The Importance of Infotainment News Shows to Politics

In one of our final classes we discussed mock news shows such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and decided that they are info-tainment. They provide the information in an entertaining manner.

While perusing the politico website, I encountered a part of their website called "Politico Playback." In these videos, the politico staff comb through all the various late night info-tainment shows and highlight the most pertinent parts of the shows that are of interest to the visitors of politico.com. The clips are politics related and highlight what these late night comedians have to say about current political events and politicians.

The fact that a political website has a section devoted to clips from info-tainment news shows that they have an impact on the country as a whole and are deemed significant enough to watch by the people who frequent politico.

Conflict of Interest

The Wall Street Journal reported today that Fox News canceled its contracts with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. This move follows their suspensions from the networks which resulted from their contemplating a run for president. They were canceled because they were in the process of declaring their intention to run by forming exploratory committees or filling the necessary paperwork to form an exploratory committee.

What I find most interesting in the article is the statistic reported by Media Matters, a watchdog group. Based on their tally, Gingrich and Santorum appeared on the show after their suspensions as often as they did prior to their suspensions.

Additionally, I think it quaint that the authors write "Politico first reported Fox's decision." Apparently, Politico is more "in the know" than the Wall Street Journal which happens to be owned by the same parent company as Fox News.

According to the article, Mike Huckabee is still contracted with Fox after giving mixed signals about a possible presidential run but not having taken the step of filling to form an exploratory committee.

I happen to believe that even though problems can arise from presidential candidates having their own TV shows, it may be beneficial. On the con side, it can be used as a bully pulpit, a place from which it is possible to attack political opponents without them having a real chance to respond. On the pro side, giving them a TV show will place them in the spotlight and allow for the public to better understand their positions and personalities so that they can really get to know the candidate and decide whether they feel that they would be a good president or not.

TV and former politicians

Tina Fey of "SNL" and "30 Rock" has announced that Condoleezza Rice is going to appear on "30 Rock". She announced it during a meet and greet last night. It was reported by Lisa de Moraes, the TV columnist for the Washington Post, on her blog.

By appearing on such a popular TV show, can this be a sign of things to come for Ms. Rice, getting her name out there slowly to increase her visibility in preparation for something larger? Current candidates would jump at the chance to appear on such a program as it allows them to get their name known to people who might not necessarily have known otherwise. However, because candidates would use a cameo as a publicity stunt, I am not sure whether producers and broadcast company executives would be happy or allow it.

Vice-President Etiquette

According to CBS News, Vice President Biden may have fallen asleep during President Obama's press conference on debt reduction. The video shows him with his eyes closed although he may be thinking deeply and not sleeping. However, if you pay close attention to the lady with glasses sitting behind and to the left of V.P. Biden, she too seems to be falling asleep. What does this say for V.P. Biden and the lady behind him if they both fell asleep, what does it say about President Obama's oratory abilities if they were able to fall asleep and lastly, what does this tell us about CBS News or whoever took the video- did they have nothing better do to than to place a camera on V.P. Biden?

Tonight may be a night to watch some info-tainment news shows as this is sure to be included in the telecast.

[Insert Name Here] for President

Apparently, running for president is the new thing to do. Trump is doing it along with 20(!) other presidential hopefuls.

Is running for president seen as a business venture, a way to get a name out there which, as in the case of Sarah Palin, can lead to a lucrative career as a speaker and pundit? Or is it driven by a real desire to do something good for the country?

One of the strengths of this country is that almost anyone can run for president and if they are disqualified from running for president, they can still run for election into other areas of government.

However, I feel that having too many people running for president (even at this early stage) causes rifts in the electorate leading me to posit that it may be better to have fewer candidates, the front runners running for president and appointing the other hopefuls to cabinet positions. This would allow people to vote for who they want while keeping the electorate relatively intact.

The Glenn Beck Network

This interesting article in yesterdays NY Times about Glenn Beck is quite intriguing. Glenn Beck may start his own cable TV channel once his Fox News contract expires. In doing so, he would follow in the footsteps of Oprah, who also launched her own network, the Oprah Winfrey Network.

