(student name)
April 1, 2007
Nathan Pieplow
Writing 1150
The Daily Show’s Effect on Media and Politics: A Literature Review
Introduction
Although there is heated debate on whether or not Jon Stewart and The Daily Show has had a positive or negative influence on the realms of politics and media today, one thing is certain: Jon Stewart is one of the most talked about media personalities in our world today and his influence goes far beyond that of The Daily Show. The show has had a long rooted history and had been in existence a good ten years before Stewart took on the duties of host. It was not until Stewart became host, however, that the show began to pick up a faithful audience along with scathing critics. Much debate stems off the constant line Stewart walks between satirical comedian and hard-hitting news correspondent. Stewart has repeatedly made note that he himself is not a journalist, however his loyal viewers have embodied him as the new champion of news. This serious contradiction is always brought up from critics of the show. So how has The Daily Show revolutionized both the political and media stage all while being just a half hour comedy program on Comedy Central?
Influence on Viewers
In a study conducted by Zeiss-Strange, researchers contrasted the responses of students who had viewed the 2004 presidential election coverage on The Daily Show to those of students who had viewed similar reportage on CBS’ Evening News. The study showed that the more “cynical and apathetic” Daily Show viewers seemed to be more confident about their own ability to understand politics than those who had “consumed the network news” (Zeiss-Strange, 2006). In the study, researchers made clear that The Daily Show viewers and CBS Evening News viewers only looked to their specific program for their daily news. However, what they soon realized is that Daily Show viewers were more likely to be readily interested in politics and better apt to recognize corporate owned media. Zeiss-Strange calls this the “Daily Show Effect” and now political pundits show more interest in the political thinking of college students than they ever had before. Most politicians in this country forgot about the power and influence the youth of America has when it comes to voting potential.
Maureen Dowd further explained this Daily Show Effect during an interview with Stephen Colbert, a Daily Show correspondent who rose to fame with the creation of his own show with a similar format and agenda to that of The Daily Show. Colbert rationalizes since he and Jon Stewart have no credibility to lose, unlike the political figureheads who frequent their show, that he and Stewart can easily manipulate these political pundits on their shows (Dowd, 2006). Dowd argues that it is hard to distinguish between reality and the distorted truth that both Stewart and Colbert create. Interestingly enough, Colbert agrees 100% with Dowd on her assumption and makes it clear that it is something he and Stewart do on purpose and goes along with the format of the show. She continues by adding that when politicians are invited as guests on the show they must come prepared to play the jester to Stewart and Colbert’s king and hope that in the end they still smell like roses.
Crossfire Appearance
The Daily Show is highly relevant to the media today and has greatly influenced shows. Deggans highlights Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire, which many argue was the reason Crossfire was subsequently dropped by CNN a month later. Crossfire had a long history on CNN spanning all the way to the 1980s while CNN was just a fledgling cable news outlet. It originated as a forum for debate for liberals and conservatives to discuss policy issues of the day letting viewers make their own opinion. However, due to the show’s low ratings in addition to the political shows airing on FOX, CNN made the decision to revamp Crossfire in an attempt to compete with its rival network. The network gave the show a new set on a D.C. college Campus as well as two new hosts: from the left Paul Begala and from the right Tucker Carlson, the bowtie wearing conservative, who soon became a figure in media for his obnoxious behavior towards guests on the show. In a now legendary guest appearance, Stewart agreed to be a guest on the show. The show aired on October 15, 2004 and talk surrounded the upcoming presidential elections in 2004, but mostly focused on Stewart’s responsibility as a journalist. After taking repeated criticisms from Carlson for being a terrible journalist Stewart countered in reference to Carlson’s show as “it’s not so much that it’s bad, as it’s hurting America” (CNN, 2004).
In an interview with Stewart, Deggans maintains that Stewart’s criticism of the show had a powerful influence on CNN’s decision to cancel the show. With the growing popularity of new media outlets like The Daily Show, the format of shows like Crossfire become more and more irrelevant to viewers (Deggans, 2007). Ryan (2007) disagrees with Deggans’ argument, however, and claims that CNN wasn’t sending any kind of message, nor was it influenced at all by The Daily Show. He argues that the channel regularly shows Crossfire-type arguments with the same professional talking heads into its regular news coverage.
New Media Defined
New media is a general term used in media studies and has had a unique influence on news media today. As Deggans describes, The Daily Show utilizes new media by setting up residence on the border between news and entertainment. The coverage may be pointed, but is never fictitious, and is passed off as a comedy program pointing out the day’s headlines to an audience that ideally has been keeping up with the news enough that they are able to draw the lines themselves (Deggans, 2007).
