A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Monday, February 15, 2016
The New Pundits - for Comm 138
Do people like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner? Why or
Why not?
I definitely don't think Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced matter. They are comedians. Stewart and Colbert had shows on COMEDY Central. They technically aren't supposed to present the news, they're commenting on the news. It's like the opening monologue of most late night talk shows (The Tonight Show, The Late Show, etc), just extended to an entire half hour. It's like "Weekend Update" on SNL. I think the confusion arises when people look to them as their primary news source, when in reality they may make a great supplement but shouldn't be the sole source of news. Even channels like MSNBC and Fox News don't present the news in a balanced way, and they're ACTUAL, supposedly reputable news stations. The confusion also arises when studies come out that conclude "The Colbert Report" did a better job of teaching people about campaign finance in the 2012 election than MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, or even broadcast news (http://deadline.com/2014/06/stephen-colbert-super-pac-study-738885/). Yet another study found that people who watched "The Daily Show" were more informed than people who watched Fox News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html).
This becomes confusing. How does a comedy news show teach people more about some aspects of the news than actual news shows? I do not in any way have the answer, but in a recent interview with NPR, John Oliver began to touch on the subject (http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466569047/is-john-olivers-show-journalism-he-says-the-answer-is-simple-no). John Oliver himself doesn't believe his show is journalism...even though he landed an interview with Edward Snowden last year. But, that doesn't mean his show is a complete news farce. In the interview, Oliver commented on the importance of accuracy in his joke making "You can't build jokes on sand, you can't be wrong about something - otherwise, that joke disintegrates... You try to be as rigorous as you can in terms of fact checking because your responsibility is to make sure that your joke is structurally sound." Do they have an obligation to be balanced? No, not at all. The show is obviously the opinion of the host and its writers and creators. But that doesn't give channels like Fox News and MSNBC permission to do the same if they plan to call themselves reliable news sources. Perhaps those news channels should take a page out of the satirical news show book and base their stories in accuracy.
People like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver and their shows don't have an obligation to present the news in a balanced matter, since no channels really do present news in a balanced matter. They all have tend to swing one way or another -- MSNBC being liberal and Fox being conservative is one example. It is the viewer's responsibility to recognize these things and watch the news with the understanding that they may have motives in the way they present the news. Especially when it comes to these comedic talk show style news programs, it is key to know that the writers of the show present the news in their own interpretations of it.
The reading by Jeffrey Jones discussed how some critics "contend that these shows contribute to ignorance about current events in young people." At the same time however, most of these programs have complex references to pop culture and political issues that could only be absorbed by an individual who is savvy about the world. In a way, shows like these allow young viewers to gain an interest in politics because they grow to understand and enjoy learning about it from a comedic perspective. It is important for viewers of these programs to diversify where they get their news from so that they can see a multitude of perspectives and gain an understanding of different political viewpoints
Just as the people above have said, comedians like John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart do not have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. In other interviews, Jon Stewart has stressed the fact that he is first and foremost a comedian as opposed to being an informed expert about the political sphere. As entertainers, they are going to be drawn to stories or topics that are easy to talk about or are amusing to poke fun at. With the format of their shows, I think they have an obligation to keep the audience informed and call out hypocrisy that they see in the news. It is terrifying to think that if these comedians did not have these platforms, that so many news anchors would feel that there is no significant consequences to spewing misinformation or being ignorant. We put our trust in these comedians to be the middlemen between the news and presenting correct information. During his run on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart was highly committed to fighting the War on Bullsh**. As Jeffrey P. Jones mentions in his writing, these comedians are unafraid to deal with politics directly or aggressively. I feel like it would be extremely difficult to remain balanced or unbiased during their shows, because their comedy stems from their values and beliefs. In order to make political commentary, it is pretty crucial that one has a political stance. Even Colbert, who played a right-wing, conservative character on The Colbert Report, has a political affiliation because so much of his material was satire. It is important to bring up facts that are important to the topic, issue or court case at hand and it would be nice for the comedians to present things in a more-or-less balanced way, but I do not think they have an obligation to do so.
I don’t think these people are obligated to present the news in a balanced manner. People like John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stuart are as notable as they are for doing the exact opposite of this. Their ability to bring a satirical aspect to news that is overwhelmingly biased most of the time is impressive and ultimately informing the general public. Also, they aren’t political figures or news anchors, they’re comedians. Their only duty is to bring comedy into the lives of their viewers, and in no way are they obligated to present news in a balanced way.
People like Jon Stewart, John Oliver, and Stephen Colbert don't have any sort of obligation to present the news in a balanced manner because they don't claim to be journalists or reporters or news anchors working for a news station. They aren't reporting the news in a traditional sense but rather they're commenting on it in a comedic way since, as they've said before, they're comedians. They're not bound by the same standards as many news organizations are since they don't claim to be the same thing. That's not to say that they're presenting false news however. They definitely do their research, in a similar vein to late talk show monologues as someone above mentioned, in order to make jokes about it.
