I'm a big fan of late night television. I love the satire and sarcasm of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, the boyish humor of David Letterman, and the unorthodoxy of Craig Ferguson. I generally treat the above shows as forms of entertainment, but sometimes the hosts of these humorous shows are able to explain complex issues from the news in a very effective manner. So I wonder, can Stewart and Colbert be categorized as legitimate news sources? Can Ferguson and Letterman be labeled as proficient news commentators?
While the case for Letterman is tough to make, and Ferguson even more so, I think that Stewart and Colbert make a compelling case as top news sources. In 2009, the Huffington Post reported that Jon Stewart was voted most trusted modern-day newscaster in an online poll by Time Magazine. He earned 44% of the vote from the lineup that also included Brian Williams and Katie Couric. It's not a surprise that fans of the show hold him in high esteem, but to raise him to the level of newscaster, not just TV show host, is something else.
I have absolutely no problem turning to the Daily Show or Colbert Report to listen to the news talked about in a rather irreverent manner. It's refreshing and sometimes, as I said above, enlightening. But the problem comes when Americans start relying solely on Stewart and Colbert as their news sources. While they both do a great job informing and swaying the public, they're not reporters. They are not journalists. I think an altering of discernment is one of the biggest byproducts of a Stewart-and-Colbert-heavy news diet, especially for those who believe that Colbert's Republican passion is true, not a farcical facade.
Overall I think Stewart and Colbert should be treated as resources or tools to help sort out news and issues, not primary sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment