Unit 3, Issue 9 of Taking Sides discussed whether or not fake news mislead the public or not. Fox, Koloen, and Sahin argued that fake news does mislead the public in the sense that comparitively, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart offered just as much substansive coverage as the Broadcast News Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. Hollander argues that fake news does not mislead the public due to fake news drawing on recognition rather than recall.
Taking Sides decided to adress the issue of whether fake news influenced the public, in response to the shift in power from traditional media such as newspapers and broadcast news television coverage to the comedic sources of information such as the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and Jay Leno. In addition to the generational shift in declining traiditonal media, there is a matched decline in average political awareness (p. 174). Taking Sides is close to being ten years outdated, and as a result, it reports that television is still the public's (including youth) main source of campaign news. Personally, I have to disagree with this data in the world of 2010 because statistics have now shown that internet sites such as YOUTUBE and TWITTER post up to date political campaign agendas faster than any show on television. Futhermore, sites such as Twitter are posted from campaign leaders and can serve as an even more useful primary source than television, and it is a known fact that younger generations participate in TWITTER more so than older generations; therefore, it could be argued that younger generations are MORE politcally aware. As a result of this partially out-dated information, I was incredibly mindful and used my rationale to take the information presented in these arguments with "a grain of salt".
Fox, Koloen, and Sahin agree fake news has mislead the public, and argue that both video and audio emphasis in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart will be on humor rather than substance while the broadcast network news casts will be on hype rather than substance. Both of their hypotheses were tested and confirmed to be true by methods of covering the first debate and party conventions from both the Daily Show and the broadcast network news. The authors tie in the media dependence theory with the shocking results of this experiment to show that younger voters with more fluid social and political attitudes may be dangerously swayed and persuaded to agree with Jon Stewart's opinions on the daily show. However, in Jon Stewart's defense, he states that his show should not be perceived as a way to gain political information, rather it is a show that "pokes fun" of political news. In addition, viewers may fall into watching more "hype" rather than substance on broadcast news networks. Personally, I do not entirely blame the viewers of broadcast news networks because it is probably that the network's dispaly hype over substance due to the "imitation of success" of other successful broadcast network newscasts. The author's believe that these finding should make American citizens concerned due to the fact that more American's are relying on these nontraditional news sources because they are just as substansive as the traditional news sources, which is not a good sign...
Hollander argues that fake news does not mislead the public, arguing that not all knowledge is the same. For example, viewers that watch entertainment-based programs who are of a younger generation are more likely to use recognition rather than recall political information than an older generation, and would associate these various entertainment-based programs as a method of learning about political campaigns. Hollander's main argument was confirmed with reserach that did in fact suggest younger generation viewers identifying comedy and late night television shows as a source of political campaign news. However, little support was found to confirm that the interaction between age and media could be used to predict recognition and recall. The research found in his studies would support that any news is good news, in the sense that any political reporting CAN in fact improve both recognition and recall in at a modest sense of political content, but how competent and politically aware these fake news shows are remains an entirely different and open question.
Personally, I think that fake news has the ability to mislead the public, but it is the public's responsibility to not believe everything that comedic news is preaching, just as the public should not believe every hype that broadcast network news reports. Although both comedic news and traditional news offers the same amount of substantive news coverage, they both have a plethora of either humor or hype. Comedic news has an excuse to have humor because it is not aiming to solely inform the audience, and as a viewer, it is your responsibility to recognize this fact, and gain political understanding from other primary sources rather than relying on comedic news. However, broadcast network news does not have an excuse to have more hype than substansive news, but due to the "imitation of success", the pressure to broadcast exciting and attention grabbing news has become a primary objective for these news networks. The bottom line is to understand that broadcast news networks and comedic news can both have a negative effect on one's political awareness, but if viewers are cognitive, mindful, and think critically, neither fake news nor traditional news would never have a negative impact of misleading the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment