Glenn Beck's reporting style is unique indeed and (leaving my personal opinions out of this) arguably more open to parody than some other broadcast figures. However, I would like to examine the act of parody itself in terms of media framing. Framing is the process, both voluntary and involuntary, by which certain aspects of texts and categories of texts as a whole become more prominent through selection and broadcasting. News stories will frame certain issues and certain aspects about stories every day. For example, the whole concept of a "mean world" expectation from people comes form the media reporting only violent and negative stories or highlighting aspects such as death and destruction in other stories. The Middle East is a topic in particular comes to my mind when thinking of news framing. But I digress.
In the Baran and Davis readings, the concept of formed expectations comes into play. It is states that "Expectations are often associated with and can arouse strong emotions such as hate, fear, or love," (Baran & Davis, 315). These expectations are what interact with potential framing displayed by the media and media texts. Comedy routines such as those on The Daily Show engage in framing of their own. The parody style in these shows takes the small quips and unique behaviors/flaws of an individual or story and puts them front and center. The end product of such a framing exercise is ultimately suppose to be laughter or comedic value. In reference to the expectations discusses in Baran & Davis, I would like to propose that laughter and entertainment are also an emotion that can unconsciously cause certain opinions to occur with these shows. Considering our generation reports that a majority of our news digestion comes from these shows is a perfect example. We go in to such a program expecting comedy and laughter. However when the issues that are poked at are brought up in discussion, students will report that they heard about such a thing on The Daily Show. Hence, the only side of the issue they are aware of is the extremities framed and promoted by the comedy routines such as the clip provided.
However, we cannot neglect the fact that we are functional, thinking, human beings. Framing does not imply that we believe everything we hear from the media. In the Entmann reading, it is stated that "Because salience is a product of the interaction of texts and receivers, the presence of frames in the text, as detected by researchers, does not guarantee their influence in audience thinking," (Enmann, 53). When information is delivered through the media to a reciever, it is then interpreted by that receiver. This is to say that not all things stated on the news are taken at face value. Through this interpretation opinions are formed and the promoted view from the media can be accepted, rejected, or compromised with. With parody shows, certain issues are framed under a certain (usually extremely critical) light. While viewers look to the show for emotional satisfaction through comedic value, the issues are still real and are being portrayed in a certain light. Even in the YouTube clip the routine is being discussed and analyzed on another news program.
The questions that I want to propose through this analysis of parody concern our generation particularly. While independent research and opinion formation can be done, it is a question of apathy with college students. At Quinnipiac specifically, do you think the majority of students take the extreme parody of such shows at face value or a point of research? While most students will admit they learn current events from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, I am more interested in their subsequently formed opinions on the issues at hand. Do you believe these shows form a majority opinion with its college-age viewers? Do you find yourself drawing opinions that coincide with the comedy skits of parody news shows? Parody is a very cloudy frame indeed, but our generation is a petri dish for the cultivation new opinions and influences and these shows appear to be the catalyst.
At first when I saw this post, I didn't think my views of the media were really being framed by the media. But then I remembered the 2008 Presidential election. When Sarah Palin came on to the scene nobody knew she was. We all probably assumed she was qualified. Yeah, it was a little weird to have a nobody from Alaska as a such a well known political veterans running mate but he must have had a good enough reasons.
ReplyDeleteThen Saturday Night Live came around and mocked the hell out of Sarah Palin. At that point my judgement from Sara Palin totally changed from one of an interesting political candidate to one of a blithering idiot. I think a lot of American felt the same way I did.
On page 322 of the Baran reader it states that "Typically,news coverage is framed to support the status quo, resulting in unfavorable views of movements. The credibility and motives of movement leaders are frequently undermined by frames that depict them as overly emotional, disorganized, or childish." This was exactly what Saturday Night Live was trying to do. They painted Sarah Palin as incredibly stupid and were trying to get America to think of her that way too. Obviously are minds are framed by the media even if it is satirical.
