Slashdot Mirror
The Daily Show Wins Peabody
wiredog writes "The Daily Show's Indecision 2000 was awarded a Peabody Award for it's coverage of the 2000 election! The Peabody is one of the most prestigious awards in broadcast journalism. Comedy central beat out ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, and all thew other news programs. " I watch this show pretty religiously: they are the only televised "news" I watch. Their Indecision 2000 coverage was awesome: through all the prodding, satire and joking, it was probably the best coverage during the entire election (and they made the purgatory that followed tolerable). In my eyes, they're the funniest thing coming out daily in any media. And Jon, if you ever need guests that nobody in your viewing audience has ever heard of, shoot me an email. CowboyNeal and I are more fun then a bag of cats, and you should see what he can do with a hard boiled egg and a straw.
I think the award should have gone to a legitimate news source. Of course, the real problem is that there aren't any legitimate news sources any more. Corporations own them all.
Also, I don't mean this to sound like I'm against satire or parody or anything like that. But people need to be aware that they have a responsibility to review non-parodized and non-satirized material as well. It's like basing your weltanschauung on Mad magazine if you're older than about 12.
Sure it's just comedy, so you're supposed to laugh, right? But isn't there another cause for concern, here?
Respect for the news is an important part of the American way of life. It's written into the first amendment of our constitution, and it's taught in civics classes across the country: freedom of press reigns supreme. And it's for good reason, too. History has shown that not being a freedom-of-speech absolutist can only lead to the abyss of anarchy and even death.
But how are we supposed to approve of a comedy news program? It not only satirizes the news its reports; it even satirizes the press as an institution. That flies in the face of our nation's histories and traditions, and it undermines respect for the constitution.
If we are to remain free, then there must not only be freedom of press on paper. There must be freedom of press in our hearts and minds and souls. That means saying "no" to all attempts to encroach upon that freedom.
The Daily Show must be censored. It's the only way we'll be able to preserve our freedom of speech.
Actually, the closer to the truth a joke is the more funny it is. In short, I think you're full of it.
Paying for software is not the reason for the "Free Software" or "Open Source" movements. The whole issue is whether or not you get the source code to the instructions being run on your machine, and whether you can share the information with others.
BTW, how do you know the Daily Show doesn't deserve a Peabody if you don't have cable?
No it isn't. It has the potential to be, though.
The first ten minutes are usually fairly good, and then it all goes rapidly downhill: they have a "celebrity interview" where all they do is promote some movie. It is never funny (not even a single laugh) and it's in every damned episode of the show. Very, very lame.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
CBS was Conservative Bavarian Seers, not Conspiracy of Bavarian Seers.
:)
"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.
-- Veni, vidi, dormivi
April Fool's Day is April first. At the moment, it is approximately 00:12 GMT, March 31. This was posted on March 30. As such, it is not an April Fool's Day joke.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
There is a phrase circulating through television studios and newsrooms across the country describing the philosophy of the modern television news director: "If it bleeds, it leads." Murders, sex crimes, animal abuse, freeway chases, and domestic squabbles are the main staples of television news programs today. The corporations owning most TV stations place excessive profit expectations on their subsidiaries, mandating that TV stations generate huge margins. The way most TV stations have managed to survive is by producing shows that appeal to the greatest number of viewers. However, in the process, the television industry has forgotten the responsibilities and requirements that allowed them to use publicly owned airwaves. This ignorance of the responsibility to inform is a threat to a democratic system relying on an informed citizenry.
TV news has not always been shamelessly sensationalistic. When television was in its infancy during the late 1940s and the 1950s, the news was an inconsequential portion of the television day: just 15 minutes a day were devoted to a somber reading of the news by Douglas Edwards on CBS (Isaak 1). Back then there were only the 3 major networks; CBS, ABC, and CBS, known then and now as the "Big Three." They had practically no competition for viewers-with only three stations to choose from, the networks were guaranteed a large portion of the audience (Donaldson 3). The networks made all their money on the entertainment portion of their programming, and they made mountains of it. The networks could afford to have responsible, informative newscasts that lost money (Donaldson 3).