I am intrigued by this because as the article states that "Mr. Beck...many advertisers have shunned him on Fox, in part because of a boycott that started after he called President Obama racist in 2009." If you are unable to attract advertisers, or receive government funding or have inadequate private funds, how is it possible to maintain a cable channel. Mr. Beck may have wealthy individuals behind him although that may not be so good. If he is receiving his money from his ardent supporters, then he is accountable to no one as his income is guaranteed. Compare this to being on a network in which a host's comments must be carefully weighed lest a slip occur and advertisers pull their funding (exactly what happened to Mr. Beck). Without this accountability, who knows what Mr. Beck will say and what the repercussions will be. If I had a say in the matter, I would tell Mr. Beck to re-sign with Fox.

Comments on the Readings

In general, I try to not comment on the readings as I feel that there is enough content on the internet to blog about. However, after doing the readings, I am left with some comments that I feel are worth sharing.

In the reading "The Liberal Media Exposed," one of the proofs is quite tenuous. For example, the authors wish to use the fact that "John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention...and found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry..." to prove that the media is liberal. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there was support for Bush, something would be amiss, but support for Kerry by journalists at the DNC should be expected. My issues are: 1) The reporters at the Democratic National Convention may have asked for that assignment based on their personal preference. They were reporting the DNC instead of the RNC because they are Democrats and are more interested in it than the RNC. Therefore, if a similar survey was taken at the RNC, the results would probably be the same, which would prove nothing, other than that reporters tend to be assigned to and report on things they are already predisposed to. This does not prove that the media is liberal. 2) Just because they favor Kerry does not mean that they are liberal and if they are liberal, that does not mean that their reporting will contain a liberal slant. They may associate themselves with a liberal philosophy, but they may not indicate so in their reporting. It is for these 2 reasons that I view this statistic as a weak proof.

In the reading "Advertising Trends in 2010," on page 14, the authors write "One nontrivial benefit of record spending and record airings this cycle is that many voters, whether they like it or not, were undoubtedly exposed to more campaign information than in previous election cycles and therefore were more likely to make informed choices at the ballot box..." My problem is, that watching ads and being exposed to political advertisements does not make one well informed. On the contrary, being saturated and possibly over-saturated by political ads may cause people to tune out which would make them less informed voters, proving that too many ads can be detrimental to society at large. 

Feel free to disagree but those are my thoughts on the readings. 

Politicians and Mock News Shows

According to the Huffington Post, there are a number of politicians who refuse to be guests on certain TV shows, namely The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. One reason for refusing the invitation according to the article is "the potential to commit a gaffe that is bound to make headlines." However, such a gaffe can occur at anytime and why should the fear of making it on a specific TV show prevent you from going on said TV show.

In defense of the politicians, it is possible to say that Jon Stewart's interview style may lead to an unwanted statement. However, the opposite may also be true. His use of comedy may allow for the guest to feel comfortable and relate to the audience in a fashion that is impossible to achieve during a rally or press conference.


Additionally, politicians should desire to reach out to as many diverse audiences as possible. Therefore, moving out of your comfort zone to be a guest on a different type of TV show, may be a chance to speak to a new demographic and expand your voter base.


That being said, I firmly believe that Sarah Palin and company should be guests on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.

How Helpful Should America Be to Libyans?

According to Dan Gonzales and Sarah Harting in a New York Times Op-Ed on 3/4, the United States has the technology to restore cellphone service to disconnected Libyans. The restoration of the service would involve having the US Air Force and Navy functioning as cellphone service stations. Instead of service being routed to subscribers from towers in Libya (which are currently controlled by Qaddafi's son), the service would emanate from base-stations tethered to balloons or in airplanes. Calls would pass to the Navy which would then send the calls to a satellite and from there to the recipient. The only difference is that instead of receiving signal from a land based tower, it comes from a mobile base-station.

According to Gonzales and Harting, this is a feasible way to aid the protesters and circumvent Qaddafi. However, placing the US in the middle, as the operator of the base stations, would make it super convenient for the US to monitor calls to and from Libya, which is reminiscent of the wire-taps during the Bush era which were deemed unconstitutional.