Although these TV personalities don’t technically have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner, they have developed reputations of being intelligent news sources, so I think they have an obligation to their viewers to present reliably intellectual opinions on current events. While their shows exist for comedy, I think there is definitely an unspoken understanding that these new pundits have reputations as being “watchdogs” in the sense that they will call out politicians/others on their BS, and say everything that everyone else wishes they could say. It should also be taken into account that the viewers of these shows are highly informed on current events (otherwise the jokes wouldn’t make sense), therefore these shows are expected to be a nice supplement to other news sources and provide new opinions and perspectives.
I strongly disagree with the notion that politically-minded comedians have some sort of a "duty" to educate the American public. Jon Stewart himself rejects this idea as well, and has made it clear on many occasions that he did not want to be this new political educator that people wanted him to be. He is a comedian. His job is to be funny. If his style of humor is more intelligent and informative than others, so be it. However, he has no obligation whatsoever to inform or educate the American public. These comedians did not ask to be journalists, nor should they be expected to. They are not experts, and do not always have the resources available to them to research and broadcast a story the way that a news organization would. Back when Jon Stewart hosted the Daily Show, I hated having to listen to people complain how "Jon Stewart covered that story in such a biased/unfair/misleading way." If you don't like his jokes, don't laugh. He never claimed to be an authority. News should come first from journalists, then be made fun of by comedians. By skipping the journalists and going straight to the comedians, viewers missed a lot of valuable context in the stories they learned about, and often would misunderstand the story itself. Viewers who want information about current events have an obligation to educate themselves. Comedians are in no way obligated to educate them.
No because their profession is comedy and oftentimes comedy can be controversial. Comedy in television has historically been a way to address difficult issues head on in a funny way as to alleviate the seriousness of topics. It is also a way to make fun of or criticize certain aspects of culture, society, politics and other social issues. It brings issues to the forefront and sets the agenda while portraying certain opinions to it's audience. Stewart, Colbert and Oliver have an obligation to provide their audience with entertainment through comedy. They aren't a news station and therefore have no obligation to present any news in a balanced manner. While some of their content may be offensive to some this is just simply the nature of their profession and genre of television. This is where the line needs to be set and where the public blurs the line between comedy and news. Audiences criticize these shows for presenting issues in biased ways or in offensive ways, but the nature of comedy and the channel their show is on (Comedy Central) is not an informative, news channel but a comedic form of entertainment.
In no way, shape, or form do I think they have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. Like many people have said, that is not their job. They are there for entertainment, to make fun of politicians and things they say, to make the audience laugh, and doing any of these things is going to require some unbalanced ideas. However, in order to make these jokes, both the comedian and the audience do need to be well informed on what they are talking about and what is occurring in society, so I do believe that in a weird way, there is some sort of education (?) that people can get out of these shows. I would never watch one of these shows as my source of news or politics, but it does bring a more entertaining light to politics and make it more fun. But in order to present these ideas, they are going to be biased in one way or another because that is what makes it funny. However, when comparing to other "reliable news sources" these shows may be more balanced a lot of the times because those sources, like Fox, tend to have their affiliation and push their views. These comedians (sometimes) make their jokes off of whatever will be funny.
I wouldn't say that they have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. Because their shows were intended for comedic purposes, they don't have the same pressure as journalists to present fair and balanced news (although this perception may have changed). With that said, I think they have turned out to be more trusted by their viewers because of their "no bull-shit" attitudes towards political issues and their ability to poke fun at politicians. The only question is whether or not these new pundits are really being balanced. They may be presenting honest content, but if they only make fun of their opposing views are we really seeing balanced content?
The other key aspect of these shows is that they imply an educated audience. So if we're relying on these pundits to be our balanced presentation of news, someone tuning in with no knowledge of current events isn't going to understand the show at all.
I do not believe people like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. Jon Stewart was a psychology major who ended up becoming a stand-up comic and finding his place in late-night television. Similarly Stephen Colbert went to college with the intention of becoming a dramatic actor before transitioning into improvisational acting. John Oliver is an actor and comedian. None of the three are trained journalists, nor do that have an obligation to presenting the news in a balanced manner. They are all talk-show hosts with obligations to their network and audience. I believe the modern day political pundits are so far left and right, that they created a space for Jon, Stephen and John to give audiences the balanced news they were missing. But, no I do not believe they are obligated to do so. A citizen may be obligated to search out news to be informed citizens, but it is not the job of comedy talk show hosts to fill that void. It is more a reflection of the failures and shortcomings of journalism, impacted by the internet, that has created a space for these comedians and given them a platform to speak and an audience that needs and wants to hear what they have to say. I believe these talkshow hosts have an obligation to give the network and the audience what they want and need. They are not journalist or hired political respondents, they are actors and comedians.
