Fake News Is the Real News
With a distressed eyeroll at Seanglenn Beckhannity, and a weary headshake at Keithrachel Olbermaddowman, not to mention clenched fists of despair at TalkRadio VonHateScream, let me remind the rest of us -- aka. most people -- that just because the makers of so called News think Balanced and Thoughtful is some long-ago folk duo, it doesn't mean we should join in the sneerfest, and passively watch as standards continue to plummet.
When President Obama is called everything from Gandalf the Wizard or NaziMuslimTerrorGuy it remains every engaged citizens' duty to firmly say, "No he's not!", and to perhaps aim a little humorous scorn at anyone who'd believe such twaddle. But much as I love John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their colleagues, it strikes me as downright surreal that they, and not the 'real' Anchorpersons and Commentators, seem to be the only people on TV who actively adhere to concepts like fairness, primary sources and....facts. They're comedians for god's sake!! It's not their job to keep journalism from becoming.. a joke! Yet, again and again Stewart and Colbert, while being consistently hilarious, are the only frequently watched TV talkers that 1. bother to put current events into historical context, 2. examine bizarre claims for the few shreds of truth they might contain, and 3. confront their guests with questions that aren't solely intended to add to the noise.
Ironic is too mild a word for the fact that, with rare exceptions, the only professionals on TV who seem to want, in Walter Cronkite's words, "to protect the news.", are the ones using it to get laughs!
It does take courage to confront and lampoon our disgraceful national shouting match, but I think Messrs Stewart, and Colbert would heartily agree that when a handful of comedians are the closest we've got to Uncle Walter, we're in deep s****.
Americans have always had a stand-offish relationship with facts, especially if they run contrary to our ideals, or expose our prejudices. We're equally uncomfortable with censorship, however because after all freedom of speech, and the public's right to know, are foundations of a free society, etc, etc; Which is precisely why Walter Cronkite became so trusted, and ultimately influential. Because we believed the stories he told us. He was a reliable reporter. He protected the news. His opinions carried weight precisely because he expressed them so rarely.
Ted Turner's brilliant gamble of putting news on the air 24/7, was supposed to continue that tradition, but it has failed, with the unintended and lamentable consequence of making us less well informed, and more agitated. Why? Because it turns out that some of the public trust stories told by charlatans, self promoting dweebs, and unstable rageaholics, no matter how fact-free they turn out to be. Could our chronically neglected public education system have something to do with this? Is Talk Radio and Rant TV merely a symptom of a society which seems more and more willing to ignore, or at best laugh at, what's actually happening all around us? Has it become smart to present bullshit as news?
Are comedians the only ones who rely on the truth anymore? Has Comedy filled the void where Substance used to be? Does it have to be a joke to be true? Does the truth have to be funny for anyone to pay attention to it? How funny is globalwarmingconstantwarfarefinancialcatastropheracistparanoia, anyway?
OK, my time's up! Good night folks, thanks for coming and don't forget to tip your waitresses, ah hell, knock 'em right over!? But seriously, I'll be here all week!!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Remember that historically it was the Jester or Foole that was the only person in the court that could get away with telling the truth to power. As our society has increasingly become the elites and the plebes, we've reverted back to the King's court mentality. You can only joke about the truth, or else you get your head cut off (see Dan Rather) by the powers that be.
You dont need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowin' ;)
I'm in complete agreement with nearly everything on this post.
We need REAL NEWS. I find myself turning off the tv for most of the day, because all I hear and see is reruns of the same junk that started out as news and becomes biased and opinionated.
When Beck was on CNN, he was never so churlish. Why do nearly all of these people have to holler at the camera or microphone. As someone else has noted, Rachel Maddow states facts has the material to back up her statements. She DOES get a little dramatic at times, but it's usually to stress a point.
Stewart and Colbert are very good with the sarcasm while grinding someone's face into their own dirt.
Bill Maher could put his points across just as well without all the profanity.
Many people are media maxed anyhow, going by the industry data. And those media maxed
are maybe a much bigger market than the other declining media market.
