said, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed to those who own one,” were benevolent publishers more empathic or more responsive?
Not in my long experience. Daily newspapers back then were just as out of touch with public sentiment, routinely endorsing Republican Presidential candidates in the overwhelmingly Democratic era of Roosevelt and Truman.
If there is an answer, it may be in the newspaper tradition of never getting too far ahead of, or in many cases, even abreast of its readers on controversial issues.
During the days of McCarthyism, Vietnam and even Watergate (with only Woodward and Bernstein the dazzling exception), magazines, book publishers and even network TV took the lead in delivering the bad news just as cable and bloggers have been doing about Iraq.
Marshall McLuhan said, “People don’t actually read newspapers. They get into them every morning like a hot bath.”
Finally the New York Times at least has decided it’s time for a cold shower.
Today, some 51 months, 3600 military deaths and $441 billion after it started, a New York Times editorial finally says, “Enough.” Titled “The Road Home,” it begins: “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”
The Times took its time deciding that, yet even so it is in the vanguard.
According to Editor & Publisher, “very few newspapers in the U.S. have endorsed a withdrawal from Iraq or even a timetable for that, despite the overwhelming shift in public opinion on that question. Momentum has started to shift in that direction, however, with a handful of papers --from the Los Angeles Times to, just this week, The Olympian in Washington--backing a pullout.”
Why has it taken so long? Have newspapers under corporate ownership lost touch with their communities and the pain this war has been inflicting on readers? Back when A.J. Liebling famously said, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed to those who own one,” were benevolent publishers more empathic or more responsive?
Not in my long experience. Daily newspapers back then were just as out of touch with public sentiment, routinely endorsing Republican Presidential candidates in the overwhelmingly Democratic era of Roosevelt and Truman.
If there is an answer, it may be in the newspaper tradition of never getting too far ahead of, or in many cases, even abreast of its readers on controversial issues.
During the days of McCarthyism, Vietnam and even Watergate (with only Woodward and Bernstein the dazzling exception), magazines, book publishers and even network TV took the lead in delivering the bad news just as cable and bloggers have been doing about Iraq.
Marshall McLuhan said, “People don’t actually read newspapers. They get into them every morning like a hot bath.”
Finally the New York Times at least has decided it’s time for a cold shower.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)