The key to those who study new media is the ability to translate what is relevant in a completely new forum. In an interview with The Daily Show host, Stewart argued that for some reason cable outlets assume that louder is more profitable whereas solid, in-depth coverage equals dull, low ratings and low profitability (Schlosser, 2003). The most popular shows on the cable news stations are the Bill O’Reillys, Larry Kings, and Chris Brians, and hard hitting news programs don not receive nearly the same ratings. Stewart believes, however, that it is possible to create really exciting, interesting television news that could become the medium of record for reasonable, moderate people, hence the popularity of his own show. An interesting contradiction posed by The Daily Show Host who continually argues he is only a comedian and his show is not appropriate for the news.
Stewart the Newscaster
Baumgartner and Morris (2006) admire Stewart’s creation of a more knowledgeable citizenry through soft news that educates an inattentive public that would not otherwise follow traditional hard news. This entertainment based programming can contribute to political learning. For example, research indicates that politically inattentive citizens gather valuable information as an “incidental by-product” of exposure to soft news, especially regarding significant foreign policy events (Baumgartner and Morris 2006).
Baym continues this sentiment by stating that the label of “fake” news has provided the primary frame for conversations about the show, both in popular and academic circles. The show has won a Peabody Award and also was nominated as one of television’s best newscasts by the TV Critics Association (Baym, 2005). Stewart was named the single most important newscaster in the country by Newsday during the 2004 presidential campaign. Although Stewart claims to be an innocent comedian doing his job of entertaining the masses, Baym believes he does an even greater service to the country by informing them in a very unique, but effective manner. In addition, the show’s nightly interview segment regularly features members of the national political, legislative, and journalistic establishment (Baym, 2005). Simply stated, you can’t understand American politics in the new millennium without the Daily Show, argues Baym.
Critics of the Show
Most criticism directed towards the Daily Show stems from the fact that audiences have become more and more dependent on Jon Stewart for their primary outlet for news, rather than relying on more credible news sources. Ryan rationalizes that the public has become more and more disillusioned with the news especially after The New York Times bought into George W. Bush’s weapons-of-mass destruction theory. The growing public distrust the press and therefore are more likely to obtain their news and vies from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart than The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric (Ryan, 2007).
Also many, like Tucker disapprove of the show’s influence on politics today. Most politicians use The Daily Show as a forum to show that they can poke fun of themselves as well as to try and impress Jon Stewart (Tucker, 2004). According to Tucker, this behavior is intolerable, arguing that in doing so Jon Stewart’s actions on the show does more harm than good. While on Crossfire, Stewart received the same criticism when Tucker Carlson pointed out that even though The Daily Show host had John Kerry, the democratic presidential nominee, on his show he only asked soft questions like, “How are you holding up? Is it hard to take the attacks personally? Have you ever flip flopped?” Tucker argued that Stewart had a prime opportunity to really flex his journalistic muscle by asking him tough questions, like on policy issues, instead of trying to be friends with Kerry. Stewart countered with the argument that he was again just a comedian, but it’s hard to reconcile that fact when he has been recognized by most of the media community as being the new radical journalist on the scene. The more credible the show becomes and the more seriously it is regarded, more and more people will stop watching (Bodow, 2004).
(conclusion)
Works Cited
Baumgartner, J. and Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show Effect:
Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth. American Politics
Research, 14(3), 341-367.
Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the
Reinvention of Political Journalism. Political Communication, 22, 259-276.
CNN. (2004 October 15). Crossfire – Jon Stewart’s America
(Television broadcast). New York City: CNN
Deggans, E. (2007, January 18). Jon Stewart is for Real. St Petersburg Times, p.
1E.
Dowd, M. (2006, November 16). America’s Anchors: Jon Stewart and Stephen
Colbert faked it until they made it. Now they may truly be the most trusted names in news. Rolling Stone, 1013, 54-58.
Ryan, A. (2007, February 9). What happened to the news? The Globe Review, p.
R26.
Schlosser, E. (2003). The kids are alright. Columbia Journalism Review, 41, 27-30.
Sternbergh, A. (2006, October 16). Stephen Colbert Has America by the Ballots;
The former Jon Stewart protégé created an entire comic persona out of right-wing doublespeak, trampling the boundary between parody and politics. Which makes him the perfect spokesman for a political season in which everything is imploding. New York Magazine.
Tucker, K. (2004, November 1). You Can’t be Serious: Jon Stewart wants to treat
politics as a joke – and still teach us a civil lesson. He can’t have it both ways. New York Magazine.
Zeiss-Strange, M. (2006, September 12). The ‘Daily Show’ generation; Political
satire isn’t making young people apathetic. If anything it’s doing the opposite.
USA Today, p. 15A