Then again, monitoring the phone calls may be beneficial. It will give the US access to the pulse of Libya and the protests. They will learn the progress of the revolution, the hurdles facing it etc... and will be able to provide directed support to the opposition, helping it achieve its goals. On the flip side, the US may also have the ability to drop calls which they do not want to take place, for example: between opposition organizers who decide to adopt an anti-American outlook. Such action would limit some of the rights of the Libyans. But then again, Libyans are not Americans and  may not have the same constitutionally granted protections.

Another Win for the First Amendment

In a Supreme Court ruling today, the Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps that hateful protests at military funerals are protected by the First Amendment. The full decision is available for download on the Supreme Court's website, http://www.supremecourt.gov/, and the New York Times has an article about the ruling on their website.

However, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that television broadcasts and internet postings might have different rules. Why is that so, aren't both of these mediums already protected under the First Amendment?

The Pertinence of the Colbert Report

February 24's Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert spoke about many of the topics we have been discussing in class. He discussed watchdog journalism with Glenn Greenwald, a writer for Salon.com and the hype surrounding possible presidential candidates with the election so far away, with Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Mr. Greenwald's comments at 8:30 about what journalism should be, describe watchdog journalism, which is so elusive today. Colbert counters with a possible definition of soft news, which is so pervasive today. What is interesting is that Mr. Greenwald's description of what wikileaks does, fits the definition of watchdog journalism. Is wikileaks filling the gap and performing the functions that watchdog journalism should be doing? If so, should Julian Assange be penalized as they are currently trying to do (not including the rape allegations)?

The Duality of Social Media

There and positives and negatives to social media. They are explored in the 2/21 New York Times article "N.F.L. Labor Dispute Plays Out on Twitter." The article says that football players, agents and some owners are utilizing twitter to give their own opinions on the ongoing negotiations. Twitter is functioning as a microphone for people who would otherwise not have one. However, being able to spread your opinion to millions instantly is not always good. A slip of the finger on the keyboard can be disastrous. 

What was said in this article can be applied to politics which affects more people and is more volatile, with careers being broken on typos and slips of tongue. Then again, thanks to social media we are offered the "unfiltered" thoughts of politicians. 


I wonder if politicians are told the same thing that the NFL players were told by the "NFLPA Guide to the Lockout," that their tweets are taken seriously and can have dire consequences if they are not properly thought out.

Subconscious Instigation

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with the TV show "This Week" that the United States is going to set up Twitter accounts as well as Facebook profiles in other languages in an effort to reach out to the social-media savvy youth in different countries. This is a great way for the US to speak directly to the youth in many countries, some of which are revolting. However, this reaching-out can be dangerous for the United States.

"In its first Twitter feeds in the Iranian language Farsi on February 13, the State Department accused Iran of hypocrisy by supporting the revolt in Egypt but seeking to prevent anti-government demonstrations in Iran." Such a statement can be dangerous for the United States because this statement can be viewed as instigating the youth of Iran to revolt. Such a revolt will lead to further suppression and possibly the death of Iranians.

This combination of social media and politics is going to be a high pressure balancing act for the US. They must balance their idealogical desire to communicate with the youth and to reach out to them with the realpolitik knowledge that their statements can leads to further crackdowns on the youth and possibly death.

Your Conclusion vs. The Media's Conclusion

The current evolution of news from print to on-line is simply the latest in the evolution of media. The original forms of media were announcements and official decrees from the ruler, which were read aloud in town squares by the town crier. With the proliferation of print newspapers and an increase in the literacy rate, that changed because people were able to read what the message was and were not required to listen to the town crier. Besides the unemployment of the town crier, there were serious ramifications. For example, Martin Luther's "95 Thesis" were written in the vernacular and were nailed to the door of the local church, a public place. People were able to read his grievances on their own, instead of being told what they were by someone else. Since people read and processed the raw data on their own, without the analysis of another person, they arrived at their own conclusions (so many people arriving at the same conclusion caused the spread of protestantism).

