presentation

“They describe the ever-increasing transformation of the news into a corporate commodity. Thoughtful newspaper editors like Jon Carroll fear that corporate ownership is eroding the quality of our newspapers, telling an interviewer: ‘Newspaper-owning corporations- and I mean all of them, not just my employer- have an unwritten pact with Wall Street that requires unsustainably high profit levels. Each year, news papers shed reporters, editors, photographers, designers, and news whole. Each year, readers get less. Each year many of those readers turn elsewhere for their news.’” (Schechter, 3)

John Stewart
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as defined by its website, “takes a reality-based look at news, trends, pop culture, current events, politics, sports and entertainment with an alternative point of view. In each show, anchorman Jon Stewart and a team of correspondents,… comment on the day's stories, employing actual news footage, taped field pieces, in-studio guests and on-the-spot coverage of important news events.” (Comedy Central)
However, the site also phrases, “One anchor, five correspondents, zero credibility.” (Comedy Central)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart is an alternative broadcast featured on Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom. The show is best known for using satire to parody the mainstream news, more specifically corporately owned, right wing nightly news stations and their broadcasts.

The public audience for years have relied on these night news broadcasts as a way to receive and transmit information regarding world events, and current up to date facts. However, post 9-11, more and more of the public have been searching for alternative news. This is because of many factors, including the public being tired of watching repeatedly overplayed news coverage on world issues, and the hype and propoganda which is being deployed by even the more trusted news stations. Jon Stewart proves to be both entertaining, as well as informative regarding current events and updated news. “The Daily Show has been airing for 6 years, has 1.7 million television viewers, a wide audience who view TDS online, and a larger segment of age 18-31 viewers than any other U.S. nightly news show (Friend 28)” (Boler, 3).

Is it good or bad for people to rely on satirical based broadcasting to gain information?
“One’s understanding of political jokes obviously depends on one’s understanding of politics…” (Boler, 2)

- although it is productive for the audience to be turning to shows like John Stewart as an alternative to the mainstream media, it may not be wise to base all attention to satirical “fake news”
- audience must be able to comprehend the general idea of what is happening in the news, politically, socially, and economically, in order to not only comprehend the humour and appreciate it, but also to help enhance a better awareness of what is happening and to form either conforming or opposing opinions.
- if people are uninformed, The Daily Show instead can be defined as “mindless entertainment”.
- without being conscious of other news sources, the public not only alienates themselves
to one viewpoint, but as well is left without a better understanding of what is being viewed.
- because The Daily Show is owned by the Viacom corporation, there still lies the posiblity of the corportionations views and opnions being broadcasted, instead of satiracal “fake news”


In the Death of Media, the "TEN STEPS OF WHAT TO DO", the first and perhaps most valuable step is for the audience/public to “Become conscious of the power of media in shaping our political agendas. Recognize the important of learning more about its impact, and why media has to become an issue in all social change work” (Schechter)




Schechter, Danny. Death of Media: And The Fight To Save Democracy. Melville House Publishing, 2005.

Boler, Meaghan. "The Transmission of Political Critique after 9/11: "A New Form of Desperation"?." Volume 9, Issue 1Mar 2006 5. http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0603/11-boler.php.

Comedy Central, "About The Show." The Daily Show With John Stewart. Comedy Central. 04 Feb 2008 .

Today in the "New Yorker" (Online), it was published that "Without a Hit Razr Sequel, Profit Drops for Motorola". Many have either have heard of, or have, one of these nifty little gadgets whose proper use is being a cell phone, but range from a variety of different uses such as a portable messaging device to a video camera or what have you. I myself don't have one, but I can't help but notice its massive popularity both among my friends and the general public.

Unfortunately now it seems as though Motorola cannot keep up with themselves... by trying to renew their "old" Razr cell phone, the company faces the challenge of perfecting a number one seller which, obviously, is going to be more challenging then expected. "Executives said demand for Motorola’s cellphones had slowed and the company was losing market share. In the fourth quarter, the company earned $100 million, or 4 cents a share, down from $623 million, or 25 cents a share, a year earlier" (Holson, 1). I have to ask, is this lowering in profit due to the fact Motorola put out a best seller and can't reproduce a product as good as the "Razr"? Or is it just that they can't keep up with yearn of change? It seems more plausible that it is the latter of the two. "...analysts say cellphone makers not only need to be more savvy about what consumers want now, but also need to better anticipate consumers’ future needs — even before they know what they will want themselves" (Holson, 1).

What is most concerning about this statement is the fact that cellphone makers "...need to better anticipate consumers' future needs...". As long as it's a functioning cellular device, aren't the rest all added features? What are the other "needs" exactly? In reality what is being said is that cellphone makers need to keep up with the consumers' wish of multiplying and advancing media. This puts into perspective the idea of remediation... a perfectly functional and popular device becomes no longer desirable, because consumers want something more improved and more efficient.


Citations

Holson, Laura M.. "Without a Hit Razr Sequel, Profit Drops for Motorola." New York Times 24, JAN, 2008 24, JAN, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/technology/24motorola.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin.