Of course I could already have guessed that, but it’s always nice to be able to prove stuff.
It’s yet another sad joke, that merely because Colbert and Stewart employ humour, they’re not considered to be serious journalists…
They wipe the fucking floor with most folks who consider themselves serious TV journalists.
They wipe the fucking floor with most folks who consider themselves serious TV journalists.
And considering how little time the show airs and how little detail they’re able to go into most issues, that says a lot about the absolutely pathetic state mainstream journalism is in today.
Like ‘financial services’, the job description of ‘journalist’ is becoming is becoming increasingly euphemistic.
Has anyone edited the segments together? That would make a great educational video.
This brings back memories of my favorite class in high school, AP Physics. I found a lot of the content boring, but the teacher had creative ways to demonstrate so many things. He had what we referred to as “the Storage Closet of Holding” – packed with all kinds of things. Every class period he’d disappear into the closet at least once and come out with something related to the day’s content, like: “Here’s a cavity gravitron from a World War II radar a buddy of mine gave me…”
My point though, suddenly the complex math I was struggling with made sense, and now it was fun, I wanted to learn. Colbert makes discussions on policy (and other topics) fun too, albeit in a different way, but the combination of his stage persona and the presentation style makes you look at ideas through many different lenses.
But I think that the type of person that enjoys and gets the show factors in as well. Having intelligent, open minded viewers makes his presentation style highly effective. Since we are human, we all have our biases and will put more focus on data that supports rather than contradicts those biases. But being aware of that, something I think many Colbert Report viewers are, keeps our minds open – something that helps us pay more attention to the details and apply critical thinking to all of the ideas presented regardless of any preconceived notions we may have.
Is there a journalistic term of art that differentiates news meaning “events that happened/are happening today” and news meaning what’s going on in a more general sense? An example of the former would be “So-and-so won the election today,” and an example of the latter would be coverage and analysis of the criticisms leveled against gerrymandering or the Electoral College. What Happened vs. How Things Are, I guess.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