I do not think they are obliged to present the news in a balanced manner. Because John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and John Stewart are so famous in their own right and are not ones to shy away from their political affiliations, it is a bit difficult not to know what you are getting into. This is not The Today Show or the local 10 o’clock news where you need to explicitly state the facts. I feel because it is their own talk show, they have the power to talk about what they want to talk about and of course voice their own opinion. Yes, they are presenting reliable opinions because over the years they have become news sources in their own right. Finally, most of the people who actually watch their shows are highly informed about the news, so they are able to form their own opinions. These shows are not able to be watched if you do not have background knowledge on what is going on in the world, so these three men just further your thoughts and ideas.
I don't think John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and John Stewart are obliged to present the news in a balanced manner. Their job is to make people laugh, that is the main goal of these late night shows, for people to be entertained. These shows don't even need to incorporate the news into their shows but they do so because they can change them to a humorous manner or they do feel it is important to talk about. Hosting a talk show is choosing what that individual wants to talk about. Local news stations, CNN and so on are the shows that really need to share all the news and facts while being balanced. Unfortunately, they are not balanced. That is probably the reason people try to use Oliver, Colbert and Stewart for sources. People who do look for news from Oliver, Colbert and Stewart are tending to want to be entertained at the same time though. They feel bored watching half hour worth a news that is not entertaining so they rely on these gentleman. People must understand that these hosts are comedians and will be drawn to stories that they can entertain with, usually not with the top stories. They will avoid the big events because they could have very spilt audience feelings that could destroy their ratings.
I do think that Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. They are comedians whose role is to entertain and therefore are not obligated to follow the journalistic principles of traditional news reporters. However, they have gained the attention and trust of a large majority of the public to the point where many people were getting their news from these comedy shows instead of the actual news. This great amount of trust that they've gained from the public is why I think they have that obligation. I think that Jon Stewart really understood this. Comedy was use to cut to the truth of matters that other news channels were unable to achieve. It also avoids political correctness and it also avoids this impossible attempt of being unbiased. These shows reached balance by making fun of both sides, the left and right. It's unfair for these comedians to have this responsibility to educate the public but I think that's what comes with the power of influence they have.
I do not think that people like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. personally, people watch their shows for entertainment values, not the actual news. All of them use comedy as their main source to get the audiences they do, and if they were obligated to "balance" their shows with values, then it would become a lot less effective. If I wanted to watch something to gain knowledge about what is happening throughout the world, I wouldn't be tuning into these guys shows, but rather more news related shows. I think these guys do a great job in finding ways to lighten the mood on a lot of topics by using comedy and if they had to change their ways, and act the way we told them to, then their shows wouldn't be as successful as they are. Lastly, I believe that because it is their own personal talk shows, that they should be allowed to say, do, act in whatever manner they please. If you don't like their show, how they talk, or how they go about certain topics then don't watch it. I'm sure you won't hurt their feelings.
I do not think Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. I think that with their status as celebrity pundits who hold great influence over pop culture and media, audiences feel as if these entertainment figures are people who should always be reliable and always be balanced. However, their appeal and their popularity comes from their tendency to be not as balanced as normal news channels usually appear to be—at times, their exaggerated mockery is what gets audiences to laugh and see different issues from different perspectives. And tracing back the history of the pundits on television, it is strange to ask them to be more balanced, when what seems to be the definition of "balance" nowadays means an equal mix of entertainment, information and celebrity. And in the end, the show running behind Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver are seeking high ratings and viewers in order to stay on the air. If their content became more neutral and followed standard journalistic practices, then how would their shows be differentiated from normal news networks? Being balanced and following journalistic values are not necessarily obligations or responsibilities, just expectations in terms of the content (news, politics, social issues) they are discussing on their shows.
I think people who set out to present the news in a more comedic way do have an obligation to be more balanced. I believe they have this obligation because of the nature of the format they are using. The use of comedy is a response to the more serious and often one sided format of traditional news media. Without these serious news outlets that shy away from relevant and serious topics, there would be no Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, or John Oliver. Without a balance their use of comedy as a means to talk about issues falls flat and can't be taken seriously. I think this is why other shows like "Real Time with Bill Maher" will never have as big of a cultural impact, because it is virtually one sided.
While I agree with most of the above comments that comedians are NOT obligated to present the news in a balanced manner, I believe it is in their best interest to do so. Obviously we know their primary goal is to entertain and to provide a satirical spin on the oft-ridiculousness of politics today, but if you spend too much time making fun of one politician, political party, or perspective, you can alienate that audience from your show. At the end of the day, as a comedian, Jon Stewart is not trying to preserve everyone's feelings. That's why it's comedy--there are going to be offensive, sometimes insensitive quips about your beliefs, but it's up to you whether or not to take them to heart. But it's more than just potentially offending viewers here and there. With their status as "new pundits", both more appealing and more reliable than traditional news sources in the eyes of younger audiences (which is important, because millennials now make up the largest voting block and percentage of the workforce in the U.S.), people like Steven Colbert, John Oliver, and Seth McFarlane have an unprecedented amount of influence in shaping public opinion. That kind of power is dangerous if used irresponsibly or one-sidedly. Again, this does not obligate them to act one way or another--they are fully capable of taking their political persona in whichever direction they wish. But it is because they have an acute understanding of their impact, from every interview to every passing quote of theirs that floats around on social media, that they remain mostly balanced. A great example: if you watch the Colbert Report, Colbert's onstage persona is a satirical portrayal of a traditional, conservative pundit, but he is very clearly an "equal opportunity basher", attacking both the left and right with equal gusto. Yet in reality, he identifies as a Democrat. This is the balance that comedians often strike to ensure they are not using their elevated positions recklessly.