Consider for instance this video, a flashback to the media / expert hype that was such a menace
before the crash. And now, simply as a re-run, makes an end to that previous menace of false hype:
http://www
You've hit the nail right on the head. Some folks only want to hear what they already believe. And checking it out is too much like homework.
I completely agree with the main thesis of this essay. I would just make two small additions:
1. I would put Bill Maher as equal to Stewart and Colbert in terms of allegiance to truth and being an aggressive protector of truth when his guests start spewing absolute nonsense.
2. I think it's a terrible mistake to put Rachel Maddow in the same category as the Fox propagandists or Keith Olbermann. She has an excellent research staff, always has sources and facts to back up her claims, and never lets her guests get away with spewing factless propaganda. Just because, compared to the politics of corporate media, she seems like an extreme lefty, the fact is that she is a Rhodes Scholar, has complete integrity, and her politics would be pretty mainstream liberal (Teddy Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, Pat Moynihan, etc.) in any era other than the present.
Agreed,
Although I would contend that for all of his bombastic delivery, Olbermann is at least fact based. He holds the demonstrated hypocrisy of other commentators and politicians up to the light of day.
Even though I agree with their politics, I get tired of Keith & Rachel's willingness to let their own personal grudges color their reporting. The name calling gets really old. (I stopped watching Olbermann, his excellent "special comments" notwithstanding, because I got tired of hearing about "Billo the Clown" all the freaking time.)
One of the great things about Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert is that they're willing to lampoon *anybody*, on either side of the aisle, and they know that their name-calling can't get repetitive and old, or else the joke isn't funny anymore.
And I think it is a terrible mistake to lump Keith Olbermann in with Fox News.
John
Just love that there seem to be an artical about Stewart and Colbert on weekly bases this forum about the subject about how there real and anchors are fake.
I be waiting for the next one
thumbup:
Are you disagreeing about the premise or just complaining that you have to read extra articles?
(btw, your spelling sucks!)
You don't seem to have actually read this post. And if you did, you don't seem to have grasped its point. The author never said that Stewart and Colbert are "real" news anchors. He was lamenting the fact that they are fake journalists and yet they are the only ones trying to keep journalistic standards alive.
To me, the single strongest benefit that Stewart and Colbert have brought to the table is historical perspective.
Again and again I have seen them take the current hysterial being thrust out from politicians and absolutely destroy them by using logic, facts, and showing the actual history behind the individual issues. I have to watch the Daily Show to get my facts???
This is the kind of stuff that I used to expect from News Channels. Its amazing to me that the "News" has thrown those standards out in a mindless quest for ratings. Perhaps its better to say that its sad and depressing that journalism has fallen so far.
Too many TV channels and News Networks are owned by a single individual. It's time to break that up!
"Has Comedy filled the void where Substance used to be?"
Tragically, yes.
NEWS FLASH! No one is supposed to rely on comics or talking head shows for reliable news. That is supposed to come from the fourth estate-straight news reporters. At least that's what I was taught when I got my journalism degree.
Obermann, O'Reilly, Stewart, Hannity, etc., are not reporters. They are entertaine
Reporters don't get to be players, opinion makers or movers and shakers. They get to report. Dull, I know. If they want to give their opinions, they should resign their jobs and try to be an talk show host/entertainer. Good luck.
Dan Rather thought that he got to be biased to the left because Rush was out there sucessfully being biased to the right. Wrong! It doesn't work that way. Does anybody even know what the word journalist means anymore?
So, if you are confused about who to rely on for real news-get the actual reporters to give up their VERY onprofessional biases and just report. Straight down the middle, reliable, non-biased, accurate reporting done in a professional manner-that's what we wnat.
As long as we are willing to pay attention, advertisers will continue to advertise. And as long as they do so, there will remain a market for rage, rage largely born of ignorance and fear. Those most enslaved to rage, fear anything that doesn't look, think and act like them. It is the natural product of ignorance. If we, as a culture, are unwilling to confront ingorance head on, with education, the only remaining weapon is humor...a sad, but I suspect predictable outcome.