The paragraph beginning with "Framing essentially involves selection and salience" on page 52 of the Entman article proves how media- satirical media included- shapes are views. It brings up the ideas of selection. Saturday night live took the worst part of Sarah Palin and showed them to the world. Now I wasn't the biggest Sarah Palin but they leave out all of her good qualities so that they bad ones are accentuated.
Saturday Night Live, as a satirical, parody based show did a great job of framing the top news in our mind for the 2008 Presidential Election.
However, to go off this Glen Beck clip, I don't think our minds are necessarily framed by John Stewart public destroying Glenn Beck in any sort of news way...but I think Glen Beck comes off looking like a Lunatic moron. So I guess in a way my mind is framed, I know Im going to look at Glen Beck clips on YouTube to see even more of the outrageous things that he has done.
Considering the increasing popularity of these comedic newscasts among our generation, I have actually never thought about the framing of Colbert and Stewart’s reports until I read your entry. You have provided a perfect example of framing that is certainly relevant to our age group. We are key consumers of comedy news programs and as the definition of framing suggests, we are making sense of our social world based on what frames and expectations of our world are provided to us by the medium that we turn to for information (Baran and Davis 316).
ReplyDeleteThrough parody, shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are arguably picking up what many of the powerful news sources are lacking—they are questioning status quo and reporting on the downfalls and mistakes made by government officials. I can honestly say that before becoming a regular view of The Daily Show, I knew very little about politics. The most positive aspect of these shows is that they both frame reports in ways that entertain the uninformed media consumer and inspire him or her to involve themselves in their governing system. The Daily Show has done just that for me. I am often inspired to further research and inform myself on the important current issues presented on the show. But will every consumer be inspired to research beyond the realm of humor?
The Baran and Davis text discusses that traditional journalism may not be as objective as it is designed to be. Many Americans (especially the elder generations) desire positive reinforcement from the news and media. They want to be assured that everything is going smoothly in times of crisis or hardship. According to the text, this reporting method is referred to as “normalizing news—news framing the social world so social issues and problems are smoothed over and made to appear as though they are routinely (and effectively) dealt with by those in power” (321). Powerful social institutions “are able to promote frames that serve to reinforce or consolidate an existing social order and to marginalize frames that raise questions about or challenge the way things are” (320). Shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are providing and promoting frames that oppose those of traditional journalism explained above; in many cases, the reports are pointing out the flaws of our governing system, politicians and questioning our existing social order rather than consolidating it.
These shows are not sugar-coating events and they are not ensuring that government is making the proper steps in reinstating status quo in times of upset. “The text contains frames, which are manifested by the presence or absence of certain keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments” (Entman 52). The shows are utilizing humor framing with these “stereotyped images” of the inept politician or journalist and other humorous phrases to make sense of the social and governmental world to the viewers.
Because our generation is actually accepting the news reported on these shows as fact and truth, this approach may impose positive or negative consequences—as any framing tactic would. Politicians, the government and other journalists (like Glenn Beck) are being framed as babbling buffoons—the comedic relief our country. By pointing out the nation’s flaws and mistakes, these frames may have inspired the viewers to research the issues further (through more traditional media) and make changes in government—have discussions on the country’s flaws, research these issues and become inspired to vote, so that the portrayed “foolish and silly” government can be reformed. Negatively, the shows’ frames may be leaving out the level of urgency and seriousness to certain situations. If so many college students are turning to these shows as their primary news source, should they be allowed to make a joke out of some of the most serious situations concerning the overall wellbeing of our country?
I feel that most college students only take the comedy on these parody news shows at face value, they laugh at the jokes that are simple comedic devices. The true satire is generally lost on the majority of them. I am citing this from my own experience of watching them laugh at the simple jokes, while the infinitely more comical satire flies over their heads. I'm surmising that this is because they lack the context knowledge that makes the satire funny.
