Back when I had TV, I was a big fan of the satirical Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Like many Daily Show fans, I noted that the self-described 'fake news' show was actually more informative than 'real news' programs. The reason is because Stewart and his colleagues are unafraid to ask The Question about an issue that screams out to be asked. He demonstrates the hypocrisy of leaders not in his words but in their own words. Mainstream media journalists, slaves to a fake objectivity which is really neutrality, generally won't do this because they are petrified of one thing: losing access.
Some in the elite are snarky about people who watch The Daily Show and get their information from other non-traditional sources. They think the assertion that Stewart's fake news is more real than the real news is a fanciful exaggeration. And to be honest, I once wondered it myself.
Now, it turns out that there is empirical evidence to back it up.
"The proportion of each story devoted to substance [on The Daily Show] was greater than in the network news stories," according to an Indiana University study.
The IU researchers noted that Stewart himself has insisted that he is a comedian and not a journalist.
And perhaps this is the strongest indication of all of how discredited TV journalism has become. The non-journalist presents a more newsworthy show than the real journalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment