Olbermann's presentation was absolutely incredible. I had to turn off my TV when he was done. that was amazing.
I'm glad you mention Jon Stewart, Bashir. Since the start of the Daily Show, he has defended what he does by saying something along the lines of "I'm a comedy show, they are straight news. The lead-in to my show is Crank Yankers. I'm a comedian, I don't present myself as a news guy." Stewart has said this so long that he believes it. But it's no longer the truth. While JS started as a comedian doing a satire show, he has certainly transcended comedy, and to a very specific demographic, has emerged as a trusted source of news and analysis from the political sphere. Just ask Jim Cramer from Mad Money, who Stewart fucking annihilated on his "comedy" show. So while I agree with most of his ultra lib positions, I think it's time that interviewers, commenters, and other outlets start challenging his BS "don't-include-me-in-your-media-criticism" cop outs.
I disagree with Young Atticus. Stewart's show is still, and unabashedly, satiric and comedic when you consider the show in its entirety. Think of the comedy of Dick Gregory: while he was certainly an activist, he found the humor and comedy in the darkness of American politics and American contradiction and satirized and attacked it, exposing its irrationality and pernicious impact. Merely because the satiric/comedic show of Stewart can be enlightening or informative does not make it news. His disposition and his commentary, even when insightful, is meant to entertain and summon laughs.
So, if Stewart says it's not news, and presents comedy with insight, it is legitimate to call it not news. If on the other hand, one claims to present news, and instead invents facts, ignores facts, and dramatizes the non-dramatic, it is appropriate to then say it is not news -- the point to which Young Atticus and Bashir agrees.
I enjoyed listening to this Olbermann video. Thanks, Diallo. Here's the thing: how do you know what he said is true? That's where Fox, CNN, NBC etc. and editorialized news has taken us. This is the problem. How do you know you can believe even your trusted news sources? What's the criteria of a trusted news source? How often do you disagree with Jon Stewart, Olbermann, or anyone else? Maybe it's just me, but a "news" show that I can always watch and agree with sounds just like the experience Fox news viewers are receiving. And from this dynamic, we will go nowhere, and remain polarized until we critically assess what we hear from all sources. Lack of critical assessment is the bigger issue when it comes to editorialized news.
Am I as guilty as FOX viewers? Probably at least guilty of being harder on the hypocrisies of someone else, instead of addressing my own.
But I also think that at this time, one side of American politics deals in fact, the other in nostalgia and feeling.
We can pretend the sides of the debate are equal, but they aren't.
Were the sides of debate equal during slavery? Some opposed slavery, some didn't. Who's right?
Nowadays, it's generally accepted that the "truth" is that slavery is evil and needed to be abolished.
So just because there are two sides of a debate, it doesn't mean that one side can't have a lock on the truth
because the truth changes
that's where elections, evidence, and swaying people's minds come into play - and that's where, i think, we stand today
FOX is swaying minds to a lot of falsehoods - if I want truth, I turn to those who dabble in facts, not those who mislead and distort just to justify an America they want, that truthfully, never existed (ie, the good old days)
And I think that's the rub, Diallo. When we turn to our news programs for the facts and interpretations, we are relying on them to have done our homework for us. We are relying on them to have presented us with a full picture and then interpretation. But what if we are getting less and less picture, and more and more interpretation? How can you tell if Olbermann left out an important fact or two that would sway you to disagree entirely or merely concur but for different reasons?
If we watch news to be persuaded, yet we are under-informed about the subject matter at hand to begin with, does it matter that one news persuasion show makes up facts and the other omits them if neither audience is aware enough to catch the falsity or omission? At some point, as a learned viewer, should we not police, and filter (for truth) the attempted persuasive news interpretations we are receiving?
I think the above gets beyond Olbermann's very well made point about false objectivity. While false objectivity exists in news, how can voters and citizens assure themselves more objectivity before picking sides on an issue?
There's a reason why Cliff Huxtable didn't want Theo and Cockroach to use Cliff Notes. And right now, we are so Cliff Note voters and citizens. (Ok, maybe Cliff Notes isn't a good metaphor but I hope it makes clear where I think we are afield.)
6 comments:
This is why, as much as I love Jon Stewart I disagree with him about Olbermann.
FoxNews just spreads lies and disinformation. The fact that MSNBC is bombastic is no reason they should be seen as the same.
Also, even more damning, on liberals and smart thinkers would tone down the bombast in response to Stewart's call.
