Watch and Reflect on Fake News

       I decided to watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the online audio and visual streaming of the Wall Street Journal.  Both shows covered the topic of Christine O'donnell running for the US Senate.  In order to get a better understanding of who the woman was and what the issues were that surrounded her, I watched my local news station for a couple of nights and looked at primary documents that she had published.  I did not want to watch either show without having a good understanding of what was really going on in her life, and also, I wanted to know what kind of person she was, and where she stood on certain issues in politics. 
       The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was the first show that I watched.  His show was extremely less informative than the Wall Street Journal, the internet documents I had read previously read, and my local  news station.  However, he did provide some very funny material that I would remember more so on Christine O'donnel versus the long list of information that I barely recalled from the three other sources.  Stewart used mostly humor, and did have some hype and a minimal about of substansive coverage in his TV show.  When using humor, Stewart predominantly made faces and had an over-serious and sarcastic tone of voice.  In addition, he also mention whether she was ahead or behind in polls (horse race), and talked about her canidate qualifications (substansive coverage).  However, I must mention that when Stewart talked about her canidate qualifications, his tone of voice was sarcastic and he raised his eyebrows, making an expression of disbelief on his face.  I found that in deciding whether or not he qualified for certain features of substansive coverage, hype, or humor, the individuals judgement on these matters can be very subjective!  Personally, I thought more research was needed, or at least a second opinion.
       The Wall Street Journal covered Christine O'Donnell's campaign for senate with much more substansive coverage the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  The reporter John Castle, talked about O'donnell's canidate qualifications.  Specificaly, he looked at her political accomplishments and positions.  He also talked campaign issues that she might face in the near future.  In contrast with the Stewart Show, Castle looked at interviews that O'donnel had done, and then proceeded to talk about why she might feel the way she does on certain issues, and if her running for senate would be a benefit for the Republican Party.  Although Castle did give his opinion on the matter, he did show primary documents and interviews from O'donnell herself.  The actual show did put a somewhat bias spin on it, just due to the fact that Castle projected his own opinion, which could influence viwers.  Castle did not have any humor, but did mention her campaign strategies and tactics (horse race).  Besides mentioning her strategies and tactics, most of the show was substansive coverage.  Personally, I thought that watching this show could also be very subjective.  I had no idea whether Castle's facial expressions was just the way he talked naturally, or if it was supposed to be of some humor. More reserach would definitely be needed in this experiment.