How does the coverage from the cable news channels compare to the
satirical faux news “coverage” of the topic on The Daily Show?
In The Daily Show clips provided on this website, mainstream news channels help with providing sources. The source of The Daily Show's information kind of borrows from the sources of that of CNN or Fox News. The show uses their footage to make it's own statement. The sources used to report the story usually isn't from other news channels' actual reporters, but from politicians.
The presentation is also different. The satirical news reporters are performers in front of a live audience. It's no secret that part of their job is to entertain. Stewart sits behind a desk and wears a suit and tie, looking like most professional journalists, but he adds in surprising moments of comedic relief. Cable news channels might be performers out to entertain, they might not be. But that's not how they represent themselves.
A more obvious difference is the use of humor. Same-sex marriage isn't a comedic topic on the cable news channels. But as much as Stewart and his so-hosts joke around, they still get a legitimate point across, just like any cable news station. The last part of the video posted below is an example of something The Daily Show does just for a laugh. "Everyone has to get gay married!"
In The Daily Show clips provided on this website, mainstream news channels help with providing sources. The source of The Daily Show's information kind of borrows from the sources of that of CNN or Fox News. The show uses their footage to make it's own statement. The sources used to report the story usually isn't from other news channels' actual reporters, but from politicians.
The presentation is also different. The satirical news reporters are performers in front of a live audience. It's no secret that part of their job is to entertain. Stewart sits behind a desk and wears a suit and tie, looking like most professional journalists, but he adds in surprising moments of comedic relief. Cable news channels might be performers out to entertain, they might not be. But that's not how they represent themselves.
A more obvious difference is the use of humor. Same-sex marriage isn't a comedic topic on the cable news channels. But as much as Stewart and his so-hosts joke around, they still get a legitimate point across, just like any cable news station. The last part of the video posted below is an example of something The Daily Show does just for a laugh. "Everyone has to get gay married!"
Do the news stories by cable news pundits and journalists or the “fake”
reportage by Jon Stewart’s team provide more truth? (Give
examples of both truth and truthiness from each source.)
The Daily Show gives us facts with evidence to back it up, but they also show some opinion. Between The Daily Show and cable news channels, it's hard to say which has more truth. They are both guilty of reporting truthiness at times. Examples?
Fox News video "Should procreation play a role in marriage?" has pundit Peter Sprigg not citing sources that back his case. He talks about children needing a mother and father without any explanation why. He's somewhat reporting things he feels with his heart.
CNN report "Gay marriage not about rights" shows some signs of bias from the reporter. Se interrupts the pundit multiple times, questioning his opinion. Even if she was telling the truth, it was an unbalanced dose of it. Truthiness is about being partially true.
Daily Show report "Defending your wife includes a bit where Stewart misquotes 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, or the sake of humor. Uses the term "butt sex" and says that's actually a quote from the case. This isn't true, but the term "anal sex" would've been correct. So he gets away with a partial truth. For the record, I took his advice and Google searched "butt sex supreme," and sure enough, Lawrence v. Texas was the first thing to come up.
These media may be guilty of truthiness, but they can be honest as well. Fox News story "Should religion have an impact on same-sex marriage?" has true claims from Ken Klukowski. He correctly cites Bob Jones v. United States, Loving v. Virgina and the relationship between state and federal law.
CNN's story on Bruce Hanes uses credible sources. They actually interview Hanes himself, they source the state's laws and tell both sides of the story. They talk about both those who support Hanes and those who disagree with him.
The video below shows Stewart impressively citing a British political hearing correctly about four and a half minutes in. "You're a miserable pipsqueak of a man!" Here's some confirmation of where that footage came from (BBC News, Aug. 7, 2010).
The Daily Show gives us facts with evidence to back it up, but they also show some opinion. Between The Daily Show and cable news channels, it's hard to say which has more truth. They are both guilty of reporting truthiness at times. Examples?