This utopia of sorts, however, did not last forever. Starting in the late 1960s, with television viewership sharply on the rise, the local stations that run network programming, known as network affiliates, discovered the viability of local television news programming. What began as an experiment in San Francisco during a newspaper strike (Stark 3) quickly exploded across the nation as a way to supplement the compensation given station owners for running the network's programs. Creating or expanding existing news programming was very attractive to station owners because news is staggeringly cheaper to produce than a dramatic show (Stark 2). For those stations that already had news programs in one form or another, the expanding markets offered more opportunities for revenue. According to Jim Thistle, a professor at the Boston University School of Communications, and former news director at all three major network affiliates in Boston, "Once you have a newscast, the cheapest thing you can do is more news" (qtd. in Siegel, 3). Once stations started expanding, many saw newscasts generating one-half to one-third of the profit for the entire station (Stark 2).
Competition drove the development of these newscasts because of the huge amounts of money involved. For example in Orlando, the 36th largest market, the top-rated station charges $1,400 for a 30-second advertising spot on its 11pm newscast. In contrast, the third most-watched news station charges only $900 for the same time slot. With eight minutes of commercials during the half-hour, the difference in one night is between $22,400 versus $14,400 in revenue. In a year, that makes for a $3 million difference between first and third place, just for that one program. In larger markets such as New York, the difference is $100 million per year (Winerip 34).
These new newscasts did not arise from the tradition of radio and print journalism, as the network programs did. Many local TV programs were because of the potential for profits, and consequently were staffed with "TV people" instead of seasoned journalists (Stark 3). The result was a highly stylized version of journalism, focused more on the anchors reading the news than on the news itself. Some newscasts featured frequent banter between the newsreaders, and were likewise dubbed "happy talk" newscasts (Stark 3). Other stations used a different, "action news" format with fewer, faster-paced stories, exciting, upbeat music, and a heavy emphasis on visuals. These various formats were developed and marketed by a few, highly-paid media consultants to stations all across the country looking for a reliable way to make TV news attract viewers and bring in advertising dollars (Stark 4).
If the new TV news was in a decline during the sixties and seventies, it entered a free-fall during the eighties. When Congress deregulated the telecommunications industry, they changed the rules governing TV station ownership: large corporations could now own three times as many stations as under the previous laws, and they were no longer required to keep a station for three years before selling it (Winerip 35). This significantly changed the climate in the television industry. The period following deregulation was marked by a rapid consolidation of many TV stations across the country by a few large corporations. In addition, larger corporations, enabled by the deregulation, acquired each of the Big 3 networks (Ver Berkmoes 3). Because the networks, in addition to providing programming, also own local stations ("O&O's:" Owned and Operated), their acquisition impacted a large number of individual stations across the country.
Corporate ownership of TV stations and networks meant that changes were inevitable. Because TV stations typically have such huge profit margins (40-50%) (Winerip 39), they were attractive targets. Corporations with a variety of assets bought TV stations to take the pressure off more important holdings, like a flagship newspaper (Winerip 39). The result of this strategy was that TV stations bore the brunt of the profit-generating responsibilities (Ver Berkmoes 3). According to a vice-president at one such corporation, because these companies are publicly owned, corporations are accountable to their shareholders, and must pay attention to what Wall Street analysts expect of them, namely that television stations should be cash cows for their mother corporations (Winerip 39).
