The Good The Bad And The Daily Show Analysis

Harvey T00197578
9/24/14
ENGL 1020 - 020
The Best of Late-Night
Television is often seen as a distraction for people to use to get away from the difficulties or anxieties of reality; though, what if television could be used to inform the public of changes to government policy and campaign details without nearly putting people to sleep? Shows like The Daily Show do just this, by adding a hint of humor to their long list of fact-based political arguments and stories, yet they are never cited as a credible source. Why do people assume that comedy news television is relevantly referred to as “trash” or “fake” news? To fully know and understand what makes these venues not only mandatory to society, but also beneficial to each individual, there
are a few things that one must know: Studies show that over three quarters of Americans at or below age thirty tend to get the majority of their information regarding voting issues or public policy through these types of networks; Many groups of people can receive factual based knowledge about the issues being satirized; and there are those who fail to understand the delivery and content of hard news stories; consequently, it is because of these ideas that people refuse to participate in government.
The idea that people actually receive factual information regarding satirized issues is not unheard of. In her recently published study on the effects of satire news “Priming Effects of Late-Night Comedy,” Dr. Patricia Moy, author of an editorial entitled, “Popular Politics and Public Opinion,” writes, “…seventy-four percent of Americans under thirty years of age get some campaign news from late-night shows, suggesting the potential of popular, non-traditional media to reach and potentially sway this group of younger voters” (Moy 5). Here, it can be seen that not only are people receiving legitimate information regarding campaign issues and policy, but that a majority of the young population rely on the information received from these non-traditional media sources and venues for their information. Furthermore, the importance of this is blatantly obvious due to the fact that such a large number of young people view these types of venues; not only does this show the popularity of comedic news, but it also proves that there are many different ways for individuals to receive legitimate information. Clearly then, it can be found that television shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are not necessarily a “bad” thing for society, but rather a substantial and required part of it. Moy continues, “Late-night comedy then is only one of many entertainment-headed venues from which audience members can receive and process information about their political world” (Moy 5). As can be seen Moy states that almost three quarters of the young adult population of America receives information regarding political policymaking and stances on political issues through the viewing of late-night comedy news programs. Moreover, this is a good thing due to the fact that the more people know about or feel they know about policy trends, the more they are encouraged and likely participate in politics; furthermore, the more people participate in politics, the better the chance that government policy and law will more closely adhere to the men and women of the age. However, this does not even begin to concern those with an inability to understand hard facts with no background information.
There are many people whom cannot understand the delivery or content of “hard news,” simply because today’s population has a shorter attention span.
This may be due to the ever increasing chaotic culture of people’s lifestyles, or simply because of our built-in ability to not be able to sit in one place for too long. However, in “The Good, the Bad, and the Daily Show,” Jason Zinser continues on this subject, “The Daily Show delivers the news in a way better suited to our ever-shrinking attention spans. From this perspective, the show isn’t ‘converting’ viewers from traditional media venues, but rather informing an untapped segment of the population that would be uninformed otherwise” (Zinser 370). As time progresses, the shorter the attention span of man becomes due to the flashing arrows provided by the different aspects of the American experience. In an age where more people are stricken with ADD and ADHD, it’s easier to inform these individuals through humor than to force them to attempt to sit through, say, a political conference meeting, or anything that requires much focus or critical thinking skills. Furthermore, the idea of anyone going uninformed of the workings of the government, or of anything in particular due to an inability to present the information in a way suitable to those who must receive that information quickly and inefficiently is outright ridiculous; to believe that some may stay ignorant to the reasons for their suffering, and therefore have no way to
speak against them because of their ignorance is treason to man as a species. These are the reasons people don’t participate in politics, and why politics should be communicated with humor.
All too often, men and women refuse to participate in government and politics because they do not know or understand enough with regards to the policies and views that happen to be the issues of the times. In “Political Comedy Shows and Public Participation in Politics,” Cao and Brewer meditate on this very issue, “… exposure to political comedy programs can encourage, rather than discourage, political participation: Specifically, the finding that exposure to The Daily Show enhanced audience members’ confidence in their own ability to understand political issues” (Cao, Brewer 5). In this way, one could say that shows like The Daily Show tend to present the information that News Channel 5 or The 700 Club present, but in a way that thee other individuals understand, and therefor increases their political participation. This must be seen in a way that makes this form of networking somewhat required for the men and women of the age.
In regards to the aforementioned “flashing arrows” of television programming, we can see that this regards the idea that large amounts of information being presented, where only the small stuff needed to understand that, “you don’t need to know all this, but here is what you do need to know for what is to come.” These are meant to, as Steven Johnson explains in his essay, “Watching TV Makes you Smarter,” “They reduce the amount of analytic work you need to do to make sense of a story. All you have to do is follow the arrows” (Johnson 285). The more prevalent these arrows become in media and society, the easier it becomes for people to understand the information presented to them. Satire news uses these types of tools to get the points of their policy-framed jokes across to their audiences, which results oftentimes with the audience walking away with a greater knowledge of the information presented to them.
Many could claim, however, that satirical news waters down, or dilutes, their information with humor to the effect that they can no longer be a credible source.
“Another potential problem with ‘fake’ news is the threat of dilution, undermining the integrity and substance of hard news,” “If the Daily Show increases the dilution by adding another alternative to hard news, so much the worse” (Zinser, 368-369). Though reasonable as this may seem, these views are known to be false due to the fact that all people have the skills necessary to determine the difference between legitimate information provided and humor created to draw in viewers.
In conclusion, it takes many a rough comedial humor to correctly relate information regarding politics and policy through humor, but when done effectively the people can gain a further understanding of their political world. Late-Night comedy provides these insights into governmental policy, and ultimately improves political efficacy in the process; moreover, satirical news is enjoyable for everyone, whether at the age of two or twenty-two, all while mentally stimulating thought processes without actual thought, and filling the minds of Americans with reliable information regarding their governmental
system.

Works Cited
Moy, Patricia. "Priming Efects of Late-Night Comedy." Oxfordjournals.org. N.p., 22 July 2005. Web. 22 Sept. 2014.
Zinser, Jason. "The Good, the Bad, and The Daily Show." They Say, I Say With Readings. Ed. Jason Holt. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 363-78. Print
Cao, Xiaoxia. "Int. Journal of Public Opinion Research." Political Comedy Shows and Public Participation in Politics. Oxford University Presss, 20 Mar. 2008. Web. 22 Sept. 2014.
Johnson, Steven. "Watching TV Makes You Smarter." They Say, I Say With Readings. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 277-94. Print