FoxNews will not.
And we should trade honesty for civility.
Olbermann's presentation was absolutely incredible. I had to turn off my TV when he was done. that was amazing.
I'm glad you mention Jon Stewart, Bashir. Since the start of the Daily Show, he has defended what he does by saying something along the lines of "I'm a comedy show, they are straight news. The lead-in to my show is Crank Yankers. I'm a comedian, I don't present myself as a news guy." Stewart has said this so long that he believes it. But it's no longer the truth. While JS started as a comedian doing a satire show, he has certainly transcended comedy, and to a very specific demographic, has emerged as a trusted source of news and analysis from the political sphere. Just ask Jim Cramer from Mad Money, who Stewart fucking annihilated on his "comedy" show. So while I agree with most of his ultra lib positions, I think it's time that interviewers, commenters, and other outlets start challenging his BS "don't-include-me-in-your-media-criticism" cop outs.
I disagree with Young Atticus. Stewart's show is still, and unabashedly, satiric and comedic when you consider the show in its entirety. Think of the comedy of Dick Gregory: while he was certainly an activist, he found the humor and comedy in the darkness of American politics and American contradiction and satirized and attacked it, exposing its irrationality and pernicious impact. Merely because the satiric/comedic show of Stewart can be enlightening or informative does not make it news. His disposition and his commentary, even when insightful, is meant to entertain and summon laughs.
So, if Stewart says it's not news, and presents comedy with insight, it is legitimate to call it not news. If on the other hand, one claims to present news, and instead invents facts, ignores facts, and dramatizes the non-dramatic, it is appropriate to then say it is not news -- the point to which Young Atticus and Bashir agrees.
I enjoyed listening to this Olbermann video. Thanks, Diallo. Here's the thing: how do you know what he said is true? That's where Fox, CNN, NBC etc. and editorialized news has taken us. This is the problem. How do you know you can believe even your trusted news sources? What's the criteria of a trusted news source? How often do you disagree with Jon Stewart, Olbermann, or anyone else? Maybe it's just me, but a "news" show that I can always watch and agree with sounds just like the experience Fox news viewers are receiving. And from this dynamic, we will go nowhere, and remain polarized until we critically assess what we hear from all sources. Lack of critical assessment is the bigger issue when it comes to editorialized news.
@ D-EL
I often ask the question of myself.
Am I as guilty as FOX viewers? Probably at least guilty of being harder on the hypocrisies of someone else, instead of addressing my own.
But I also think that at this time, one side of American politics deals in fact, the other in nostalgia and feeling.
We can pretend the sides of the debate are equal, but they aren't.
Were the sides of debate equal during slavery? Some opposed slavery, some didn't. Who's right?
Nowadays, it's generally accepted that the "truth" is that slavery is evil and needed to be abolished.
So just because there are two sides of a debate, it doesn't mean that one side can't have a lock on the truth
because the truth changes
that's where elections, evidence, and swaying people's minds come into play - and that's where, i think, we stand today
FOX is swaying minds to a lot of falsehoods - if I want truth, I turn to those who dabble in facts, not those who mislead and distort just to justify an America they want, that truthfully, never existed (ie, the good old days)
@ Diallo,
And I think that's the rub, Diallo. When we turn to our news programs for the facts and interpretations, we are relying on them to have done our homework for us. We are relying on them to have presented us with a full picture and then interpretation. But what if we are getting less and less picture, and more and more interpretation? How can you tell if Olbermann left out an important fact or two that would sway you to disagree entirely or merely concur but for different reasons?
If we watch news to be persuaded, yet we are under-informed about the subject matter at hand to begin with, does it matter that one news persuasion show makes up facts and the other omits them if neither audience is aware enough to catch the falsity or omission? At some point, as a learned viewer, should we not police, and filter (for truth) the attempted persuasive news interpretations we are receiving?
I think the above gets beyond Olbermann's very well made point about false objectivity. While false objectivity exists in news, how can voters and citizens assure themselves more objectivity before picking sides on an issue?
There's a reason why Cliff Huxtable didn't want Theo and Cockroach to use Cliff Notes. And right now, we are so Cliff Note voters and citizens. (Ok, maybe Cliff Notes isn't a good metaphor but I hope it makes clear where I think we are afield.)
@ D-El
all very good points
i can be guilty of using the cliff notes on some issues
i'll still argue though that some people haven't even read the cliff notes though - some skimmed the Wiki page, and thats even worse
Post a Comment