Suddenly, the bottom line became much more important at TV stations. Station managers began frantically looking for ways to boost viewership. Since news programs were already the stations' main source of profit (Rapping 2), modifying the news to attract even more viewers seemed to make the most sense. News directors began to look for paradigms at other stations that had been successful in boosting ratings (Ver Berkmoes 3). One standout was WSVN in Miami. After losing their CBS affiliation in 1989, WSVN signed on with the fledgling Fox network and took a different approach to local programming. Station owner Edmund Ansin added four hours of news to the station's three (Lane 2). More notably, the station drastically restyled its approach to news. The new shows were fast-paced, had flashy graphics, breathless promos, and a large diet of crimes, fires, disasters, and mayhem. The change vaulted the station from a losing position to a consistent second place in the Miami market, regularly finishing above the area's ABC and NBC affiliates (Lane 1). Station managers looking for an idea to copy found a gold mine in WSVN (Ver Berkmoes 3).
WSVN's influence is strongly felt in the picture of television news today. In a study by Rocky Mountain Media Watch in 1995 of 50 major news markets, crime and disaster news constituted 53% of news on local newscasts, on average. Other non-news items, including "soft news, anchor chatter, teases, and celebrity items" made up an average of 31% (Stark 2). These sensational stories are most often the ones with the best pictures-with satellite technology, on a slow day a station can pull in the latest mayhem from anywhere in the world. So if no one gets shot or escapes from prison in Boston, we can still see today's train wreck in Arizona or a gas explosion in Houston (Frank 2).
The main purveyors of schlock are the same consultants, now hired by stations to help them stay competitive. Consultants' basic task is to alter the newscast to bring in as many viewers as possible. Their philosophy is evident in this consultant's report:
"It is not surprising...that research indicates ratings rise when the broadcast is successful in exposing the viewer to what he wants to hear, in the very personal way he wants to hear it. In terms of news, this means ratings are improved not when listeners are told what they should know, but what they want to know." (qtd. in Stark 3)
This new concept of "want to know" versus "need to know" is now the controlling principle of modern TV news. The popular term is "infotainment," describing pieces designed to arouse, scare, anger, and ultimately entertain hidden in the guise of "hard" news (Paige 2).
The new approach has its defenders as well as its detractors. Joel Cheatwood, the news director at WSVN who pioneered the approach, defends his tactics by claiming, "I'm not talking about changing journalistic standards as much as...changing presentation" (qtd. in Siegel 4). However, one veteran reporter working under Cheatwood (who is now at WHDH in Boston) offers this contradictory anectode: "When I would get into arguments over basic journalistic accuracy, I would have five producers fighting with me" (Siegel 4).
The consultants in charge of the changes often face bitter resentment from old-guard reporters who view responsible journalism as more important than boosted profit statements. Natalie Jacobson, a 25-year veteran of WCVB in Boston, calls consultants "the worst thing that ever happened to television" (qtd. in Aucoin 2). Jacobson decries consultants' cockiness, saying that they think they know better than experienced reporters do (Aucoin 3). She also lambasted consultants' hiring decisions, claiming that young reporters are hired for "showmanship" rather than reporting skills (qtd. in Aucoin 3).
The dominance of infotainment affects not only those stations that seek out the approach, but also those stations that seek to preserve their traditions of responsible journalism. If one station in a market has moved to tabloid-style news, competitors' newscasts can seem old and tired by comparison. Many react by modernizing their own newscasts so as not to be trumped by a newer, flashier show (Siegel 4). Those that do not react quickly enough face plummeting ratings, which means plummeting revenue.
The transformation of respectable television news into infotainment has drawn sharp criticism from all sides. Charles Kravetz, news director of New England Cable News and former assistant news director at WCVB, says of the new crop of newscasts: "[There used to be] a lack of a need to sensationalize and a reverence for journalistic standards that doesn't exist now" (qtd. in Siegel, 2). In reference to increased celebrity and scandal coverage, Jim Thistle says, "You almost can't tell where their tabloid shows like Hard Copy end and the news begins" (Siegel 4). Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz weighs in on the infotainment trend:
"There's absolutely nothing wrong when they try to pitch journalism to a mass audience by making it entertaining. The danger comes when they try to pass off as real news a segment designed to titillate, anger, or scare people." (qtd. in Paige, 2)
The danger is even more frightening because television, local news in particular, is for most Americans their main source of news. According to a 1996 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 65 percent of adults are regular viewers of local TV news. The study also reported that local news is the most trusted source of news-trusted more than local daily papers, network news, and national daily papers (Winerip 32).
