Full Version: Mouthpiece Journalism
As many of you know, the The Daily Show won the Television Critics Association award for outstanding news and information programming beating out shows like 'Frontline' and 'Nightline'.
Over the past few months leading up to the election they have had no problem booking high profile guests such as Bill Clinton, Wolf Blitzer, Howard Dean, John McCain, Richard Clarke, Sen Biden, etc. For the first time though, they'll soon add a current presidential candidate to their list. Tonight (aug 24th) John Kerry will appear on the Daily Show (wapo reg reqd) to give an extended interview, the first since this swift boat controversy started.
Ted Koppel and Jon Stewart actually faced off in an interview recently which was surprisingly serious.
The suggestion by both Stewart and political commentators is that The Daily Show's popularity is due to the fact that people are getting sick and tired of traditional news. They are tired of the Sean Hannity's, Rush Limbaugh's, Al Franken's and even traditional news outlets when they focus on a scandal during an election and not the real news or the election issues. Because they are tired, they are turning to the Daily Show because it is informational, yet not full of itself and offers a cathartic release.
Questions for debate:
1. What would you say is the reason The Daily Show is becoming so popular and attracting A-list guests to make announcements that 5 years ago would have appeared on network TV? Would you agree with Jon Stewart that viewers are sick of mouthpiece journalism in traditional news or is there another reason?
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
Note: have to credit titus for his help in formulating this topic
Over the past few months leading up to the election they have had no problem booking high profile guests such as Bill Clinton, Wolf Blitzer, Howard Dean, John McCain, Richard Clarke, Sen Biden, etc. For the first time though, they'll soon add a current presidential candidate to their list. Tonight (aug 24th) John Kerry will appear on the Daily Show (wapo reg reqd) to give an extended interview, the first since this swift boat controversy started.
QUOTE
This marks the first time "The Daily Show" has bagged an actual presidential nominee. Which is not to say that "The Daily Show" lacks political heat. In 2000, vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman showed up, and this election, every one of the 10 Democratic hopefuls except Kerry appeared on the show before the party's convention last month. John Edwards actually announced his intention to run for president on the show, and Carol Moseley Braun dropped out of the race the very next day after appearing on Jon Stewart's program.
In fact, Stewart's show has so much buzz during this election, it's annoying some of the traditional TV newsies.
In fact, Stewart's show has so much buzz during this election, it's annoying some of the traditional TV newsies.
Ted Koppel and Jon Stewart actually faced off in an interview recently which was surprisingly serious.
QUOTE
STEWART: It's that the partisan mobilization has become part of the media process. That they realize that, this real estate that you possess, television, is the most valuable real estate known to rulers. If Alexander the Great had TV, believe me, he would have had his spin guys dealing. Napoleon would have had people working. The key to leadership is to have that mouthpiece to the people. And that's what this is. You guys are... This is the battle for the airwaves. And that's what we watch, and I think that's what is so dispiriting to those at home who believe that... I think, there's a sense here that you're not participating in that battle, and there's a sense at home that you're ABSOLUTELY participating and complicit in that battle.
KOPPEL: Go a little further on that.
STEWART: I'm a news anchor. Remember this is bizarro world. And I say, the issue is health care and insurance, and why 40 million American kids don't have insurance -- 40 million Americans are uninsured. Is this health insurance program being debated in Congress good for the country? Let's debate it. I have with me Donna Brazile and Bay Buchanan. Let's go. Donna. "I think the Democrats really have it right here. I think that this is a pain for the insurance companies and the drug companies and this is wrong for America." Bay. "Oh no, what it is..." And then she throws out her figures from the Heritage Foundation, and she throws out her figures from the Brookings Institute, and the anchor -- who should be the arbiter of the truth -- says, "Thank you both very much, that was very interesting." No it wasn't! That was Coke and Pepsi talking about beverage truth. And that game has, I think, caused people to think, "I'm not watching this."
KOPPEL: Alright, so you have found an answer through humor...
STEWART: No. It's not an answer.
KOPPEL: Well, an answer that...
STEWART: I found an outlet. I found a catharsis. A sneeze, if you will.
KOPPEL: Go a little further on that.
