We are definitely in a world where audiences
either consume the news they or get influenced by the news. It is obvious that the mass media, which are
driven by capitalism, deliver the information they want to the audiences and
may also construct the information.
An
example is Jon Stewart in “The Daily Show” who uses satirical news as an
alternative to the traditional news reportage. In my opinion, Jon Stewart tries
to distract viewers through his comedic style; he exercises the contradictory
input to inform people about the truth behind the traditional news. Jon
attracts viewers through the humorous side of his show to revel the deep-seated
part of the news. Some studies found that satirical news is equally substantive
to traditional broadcasting news. While other studies proved that it’s not
equally substantive but less since the behavior of the satirical programs is
directly affected and dependable on the major source of information which is
the traditional reportage. Traditional segments such as CNN and NBC convince us
that their news is objective and reliable. On the other hand, The Daily Show,
which is a satirical reportage, proposes the opposite by proving the flaws of
traditional news. In comparison between traditional and satirical news, the use
of irony contributes to a democratic population.
Satire news is not considered to be a new tool
but has been around for thousands of years. Since the beginning of the
twentieth century this kind of news has considerably changed through the
advancement of technology and innovations such as internet and TV but what
didn’t change is the aim of sarcastic news. A significant portion of young people follow
satire news as opposed to traditional news. A criticism of this is that the
satirist might be misapprehended by viewers who have insufficient knowledge of
the “real news”. Therefore, in the minds of the viewer, the satiric news would
appear to be a fully reliable source of world news. Another implication of
satirical news is that some satirists are not a credible source and may deliver
fake news to which the viewer does not realize. Therefore, the viewer is taking
this misinformation and believing it to be true.
After reading several of my classmate's blog
entries, I found the following quotes interesting. Sarah Trotman (http://st12tq.wordpress.com/) states: “When watching these reports I take the information with a
pinch of salt as I know that it is highly opinionated and not always the entire
truth.” Therefore, as I previously mentioned, the general impression is that
satirical news reportage is not as equally reliable as traditional news.
Kevin Shen (http://kevinshen94.wordpress.com/) also explains an implication that satirical news may face “The
downside of this is the amount of false information that can be provided
because satirical reporting can involve modifying some information to make it
comical. If people do not know about an event are only learning about it from a
satirical news source, then they will believe the satirical news to be true.”
Tori Gligic (http://torigligic.wordpress.com/) illustrates the effect of humor and irony when mixed with
traditional news and how people react to humorous news: “Viewer’s respond more
positively if they are provided with jokes that they can relate to”
As a conclusion, Satire news, which is a form
of mainstream culture jamming, has had an influence on the public sphere,
discourse and even the traditional news. It has improved throughout the years
to reach an elevated stage nowadays, thus it is extremely substantial that
viewers understand satire and the way it impacts the public sphere.
No comments:
Post a Comment