That so many people trust a medium so thoroughly dubious is disturbing because of the inaccuracies plaguing television. In a most basic sense, the fast-paced formatting and the importance of striking visuals make it impossible to provide context or perspective on a story, two pillars of responsible journalism (Zuckerman, Limits, 2). This lack of context can distort a story. Marvin Kalb, president of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University, says that the disproportionate coverage of crime and scandal "skew[s] reality-" by covering only the politicians who are corrupt, showing wars when the world is largely at peace, and more crime in a society with the lowest crime rate in a quarter century (qtd. in McCartney, 6). One cable news reporter expresses her frustrations: "What I object to is the lack of context. It all goes hurtling by, and the world is a frightening and inexplicable place" (Stark 6). Ted Koppel thinks the rush to embrace new technological gimmicks for ratings affects the perception of journalism: "...live TV has confused a lot of people into thinking that seeing a live event is the equivalent of journalism" (Koppel 2).
The pursuit of ad dollars has also influenced TV news in a far more subtle way. According to the Tyndall Report, a newsletter covering the network news programs published weekly, the amount of time allotted to editorial matter is slowly dwindling, replaced by more commercials (McCartney 2). The original format for the nightly network news was 21 minutes of editorial, and 8 minutes of advertising. Now only 19½ minutes of editorial are aired (McCartney 3). Less time means fewer or shorter segments, which means less context and less information (McCartney 3).
The depraved state of television news constitutes a serious threat to the operation of the democratic system. The governmental process in a democracy relies on an informed citizenship-citizens need to know how their elected representatives are performing, what issues may be relevant to their own lives that might warrant political action, and where political candidates stand on issues in order to intelligently exercise their voting privilege (McCartney 4). Television news, by not providing context, by providing misleading and sensational coverage, and by not providing sufficient coverage of the political process, is clearly not doing its job of informing the public. Thistle sums it up: "[I don't think]...if you want to make a stab at being a well-informed citizen you would want a tabloid format as your main source of information" (Siegel 3).
The extent of the problem is wide-ranging and far-reaching. According to a study by the Rocky Mountain Media Watch, subjects not covered sufficiently or at all were the environment, education, the economy, science, the arts, children, civil rights, parenting, and homelessness (Stark 6). These are the kinds of issues dealt with by politicians, but television does a shoddy job of providing enough coverage or information. For example, during the 1997 campaign finance hearings in Washington, D.C., the major networks provided no coverage at all, instead opting to produce in-depth reporting about the murder of Gianni Versace (Bozell 4). In a similar episode, during the 1998 gubernatorial race in California, none of the Los Angeles network affiliates showed up to cover the debates between the candidates. The leading stations similarly abandoned political coverage during the 1997 mayoral race in Los Angeles. When asked about their lapses in coverage, station and network spokespersons excuse was that there was insufficient public interest to justify such coverage; i.e. the stations would not be making any money (Cadell 1). National statistics confirm the trend: a University of Miami study discovered nationally twice as much crime news as political news, and 15 times as much crime as education news (Winerip 33).
