Yet Another Study Shows US Satire Programs Do A Better Job Informing Viewers Than Actual News Outlets
from the honey-makes-the-medicine-go-down dept
By now it's sadly clear that the nation's satirical news programs do a significantly better job at reporting the news than most of the nation's actual news outlets, despite a fraction of the budget and experience. John Oliver's recent analysis of Miss America scholarship claims, for example, contained more original reporting in a fifteen minute segment than most Apple regurgitation blogs manage to stumble through in an entire year's worth of gadget lust. Not only are satirists now doing a better job unearthing the truth, they're doing a better job explaining complex issues.Satire's continued rise as one of the country's most effective and influential original reporting platforms was again on display courtesy of John Oliver's fantastic net neutrality rant, which not only explained the issue in effective detail, it captured the attention of the dingo-staffed FCC itself (as these recent FOIA-obtained internal FCC memos indicate). It also helped spur the lion's share of the four million net neutrality comments filed with the agency, blurring the line between not only satire and journalism, but consumer advocacy and activism.
This month a new study (pdf) out of the University of Delaware once again highlights how viewers of satirical programs are significantly better informed on the subject of net neutrality than those who watch traditional news programs:
"The survey also reveals that viewers of satirical shows such as John Oliver's Last Week Tonight and The Colbert Report are far more aware of the issue than consumers of traditional news sources...Opposition to the creation of "fast lanes" is strongest (86%) among those who say they have heard a lot about the proposed rules, but most Americans say they have heard little or nothing about the topic. The University of Delaware research found that only 10% of Americans have heard a lot about how "the U.S. government is considering new rules for ISPs." Another 39% have heard a little, whereas fully half (50%) have heard nothing at all about the topic."
Traditionally, folks like Jon Stewart have denied that satire can be journalism, largely because while clinical presentation of facts easily offends the nation's roaming partisan-cheerleader zombie hordes, a humorous presentation of those same facts magically defuses, creating a narrow-minded stupidity firewall through which truth can function (or as my less verbose grandmother used to say, honey makes the medicine go down). In a New York Times article posted over the weekend, Oliver follows Stewart's lead, stating that what his show is doing is not journalism:
"So, I asked Mr. Oliver: Is he engaging in a kind of new journalism? He muttered an oath, the kind he can say on HBO for comic emphasis, but we don’t say here, adding, "No!" "We are making jokes about the news and sometimes we need to research things deeply to understand them, but it’s always in service of a joke. If you make jokes about animals, that does not make you a zoologist."While Oliver's presentation of the facts utilizes satire and humor, Oliver's staff has had previous stints at New York Times Magazine and ProPublica, and what they're doing is absolutely and undeniably investigative journalism. Unless of course you're an iron-headed, old guard news industry employee who still believes only Walter Cronkite's talking head has been mystically ordained with the authority to inform the lowly plebeians.
In the end though who really cares if you call this flavor of reporting "journalism," "investigative comedy," or "donkey walnuts." The sole purpose of journalism is to accurately inform and deliver the truth. That's something that has been increasingly lost with the rise of tepid, he said, she said news reporting that sacrifices truth for the bland, unoffensive illusion of balance -- in the process helping to make stupidity fashionable and facts negotiable. It really doesn't matter if it's satirists, comedians, or male strippers stepping up and trying to fix the broken news industry -- just as long as somebody, somewhere is trying to.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, net neutrality, satire
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'News' outlets aren't
From national to local, 'reporters' don't question their subjects on anything they say. And while it's sometimes reasonable to allow someone to hang themselves with their own words, blatant falsehoods and dis-proven 'reasons' need to be called out publicly or the echo chambers become the truth people believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pixelpusher220 nails it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
MSNBC certainly is a liberal outlet but they are measurably better at telling the truth than Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2014/02/07/study-people-who-dont-watch-the-news-are-more-i nformed-than-fox-viewers/
NO news is more informed than Fox (and less informed than MSNBC). NPR is the MOST informed. I'll wait a minute for you to clean up your exploded brains.
More details from above study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html
http:// www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggest s/
Seven separate surveys confirming Fox news viewers are the least informed
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/11/22/seven-surveys-make-a-trend-for-fox-and-viewers/16721 7
And before the response saying MSNBC isn't great either I'll add that I didn't say they were great, only that Fox was measurably worse...which funnily enough, it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
Either way, all media is biased so watching only one source is worse than watching multiple sources. But as with current internet trend of suggestion based tagging and result filtering, people tend to have too little time to watch multiple sources and the sources they choose generally allign with their beliefs more than their beliefs beign formed by the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
People who enjoy satire tend to be critical thinkers, and critical thinkers tend to glean more actual information from their environment where others would just be entertained without applying intent to the gathering of knowledge.