People like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and John Oliver absolutely do not have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner because the main concept of their show is satire. They take poignant current events and find ways to present facts in a comedic fashion to find inconsistencies with the way that they are reported and what is actually occurring. Jon Stewart actually went on Fox News and defended The Daily Show, saying how it was purely comedic and how he didn't have any political agenda. They really don't have an obligation to present the news in an unbiased way; they just try to show interesting or relevant news stories or show reporters that act in unprofessional or unusual manners. The audience for these shows are expected to be educated about current events, and then Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver take that knowledge and put a spin on it in order to lighten the mood and make people laugh.
While I agree with everything that everybody else has said that comedians like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Jon Oliver do not have an obligation to present the news in a balanced matter, I also believe that they do. With the nature of their programs and the intent being to address the lack of meaningful political talk that are available to citizen viewers, it is up to them to present it in a balanced nature. The pundits combined with the issue of agenda setting have driven those discussions so far left and right. As we discussed, today's society is consisted of parties that are more left and right while the citizens that make up the society are mostly moderate. Therefore, if the objective of these shows are to address this lack of middle ground, then they have to deliver this middle ground. Sure, people should not only turn to these programs as their one and only source of news but I think that they should turn to these sources for a more satirical and therefore, more honest telling of the news.
I do not believe television hosts such as Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present news in a balanced manner. I do believe, however, that news presentations must be factual. It’s very rare to find news presentations today to be both balanced and factual. All major new networks today have tendency to swing right or left (the extremes of these biased media networks would be MSNBC and Fox News). These biases are emphasized even more during election years, such as this year.
Personally, I believe that these satirical political news pundits bring to us a new perspective of news that we would not otherwise receive. Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver allow us the opportunity to analyze major network presentations on both sides and critique them. The imbalance in their presentation would stem from the use of comedy and satire. These elements require a position or opinion to be taken in order to provide entertainment for the audience. But even if their presentations are imbalanced, the statements they make must be factual and not misleading for the audience.
No I do not think that Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver are obligated to present the news in a balanced manner because they are not real journalist and their shows are intended for comedic purposes. These three men are either an actor or a comedian, so they know how to have a stage presence and to draw their audience in to continue to watch their shows. Yes, they tell the news, but in doing so they turn it into jokes and stray away from the depth of the news they are reporting. In order for their jokes to be funny people will need to know the actual the full story and up to date on the news to follow. So, for those who only watch their shows to get their daily news intake are really only watching to get a cheap laugh, not something they actually understand. One way these men could be doing some good is by getting those who only get their daily news from them, is actually getting them a little taste of what is happening in the world and could spark an interest of something and get the viewer to look more in depth from a credible source.
I think yes and no. People don't look to them to get informed, they want to be entertained. They want to see them break down our nations politics in a funny way. If you didn't laugh at politics the world would be a bleak place. I think a certain amount of trust goes along with this. These jokes need to be based on facts for them to make any sense. Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver all take a step back and look at the ridiculousness of how news is presented when it's meant to be factual. So they may be a more credible source than the actual news but they are not obligated to be unbiased or balanced by any means. So long story short I think they have an obligation to make fun of the truth/reality but they can sway whichever way they want. That's what we like about them.
To take the easy way out: yes and no. I think they aren't intended to serve as comprehensive news shows or news analytics, but, because of their entertainment value they inevitably are-- especially for younger audiences. For example, in 2012, Pew Research took a poll that showed that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report had the highest percentage of young viewers (18-29 years) among news outlets, with 39 and 43 percent, which doesn't really surprise me, but it can be scary when you think about the idea that this generation is gathering all their political info and news from a program being produced by Comedy Central.
But I get the draw, in a world of bleak stories flooding the news, people look for a little light. Political shows that use humor to draw awareness to issues make people feel more informed without feeling like they’re wasting valuable free time on boring news segments. It almost seems to be another form of “slacktivism,” or like a feel-good type of support for politics that has little or no practical benefit. However, the fact that every so often something substantive comes out of these shows kind of reveals that the public actually trusts in these pundits. For example with Colbert-- his Super PAC, “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” raised over 1.02 million dollars in 2012.
But this is kind of where the whole "no, they're not real news" side of things comes into play. Colbert and his colleagues are not politicians. They may have political agendas, but ultimately their allegiance is to entertainment and the success of their shows. They are paid to host a television program, not to make laws. And they're certainly not true journalists; they aren’t bound by journalistic ethics or any publication to give unbiased information. Their intent is to entertain viewers. While they do present factual information and evidence to support the points they want to promote, but their segments are not comprehensive at all, which, again, is kind of scary when you think of the influence they have to do something like raise money for a Super PAC.
