“Frontline” exposure of current affairs programs makes a mockery of journalistic integrity.
Through humorous portrayals of important issues, and clever imitation “Frontline” makes veiwers aware of ridicule towards journalistic integrity.
While current affairs programs are based on real life stories, which are enhanced to ‘make good news’, Frontline is based on the making of these stories.
Frontlines purpose is to inform the audience of the life behind a current affair program but more importantly its main focus is on entertaining the audience. This is achieved in many ways, primarily by bending real life situations out of contempt to journalists uprightness.
Current affair programs do not take stories as they are and simply present them with the facts, they are sensationalised and enhanced to bring more entertainment value to them, however this is not widely known throughout the general public. Furthermore it’s exactly what Frontline did with “The Siege” and “Dessert Angel” when it complemented certain factors of the story to make them sound more entertaining than the boring facts. By ‘enhancing’ the facts and manipulating the truth it made the stories more presentable to the audience as a form of entertainment and mockery in regards to journalists. This was spoken about in the “Dessert Angel” episode when Marty shows Stu how anyone can be turned into ‘good media fodder’
Frontline is aimed at being a comedy program and therefore has a main purpose of comedy and entertainment rather than informing.
Most nightly current affair programs struggle to get articles for each night. Most with three or four articles a night have a very tight and limited time schedule to prepare each night. Therefore with such a limited time they are unable to really concentrate on the serious analysis of some current affairs programs. ‘Frontline’ exaggerates and exposes this concept in the episode ‘Desert Angel’, where ‘Frontlines’ integrity is taunted as it secures an exclusive with Australian aid worker Jessica Steckle, whom a week before was given a funeral by the team at Frontline with Mike providing the eulogy. The issue is made humorous with the bidding war scene directly following Mike’s adamant speech that the team at ‘Frontline’ do have ethics and integrity. Whilst the episode maintains its criticism of current affairs programs and journalists by indicating that ‘bidding wars’ and ‘chequebook journalism’ are rife though-out such programs.
In ‘The Siege’, ‘Frontline’ again tackles an exceptionally topical issue, and interspersing ironic humour to signify their criticisms.
A Bestselling author and co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” is a remarkably confident lady and TV-journalist Mika Brzezinski whose on-air protest between entertainment news & “hard news” received a large number of supports and fans’ responses on 26 June 2007 in which she had refused to read the news about a release of Paris Hilton from Jail rather she considered more important Senator Richard Lugar with President Bush on the war of Iraq breaking news. She stands on these issues rippled over the internet quickly and similar incidents continue on-air on July 7, 2010 on a report about Levi Johnston and Lindsay Lohan over hard news stories with the title “News you can’t use.”
Overy, Richard. "Civilians on the Frontline." The Observer. Guardian News and Media, 06 Sept. 2009. Web. 26 Apr. 2014. .
In his essay, “The Good, The Bad, and The Daily Show,” Jason Zinser explores the vices and virtues of so-called “fake” news programs. “Fake” news, as Zinser explains, are those programs that blend newsworthy events with comedy. By examining The Daily Show, Zinser reveals both positive and negative impacts that “fake” news could have on society. As a result, Zinser concludes that there are benefits as well as potential problems with “fake” news programs but insists that the true challenge is determining the net impact on society. The essay, which first appeared in The Daily Show and Philosophy: Moments of Zen and the Art of Fake News in 2007, challenges experts on both sides of the argument who either claim fake news is for entertainment only or that fake news is an acceptable source for information on current events. On one hand, Zinser uses expert testimonies to support his argument that the end result is a better informed public but on the other, he makes logical arguments enhanced by examples to illustrate the potential impacts “fake” news can have on its viewers and mainstream media.
For example, the comedy shows The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon expresses satirical humor concerning politics. His show also demonstrates political satire by telling jokes and even impersonating political figures for the audience. He creates humor through sarcasm that focuses on real issues. His sarcastic humor causes others to feel more confident in their criticism toward politicians. For example, “Jimmy Fallon expresses his humor about Donald Trump, impersonating his appearance and imitating his voice while talking about politics. He uses his humor by impersonating Donald Trump and his sweeping generalizations with Madea (Rogo).” Jimmy Fallon shows people his views through humor and it creates a sense of community to express their agreeable and disagreeable views. As we discussed some ideas about satirical humor that affects political changes, it was important to reveal their feelings about changes in life and drove them to look upon their society or government more
On the contrary of the newscasts offered by CBS and NBC, a cable news program called “The Colbert Report” not only shows bias to other aired news, but makes satire news about them. Unlike the other cable news programs (like FOX or CNN, and the like), “The Colbert Report” is one of the programs that is on Comedy Central that shows a different (but a parody) approach version of conservative political pundits; the other is “The Daily Show with John Stewart”.
Gonzo journalism tends to favor style over accuracy and often uses personal experiences and emotions to provide context for the topic or event being covered. It disregards the 'polishe...
A good part of Outfoxed focuses on the company's blurring of news and commentary, how anchormen and reporters are encouraged to repeatedly use catch-phrases like "some people say..." as a means of editorializing within a supposedly objective news story; how graphics, speculation and false information are repeated over-and-over throughout the broadcast day until it appears to become fact, and in doing so spreads like a virus and copied on other networks. A PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll points to glaring, fundamental misconceptions about the news perpetuated upon Fox viewers, versus information received from widely respected news-gathering organizations like NPR and PBS. Asked, for instance, "Has the U.S. found links between Iraq & al-Qaeda?" only 16% of PBS and NPR viewers answered "yes," but a frightening 67% of Fox viewers believed there had.