So if everyone was forced to watch John Oliver and Colbert, you'd probably find that the same people would respond the same way they do now, with a few outliers. It's not always that the news isn't presented, it's just that some people choose to engage with it while others choose to feel "newsed" without actually learning anything of import.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
Logical error #1: The bias of the other mainstream news outlets is not liberal. It's corporate.
"Therefore they see both sides."
Logical error #2: There are many, many more than two "sides". If you're only getting two (or if you think that those particular two are even the most important ones), then you are and are being misinformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
Yes? I regularly read AJE. Where else can you talk to honest-to-gawd IS/ISIS/ISIL Jihadis/nutbars/murderers? :-P
There are also many thoughtful, knowledgeable, and educated people commenting on their stories. It's a bit of a shock to see many Muslims hate some other flavor of Muslims more than they appear to hate people like me. They all hate Kurds, yet Kurds are predominantly Muslim. Sunnis hate Shiites and vice versa, Iran (Sunni?) hates Arabia (Shia and Wahabist) and vice versa, China just lost a bunch of Uighurs but Thailand's trying to track them down, ... It really is a mess of the highest order. To not expect that mess to spill over onto the West (9/11) is lotus eater land.
AJ does a good job of objectivity, I think. It's why their reporters seem always to be in trouble in Arab countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
Other way around, Iran is Shiite and Saudi Arabia (and most of the rest) is Sunni.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
* or perhaps just an unsupported assumption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
So, one study confirms it, plus the example you provide by breathing in and out of your pie-hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
This is not necessarily true. I have seen video used on MSNBC to push a particular agenda that was well edited out of context from the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
That demonstrates nothing about their value compared to Fox News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
Precisely. _The Daily Show_, e. g., despite a liberal slant isn't afraid to take a shot at liberals when that shot needs taking. MSNBC and Fox will hardly ever - unless someone needs to go down for someone more desirable on the same side to gain advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pixelpusher220 nails it!
No apologies, but you lost me there. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian; they've all lost any meaning they used to have due to dilution by people like you who don't understand ideas.
Zzzzzzz ... Not hearing you at all any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Access journalism"
Well, those "access journalists" needs to keep their access. The purpose for this can be speculated upon-- but it is certainly not for accountability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(taking the piss and it's intentional!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sincerely, Rich Basturd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not surprised
I think it was Tom Lehrer who stated "political satire became redundant when Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize". And the U.S. has progressed a lot since then.
The progressive comedy of lies accompanying the gradual release of the Snowden papers really had no place in actual news reporting since the abysmal truthiness content became obvious after a few repetitions and it was clear that the government was no reliable source of information. No reputable news organization would have wanted to rely on sources with such lousy track record.
I think I forgot the point I was trying to make. Good for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This happens all the time
This is why almost no Dem has heard of Gruber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This happens all the time
Meanwhile, why are your "team" so uninformed about the net neutrality debate if the only problem is the "Dems" and their chosen media outlets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This happens all the time
Who needs "the net" when you've got Fox News?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This happens all the time
Thanks for proving my point. Fox knows about him only because a dedicated citizen found him out. The Dems hid the entire Obamacare bill and process because they didnt' want this stuff exposed. Now that it has been exposed, they do their best to ignore it until it goes away. Just like Benghazi and a host of other issues.
Yes, they are uninformed and/or bought off on Net Neutrality. But my point is that most Dems believe the Dem party is not beholden to corporate masters when indeed they are. Just look at the current story on TechDirt about big Ag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This happens all the time
The corruption's gross acceleration can be put down largely to Citizens United, regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit on in 'Soviet Amerika'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This happens all the time
And you think most Republicans are aware that their party is also bought and paid for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My assumption was that most GOP loyalists
Which, granted, are also corporate interests that just happen to not produce a physical product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My assumption was that most GOP loyalists
So, lets try to do better on that Church - State separation thingy next go round? It should be freedom *from* religion, not *of* religion. You go ahead and be a luddite (or whatever) as long as it doesn't impact me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My assumption was that most GOP loyalists
When you have a government banning prayer in schools (as a non specific example off the top of my head), that's not enforcing such a seperation, it's Violating it.