24 comments:
I definitely don't think Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced matter. They are comedians. Stewart and Colbert had shows on COMEDY Central. They technically aren't supposed to present the news, they're commenting on the news. It's like the opening monologue of most late night talk shows (The Tonight Show, The Late Show, etc), just extended to an entire half hour. It's like "Weekend Update" on SNL. I think the confusion arises when people look to them as their primary news source, when in reality they may make a great supplement but shouldn't be the sole source of news. Even channels like MSNBC and Fox News don't present the news in a balanced way, and they're ACTUAL, supposedly reputable news stations. The confusion also arises when studies come out that conclude "The Colbert Report" did a better job of teaching people about campaign finance in the 2012 election than MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, or even broadcast news (http://deadline.com/2014/06/stephen-colbert-super-pac-study-738885/). Yet another study found that people who watched "The Daily Show" were more informed than people who watched Fox News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html).
This becomes confusing. How does a comedy news show teach people more about some aspects of the news than actual news shows? I do not in any way have the answer, but in a recent interview with NPR, John Oliver began to touch on the subject (http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466569047/is-john-olivers-show-journalism-he-says-the-answer-is-simple-no). John Oliver himself doesn't believe his show is journalism...even though he landed an interview with Edward Snowden last year. But, that doesn't mean his show is a complete news farce. In the interview, Oliver commented on the importance of accuracy in his joke making "You can't build jokes on sand, you can't be wrong about something - otherwise, that joke disintegrates... You try to be as rigorous as you can in terms of fact checking because your responsibility is to make sure that your joke is structurally sound." Do they have an obligation to be balanced? No, not at all. The show is obviously the opinion of the host and its writers and creators. But that doesn't give channels like Fox News and MSNBC permission to do the same if they plan to call themselves reliable news sources. Perhaps those news channels should take a page out of the satirical news show book and base their stories in accuracy.
People like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver and their shows don't have an obligation to present the news in a balanced matter, since no channels really do present news in a balanced matter. They all have tend to swing one way or another -- MSNBC being liberal and Fox being conservative is one example. It is the viewer's responsibility to recognize these things and watch the news with the understanding that they may have motives in the way they present the news. Especially when it comes to these comedic talk show style news programs, it is key to know that the writers of the show present the news in their own interpretations of it.
The reading by Jeffrey Jones discussed how some critics "contend that these shows contribute to ignorance about current events in young people." At the same time however, most of these programs have complex references to pop culture and political issues that could only be absorbed by an individual who is savvy about the world. In a way, shows like these allow young viewers to gain an interest in politics because they grow to understand and enjoy learning about it from a comedic perspective. It is important for viewers of these programs to diversify where they get their news from so that they can see a multitude of perspectives and gain an understanding of different political viewpoints
Just as the people above have said, comedians like John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart do not have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. In other interviews, Jon Stewart has stressed the fact that he is first and foremost a comedian as opposed to being an informed expert about the political sphere. As entertainers, they are going to be drawn to stories or topics that are easy to talk about or are amusing to poke fun at. With the format of their shows, I think they have an obligation to keep the audience informed and call out hypocrisy that they see in the news. It is terrifying to think that if these comedians did not have these platforms, that so many news anchors would feel that there is no significant consequences to spewing misinformation or being ignorant. We put our trust in these comedians to be the middlemen between the news and presenting correct information. During his run on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart was highly committed to fighting the War on Bullsh**. As Jeffrey P. Jones mentions in his writing, these comedians are unafraid to deal with politics directly or aggressively. I feel like it would be extremely difficult to remain balanced or unbiased during their shows, because their comedy stems from their values and beliefs. In order to make political commentary, it is pretty crucial that one has a political stance. Even Colbert, who played a right-wing, conservative character on The Colbert Report, has a political affiliation because so much of his material was satire. It is important to bring up facts that are important to the topic, issue or court case at hand and it would be nice for the comedians to present things in a more-or-less balanced way, but I do not think they have an obligation to do so.
I don’t think these people are obligated to present the news in a balanced manner. People like John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stuart are as notable as they are for doing the exact opposite of this. Their ability to bring a satirical aspect to news that is overwhelmingly biased most of the time is impressive and ultimately informing the general public. Also, they aren’t political figures or news anchors, they’re comedians. Their only duty is to bring comedy into the lives of their viewers, and in no way are they obligated to present news in a balanced way.
People like Jon Stewart, John Oliver, and Stephen Colbert don't have any sort of obligation to present the news in a balanced manner because they don't claim to be journalists or reporters or news anchors working for a news station. They aren't reporting the news in a traditional sense but rather they're commenting on it in a comedic way since, as they've said before, they're comedians. They're not bound by the same standards as many news organizations are since they don't claim to be the same thing. That's not to say that they're presenting false news however. They definitely do their research, in a similar vein to late talk show monologues as someone above mentioned, in order to make jokes about it.