Today, it is possible for people to view a live stream of something as it is happening. The individual is then able to process the information on his own and arrive at his own conclusion without the outside influence of the media. This may lead to a profusion of conclusions about the same topic, something that is less likely to occur if people are reading an analysis of the event in the media. However, it may bring autonomy back to the people and allows us (people) to think for ourselves and use our own minds to figure out what is happening.

Try this experiment to see if you would rather arrive at your conclusion because of your own analysis of the event or through reading someone else's analysis of the event and adopting their conclusion. Watch a sporting event with the TV on mute. At the end of the game decide on your own who was the best player, what was the best play, what was notable about the game etc... and compare that to a writeup about the game that is found somewhere. After comparing, you can decide if you liked doing your own analysis or reading someone else's analysis. Many times, arriving at your own conclusions rather than adopting someone else's, removes the politics and the political bias from the media.

Does A Lack of Broadband Internet Affect Your Ability to Take Part in the Democratic Process

The New York Times article "Digital Age Is Slow to Arrive in Rural America" leads to some interesting questions and opens up my eyes to something I never thought about. As the (proud) owner of a smartphone, I assumed that dial-up internet was a thing of the past along with VHS players and audio cassettes. Apparently that is not the case, even in America. I believe this lack of broadband internet is not simply an issue of people not being able to watch youtube videos with no buffering time but something larger. 

In an age where so many pieces of the democratic process are on the internet, it is possible to posit that these people are left out of the democratic process. If you do not want to go to that extreme, it is possible to say that they are less involved in our great democracy than someone who follows the White House or President Obama on twitter while streaming C-SPAN. In previous years it was possible to say that there were different venues by which people were able to get involved in the democratic process: they can read the newspaper, watch something on TV or listen to the radio. However, nowadays when newspaper readership is down, TV ratings are also down and most content was moved online, people with dial-up internet or no internet at all, are at a serious disadvantage. 

On the flip side, it is possible to say that because rural America does not have alternative ways to learn about what is going on in politics, rural Americans are more likely to attend town meetings about local politics because it is one of the few ways for them to get involved. 


Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18broadband.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.jsonp

Fox News= Business= Better News?

Megyn Kelly, of Fox News Channel was asked:  

Fox makes a big deal about how its daytime shows aren't political at all, how they're just news shows. But do you think the act of deciding what to cover and what not to is in itself a political act?

It's not political. Television is a service, but it's also a business. And in choosing what you're going to put on your program, you have to figure out what's going to appeal to your audience and what's going to rate. When I came to Fox, I noticed that we wouldn't ignore stories having to do with home-schooled children being discriminated against. Will you see those kinds of stories on our competitors? I don't think so. 

Her response has me thinking. We were discussing whether or not Fox News was politicized in the news it represents. Apparently according to her, Fox News is a business and whatever brings in viewers (and by extension advertising dollars) will get aired. To me, that is better than being political. If they are political, they are so across the board, bombarding us with similar news stories because that is what the viewers want. However, if they are showing whatever will bring in the largest audience, they will be all over the place. Imagine: if conservatives watch Fox News in the early morning hours, liberals in the afternoon, feminists in the evening and senior citizens at night, we will get an eclectic array of news, which may be exactly what we should get. It will make us well rounded viewers, up to date on news which affects all segments of the population. They would be presenting as much of the news as possible, fulfilling the New York Times' slogan "all the news that's fit to print" (even though its not printed). If only it would be possible to get that many liberals to watch in the afternoon, feminists in the evening and senior citizens at night, to cause them to change their programming to bring in the advertising dollars.

Up or Down, Right or Left?

If only all things in life were as simple as up or down, right or left. Imagine if all questions only had 2 possible answers, like the flip of a coin. It can either be up or it can be down. You are at a dead end, you can either go right or go left. Such a life would be a simple life, but where would the fun be in that?

Imagine if every question in life had multiple answers. What would you do if a flipped coin can land up and down at the same time? What if at a dead end, you are able to go right and left? Such a life would be too confusing. There must be a balance.

Not all questions have a definitive answer, nor do they have no answer. Each question must be approached on its own and solved methodologically like a puzzle. Such puzzles make life interesting.