Does satirical television have the same meat and bones as traditional news coverage?
News satire has possibly been around as long as journalism itself. News satire is an easy way to mimic a credible news source or story in achieving a wider distribution.
News satire can also be considered fake news or mock news, using a type of parody presented in a format usual of mainstream journalism, and called a satire because of its content.
Unfortunately, news satire exists to make social commentary in a form that includes entertainment. For the reason that news satire depends on irony and deadpan humor, it is occasionally misconstrued for real news.
These days it looks as if one would think that Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show are main sources of news. Satirical television is funny and keeps you up to date on what is really going on in the world. Why not include funny with serious to get the point across?
Take a look at Stephen Colbert on his testimony where he appears before the senate committee to speak on behalf of the migrant farm workers.
Did Stephen Colbert’s humor help or deflect the cause? Will most of the population agree with what he had to say or how he said it? Will people think that just getting the attention out there is the way to go, as was the thought behind Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren of California, for inviting, Colbert?
Should satirical news be what you watch after you have read or watched traditional news sources? Who is to say that you should know all the facts about the news before you can sit back and actually understand the humor of shows like The Daily Show? Will watching what is considered mainstream news first, influence what you actually think about News Satire? Or vice versa with watching The Daily Show then the news?
According to Julia R. Fox, an Indiana University assistant professor of telecommunication, “It should be noted that the broadcast network news stories about the presidential election were significantly shorter, on average, than were The Daily Show with Jon Stewart stories,” said Professor Fox. “The argument could be made that while the amount of substance per story was not significantly different, the proportion of each story devoted to substance was greater in the network news stories … On the other hand, the proportion of stories per half hour program devoted to the election.”
Using the entire half-hour programs as the basis of analysis yielded the same results: there was just as much substance to The Daily Show’s coverage as there was on the network news. And The Daily Show was much funnier, with less of the hype—references to photo ops, political endorsements, and polls—that typically overshadows substantive coverage on network news, according to the study.
In the example below the clip is clear with The Daily Show as you can see the contrast of where and what The Daily Show considers what is vital, and what is the hard news on the Colbert interview.
Where does your news come from? Do you get it from the Stephen Colbert or The Daily Show with John Stewart? Or are you from the generation of old traditional news forms: television, radio, or the newspaper?
Should news be allowed to be distorted and converted into comedic humor? Will this be the way of the future of how the public should receive news? Think about it, it’s quick and easy and it can be downloaded from anywhere to anywhere, at any given time. So go ahead and sit back and watch serious issues be made into funny skits, while hoping the heart of the matter receives the attention it deserves….……