Of course, so would dictating that There must be prayer in schools.
...
Not really sure where i was going with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prayer in schools
The easiest part is seeing that teachers and administrators are agents of the institution, and therefore agents of the state, ergo they are supposed to remain neutral when it comes to religious matters. Ergo, neither teacher nor coach nor administrator should lead a group of students in prayer, or risks alienating those who may not share the same belief system.
So what of a kid bringing his bible to class? I think I'd regard that the same way as if a student brought his iPad or his Nike sneakers. On its own, its a personal effect. The problem is solicitation. Once he starts pressuring other kids to wear Nikes or Apple products, that would (typically) be regarded as a problem. It's the same thing when he solicits other kids to join his faith.
Now other Americans don't see it that way. In fact in many states, teachers and instructors in public schools gladly push their own religious beliefs and disparage students whose religious beliefs are not compatible. There have been cases in which one's grades have been contingent on acceptance of one faith or another.
So given that we can't even get our own schools even to accept the wall of separation as a given, we're not yet to the point of dissecting its nuances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This happens all the time
I'm not so sure about this. 99% of the Democrats that I know are constantly bemoaning the influence of corporation on the party, so your point is false at least for the ones around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some of us have ceased being Democrats
There's too many things that corporations want that hurt the people.
Oh yeah, and then Feinstein and Boxer went full-NSA on us. You never go full-NSA.
Now I belong to the No Confidence party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This happens all the time
Er, I sense a disconnect of sorts. Where there's smoke, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This happens all the time
If your point wasn't to attack Democrats, then it appears that you had the same point as the article - that all "sides" are equally uninformed about certain issues. Singling out one party over another in your comment (while ignoring the fact that neither party represents the views of everyone on their "side") is exactly the kind of partisan bullshit that's killing your country and making you a laughing stock.
"Fox knows about him only because a dedicated citizen found him out."
Wasn't that entire "scandal" about what he said in public speeches? Nobody "found him out", it just took some time for the general public to do the journalists' job for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This happens all the time
Oops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see this being used on promotional materials for The Daily Show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comedy News is problematic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comedy News is problematic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comedy News is problematic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comedy News is problematic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comedy News is problematic
Wait. Who, exactly, do you think the mainstream media outlets are accountable to, beyond the stock holders of whichever corporation owns them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comedy News is problematic
Well, we know the NY Times, WaPo, and LA Times are accountable to the AIPAC. I suspect you can expect the same from AP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalists aren't really accountable.
And journalists that are attached to reputable news providers are only as accountable as the standards and vigilance of their editors. Some take it seriously in order to sustain that reputation.
The Los Angeles Times for instance tries hard because young Hearst had a chip on his shoulder about what a yellow-journalistic hack his father (William Randolph) was. The Christian Science Monitor tries hard as well because the founder was all about making a paper with integrity and non-bias. (And no, neither one always succeeds in keeping facts straight or staying unbiased, but there is effort.)
Tech Dirt really tries to keep all the facts straight, and have a reputation enough to draw the attention of US Senators. Probably because it has a bit of a following and shows up early on Google Searches.
But, whether solid and reputable or lying hacks (or even lazy hacks) they're all journalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comedy News is problematic
Operative word is "should", because ....
Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie
http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
Now, you were saying something about accountability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the greatest strength of the Daily Show cohorts is not reporting the news, but in pointing how how horribly the mainstream media reports the news.
Why anyone even bothers watching televised news anymore is beyond me. They are not going to tell you what you need to know, and they are mostly in a holding pattern awaiting some tragic event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing Labeled 'News' Is The News
The satire shows set out to entertain by confirming and comforting the biases and egos of their viewers. The news shows do the same thing to stoke their viewers anger and indignation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation
Having said that, John Oliver has been making some very good pieces of journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Local News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Local News
It's funny, entertaining and you learn a lot from his show. When his show was adverting before show 1, I had know idea where he was from, etc, so I wasn't interested. Now, I want to see every episode.