Viewers, on the other hand, seem not to care very much. Surveys have repeatedly shown that audiences prefer crime stories (Winerip 32). Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, sees this as part of the problem. "Local TV news wouldn't cover crime as much as it does if the public didn't reward such coverage with high ratings," says Altman (Public Health 1). News directors are bound to deliver whatever polls say viewers want. One Orlando news director says, "all the surveys put crime at the top of the list. Who am I to second-guess the audience" (qtd. in Winerip 32)? Critics differ as to why viewers like crime. A meteorology professor, commenting on over-hyped storm coverage, provided this observation: "People have a natural interest in damage and other people problems. It makes your own problems seem a little less" (qtd. in Stark, 5). Carlos Fuentes, a writer for World Press Review, sees the industry as the problem-because the public gets such a huge volume of low-quality news, they think they are well-informed (Fuentes 1). Writer Steven D. Stark has another theory. He says that the citizens who want to be well-informed are often wealthier, and therefore have access to other more reliable sources of news, such as cable TV and the Internet. The remaining bloc of viewers are less-educated, poorer people who probably think that tabloid journalism is perfectly acceptable (Stark 6).
Despite the fact that viewers seem to be satisfied, television has a larger responsibility than pleasing viewers and corporate profit statements. Television is a remarkably influential medium, both to viewers and to the government to which television provides oversight. The decisions made by news directors in choosing which stories or issues to cover have a direct effect on the broader political agenda, both locally and nationally. As U.S. News and World Report media critic Mortimer B. Zuckerman, most succinctly put it, "No pictures, no policy" (Blind Eye 1). The television networks and local news are the "main source of perceptions about what is important" (McCartney 3). The effect can be best illustrated by the relationship between coverage and action on foreign policy. A few years ago there were famines in both Somalia and the Sudan, but CNN only had good pictures from Somalia. The public outrage fueled a policy effort to assist Somalia, while nothing was done for the Sudan (Zuckerman, Blind Eye, 1). Television influences the public's agenda, as well-studies show that viewers who watch crime-saturated newscasts are more likely to support more radical and punitive law-enforcement policies (Stark 6).
The television industry's obligations go beyond austere democratic responsibilities to be informative. The television industry has violated the terms under which they are licensed to use the airwaves by the Federal Communications Commission: the 1934 mandate that established the FCC stated that the broadcast media are to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" (McCartney 9). While there may be some wiggle room in the wording of the license requirements, and TV stations may be serving the public convenience, they are far from fulfilling their obligations to the public interest and necessity.
Fortunately, the law provides a way out: if a station is not fulfilling its obligations, a petition can be heard to revoke the station's license. This has been done only once in recent memory-in 1972, a group of prominent business and education leaders sued for the FCC license of Boston station WHDH-TV because they were fed up with the "garbage" the station was producing. They renamed the station WCVB, which has remained a responsible news leader ever since (Siegel 2), despite the invasion of consultants (Aucoin 1). Ironically, Boston's ailing WNEV-TV was recently acquired by WSVN owner Edmund Ansin, and renamed WHDH. The tradition of schlock TV continues.
Others see self-regulation as the way to save TV journalism. Austin, Texas ABC affiliate KVUE-TV has adopted a new strategy to battle sensationalism. The news director has put in place a set of stringent requirements that determine whether or not a crime story is aired, which include: Is action required? Is there a threat to public safety? Is there a threat to children? Does this have a larger community impact? These new rules are in response to viewer surveys that indicated that they were sick of crime (Holley 5). While this is represents being a slave to the viewers in a way, news director Mike George has the best of intentions: "It's just like any other story. We ask the question, 'Why is this important?'" (Holley 5)
Works Cited
Aucoin, Don. "The News from Natalie." Boston Globe 31 Mar. 1998: C1. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.