Although these TV personalities don’t technically have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner, they have developed reputations of being intelligent news sources, so I think they have an obligation to their viewers to present reliably intellectual opinions on current events. While their shows exist for comedy, I think there is definitely an unspoken understanding that these new pundits have reputations as being “watchdogs” in the sense that they will call out politicians/others on their BS, and say everything that everyone else wishes they could say. It should also be taken into account that the viewers of these shows are highly informed on current events (otherwise the jokes wouldn’t make sense), therefore these shows are expected to be a nice supplement to other news sources and provide new opinions and perspectives.
I strongly disagree with the notion that politically-minded comedians have some sort of a "duty" to educate the American public. Jon Stewart himself rejects this idea as well, and has made it clear on many occasions that he did not want to be this new political educator that people wanted him to be. He is a comedian. His job is to be funny. If his style of humor is more intelligent and informative than others, so be it. However, he has no obligation whatsoever to inform or educate the American public. These comedians did not ask to be journalists, nor should they be expected to. They are not experts, and do not always have the resources available to them to research and broadcast a story the way that a news organization would. Back when Jon Stewart hosted the Daily Show, I hated having to listen to people complain how "Jon Stewart covered that story in such a biased/unfair/misleading way." If you don't like his jokes, don't laugh. He never claimed to be an authority. News should come first from journalists, then be made fun of by comedians. By skipping the journalists and going straight to the comedians, viewers missed a lot of valuable context in the stories they learned about, and often would misunderstand the story itself. Viewers who want information about current events have an obligation to educate themselves. Comedians are in no way obligated to educate them.
No because their profession is comedy and oftentimes comedy can be controversial. Comedy in television has historically been a way to address difficult issues head on in a funny way as to alleviate the seriousness of topics. It is also a way to make fun of or criticize certain aspects of culture, society, politics and other social issues. It brings issues to the forefront and sets the agenda while portraying certain opinions to it's audience. Stewart, Colbert and Oliver have an obligation to provide their audience with entertainment through comedy. They aren't a news station and therefore have no obligation to present any news in a balanced manner. While some of their content may be offensive to some this is just simply the nature of their profession and genre of television. This is where the line needs to be set and where the public blurs the line between comedy and news. Audiences criticize these shows for presenting issues in biased ways or in offensive ways, but the nature of comedy and the channel their show is on (Comedy Central) is not an informative, news channel but a comedic form of entertainment.
In no way, shape, or form do I think they have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. Like many people have said, that is not their job. They are there for entertainment, to make fun of politicians and things they say, to make the audience laugh, and doing any of these things is going to require some unbalanced ideas.
However, in order to make these jokes, both the comedian and the audience do need to be well informed on what they are talking about and what is occurring in society, so I do believe that in a weird way, there is some sort of education (?) that people can get out of these shows. I would never watch one of these shows as my source of news or politics, but it does bring a more entertaining light to politics and make it more fun. But in order to present these ideas, they are going to be biased in one way or another because that is what makes it funny.
However, when comparing to other "reliable news sources" these shows may be more balanced a lot of the times because those sources, like Fox, tend to have their affiliation and push their views. These comedians (sometimes) make their jokes off of whatever will be funny.
I wouldn't say that they have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. Because their shows were intended for comedic purposes, they don't have the same pressure as journalists to present fair and balanced news (although this perception may have changed). With that said, I think they have turned out to be more trusted by their viewers because of their "no bull-shit" attitudes towards political issues and their ability to poke fun at politicians. The only question is whether or not these new pundits are really being balanced. They may be presenting honest content, but if they only make fun of their opposing views are we really seeing balanced content?
The other key aspect of these shows is that they imply an educated audience. So if we're relying on these pundits to be our balanced presentation of news, someone tuning in with no knowledge of current events isn't going to understand the show at all.
I do not believe people like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. Jon Stewart was a psychology major who ended up becoming a stand-up comic and finding his place in late-night television. Similarly Stephen Colbert went to college with the intention of becoming a dramatic actor before transitioning into improvisational acting. John Oliver is an actor and comedian. None of the three are trained journalists, nor do that have an obligation to presenting the news in a balanced manner. They are all talk-show hosts with obligations to their network and audience. I believe the modern day political pundits are so far left and right, that they created a space for Jon, Stephen and John to give audiences the balanced news they were missing. But, no I do not believe they are obligated to do so. A citizen may be obligated to search out news to be informed citizens, but it is not the job of comedy talk show hosts to fill that void. It is more a reflection of the failures and shortcomings of journalism, impacted by the internet, that has created a space for these comedians and given them a platform to speak and an audience that needs and wants to hear what they have to say. I believe these talkshow hosts have an obligation to give the network and the audience what they want and need. They are not journalist or hired political respondents, they are actors and comedians.
I do not think they are obliged to present the news in a balanced manner. Because John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and John Stewart are so famous in their own right and are not ones to shy away from their political affiliations, it is a bit difficult not to know what you are getting into. This is not The Today Show or the local 10 o’clock news where you need to explicitly state the facts. I feel because it is their own talk show, they have the power to talk about what they want to talk about and of course voice their own opinion. Yes, they are presenting reliable opinions because over the years they have become news sources in their own right. Finally, most of the people who actually watch their shows are highly informed about the news, so they are able to form their own opinions. These shows are not able to be watched if you do not have background knowledge on what is going on in the world, so these three men just further your thoughts and ideas.
