Read the chapter on Organizational Analysis. Next, go to the class blog and watch both episodes of "The Colbert Report," and "The Daily Show." After reading and watching both episodes, blog the following question:
How does Stewart and Colbert explicitly and/or implicitly parody the four biases as described and outlined by Bennett in this chapter?
I enjoyed watching these two episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, because I haven't tuned into either program on a regular basis in several years. Though it is hard to classify either of these shows as a true news program, they do parody the format and conventions of news programming quite closely. Like the book discusses about Blink 182's "All The Small Things" music video, neither The Daily Show of The Colbert Report would be even slightly credible if they did not follow the codes of news and talk show programming so closely.
Despite the fact that both programs are clear examples of "mews" (mock-news), both do deliver a decent amount of truth in each episode, some of which comes from being so directly opposed to traditional news programming. In a way, Jon Stewart sounding biased against the mistakes that President Obama has apparently been making almost makes it appear as though Stewart is mocking the mockers, or those who have been putting down Obama, rather than Obama himself.
Both Colbert and Stewart chose to make things extremely personal in their interviews and discussion sessions. As mentioned above, Stewart spent 3-5 minutes going on and on about Obama himself, and other former presidents who had been put down by the media in the past. When Colbert is doing his package on King Tut's Penis, he focuses more on the awkward exhibitor who allows him to tour the museum than he does on King Tut himself. In a way, both seem to be more explicit with their biases, which might lend to the feeling that they are only joking and mocking other reporters and media professionals. Both Colbert and Stewart seem to explicitly work for dramatization and narrative content. Stewart wanted to know the story about Marion Jones losing her medal, going to prison, wanted to hear about the motions of it all. Similarly, Colbert wanted a story to go along with his guests David and Julie Eisenhower, putting up an adorable picture on the screen from the day the two apparently met.
Even in the real news, or news that is more focused on reporting the facts, there is an attempt to plug at these human emotions. It always shocks me that the ten second teasers you tend to see for the news that night are often so morbid, thinking that viewers are more likely to stay for a story about a mother drowning her baby than for a story about a boy scout troupe, or some attempt at world peace. In this way, I believe that the bigger news affiliates try to implicitly create personalization and dramatization, though they are often quite obvious about it.
The authority-disorder bias is the hardest for me to define within these two episodes, because the focal point in both episodes tended to be on the authority. In a way, both Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert seem to represent the disorder, or those who are cynical about the people currently in power. They serve as a gateway for the audience to question authority explicitly, openly.
Both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are extremely fragmented, which I believe is a problem with many new programs today. In the case of these two shows, each topic is packaged into a story strung along with a series of jokes. Though these jokes often lead into the next segment, there is rarely a real relation between sequential subjects. Colbert and Stewart are often able to make fun of the fact that they swing from one subject to another, but these shifts are not quite as seamless with other news programs. I find it quite funny when a reporter needs to wrap up a segment about a heart-filled issue that they feel the need to show compassion about, and has to appear to still have care for the first issue of the tragic death of the baby in the bathtub, while still rolling right into the next segment on Obama's tax mistakes.
Bias is unavoidable, but I believe that both of these shows do a decent job of balancing the bias, or at least making light of it. I believe that bias is always better, but perhaps not as convincing, if it is explicit. If one tries too hard to hide their feelings implicitly, then it can come off even more untruthful than a clear stance on an issue might.
How does Stewart and Colbert explicitly and/or implicitly parody the four biases as described and outlined by Bennett in this chapter?
I enjoyed watching these two episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, because I haven't tuned into either program on a regular basis in several years. Though it is hard to classify either of these shows as a true news program, they do parody the format and conventions of news programming quite closely. Like the book discusses about Blink 182's "All The Small Things" music video, neither The Daily Show of The Colbert Report would be even slightly credible if they did not follow the codes of news and talk show programming so closely.
Despite the fact that both programs are clear examples of "mews" (mock-news), both do deliver a decent amount of truth in each episode, some of which comes from being so directly opposed to traditional news programming. In a way, Jon Stewart sounding biased against the mistakes that President Obama has apparently been making almost makes it appear as though Stewart is mocking the mockers, or those who have been putting down Obama, rather than Obama himself.
Both Colbert and Stewart chose to make things extremely personal in their interviews and discussion sessions. As mentioned above, Stewart spent 3-5 minutes going on and on about Obama himself, and other former presidents who had been put down by the media in the past. When Colbert is doing his package on King Tut's Penis, he focuses more on the awkward exhibitor who allows him to tour the museum than he does on King Tut himself. In a way, both seem to be more explicit with their biases, which might lend to the feeling that they are only joking and mocking other reporters and media professionals. Both Colbert and Stewart seem to explicitly work for dramatization and narrative content. Stewart wanted to know the story about Marion Jones losing her medal, going to prison, wanted to hear about the motions of it all. Similarly, Colbert wanted a story to go along with his guests David and Julie Eisenhower, putting up an adorable picture on the screen from the day the two apparently met.
Even in the real news, or news that is more focused on reporting the facts, there is an attempt to plug at these human emotions. It always shocks me that the ten second teasers you tend to see for the news that night are often so morbid, thinking that viewers are more likely to stay for a story about a mother drowning her baby than for a story about a boy scout troupe, or some attempt at world peace. In this way, I believe that the bigger news affiliates try to implicitly create personalization and dramatization, though they are often quite obvious about it.
The authority-disorder bias is the hardest for me to define within these two episodes, because the focal point in both episodes tended to be on the authority. In a way, both Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert seem to represent the disorder, or those who are cynical about the people currently in power. They serve as a gateway for the audience to question authority explicitly, openly.
Both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are extremely fragmented, which I believe is a problem with many new programs today. In the case of these two shows, each topic is packaged into a story strung along with a series of jokes. Though these jokes often lead into the next segment, there is rarely a real relation between sequential subjects. Colbert and Stewart are often able to make fun of the fact that they swing from one subject to another, but these shifts are not quite as seamless with other news programs. I find it quite funny when a reporter needs to wrap up a segment about a heart-filled issue that they feel the need to show compassion about, and has to appear to still have care for the first issue of the tragic death of the baby in the bathtub, while still rolling right into the next segment on Obama's tax mistakes.
Bias is unavoidable, but I believe that both of these shows do a decent job of balancing the bias, or at least making light of it. I believe that bias is always better, but perhaps not as convincing, if it is explicit. If one tries too hard to hide their feelings implicitly, then it can come off even more untruthful than a clear stance on an issue might.
No comments:
Post a Comment