The middle section of Chapter 6 involves the concept of the “informed” citizen and the corresponding technology that allows us to BE informed.
The main controversy presented in the text is the question of whether or not the availability of new technologies that bring more information into our lives is designed to replace, supplement, or criticize traditional forms of information acquisition—particularly in regards to politics—and if these new technologies are validly contributory forms of political expression. In other words, have political spoofs such as Saturday Night Live become more informative than the nightly news, do shows like The Daily Show point out the flaws in how politics are presented (one-sided campaign commercials—Pinnacle provides their high rollers with prostitutes… implying that Tropicana would never do such a thing; and trivialized support tactics—The Governator endorses John McCain), and do photoshopped images of presidential candidates partying with dictators hold the same credence of old-fashioned political cartoons?
Another point raised in the chapter was whether or not the abundance of new information MAKES us more informed or if it is simply more information to be had, period. Are we actually taking advantage of our new resources? Or, are we actually getting overwhelmed by them? As an extention of popular culture (which solely strives to entertain), should we really be looking to these resources for the information that will shape our opinions, or should we just remain yet another thing that amuses us?
Like Jon Stewart said, Crossfire is “on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls” (Jenkins, 227). There does seem to be a lack of credibility, don’t you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that when it comes to being informed, one must be open to all forms of information. Watching CNN or reading the newspaper will give one an idea of what is happening in the world, but will it tell us everything? That is where The Daily Show or Colbert Report comes in for many informed citizens. Although these shows are not as credible as CNN because they are comedy shows, what they do is joke about actual occurences in the news. One may have a better understanding of a presidential debate when they watch The Daily Show because John Stewart is more likely to point out every flaw. Although I do not feel that these political spoofs really give us, informed citizens, a true representation, they allow us to observe the story from another point of view-- an entertaining one.
I agree that shows like The Daily Show are not an adequate source of information, but TDS certainly does model a variety of ways of interrogating what we are being fed by many media outlets. Sarcasm, irony, parody--All of these have their place. Dr. L
I do agree with the idea that these shows have there place in the realm of sarcasm and parody providing some of my favorite entertainment. However, I also think they play a large part in the shaping and spreading of political tags and jargon associated with stereotypes placed on politicians and elected officials. In SNL's often hilarious Presidential parodies the impersonators certainly do harp on the subject's characteristic reputation as it is presented in mass media. By making a caricature of the person they are expanding these perceptions, thus adding to them more validation.
Post a Comment