I think Jon Stewart summarized some of the points from the essays last night when he talked about how polarized these talk shows have become.
I do think that his critique of the media is valid. He confronts the problem of theatre versus debate that goes on on CNN. He attacks the reporters for not upholding their responsibility of informing the public; instead they use their show as a source of entertainment. This failure can be attributed to the rise of online media in the sense that all journalism and news tends to be informal and therefore becomes less and less powerful.
I think that Jon Stewart's point is extremely valid. The media is intended to bring clarity to the average citizen and show them what is really going on and what each candidate will do if he or she is elected. Instead, shows like Crossfire get into heated debates about nothing and keep reiterating that one side is liberal and the other is conservative without actually saying anything. He's right that networks like CNN have an obligation to their viewers that they are not holding up and it seems like media is on the side of the politicians. I think that this is more of a problem with our bipartisan government than it is with how people receive news.
I agree with Jon Stewart and his critique of the media. He explains that type of media is "theatre"; I completely agree with this point because media nowadays has become more of a source of entertainment rather than straight facts/news. It is the media's "need" for entertainment that adds to its failure, and as a result, the popularity of online media rises.
I believe that that Jon Stewart's critique of the media is very valid. He argues that the media, more specifically shows like Crossfire, have an obligation to their viewers to give them information and instead they are having theatrical, empty debates. I think the increase in the internet's popularity worries some networks like CNN and in response, CNN pressures its shows to increase their ratings. With the pressure of increased ratings comes more focus on what makes its shows popular and less focus on the actual topics discussed in its shows. This shift in political show's focus is what Jon Stewart was critiquing.
Jon Stewart's critique of the media is completely valid. He points out not only the polarization of today's media, but the fault in it. When channels such as CNN focus solely on the entertainment of their show, they present less factual information to their viewers. The people watching the news are doing so in order to be informed on what is going on around the world/country. When the power of the media is abused, whether its by television or by online media, these sources are less reliable and the people start to become ignorant due to a lack of straight news.
I also agree with Jon Stewart's view that the media is detrimental. His points are extremely valid, and he rightly argues that CNN and informational stations have turned to "theatrical" broadcasting styles. This shift from informational debate to theatrical performance models the rise of online journalism, its informal style translating to other styles of media, like television.
I agree that Jon Stewart's critique of the media is valid as well. He notes how CNN uses a theatrical style, meaning it focuses less on the factual content and more on the entertainment and sensation it may create. This is a prime example of the problem of competition. News station are prone to compete with others for higher ratings etc and therefore they need to appear more desirable and fascinating to its viewers. In order to create such effect news stations focus less on the facts and more on the image. Online media certainly serves as competition to other news sources, but is more likely to give out unreliable information
I agree with Jon Stewart's critique of the media. Jon Stewart uses Crossfire as an example of one of many news sources that have become focused on "theatre" instead of presenting the facts to the public. This view connects to the readings we did last night and the rise in online journalism because the competition that comes with having multiple news sources leads to theatrics. The news stations are using these theatrics to try and draw in viewers, but they are hurting America by not providing the public with news.
I think that Jon Stewart's critique is valid. The main point that I drew from his argument is that shows like "Crossfire" have a great opportunity to extract truth from candidates, but that they do not take advantage of this chance. The changes is journalism have allowed for this opportunity to occur / for more shows to arise that are available to larger audiences. Therefore, the media's ability to fail in taking advantage of the opportunity would be impossible without the changes in journalism presenting the opportunity. But more importantly, the opportunity to get more truth would not exist either.
Are you guys letting Jon Stewart off a bit easy? If he's a news source for a lot of young Americans, doesn't he have more journalistic responsibility than he's claiming?
I do agree with Jon Stewart's critique of the media. I think that the ultimate goal of the news should be to get facts and information across. Rather than straight forward messages should be portrayed though, the media has turned into a place where various sources compete and the only way they feel that they can grab their audience is by including some form of entertainment. Media has turned into more of a competition rather than being merely news coverage.