Bozell, L. Brent. "Tabloid Trash TV Preferred Over Hearings." Insight on the News 1 Sep. 1997: 29. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Caddell, Patrick. "A Modest Proposal: Sue the Bastards!" The Nation 8 Jun. 1998: 16. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Donaldson, Sam. "The State of Television News: In the Business to Make Money." Vital Speeches 1 Jan. 1998: 168. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Frank, Reuven. "Localizing Network News." The New Leader 6 Sep. 1993: 20. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
"Health Ranks Fifth on Local TV News." Public Health Reports July-August 1998: 296. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Holley, Joe. "Should the Coverage Fit the Crime?" Columbia Journalism Review May-June 1996: 27. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Isaak, Sharon. "Anchors Aweigh." Entertainment Weekly 18 Jun. 1993: 32. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Lane, Randall. "The Dean of Tabloid TV." Forbes 28 Feb. 1994: 100. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
McCartney, James. "News Lite." American Journalism Review June 1997: 18. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Paige, Sean. "That's Infotainment!" Insight on the News 8 Jun. 1998: 8. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Rapping, Elayne. "Watching the Eyewitless News." The Progressive Mar. 1995: 38. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Siegel, Ed. "Lack of Vision Hurt Channel 7 Under Mugar." Boston Globe 23 Apr. 1993: 45. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.
Siegel, Ed. "TV Wars." Boston Globe 12 Feb. 1995: 18. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.
Stark, Steven D. "Local News: The Biggest Scandal on TV." Washington Monthly June 1997: 38. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Ver Berkmoes, Ryan. "89 Hours." Chicago April 1995: 66. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Winerip, Michael. "Looking for an 11 O'clock Fix." The New York Times Magazine 11 Jan. 1998: 30+.
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "The Blind Eye of Television." U.S. News & World Report 18 Jan. 1993: 84. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "The Limits of the TV Lens." U.S. News & World Report 25 Jul. 1994: 64. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.
no way.
Although it did take Stewart a little while to realize what kind of comedy he was doing, once he caught on it has been great. What was good about the Craig years was how they would absolutely skewer guests. His interview with Carrot Top was classic. Then people found out about it and were prepared. Anyway, their election coverage was great, as was one of the pieces they did on the Rich pardon hullaballo. "What!? You mean favors for donations is common in Washington?" Anyway, I think it is better now, their writers blow away the normal networks.
--
+&x
Saying that the Daily Show beat out network coverage is inaccurate, as it's not as if they won an award in a 'journalism' category. It would be just as accurate to say that Malcolm in the Middle or the West Wing beat them out.
From the Peabody website:
"The George Foster Peabody Awards, established in 1939 and first awarded in 1940, recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious service by radio and television networks, stations, producing organizations, cable television organizations and individuals."
The Peabody Awards have a history of rewarding programs off the beaten path - I remember MST3K winning a few years back. It's nice to see, since the Daily Show is one of the smartest, most consistently funny shows on television.
Just checked my JamTV listings. The Daily Show is not available in Canada on cable. :(
I'll just have to be happy with This hour has 22 minutes. Also, this weekend is Rick Mercer's one hour special Talking to Americans Sunday at 9, keeping alive the grand Canadian tradition of mocking their neighbours to the south.
I've heard comparisons between This Hour and The Daily show. Anyone who's seen both have any comments about either?
they did bring in Bob Dole a lot during the coverage (I noticed him there more during the National Conventions). Actually that guy has a great sense of humor and a great personality. He was a good fit for the show, given the events that they were covering.
--------
"Counting in octal is just like counting in decimal--if you don't use your thumbs."
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
When I followed the links given by CmdrTaco and the press release was on the site itself.. I almost laughed and thought never trust a press release on a satire site.. so I went looking on the net to see if it was true or not.. sure enough I found this on official peabody site. Way to go daily show :)
Ian
This sends a great message to all of the major news agencies in the USA: your news is CRAP.
CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, and just about everyone besides the Christian Science monitor produce some of the most hideously slanted crap out there. Almost every piece of news sent out by a major news source is reactionary tripe, leaving objectivism behind in favor of a ratings boost. These people live in constant fear of offending advertisers or the corporations that own them.
Not so for Comedy Central. While they probably could get in some very deep ship for angering their parent, Viacom, they do not give a damn. Everyone is open to jokes, be they charged with ethnic, political, or scatalogical humor. This leads to a total, unabashed, unbiased news source.
I certainly hope that this shames the big news sources into change.
Uhm... April Fool's, right?