STEWART: I'm a news anchor. Remember this is bizarro world. And I say, the issue is health care and insurance, and why 40 million American kids don't have insurance -- 40 million Americans are uninsured. Is this health insurance program being debated in Congress good for the country? Let's debate it. I have with me Donna Brazile and Bay Buchanan. Let's go. Donna. "I think the Democrats really have it right here. I think that this is a pain for the insurance companies and the drug companies and this is wrong for America." Bay. "Oh no, what it is..." And then she throws out her figures from the Heritage Foundation, and she throws out her figures from the Brookings Institute, and the anchor -- who should be the arbiter of the truth -- says, "Thank you both very much, that was very interesting." No it wasn't! That was Coke and Pepsi talking about beverage truth. And that game has, I think, caused people to think, "I'm not watching this."
KOPPEL: Alright, so you have found an answer through humor...
STEWART: No. It's not an answer.
KOPPEL: Well, an answer that...
STEWART: I found an outlet. I found a catharsis. A sneeze, if you will.
The suggestion by both Stewart and political commentators is that The Daily Show's popularity is due to the fact that people are getting sick and tired of traditional news. They are tired of the Sean Hannity's, Rush Limbaugh's, Al Franken's and even traditional news outlets when they focus on a scandal during an election and not the real news or the election issues. Because they are tired, they are turning to the Daily Show because it is informational, yet not full of itself and offers a cathartic release.
Questions for debate:
1. What would you say is the reason The Daily Show is becoming so popular and attracting A-list guests to make announcements that 5 years ago would have appeared on network TV? Would you agree with Jon Stewart that viewers are sick of mouthpiece journalism in traditional news or is there another reason?
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
Note: have to credit titus for his help in formulating this topic
1. What would you say is the reason The Daily Show is becoming so popular and attracting A-list guests to make announcements that 5 years ago would have appeared on network TV? Would you agree with Jon Stewart that viewers are sick of mouthpiece journalism in traditional news or is there another reason?
I think the show is popular because it doesn't take itself all that seriously-- or at least gives a good impersonation of it. Ted Koppel is as serious as they come, but he only appeals to that very small portion of the TV viewership that actually wants to feel well-informed. (And Koppel has something of a minor cult of personality, as well. The buzz is that when he retires, Nightline dies.)
The best exemplar I can conjur up of boring, turn-the-channel journalism is any given Meet the Press appearance by Condoleeza Rice. She stays on point, oh yes. She stays so relentlessly on point that after two questions from Russert, you can almost SEE the talking points memo she mumbled over in the car on the way to the studio. Russert tries gamely, but there's no news to be had there. It's dull, and only serious news junkies watch for more that 3 minutes.
The biggest reason why A-list guests are popping up on Jon Stewart's show is because of the kind of people who are watching Stewart's show, not necessarily the number. Yes, the news-dependent of us watch, but so do so-called 'ordinary' people. I can't think of a better forum to reach the elusive 'swing voter.'
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
Oddly, traditional news outlets are about at the nadir of their credibility, right now-- except when something important happens. On September 11, 2001, the Nielsen data shows viewers turned to cable news immedaitely after the attacks, and when they actually started to get frightened, they fled to the Big 3 networks in droves.
I think alot of people feel this way about network TV news (with apologies to Churchill): It's the absolute worst way to find out what's going on-- except for all the others.
The really virulent 'mouthpiece journalism' going on is at Fox, MSNBC, and to a lesser extent CNN, who are all desperately trying to fill a huge programming hole with endless, ever-wackier 'analysis.'
That MSNBC even considered putting a microphone in front of Michael Savage demonstrates that desperation; I mean, that's like letting Ann Coulter in the door without an array of snipers armed with tranquilizer guns.
I think the show is popular because it doesn't take itself all that seriously-- or at least gives a good impersonation of it. Ted Koppel is as serious as they come, but he only appeals to that very small portion of the TV viewership that actually wants to feel well-informed. (And Koppel has something of a minor cult of personality, as well. The buzz is that when he retires, Nightline dies.)
The best exemplar I can conjur up of boring, turn-the-channel journalism is any given Meet the Press appearance by Condoleeza Rice. She stays on point, oh yes. She stays so relentlessly on point that after two questions from Russert, you can almost SEE the talking points memo she mumbled over in the car on the way to the studio. Russert tries gamely, but there's no news to be had there. It's dull, and only serious news junkies watch for more that 3 minutes.