When we allow a handful of huge corporations to own 95 percent of media and allow 91 percent of talk radio channels to spew propaganda and hate we undermine our Democracy in a serious way. You must have an informed citizenry to make intelligent decisions to survive and adapt.
I believe in free speech, but when people have a platform that speaks to millions of citizens they should, at least, not be allowed to lie, incite hatred and cherry pick only the facts that support their agenda. We have rules in advertising if they misrepresent the product, but no rules when the Becks, hannitys, Rushs etc tell millions of citizens every day half truths and spread hatred towards our President and the majority of Americans that disagree with their propaganda. Why is that OK? Why are they at least not fined? I don't care if its Olbermann or Beck. If they lie or omit pertinent facts to distort the information they need to be held accountable. This is not jeopardizing free speech. It should be demanded by every American.W
So who levies the fines? Who determines what constitutes fact? Who decides what's fair?
It used to be the FCC. But Reagan, and the Bushs gutted the organization, de regulated and pulled their teeth, destroyed the fairness doctrine because it did not jibe with their ideology..
Deciding what's fair, as you imply, would not be applicable, but facts and omitting facts is not difficult to determine examples of both below
1. Beck states that Vancouver Canada lost a billion dollars during their Olympics.
false. The Vancouver Olympics has not yet happened. It is in 2010
2. Beck, Dobbs and others say a group was praying to Obama.
fact. The audio of this shows they are praying to God. (10's of millions hear this lie and go on believing it because these fools do NOT have to retract or apologize for lying)
3. Omission. The noise machine went nuts about the Homeland security report on Right Wing militias. Made it sound like Obama was going after regular Republicans and even our soldiers because the report mentioned these groups like to get ex military.
Omission. They never told their audiences that the report was initiated by the Bush Admin., never said that it was SOP and a report on left wing extremism was done several months earlier. The report does NOT discuss regular conservative voters at all.
After they did this, millions bought more ammo, people felt targeted and afraid of Govt. wore shirts that said "I am a right wing extremist" in rebellion.
As much as Crokite is revered, The truth is the 60's came from the Smothers Brothers. Stewart and Colbert are the modern Smotherts Brothers.
Just like in King Lear, just like in the 60's, the truth can only be told by the court jesters.
I hear you, but the Smothers Bro's were lampooning News which was reported on TV with a higher level of professionalism and accuracy in one hour a day, than the Cable Nets can muster in 24. My somewhat tongue in cheek point here is that Stewart & Colbert are, at times, better at highlighting salient facts, than the professional news org's they make fun of. That's a lot different than in the 60's. The fact that the Daily Show can show replays, five days a week, of actual TV 'journalis
I haven't been to another country like ours that doesn't have a real TV news. Has anyone of the posters seen this phenomenon elsewhere?
The only country that comes to mind is Italy with Berlusconi controlled media. I haven't been to Italy, so I can't claim validity in my suspicions. There is a new documentary about the media in Italy that I would very much like to see. I believe it's called Videocracy. It claims to expose the rise of faux reality-based programs and the stupification of their citizens as the result. Berlusconi has refused to allow the documentary to be shown on stations he controls. Some media would not show ads for the documentary because it was "offensive to the honor and personal reputation of the prime minister." Do we really honestly believe America would never delve into this arena? Jon Stewart and Colbert allow me to laugh at what I should probably be crying about. Thank goodness; otherwise, I'd be a fairly miserable person. I am very attuned to the health care debate and politics in general. I am close to tuning out on health care reform 'cause all the "news" from Congress is too depressing. I think America needs a new party of progressives.
This was very much the case in the Soviet Union.
they also rely on a stable of comedy writers and use extensive literary liscense
Of course they do, my point is that in writing comedy they seem to value facts, precedent, etc. more than 'real' pundits/co
Why would you ever consider the actual factual news surreal? Strange indeed.
Because depending on the network you watch, the level of spin, bias and even consensus reality is so different, it lends itself to surrealism.
The jester is always the only one allowed to speak freely. What our current jesters speak (and I love them so) is the truth the others cannot.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