I also agree with Jon Stewart. His points are very similar to those of the readings; both talk about how the media is focusing more on getting viewers and keeping them watching than informing the public. On the other hand, I don't think that quite applies to a debate show since the only place to watch the show is on the tv. Recorded versions placed on the internet wouldn't differ at all, so there would be no competition.
I agree with Jon Stewart. I think people, on shows such as Crossfire, try to sensationalize/exaggerate news in order to attract more attention. People on one side of an argument are going to be attracted to these extremes because they support their ideas. Instead of trying to get more viewers, however, the show should be trying to spread honest information that will inform the people, not try to entertain them.
I think that Jon Stewart's critique of the media is valid. He thinks that because the media is so divided, it turns into a competition which hides the original goal of the media- to inform viewers. I don't think that he has a journalistic responsibility to provide unbiased news coverage because he is a comedian. Although his show is entertaining and can provide some insight into news stories and politics, it shouldn't be anybody's main news source.
I agree with Jon Stewart's critique of the media; however, it is a bit hypocritical because he is also a part of the media industry. He believes that the current day media does whatever it takes to get more viewers instead of actually informing people. In order to get more viewers they sensationalize and cater to a specific group of people. Jon Stewart's critique backfires on him a little because he is many young American's source of news, so he too targets a specific audience and entertains instead of telling straight up news. Most people though do not use his show as their main source of news, often they have other sources to double check so his journalistic responsibility isn't that big.
Jon Stewart's point, although valid, does not apply to all forms of media. Yes, the Crossfire seems like one of the forms of theatrical media, especially with the actions of the hosts, who were clearly more interested in Stewart's humor than his honest point of view on the presidential debate, but I feel as if with some other segments on CNN, the viewers do get real feedback on what's going on with the elections. His problem is with Crossfire, and I agree with him, because based on this clip, the Crossfire seems much more intent on getting laughs from the audience than updating them on the elections.
I'm not quite sure exactly what Stewart's critque of the media was besides the fact that he criticized "Crossfire" of being theatre and not true debate. The media's failings (providing fluff) can be attributed to debate shows led by actors. To address your second question, we are not letting Stewart off easy. It's not that he doesn't claim to have influence, he just knows that people view his show in a much different light than that of a CNN show.
Because of the drastic increase in the availability of televisions and other sources of media in the past decade, the number of news shows has also increased significantly. As a result, getting an audience to regularly watch your show means you must make it stand out from the others, which is often counterproductive to the initial purpose of the show as shows become more about the theatrics and creating controversy for attention. “Crossfire” is a great example that fits this mold, as the anchors seemed more interested in getting John Stewart to be funny than in talking about issues of substance. As media becomes more readily available, it seems to rely more and more on cheap tricks. I think that Stewart’s description and condemnation of the media is accurate and that he is right when he explains that sources of news have responsibilities to the public that they are currently failing to uphold.
To me, it seems like he is quick to blame news shows on networks like CNN, but his show--though on Comedy Central--is still a source of news for much of America’s youth. When watching a comedic show like “The Daily Show,” people aren’t always consciously thinking about it as purely being for entertainment purposes. Instead, his comments seep into peoples’ perceptions of reality. Therefore, Stewart should also be held accountable for upholding such principals of integrity because his show has a similar influence on a crowd as “Crossfire” has.
Mr. Baron said that everyone may be letting John Stewart off a bit easy, but then it also goes to show that legitimate news organizations like Fox News of MSNBC should be providing equivocal coverage when they clearly don't. And although, john Stewart has a medium that allows him to reach a lot of younger people, i don't think he's using that medium poorly. They try to make him look bad by saying that he asked soft questions, but i think he tries to humanize the candidates. I was his show almost daily and i think that he gives a great balance between funny and news. I think that instead of scrutinizing John Stewart, the political pundits should be citizcizing Fox or MSNBC for not providing a more equivocal message.
I think that Jon Stewart's critique of the media is valid as shows like crossfire are more theatre than debate. I think that it is true that the media is filled with a lot of fluff. However I think that when people watch shows like Jon Stewart's, they are not looking for something that it is all news as they recognize it as comedy.