The biggest reason why A-list guests are popping up on Jon Stewart's show is because of the kind of people who are watching Stewart's show, not necessarily the number. Yes, the news-dependent of us watch, but so do so-called 'ordinary' people. I can't think of a better forum to reach the elusive 'swing voter.'
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
Oddly, traditional news outlets are about at the nadir of their credibility, right now-- except when something important happens. On September 11, 2001, the Nielsen data shows viewers turned to cable news immedaitely after the attacks, and when they actually started to get frightened, they fled to the Big 3 networks in droves.
I think alot of people feel this way about network TV news (with apologies to Churchill): It's the absolute worst way to find out what's going on-- except for all the others.
The really virulent 'mouthpiece journalism' going on is at Fox, MSNBC, and to a lesser extent CNN, who are all desperately trying to fill a huge programming hole with endless, ever-wackier 'analysis.'
That MSNBC even considered putting a microphone in front of Michael Savage demonstrates that desperation; I mean, that's like letting Ann Coulter in the door without an array of snipers armed with tranquilizer guns.
QUOTE
1. What would you say is the reason The Daily Show is becoming so popular and attracting A-list guests to make announcements that 5 years ago would have appeared on network TV? Would you agree with Jon Stewart that viewers are sick of mouthpiece journalism in traditional news or is there another reason?
Well, it's funny, for one thing. I think the current state of politics and world affairs is so insane and basically unserious, that it's a huge relief to see a news show (and despite Stewart's protestations, that's what it is) that has the nerve to laugh at what it's reporting on. To pick an example at random, and not trying to be partisan here, the terror alert level warnings - they're reported totally straight-faced by "serious" news shows, but the Daily Show has the latitude to point out their somewhat farcical nature. And whether you think they serve a real purpose or not, you'd have to be totally humorless not to find something inherently funny about the alerts, and a whole lot of other "headline-worthy" stories.
QUOTE
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
Not to be facile here, but do traditional news outlets have any credibility left to lose? I think the dominant, and not unfounded, public sentiment is that the media is basically owned by two or three giant corporate monoliths right now, and that it's impossible to get the straight story without spending hours on the web every day or subscribing to thirty different international papers. People realize that the Daily Show is owned by that monolith, too, but I think there's a feeling that because they're a comparatively small entity, and satirical, they're allowed to slip more "truth" into their jokes than World News Tonight is allowed to report outright. I don't know if that's totally fair, but I think that's the feeling.
QUOTE
1. What would you say is the reason The Daily Show is becoming so popular and attracting A-list guests to make announcements that 5 years ago would have appeared on network TV? Would you agree with Jon Stewart that viewers are sick of mouthpiece journalism in traditional news or is there another reason?
Because The Daily Show is truly fair, balanced and unafraid. Everyone is a target, no issue is considered taboo, and all sides of the arguments are given. The Daily Show is everything a news show should be, plus it includes humor and satire...Jon Stewart for President.QUOTE
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
As Countrockula said, credibility? News on TV has no credibility, which is sad.CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Aug 26 2004, 07:26 PM)
1. What would you say is the reason The Daily Show is becoming so popular and attracting A-list guests to make announcements that 5 years ago would have appeared on network TV? Would you agree with Jon Stewart that viewers are sick of mouthpiece journalism in traditional news or is there another reason?
It's enjoyable. i'll give them that. I can't remember when I quit paying attention to the mainstream news media and started watching CNN or MSNBC, but now I don't want watch them anymore. Given that I am such a profligate newshound, I have turned to the internet, as I too am skeptical of the corporate shills. Are they biased toward one side vs the other? Are they calling that news? Hell, I knew that months ago!
QUOTE
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
As Countrockula said, credibility? I agree with ConservPat and Countrockula.
Traditional news outlets lost their credibility years ago, and many of you know this. In their desperate attempts to keep viewers they tempt and cajole to get you to watch one more "segment". It is sad, really.
I want to see a reporter with the balls to report a really big story. In my opinion, that is what's missing. We need someone like Jesse Ventura on one of these shows to shake things up.