I don't think John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and John Stewart are obliged to present the news in a balanced manner. Their job is to make people laugh, that is the main goal of these late night shows, for people to be entertained. These shows don't even need to incorporate the news into their shows but they do so because they can change them to a humorous manner or they do feel it is important to talk about. Hosting a talk show is choosing what that individual wants to talk about. Local news stations, CNN and so on are the shows that really need to share all the news and facts while being balanced. Unfortunately, they are not balanced. That is probably the reason people try to use Oliver, Colbert and Stewart for sources. People who do look for news from Oliver, Colbert and Stewart are tending to want to be entertained at the same time though. They feel bored watching half hour worth a news that is not entertaining so they rely on these gentleman. People must understand that these hosts are comedians and will be drawn to stories that they can entertain with, usually not with the top stories. They will avoid the big events because they could have very spilt audience feelings that could destroy their ratings.
I do think that Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. They are comedians whose role is to entertain and therefore are not obligated to follow the journalistic principles of traditional news reporters. However, they have gained the attention and trust of a large majority of the public to the point where many people were getting their news from these comedy shows instead of the actual news. This great amount of trust that they've gained from the public is why I think they have that obligation. I think that Jon Stewart really understood this. Comedy was use to cut to the truth of matters that other news channels were unable to achieve. It also avoids political correctness and it also avoids this impossible attempt of being unbiased. These shows reached balance by making fun of both sides, the left and right. It's unfair for these comedians to have this responsibility to educate the public but I think that's what comes with the power of influence they have.
I do not think that people like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. personally, people watch their shows for entertainment values, not the actual news. All of them use comedy as their main source to get the audiences they do, and if they were obligated to "balance" their shows with values, then it would become a lot less effective. If I wanted to watch something to gain knowledge about what is happening throughout the world, I wouldn't be tuning into these guys shows, but rather more news related shows. I think these guys do a great job in finding ways to lighten the mood on a lot of topics by using comedy and if they had to change their ways, and act the way we told them to, then their shows wouldn't be as successful as they are. Lastly, I believe that because it is their own personal talk shows, that they should be allowed to say, do, act in whatever manner they please. If you don't like their show, how they talk, or how they go about certain topics then don't watch it. I'm sure you won't hurt their feelings.
I do not think Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and John Oliver have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner. I think that with their status as celebrity pundits who hold great influence over pop culture and media, audiences feel as if these entertainment figures are people who should always be reliable and always be balanced. However, their appeal and their popularity comes from their tendency to be not as balanced as normal news channels usually appear to be—at times, their exaggerated mockery is what gets audiences to laugh and see different issues from different perspectives. And tracing back the history of the pundits on television, it is strange to ask them to be more balanced, when what seems to be the definition of "balance" nowadays means an equal mix of entertainment, information and celebrity. And in the end, the show running behind Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver are seeking high ratings and viewers in order to stay on the air. If their content became more neutral and followed standard journalistic practices, then how would their shows be differentiated from normal news networks? Being balanced and following journalistic values are not necessarily obligations or responsibilities, just expectations in terms of the content (news, politics, social issues) they are discussing on their shows.
I think people who set out to present the news in a more comedic way do have an obligation to be more balanced. I believe they have this obligation because of the nature of the format they are using. The use of comedy is a response to the more serious and often one sided format of traditional news media. Without these serious news outlets that shy away from relevant and serious topics, there would be no Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, or John Oliver. Without a balance their use of comedy as a means to talk about issues falls flat and can't be taken seriously. I think this is why other shows like "Real Time with Bill Maher" will never have as big of a cultural impact, because it is virtually one sided.
While I agree with most of the above comments that comedians are NOT obligated to present the news in a balanced manner, I believe it is in their best interest to do so. Obviously we know their primary goal is to entertain and to provide a satirical spin on the oft-ridiculousness of politics today, but if you spend too much time making fun of one politician, political party, or perspective, you can alienate that audience from your show. At the end of the day, as a comedian, Jon Stewart is not trying to preserve everyone's feelings. That's why it's comedy--there are going to be offensive, sometimes insensitive quips about your beliefs, but it's up to you whether or not to take them to heart. But it's more than just potentially offending viewers here and there. With their status as "new pundits", both more appealing and more reliable than traditional news sources in the eyes of younger audiences (which is important, because millennials now make up the largest voting block and percentage of the workforce in the U.S.), people like Steven Colbert, John Oliver, and Seth McFarlane have an unprecedented amount of influence in shaping public opinion. That kind of power is dangerous if used irresponsibly or one-sidedly. Again, this does not obligate them to act one way or another--they are fully capable of taking their political persona in whichever direction they wish. But it is because they have an acute understanding of their impact, from every interview to every passing quote of theirs that floats around on social media, that they remain mostly balanced. A great example: if you watch the Colbert Report, Colbert's onstage persona is a satirical portrayal of a traditional, conservative pundit, but he is very clearly an "equal opportunity basher", attacking both the left and right with equal gusto. Yet in reality, he identifies as a Democrat. This is the balance that comedians often strike to ensure they are not using their elevated positions recklessly.
