Some people argue that “fake news” shows like The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver engender cynicism and disengagement with the political process, particularly among the younger demographic that typically watches such shows. Amber Day takes a different point of view in Satire and Dissent. What do you think?
5 thoughts on “Week 8 Day 1 Discussion Question 4”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Fake news” brings comedy to the situation and opens people up to having these conversations at home, or in comfortable spaces and allows people to have productive discourse. It is also true that “fake news” can also incite uproar with its polemics and uncanny method of disseminating information and news stories.
The younger demographic has an insatiable need to take in information as quickly, and as widely as humanly possible and this is why “fake news” has become so popular. However, I will disagree with Day and take a more pessimistic view on what it means to take information mixed with opinion, which is what these “fake news” shows are doing. In a sense they are telling the audience what is happening, but it wouldn’t be funny if they were only doing that (well, there’s fox, but they are often inaccurate and outlandish, which is the reason they are funny to watch). “Fake news” shows are funny because the hosts bring forth crude information with confidence and a punchline, which is not always the most accurate. The younger demographic is enamored with “fake news” shows because they are lighter and educational whereas regular news is too dry, formal and serious.
“Fake news” shows are, though, important because they provide a palatable way to enter into political discourse, and this is especially important in the younger demographic as they are sprouting politically. I am not completely pessimistic, and I think that “fake news” shows have more positives than they have negatives, but I have questions: how would “fake news’ shows connect over racial and class boundaries? How influential is a joke to the lower, middle, and upper class? The fact that “fake news” hosts are popular enough to stir public opinion speaks volumes about the current state of American politics and policy, and perhaps even about what race and class has the most power.
It would be interesting to analyze and understand what communities are able to access different “fake news” shows and how their education and standard of life influences the approach they take to “fake news”. Would someone from a lower socio-economic background laugh at a punchline and take a joke for fact or opinion? Or am I going to deep into this seeing that, ironically, most jokes on “fake news” shows are funny because they are factual?
I disagree with the opinion that “fake news” shows engender cynicism and disengagement with the political process. I believe this cynicism with the current system, especially among millennials, is the product of frustration with what’s actually going on, rather than simply watching The Daily Show. The fact that the democratic and republican nominees both have historically low likability ratings causes this kind of cynicism and disengagement. In my experience, “fake news” programs such as Last Week Tonight at The Daily Show actually reengage millennials with politics. This is because these shows channel a frustration with modern politics, and offer an alternative to traditional news sources.
In my experience, people watch shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver to learn about a specific topic in an entertaining medium, not just to laugh. To me at least, John Oliver isn’t where I would go to consume comedy (I would choose a stand-up or comedic movie instead), but rather an opportunity to hear a topic get explored in depth that is often lacking coverage in traditional media sources. I am drawn to his reporting, with seemingly diligent investigative journalism, on topics from “Standardized Testing” to “Net Neutrality.” The most viewed video on Last Week Tonight is “Donald Trump,” which has over 30 million views on YouTube, and started the “makedonalddrumfagain” hashtag. Amber Day would use this video as an example of educating Americans about a presidential candidate, dissecting the issues, and encouraging political engagement and action. The premise behind the entire video is unveiling the history and facts behind Donald Trump that the average American may not know. This video went viral because it was educational journalism about a political candidate, and in that sense, it led to more political discourse and engagement than “real news” sources did for the same topic, at least among younger people. The article says, “Satire is looked to, here, for its ability to unmask and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy.” I believe the Trump segment embodies this statement.
One negative to these “fake news” programs is that I do think they can lead to blindly following the opinions of likable hosts, without cross-referencing and fact checking. We grow to like people like Trevor Noah and John Oliver, which can lead to assuming that their news is as real, or even more accurate, than news seen in mainstream media such as CNN or MSNBC. I think our generation should continue to use comedic news as a way to become politically engaged, but also read other sources in order to have the most well-informed views on politics.
In a time of great political pressure, I feel that there is a complete necessity for “fake news”. Amber Day shares this same view and believes that the “fake news” discussed brings light to sensitive topics even if that may be in a comedic fashion. Whenever my dad and I talk about current news he consistently pleads that I simply read the front page of The Washington Post or any major newspaper everyday and I will know more news information than the majority of the world. As part of the younger generation I find myself getting almost all of my new through these “fake news” shows as well as other forms of social media. Whether this is through Facebook, Twitter, or Google. The shows present the information yes in a comedic and sometimes even vulgar manner, but I think that if they are drawing in a consistent viewer bases and the information is accurate than there is nothing wrong with that. These shows often ridicule and point out major sensitive issues of important figures, which are currently the two presidential candidates. I drew a connection between these “fake news” shows and magazines such as People and US, or the Inquirer. These three sources display their information against the standard boring presentation of news but are top sellers. Overall, I think what is most important is that the younger generation is receiving political news no matter in what form. As long as they are staying up to date with the nation’s stories that is all that matters. A progressive country is one that will have an educated and informed younger generation.
I agree and believe that “fake news” shows are a modern form of spreading news and information to the masses. With regards to politics, many people in society today fail to focus on the often more boring, yet important policies and more technical aspects of politics. The scandals and more riveting news about political figures tends to be what people today are attracted to and “fake news” shows utilise this cleverly to not only entertain, but to get a message across. So long as viewers are aware of the political biases of the shows, they serve as easy access sources to important political news and in many cases, break down large obscure concepts and simplify them so that all can understand. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is one example of a “fake news” show that uses quite humourous metaphors to explain things such as Auto lending and Charter Schools which are often not exactly as people perceive them to be.
Amber Day believes that these “fake news” shows allow for a much needed critique of the real political dialogue in the media and provide a space for more openness and exploration of real issues. I agree with Day particularly when it comes to the consensual interviews that often take place on these shows. Day mentions that interviewers in these fake news shows (ex. John Stewart), can press on issues that a politician or public figure isn’t answering adequately because there is so much more freedom than in a traditional serious news show. The host can humorously draw attention to a topic or question that the interviewee has been avoiding or neglecting to answer, and then actually press on the issue. The hosts are not afraid to point out flaws or cop-out answers, but they also have the advantage of reverting back to humor to keep things light. The hosts often actually get more information and answers out of the interviewee and the public enjoys it. As Day puts it “lighthearted irreverence combines with a serious discussion of the issues of the day, further eroding the dividing lines between news, satire, and political debate.” These fake news shows don’t disengage viewers from politics, rather they serve as another source of engagement in which voters can hear different opinions, and maybe actually get more information than they would otherwise.
Jumping to question 3 really quick – although Jimmy Fallon is not necessarily the same category – his “soft” interview with Trump is the kind of thing that gives these satirical shows a bad rap. Here, Fallon did not use his opportunity with Trump to press issues as much as he used it to joke around and make his audience laugh. This interview reverts back to the type of satire like mocking Clinton’s pantsuits (Day pg52) rather than tackling the issues that people need to hear about or highlighting the issues that the mainstream media is not. So, these satirical shows, specifically the fake news shows (and their interviews) have the potential to add a lot of substance to the political debate and really bring new issues to light. However, they need to take advantage of their position, as John Stewart does, in order to be both beneficial and entertaining.