ReplyDeleteThese programs definitely help to shape opinions, I mean Sarah Palin was essentially shot down in public opinion through parody, and so was Bush to an extent. Political figures repeated stupidity, continually lampooned and harped in this kind of media shapes the same perception as in high school when someone is written off as an idiot because their behavior is the subject of endless comedic criticism.
I don't believe this kind of program solely aligns itself with the college age audience. My father watches the Daily Show more than I do. It's also just following in the footsteps of 90s programming like Politically Incorrect which aligns another generation or two with this mentality that parody reveals the truth about these people's characters and capabilities.
I used to watch The Daily Show and its subsequent spinoff the Colbert Report often, but after watching that video of Jon Stewart parodying Glenn Beck’s show, I’m kind of glad I stopped. Jon Stewart claims to mock both sides of an issue equally, but I don’t see how this half-show tirade counts as intelligent discourse. Instead, this comes a few steps away from outright name-calling, which hardly paints a good image for a professional television news broadcast.
ReplyDeleteThough maybe that’s the point. Stewart never claimed that The Daily Show was a news show—in fact, he said just the opposite. Still, something doesn’t sit right with me knowing how big his audience is and how many people will be receiving his message and blindly absorbing it. Millions of people will watch Stewart’s antics and form their own judgment about Beck’s show and character without ever having seen it. My own personal biases make it difficult to sympathize with Beck, but I feel that Stewart’s show is effectually ruining open political discourse.
I've always had an inherent dislike for these comedic news shows because so many people use them as their primary source of news despite the host's pleas to do the contrary. News has to go through a lot of different filters before it reaches the viewer, and to complicate an already convoluted process by adding more channels only further risks distorting the message. Stewart’s parodying of Glenn Beck puts a substantially obscuring frame on whatever Beck’s original message was meant to be, and many of his viewers will continue to perceive Beck through that frame. As Entman wrote in “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm”: “Frames select and call attention to particular aspects of the reality described, which logically means that frames simultaneously direct attention away from other aspects. Most frames are defined by what they omit as well as include, and the omissions of potential problem definitions, explanations, evaluations, and recommendations may be as critical as the inclusions in guiding the audience.” In this case, the attention is called to Beck’s faults, and taking away from anything he says as a valid argument.
Again, it’s paining me to defend Glenn Beck, so I’ll try to use more hypothetical terms. If there are two sides to an issue, and Jon Stewart charismatically bashes one side of issue to an audience of millions, they’ll be unwilling to ever give the other side a chance for rational discourse. It’s profiling to an extent, and I’m sure many fans of Stewart would even admit they engage in it.
I think that the whole idea of young Americans forming their opinion off of satirical news programs is a great topic. I personally use what I see or hear from these satirical programs as a base for further research. There have been many times that I have seen a skit on SNL or a segment from Colbert that revolves around a current event, and had no idea what they were talking about, and have gone on to research what they were referring to. I have always felt that, whether it be satirical or not, they never supply me with enough information on the subject to learn what it is, or sometimes even understand the joke, causing me to do further research.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what scares me is that even though I do what I do when it comes to learning more about the subject, I feel that the majority of American youth do not. In a piece from the Baran reading, it discusses how "the credibility and motives of movement leaders are frequently undermined by frames that depict them as overly emotional, disorganized, or childish"(332).
I feel a perfect example of this was the majority of the American youth's dislike (or even hatred) towards President Bush.
By the end of Bush's term, hating the president became a fad amongst teens all across America, and many of the kids who were jumping on the bandwagon really had no idea why they were doing it. In many instances I had asked kids I had gone to school with why in fact they hated Bush. Some would have enough reason for me to be satisfied (people can feel however they would like as long as their ignorance doesn't get a hold of them), but many would only have arguments consisting of the satirical or rumorous ideas that they hear on shows like the ones discussed.
I feel it is extremely important to do further research on a subject that you feel you would like to talk about. Not only does basing what you say of what you hear from these types of mediums promote ignorance, but it also just makes you look stupid.