1. What would you say is the reason The Daily Show is becoming so popular and attracting A-list guests to make announcements that 5 years ago would have appeared on network TV? Would you agree with Jon Stewart that viewers are sick of mouthpiece journalism in traditional news or is there another reason?
I have to echo Pierzin, I don't remember exactly when I switched off the networks and made the evolution to cable and then a hybrid cable/internet solution, but I feel I am definitely better informed than I had been before.
I try to never miss The Daily Show....even though they tend to be a bit liberal, I can appreciate great comedy writing and a penchant for the truth. I think more and more people are wising up to the soundbite politics of both parties, and wish for, if not real journalism, at least some wit.
I have to echo Pierzin, I don't remember exactly when I switched off the networks and made the evolution to cable and then a hybrid cable/internet solution, but I feel I am definitely better informed than I had been before.
I try to never miss The Daily Show....even though they tend to be a bit liberal, I can appreciate great comedy writing and a penchant for the truth. I think more and more people are wising up to the soundbite politics of both parties, and wish for, if not real journalism, at least some wit.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 24 2004, 11:28 PM)
Questions for debate:
1. What would you say is the reason The Daily Show is becoming so popular and attracting A-list guests to make announcements that 5 years ago would have appeared on network TV? Would you agree with Jon Stewart that viewers are sick of mouthpiece journalism in traditional news or is there another reason?
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
Note: have to credit titus for his help in formulating this topic
To quote Tom Leykis;
"Nobody wants to eat in an empty restaurant."
Leykis has talked about taking on any issue or any story if it will boost his ratings and increase revenue for his show. TV and cable outlets are competing for the most market share and those who prove they have the most market share can charge the most for their services.
Since many of us are tuning out to many of these programs, we're turning to things like The Daily Show because it is a catharsis.
As Dr Phil has said, "people do what works".
If the Daily Show or anybody else can shine light and get to the truth about something, anything, and get people to act on it, more power to them. Not everybody wants to sit through an episode of Hardball. Lets move on to Comedy Central, they say.
In the Daily Show and Hardball, I've noticed, they move along from subject to subject, from guest to guest, or segment to segment, pretty quickly. This is a pretty big turnaround from a couple of years ago when any news show like 20-20 or something would devote 15 minutes of the show to one subject, and then they would drag out over three commercial breaks. Neither Hardball or the Daily Show does this. It's more like, if you take too long in the kitchen making your sandwich, -oops- that's it, they're on to something else now.
And this practice of not quite sound-biting a subject, but talking about it for a minute or two, seems to work.
In the era of the 24 hour news networks, yesterdays news is literally garbage.
2. Are traditional news outlets losing credibility and popularity due to this trend?
As further evidence of news outlets losing credibility, check out these two recent polls and the associated headlines:
Wisconsin CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll Registered Voters. 9/9-12. MoE 5%. (8/23-26)
Bush 50 (46)
Kerry 45 (49)
The associated headline with this story is Bush widens Wisconsin lead over Kerry, poll shows. This of course is completely ridiculous because the margin of error is 5% making the race a statistical dead-heat.
Michigan CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll Registered Voters. 9/9-12. MoE 5%
Kerry 50
Bush 43
The associated headline here is Poll: Michigan too close to call which is equally false and ridiculous considering that once again the margin of error is 5% giving Kerry a 3% lead outside of the margin of error. In polling terms that is pretty significant.
This is one of the reasons why I have all but given up on a few news sources to be objective and that is a sad state of affairs.
As further evidence of news outlets losing credibility, check out these two recent polls and the associated headlines:
Wisconsin CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll Registered Voters. 9/9-12. MoE 5%. (8/23-26)
Bush 50 (46)
Kerry 45 (49)
The associated headline with this story is Bush widens Wisconsin lead over Kerry, poll shows. This of course is completely ridiculous because the margin of error is 5% making the race a statistical dead-heat.
Michigan CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll Registered Voters. 9/9-12. MoE 5%
Kerry 50
Bush 43
The associated headline here is Poll: Michigan too close to call which is equally false and ridiculous considering that once again the margin of error is 5% giving Kerry a 3% lead outside of the margin of error. In polling terms that is pretty significant.
This is one of the reasons why I have all but given up on a few news sources to be objective and that is a sad state of affairs.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.