Fox News video "Should procreation play a role in marriage?" has pundit Peter Sprigg not citing sources that back his case. He talks about children needing a mother and father without any explanation why. He's somewhat reporting things he feels with his heart.
CNN report "Gay marriage not about rights" shows some signs of bias from the reporter. Se interrupts the pundit multiple times, questioning his opinion. Even if she was telling the truth, it was an unbalanced dose of it. Truthiness is about being partially true.
Daily Show report "Defending your wife includes a bit where Stewart misquotes 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, or the sake of humor. Uses the term "butt sex" and says that's actually a quote from the case. This isn't true, but the term "anal sex" would've been correct. So he gets away with a partial truth. For the record, I took his advice and Google searched "butt sex supreme," and sure enough, Lawrence v. Texas was the first thing to come up.
These media may be guilty of truthiness, but they can be honest as well. Fox News story "Should religion have an impact on same-sex marriage?" has true claims from Ken Klukowski. He correctly cites Bob Jones v. United States, Loving v. Virgina and the relationship between state and federal law.
CNN's story on Bruce Hanes uses credible sources. They actually interview Hanes himself, they source the state's laws and tell both sides of the story. They talk about both those who support Hanes and those who disagree with him.
The video below shows Stewart impressively citing a British political hearing correctly about four and a half minutes in. "You're a miserable pipsqueak of a man!" Here's some confirmation of where that footage came from (BBC News, Aug. 7, 2010).
How is satire used to expose the “truthiness” in news reporting?
Satirical news reports tend to take people's opinions and bring to light how their statements are untrue. The Daily Show makes an effort to use facts. They'll take somebody's non-cited statements and use actual statistics to prove them wrong. But not all the time. Sometimes their crew tries to shoot down other people's claims by giving an opposite opinion.
This video shows Stewart providing evidence of past Supreme Court and Congress hearings, as well as correctly citing last decade's Lawrence v. Texas hearing (aside from referring to "anal sex" as "butt sex"). He conveys his message by using both statistics and personal opinion.
Satirical news reports tend to take people's opinions and bring to light how their statements are untrue. The Daily Show makes an effort to use facts. They'll take somebody's non-cited statements and use actual statistics to prove them wrong. But not all the time. Sometimes their crew tries to shoot down other people's claims by giving an opposite opinion.
This video shows Stewart providing evidence of past Supreme Court and Congress hearings, as well as correctly citing last decade's Lawrence v. Texas hearing (aside from referring to "anal sex" as "butt sex"). He conveys his message by using both statistics and personal opinion.
Which form of news is more reliable and informational?
I don't see how one news source is more reliable than the other. The Daily Show may be a half-hour news segment that doesn't even have a new episode everyday, but it delivers the same stories as 24/7 cable news channels.
It may seem like Fox News or CNN would be the more reliable because they don't try to make the viewer laugh with every report. But even with the jokes and sarcasm, satirical news reports basically do the same thing as the professionals; they try to keep the viewer informed.
Under the Fox News tab on this website, there's a video showing two professionals debating what California's DOMA ruling from August means for the nation. The first video posted on this section goes over the same information, and despite the minute of brevity at the end, they explain the topic clearly and approximately.
However, the following video contains one statistic without any evidence. Stewart says that more people support same-sex marriage than believe in evolution. When I tried looking it up, I found news stories only citing Stewart himself as a source. But where did he get his information from?
I don't see how one news source is more reliable than the other. The Daily Show may be a half-hour news segment that doesn't even have a new episode everyday, but it delivers the same stories as 24/7 cable news channels.
It may seem like Fox News or CNN would be the more reliable because they don't try to make the viewer laugh with every report. But even with the jokes and sarcasm, satirical news reports basically do the same thing as the professionals; they try to keep the viewer informed.
Under the Fox News tab on this website, there's a video showing two professionals debating what California's DOMA ruling from August means for the nation. The first video posted on this section goes over the same information, and despite the minute of brevity at the end, they explain the topic clearly and approximately.
