Analysis of The Good, The Bad, and The Daily Show
In Jason Zinser’s “The Good, the Bad, and The Daily Show” his purpose was to formulate a response to the uncertainty regarding the legitimacy and ethics of ‘fake’ news sources. Zinser begins by discussing if it is acceptable to obtain information from a humorous and often satirical news source (in this example, The Daily Show), he points out that “the question isn’t whether Jon Stewart or the show’s producers and writers are morally corrupt people, but whether or not fake news is, on the whole, beneficial or damaging to society” (Zinser 363-364). In other words, he begs the question, can we really be an informed public that can contribute, comprehend, and function as a democracy through the projections of a ‘fake’ news source? Zinser then makes the claim that ‘fake’ news causes two vices, the first being deception due to the lack of valuing objectivity in their reports. The second is dilution, both in the quality of media from the variance of online sources as well as adding excessive news reports attracting more viewers to what is typically a hard news source. Zinser also reminds us of the beneficial aspects in ‘fake’ news. Empirical data suggests a trend that either viewers of The Daily Show are better informed than those watching hard news because of its effectiveness, or, on the other hand that it attracts viewers who already know about the current events being discussed, evidence of its success. The ideal solution, he concludes, would be to merge the two, retaining the power and persuasion of The Daily Show as well as including “depth and insight” more apparent in hard news reports, helping viewers understand different sides of the arguments present (Zinser 371). When diving into Zinser’s writing, some similar aspects from George Orwell’s, Politics in the English Language came to mind. Orwell states, “foolish thoughts, being a result of language, language has become a result of foolish thoughts....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document