Education is an essential aspect in our ever-changing societies. It is used as a means of transmitting concepts, knowledge, and values, often to younger generations (Ravelli & Webber, 2010). Education and schooling differ in all societies, varying based on the methods of teaching of different cultural groups. For instance, Canadian Aboriginal people were taught based on the needs of their individual families and class. This greatly differed from the European system of education, which stressed adequate involvement with all of society. Though the Aboriginal manner of education was efficient and effective, the Europeans wanted to bring a change to their previous practices. As seen in the film, Education As We See It, European missionaries established a form of formal education for Aboriginal children, which was to be governed at residential schools. However, this tradition did not last long due to rising conflicts.
...0). Traditional newscasts are not only dumbing down and sensationalizing the news to bring more interest into their programming, but this can be detrimental to the political process. The Daily Show is uses comedy to show the ridiculousness of the political world and news media for his viewers to take politics seriously (Hariman, 2007). The Daily Show has been awarded with prestigious awards, such as two Peabody Awards, 18 Primetime Emmys, a Television Critics Association Award, and also a Grammy Award. (Feldman, 2007). It can be said, entertainment based shows can have the potential to not only educate, but entertaining as well. Today’s generation have grown up in a world where the distinction between of entertainment and news shows have been obscured, The Daily Show has proven the televisions shows can provide the public with entertaining political information.
Satire is the most powerful democratical weapon in the arsenal of modern media. Sophia McClennen, the author of America According to Colbert: Satire as Public Pedagogy, describes it as the modern form of public pedagogy, as it helps to educate the masses about current issues (73). In fact, ”a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey in 2004 found that 61 percent of people under the age of thirty got some of their political 'news' from late-night comedy shows” (McClennen 73). This statistic shows how influential satirical shows such as The Colbert Report or South Park can be. Satire invites critical self introspection from us in a way that no other media can. It also acts as an unbiased mirror that reflects the mirror image of the flaws of our society. This beautiful process, when unhindered and uncensored, is the epitome of western freedom of speech, which is the single most significant right that deserves to be cherished and defended.
But how can we be sure that the news is not biased? Are we receiving information accurately, with details being simple to understand? After further research on media framing, I’ve come to realize that it is not rare to be someone who is skeptical of the news. In decades before now, media did a better job serving the public interests inside their news stories (Callaghan, 2001, p.186). But now, journalists may mix up facts intentionally and build a different story (Callaghan, 2001, p.184). How can one feel safe after knowing the media changes stories to keep us interested? Boring stories may not keep someone excited or fully interested, but at least people would not be misinformed and can, in a way, better prepare for what they will face outside their
In Alain de Botton’s book, Status Anxiety, he argues that the aim of humorists is not solely entertainment, but also to convey a message that isn’t always okay to state directly. There are many places where his argument can apply. Even with humor, some topics are still too controversial to joke about; However, in most cases, humor can lighten things up and make it easier to discuss topics that otherwise would not be as easy to talk about without heavy arguments. There are many cases that would make his argument true. There are many examples that support his argument, and that help to show the importance of humor in arguing, including cartoons, comics, works of literature, and also when thinking of hosts of television programs.
James Conroy argues that laughter in serious topics has been regarded through the ages as dangerous, deviant, and subversive; yet equally as refreshing, challenging, and constructive. Political humor is extensively used in almost all countries, but political satire is perceived differently from one country to another. The research question is as follows: what factors make political satire an effective tool that affects politics and policy? I argue that humor is more influential when blended with serious topics, such as international relations or politics. Laughter is a great means to put serious topics under the lenses of critical thinking. The use of humor, and political satire specifically can bring about serious political change. Humor can play all sorts of roles in the political process through being informative, educational and influential while keeping its captive entertaining
In this era of globalization, news reporting is no longer just a means of communications, but it has also developed into a tool for change. Prominent journalists like Julian Assange, Nick Davies, Sir Charles Wheeler and many more has changed the landscape and outcomes of information, war and news reporting itself. But Martin Bell has challenged the fundamentals of journalism that is to be balanced and impartial with what he calls ‘Journalism of Attachment’. He even coined the phrase, ‘bystanders’ journalism’ for continuing the tradition of being distant and detached (Bell 1997), which he criticizes “for focusing with the circumstances of violence, such as military formations, weapons, strategies, maneuvers and tactics” (Gilboa 2009, p. 99). Therefore it is the aim of this essay to explain whether it is ethical for reporters to practice what Martin Bell calls the Journalism of Attachment by evaluating its major points and its counterarguments, and assessing other notions of journalism such as peace journalism.
From the beginning days of the printing press to the always evolving internet of present day, the media has greatly evolved and changed over the years. No one can possibly overstate the influential power of the new media of television on the rest of the industry. Television continues to influence the media, which recently an era of comedic television shows that specialize in providing “fake news” has captivated. The groundbreaking The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and its spin-off The Colbert Report have successfully attracted the youth demographic and have become the new era’s leading political news source. By parodying news companies and satirizing the government, “fake news” has affected the media, the government, and its audience in such a way that Bill Moyers has claimed “you simply can’t understand American politics in the new millennium without The Daily Show,” that started it all (PBS).