Realest Fake News or Fakest Real News?

In a world where honest to goodness reporting is as scarce as toilet paper in a public restroom, a handful of highly scripted humor-related programs have taken a few of our coveted half-hour blocks. Posing, no less, as veritable news outlets. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, one of said programs specializing in politics, has received a considerable amount of both media and academic attention regarding its credibility as an actual source of information. While the producers attest that they are not journalists and the show’s intentions are merely comedic, recent studies are starting to say otherwise.

When The Daily Show first appeared on Comedy Central in 1996, it hardly sparked any controversy. Much of the blame falls to then-host Craig Kilborn. The show’s creators, Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, set out to make a “fake news” show that was a direct satire of entertainment news programs. However, they soon grew unsatisfied with Kilborn. One of the original correspondents, Beth Littleford, went so far as to say he was “dumb as wood.” This, coupled with some published sexually explicit remarks Kilborn aimed at Winstead solidified the strains between the two entities. When Kilborn left The Daily Show to replace Tom Snyder on CBS’s The Late Late Show, Jon Stewart was called in to fill the empty host’s chair. Over the years Stewart would become the driving force behind the show’s popularity and political agenda. The decision to abandon the more laid-back approach, as was employed during Kilborn’s era, is no doubt a cause of the current debate over the show’s validity. And with more and more people using the show as bona-fide source of political knowledge, that debate has never been more relevant. Indeed, after more than a decade of being on air, and even producing a full-fledged spin-off, interest in the show is at a peak. The show pulls about 4 million viewers of the “coveted” 18-49 demographic weekly. That’s about .7 million more than Fox did at the height of the Iraqi War. With numbers like these, it’s apparent that the show’s popularity has had a considerable effect on society, but whether that effect is helpful or harmful has ignited a fierce debate.

Fueling the opposition is the claim that The Daily Show is mere sketch, and should by no means be considered a source of actual news, a fact that the show’s producers advocate as well. Recent studies show that most college students’ only source of information, regardless of tone, is The Daily Show. Many feel that this is a problem. They believe that the show, while amusing, lacks the journalistic repute to be credited as a standalone news source. Emily Burrows, an editor for a university paper, says that she does indeed enjoy The Daily Show, and stresses that there is nothing wrong with watching it for amusement, but is adamant about the audience having other information outlets.

“The program lacks a focus on the hard facts behind stories. Instead, Stewart and the other writers skim over the basic premise of the story or event and then focus on a funny anecdote about the piece. This is harmful to the audience because it trivializes the story and shifts attention from "real" news to pure entertainment”

Other critics share a similar view. Matt Felling, an editor for CBS’s public blog, claims that while studies are showing that more young people watch The Daily Show than any other news show, they are also the least informed demographic, going so far as to say that Stewart and Co. are nothing more than a “nice dessert” after a meal of “Real News Roughage.” Other naysayers range from conservatives displeased with the show’s liberal bias to journalists who claim that nothing short of the county’s dwindling respect for politics is at stake. And, of course, Bill O’Reilly. He gets his own sentence. An infamous article titled “Why Jon Stewart Isn’t Funny” is also worth some note. Michael Kalin of The Boston Globe attests that the show is a leading factor in political complacency, especially regarding young people. Kalin likens Stewart to such observers as de Toqueville, but argues that in today’s mass media market one man’s opinion is only that much stronger. Hence, “a bright leader who may have become the Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson of today instead perceives politics as a supply of sophisticated entertainment, rather than a powerful source of social change” thanks to Stewart’s satire.

Valid arguments, to be sure, but the show is not without its supporters. Far from it, in fact. Advocates vouch that not only is The Daily Show a valid source of news, but a new form of journalism entirely, paving the way for a generation of intelligent, informed viewers. An Indiana University study concluded that The Daily Show was no less substantive than traditional news programs. After defining substantive as “that which addressed issues included in the party platform or questions of candidate qualification,” the researchers found that The Daily Show delivered just as much video and audio coverage as broadcast networks, and that their stories were actually longer. The same study also demonstrated that while the show sometimes sacrifices content for humour, mainstream news often did the same with hype, thus leading to an “equal” level of substance. Another recent theory is that in order to cope with and to heal from the entropy that surrounds us, we must lay down our pejorative guards, and laugh. The only way to poke politics these days is with a shtick, or so it would seem. Still, others argue that by exposing a system whose ludicrousies are unmatched, they are more outraged than amused, and inspired to act.

I’m not so sure about that, but I’m no stoned slacker, either. The truth is that I love The Daily Show, and while I am frightfully close to falling into that category of Personwhoseonlysourceofinformationcomesfromacomedyprogram, I do indeed ascertain knowledge about current events from other places. And though I have even learned a thing or two from The Daily Show alone, I really don’t think its enough to form an intelligent or educated opinion on political affairs. That requires a little more effort. Having said that, I believe that Jon Stewart and his cohorts do an excellent job of creating a big idea for viewers and satirizing the industry. Not to mention, Clusterf@#k to the White House is just about the funniest name for a news block ever.