However, the following video contains one statistic without any evidence. Stewart says that more people support same-sex marriage than believe in evolution. When I tried looking it up, I found news stories only citing Stewart himself as a source. But where did he get his information from?
How do your findings relate to the code of ethics for journalists?
The main four sections of the journalism code of ethics are to minimize harm, act independently, be accountable and to both find and report the truth (Society of Professional Journalists). I think the studying done in this project is a check-up on these news sources to make sure they're accountable to what they say. If a reporter is telling a lie and claiming it to be true, this could put not only themselves, but their company in hot water.
More than anything from the code of ethics, the findings are used to make sure these pundits and reporters are reporting the truth. "The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability (Society of Professional Journalists)." We analyzed whether or not reporters were actually citing their information. If there's no evidence, it's not true. According to the McManus SMELL test, when this happens, "we have no choice but to fall back on our assessment of the providers' own credibility (McManus, 2012, p.164)."
We must be sure that the news we get is coming from reliable sources; also to beware of biases. Are the journalists being fair and honest? The McManus text says that when separating truth from truthiness, "Our most reliable path toward truth arises from reflective thinking (McManus, 2012 p.48)." We may never know if all this is true unless we take time to study it ourselves.
The main four sections of the journalism code of ethics are to minimize harm, act independently, be accountable and to both find and report the truth (Society of Professional Journalists). I think the studying done in this project is a check-up on these news sources to make sure they're accountable to what they say. If a reporter is telling a lie and claiming it to be true, this could put not only themselves, but their company in hot water.
More than anything from the code of ethics, the findings are used to make sure these pundits and reporters are reporting the truth. "The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability (Society of Professional Journalists)." We analyzed whether or not reporters were actually citing their information. If there's no evidence, it's not true. According to the McManus SMELL test, when this happens, "we have no choice but to fall back on our assessment of the providers' own credibility (McManus, 2012, p.164)."
We must be sure that the news we get is coming from reliable sources; also to beware of biases. Are the journalists being fair and honest? The McManus text says that when separating truth from truthiness, "Our most reliable path toward truth arises from reflective thinking (McManus, 2012 p.48)." We may never know if all this is true unless we take time to study it ourselves.
How do your findings relate to the media theories and concepts that we
discussed in class? Be specific. Provide examples for both 5 and 6.
Looking at the opinions of journalists and pundits directly relates to the topic of biases. "Rather than seeing everything before us, we focus only on a part (McManus, 2012, p.59)." In the text, this refers to anybody, but this can be applied in the reporting videos on this website. Most of the pundits from the Fox News stories refuse to agree with each other. It's not like they have to "agree," necessarily. They show bias by ignoring the facts that prove them wrong and only focusing on a small part of the truth; the part that supports their argument.
The findings are also related to the topic of framing. The Fox story on Sgt. Monk being relieved of his duties for a religious belief emphasized how Christianity has been going through a stage of discrimination. The media decided what the audience will view and left out any other approach to the story. They frame anyone who's okay with Sgt. Monk's relief of duties to be the bad guy.
Looking at the opinions of journalists and pundits directly relates to the topic of biases. "Rather than seeing everything before us, we focus only on a part (McManus, 2012, p.59)." In the text, this refers to anybody, but this can be applied in the reporting videos on this website. Most of the pundits from the Fox News stories refuse to agree with each other. It's not like they have to "agree," necessarily. They show bias by ignoring the facts that prove them wrong and only focusing on a small part of the truth; the part that supports their argument.
The findings are also related to the topic of framing. The Fox story on Sgt. Monk being relieved of his duties for a religious belief emphasized how Christianity has been going through a stage of discrimination. The media decided what the audience will view and left out any other approach to the story. They frame anyone who's okay with Sgt. Monk's relief of duties to be the bad guy.
No comments:
Post a Comment