-carl
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
New episodes only Monday-Thursday..
I agree with you. First few weeks after the change of anchorship were kind of wierd but after that Stewart's been top notch most of the time. I guess a little known fact is that he actually used to write for SNL. His stand-up comics aside DS are also hilarious although everything he does tends to concentrate on him making fun of himself or his religion(jews). Oh well, 15min/day of him makes my day..
If people keep putting April Fools Day stuff up 2 days early now this year ... when will it start moving up all the way to say March 1, etc etc etc. APR 1 ONLY
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
No April Fools.. that was my guess at first as well. You can find the press release at the Peabody Awards website.
-gerbik
No.
Jon Stewart is a much better host simply because he can improvise. He actually interviews guests instead of reading a script at them. Craig Kilborn was a funny host cause the show had good writers. This is painfully obvious if you see his new show. The writers suck. I watched it the first week it was on the air, and after seeing the same show five nights in a row, I decided I'd had enough.
-Dorsey
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
Yes I am aware of King Lear being literature. I am also aware that all around the world and all throughout history, literature and theatre have been a (sometimes ) safe haven for people who wanted to express in roundabout ways criticism that could not be said in a straight face without dire consequences for themselves.
Considering the US: No, the President cannot kill journalists. He doesn't have to. As I said earlier. Power has adapted to the new rules. You can say what you want. But what you say has no political imact. You cannot see serious journalists asking tough questions and speaking in an unrestrained manner on TV or in major newsparers. The BBC described "Indecision 2000" as a stolen election. The American media barely reported that Bush's inauguration drew more protesters to Washington than have been there since the Vientam era. The only people on TV who dare mention Bush's legitimacy issue are comedians. The only people on TV who point out that Bush's ( and Clinton's ) drug policies are a supreme case of hypocrisy are comedians. The US has very tough laws that allow journalists to say extremely offensive things without liability, on the assumption that the role of the media is to protect democracy. This assumption is no longer true in the US. The role of the US media today is to increase shareholders value and that is way Jay Leno has become a source of news whereas the evening news have become a mild entretainment whose obsequesness and constant groveling is second only to Pravda's.
The journalists who worked at Pravda cooperated because they didn't want to spend the rest of their life in Siberia. Those who work at Fox cooperate because they want to retire comfortably. The result is the almost the same, and the first ammendment cannot be of help here.
PS.
If you think that Shakespeare made theatre for idiots, you really need a visit to your local academia to refresh your memory.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
The thing that keeps (some) journalists from asking different questions or reporting different view-points is not obeisance to corporate over-lords but the herd mentality
Not according to my sources. Plus, herd mentality means follow the leader. People behave like a herd because they know that being different is punished. Who does the punishing? Who creates the work environment that rewards herdlike behavior and punishes serious journalism? Who pays six-figures salaries to the members of your happy milquetoast, instead of wipping their ass with their shabby product?
the number of protesters refers to protesters during presidential inauguration, sorry for not being clear.
The press cannot ignore all corporate wrongdoing because sensationalism sells. And their own competition insures that once something is out, they have to milk it to the end and beyond. Yet even under these constraints the press manages to ignore a lot of things, The long actors strike for-example, the war over copyright extension, etc. The corporate world is competitive and the fact that there are some common corporate interests does not mean that corporations never hurt one another. But as you point out, the acceptable way to report things that heavily damage corporate interests is under the guise of hysteria. Serious journalism would have required that someone went and investigated these things before they are made known by a lawsuit. Serious reporting would feature corporate news at the top of every news item ( without histeria), and would analyze every merger and every major corporate decision because these decisions affect our life. Serious reporting would invesigate the 'crisis' in California on primetime instead of merely reporting what politicians have to say about it.
Bottom line: Media executives are beholden to the bottomline, and if they were not their shareholders would be suing them. Democracy is something else.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Then some people invented Democracy and free speech and even fought and got killed to put those ideas into law so that people could say whatever they wanted without having to pretend they are jesters.