And everybody in my office likes to watch him too. Gives me a little bit of hope that maybe things will change with this as a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Local News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oliver is doing journalism and he knows it.
http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A?t=14m41s
That's major "serious face" there. The show contains a lot of humor, but it also contains a lot of passion for the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oliver is doing journalism and he knows it.
http://youtu.be/M_WWPHbcqZc?t=2m36s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider the source
The "fake news" outlets like The Daily Show, though, offer more facts and a good part of that reason is that, in this theater of the absurd we call the real world, facts are a great basis for humor and humor sells advertising, or a Liam Neeson once put it, in a fairly awful movie, "Bums on seats, luv"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consider the source
Actually, ideally you would consider none of those sources. TV news is anti-news: it leaves you less informed at the end than you were at the beginning. The comedy shows do a better job, but you still shouldn't be using them to be informed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth over Propaganda
TRYING to wade thru the BS to find Facts is overwhelming.
When Everyone/group is throwing BS at you and there is only 1 truth out there, HOW do you find it.
THEN who decides the truth? Esp. after 300 IDIOTS get to decide YOUR TRUTH, in the nation, and fill it up with Gobbledygook..
If I am right, the Obama Medical bill was 300 pages, and after 300 PAID LEGISLATORS got done with it..it was 3000.
Our TAX laws would fill a small Library with loop holes and incongruity.
In LOGIC of 300+ people, 200 Major CORPS(controlled by 7 Other corps), 4 FUEL corps(Natural gas, Gasoline, Solar, Nuclear,...) and 300 million Consumers..There is no truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth over Propaganda
Agreed.
Also true, though this tends to diminish over time (we hope). I used to hit Slashdot first thing every day, but no longer. I very much enjoy Columbia Journalism Review, but they appear to be attempting to monetize and paywall their stuff, so not so interested now. Just keeping up with TD can be pretty taxing. How do we find the time to keep up with the other ten/twenty/... things that we consider important? Do I *really* need six hours sleep each night, or can I use the weekends (when TD's asleep) to catch up on other stuff, and sleep?
That's a mistake. Not everyone is spewing BS. Lots are, but not all. There also isn't only one truth. People have individual points of view. You can't say that what's right for you is right for everyone else. Some things are objectively outside of our opinion (ie., scientific facts), while some others aren't (copyright, patents, voting restrictions, Spotify/Netflix/Uber/Net Neutrality/...).
You do, for you. I do, for me. Fox/MSNBC does for their viewers and shareholders.
Your country (USA) is *seriously* fscked up in a lot of ways, and it appears to be getting worse daily. Yet ca. 7 (?) billion people manage to sleep through their nights and wake up to their days, and go on in the world. They're not getting away with that if there is no truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth over Propaganda
Get your news from a variety of sources. Compare the reports of the same issues between the various sources. Over time, you will get to know what slant each source has, and will be able to fine-tune your BS filter.
Also, keep track of what the different sources have said about different issues over time. For nearly all stories, the truth does come out in the end -- it just might be a few years later. Once you know the truth, you can go back and see which news sources were closer to it than others. You'll find that there are certain ones that do better on the accuracy front than others. Then you have a better idea of which sources you can start ignoring, and (combined with your knowledge of the biases) how much you can trust which sources for new news stories.
Keeping up with the news is an active process, not a passive one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stoped reading cmmnets @11
its just liberal propaganda er from a party calling it self liberals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stoped reading cmmnets @11
Just for fuck's sake.....what is your definition of a "reporter" or a "journalist"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stoped reading cmmnets @11
I used to think it was someone who'd studied (University/College) journalism, then found work attempting to ply their trade. I used to date a journalist. It was a torrid affair. :-) I still dream about her.
Now, it's anybody who can convince GoDaddy to sell them an IP address.
Have I got any of it right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Satire is not journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh.
Should i apologise to them for not being in the right location? I cannot understand this sort of lock on this content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Philip K Dick Predicted This Sort Of Thing
Of course, he was probably thinking more of trying to make the horrors and atrocities more presentable, rather than the boring but important stuff. But it works for both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, Colbert parroted the left's view that it is simply too unfair to allow various individuals to exercise their First Amendment rights by airing campaign ads targeting politicians with whom Colbert agrees. Oliver is just another partisan hack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about editorial independence
On the other hand, the news media can sell ads and pablum, so they gave up all editorial independence long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look, Karl's doing it too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
babyboomer clean comedian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well i know people search online portal for job search but i think its getting out of style as we know there are number of apps who provide latest vacancies around different domains so i think instead of online portal you should visit following apps which are important too. Bus first of all if you are looking for football player contracts and job, you must visit www.433agent.com . There you will find a lot of info about footbal teams and offers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]