People like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and John Oliver absolutely do not have an obligation to present the news in a balanced manner because the main concept of their show is satire. They take poignant current events and find ways to present facts in a comedic fashion to find inconsistencies with the way that they are reported and what is actually occurring. Jon Stewart actually went on Fox News and defended The Daily Show, saying how it was purely comedic and how he didn't have any political agenda. They really don't have an obligation to present the news in an unbiased way; they just try to show interesting or relevant news stories or show reporters that act in unprofessional or unusual manners. The audience for these shows are expected to be educated about current events, and then Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver take that knowledge and put a spin on it in order to lighten the mood and make people laugh.
While I agree with everything that everybody else has said that comedians like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Jon Oliver do not have an obligation to present the news in a balanced matter, I also believe that they do. With the nature of their programs and the intent being to address the lack of meaningful political talk that are available to citizen viewers, it is up to them to present it in a balanced nature. The pundits combined with the issue of agenda setting have driven those discussions so far left and right. As we discussed, today's society is consisted of parties that are more left and right while the citizens that make up the society are mostly moderate. Therefore, if the objective of these shows are to address this lack of middle ground, then they have to deliver this middle ground. Sure, people should not only turn to these programs as their one and only source of news but I think that they should turn to these sources for a more satirical and therefore, more honest telling of the news.
I do not believe television hosts such as Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver have an obligation to present news in a balanced manner. I do believe, however, that news presentations must be factual. It’s very rare to find news presentations today to be both balanced and factual. All major new networks today have tendency to swing right or left (the extremes of these biased media networks would be MSNBC and Fox News). These biases are emphasized even more during election years, such as this year.
Personally, I believe that these satirical political news pundits bring to us a new perspective of news that we would not otherwise receive. Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver allow us the opportunity to analyze major network presentations on both sides and critique them. The imbalance in their presentation would stem from the use of comedy and satire. These elements require a position or opinion to be taken in order to provide entertainment for the audience. But even if their presentations are imbalanced, the statements they make must be factual and not misleading for the audience.
No I do not think that Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver are obligated to present the news in a balanced manner because they are not real journalist and their shows are intended for comedic purposes. These three men are either an actor or a comedian, so they know how to have a stage presence and to draw their audience in to continue to watch their shows. Yes, they tell the news, but in doing so they turn it into jokes and stray away from the depth of the news they are reporting. In order for their jokes to be funny people will need to know the actual the full story and up to date on the news to follow. So, for those who only watch their shows to get their daily news intake are really only watching to get a cheap laugh, not something they actually understand. One way these men could be doing some good is by getting those who only get their daily news from them, is actually getting them a little taste of what is happening in the world and could spark an interest of something and get the viewer to look more in depth from a credible source.
I think yes and no. People don't look to them to get informed, they want to be entertained. They want to see them break down our nations politics in a funny way. If you didn't laugh at politics the world would be a bleak place. I think a certain amount of trust goes along with this. These jokes need to be based on facts for them to make any sense. Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver all take a step back and look at the ridiculousness of how news is presented when it's meant to be factual. So they may be a more credible source than the actual news but they are not obligated to be unbiased or balanced by any means. So long story short I think they have an obligation to make fun of the truth/reality but they can sway whichever way they want. That's what we like about them.
To take the easy way out: yes and no. I think they aren't intended to serve as comprehensive news shows or news analytics, but, because of their entertainment value they inevitably are-- especially for younger audiences. For example, in 2012, Pew Research took a poll that showed that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report had the highest percentage of young viewers (18-29 years) among news outlets, with 39 and 43 percent, which doesn't really surprise me, but it can be scary when you think about the idea that this generation is gathering all their political info and news from a program being produced by Comedy Central.
But I get the draw, in a world of bleak stories flooding the news, people look for a little light. Political shows that use humor to draw awareness to issues make people feel more informed without feeling like they’re wasting valuable free time on boring news segments. It almost seems to be another form of “slacktivism,” or like a feel-good type of support for politics that has little or no practical benefit. However, the fact that every so often something substantive comes out of these shows kind of reveals that the public actually trusts in these pundits. For example with Colbert-- his Super PAC, “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” raised over 1.02 million dollars in 2012.
But this is kind of where the whole "no, they're not real news" side of things comes into play. Colbert and his colleagues are not politicians. They may have political agendas, but ultimately their allegiance is to entertainment and the success of their shows. They are paid to host a television program, not to make laws. And they're certainly not true journalists; they aren’t bound by journalistic ethics or any publication to give unbiased information. Their intent is to entertain viewers. While they do present factual information and evidence to support the points they want to promote, but their segments are not comprehensive at all, which, again, is kind of scary when you think of the influence they have to do something like raise money for a Super PAC.
Post a Comment