It took some time but eventually the powerfull figured out a way around and we are all back to square one, where only jesters tell the truth on the screens of the corporate media.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Well it cetainly is something to think about, regardless of whether this story is true or not. It's well known that the US government has had a stranglehold on the media since Nixon, and there are some wonderful Canadian documentaries about the gulf war and the media circus that surrounded America's decision to get involved. On that note one of Canada's own news-spoofs asked George W. Bush what he thought of Prime Minister Poutine (The name of a popular meal here involving grease, french fries, grease, cheese, and grease), and George proved he didn't even know the name of Canada's prime minister!
I think that satire offers an outlet for all the truth that the media can't handle. And whether you think you media is protected by this and that amendment, well think again. It's about a buck guys and gals, and not about the truth. Face it, news had become as sensational as ever and satire provides the proper guise of falsity so that serious issues (and not so serious issues in their own right) can be discussed without having to worry about the next payment from advertisers.
I stopped watching the television news. It's all cut up wrong anyway. There are my seven dollars (that's two cents american).
yoink
The best interview I saw during last year of a politician was when Ralph Nader was on the Daily Show. Jon asked some very point-blank and informed questions which got past the "why don't you drop out you idiot" questions that Nader got on all the other interviews he did and got to the core of the green party platform. The Daily Show's coverage of the election was more than just satire, it was a truely honest way of viewing the political process from the eyes of a normal person.
====
If all comedy comes out of tragedy, let the killing begin...
====
"white bread, redneck, chicken-shit, motherfucker" -- Dr. Dre on "Straight Outta Compton"
Still, it's ironic that the winner of this award isn't a legitimate news show; it's a parody of all the other shows, with the most absurd parts exaggerated (one of my personal favorites being the spoof of the Dateline Timeline). I can just see Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and Dan Rather all down on their knees, shouting, "WHYYYYYYY?!?!"
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Perhaps the title "Indecision 2000" was one of the reasons why they won the Peabody award. At least they didn't indirectly sway the election itself by making a hasty prediction, like the other anchors did.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
They're the only "news" (quotes because they don't consider themselves journalists) source that blatantly points out lies.
I'm going to have to watch them tonight to see Jon's reaction.
Go Lakers!
This is the link. http://www.peabody.uga.edu/news/pressreleases/pres srelease.asp?ID=57
I think someone hacked the list.
Reasons :
The last 3 shows are presented incorrectly. You will see that the winners and the description of the winners do not have a space after them.
The last 3 shows do not seem to be the types of shows that should be winning ( again this is my view ).
Onepoint
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I may be a writer, but nobody accused me of being a good speller ;).
Damn spellcheckers.
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
In an age where tabliod journalism seems to reign supreme, where shock-value is standard criteria, and where the line "if it bleeds, it leads" rings true to many, it's refreshing to see that Satire is finding some respect.
Humour is perhaps one of the least appreciated forms of information and education out there. During the 60's, while civil rights activists worked at changing the laws to be fair to all races, people like Richard Pryor was changing the way we think with his sometimes crude and direct stand up comedy. It made people deal face to face with the way things were, but made you laugh about it as well, and that can have a long term impact on the way people think that laws cannot.
While the real news broadcasts fumbled and blustered over the political debacle, Indecision 2000 was able to (in a humerous way) make us face up to the fact that the system is flawed, that there is no good guys or bad guys, that the business of politics is politics, and with the general silly nature of elections in general.
If we learn to laugh at our own mistakes, we just might have a better chance of not making the same mistake again.
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Hehe, I just love The Daily Show!
During the election coverage, they did a bit on the scientific "maps" that are always used...
"As you can see, Bush has a clear victory..."
Jon: "um, you also have to take into account the electoral votes from the large urban areas, and..."
"Nation's RED, MAP DON'T LIE!"
That cracked me up!