Article Analysis Essay on "Fake News Versus Real News as Sources of Political Information"

Introduction

In the article "Fake News versus Real News as Sources of Political Information" by Jeffrey P. Jones amid the book collection Politicotainment: Television's Take on the Real, Jeffrey airs concern regarding how the modes of acquiring political knowledge by the younger generation are comprehended. This perception emanates from the allegory that several young people obtain most of their political facts from comedy talk shows, predominantly The Daily Show presented by Jon Stewart (Lover 33). In the start of the article, the author, Jones, affirms to prove that the underlying roots of the allegory are false and through the employment of the compare and contrast technique will demonstrate how The Daily Show enlightens its viewers in approaches that mainstream media barely does (Jones 179). The article is written in three sections after the introduction part: "The Myth of Young People and Knowledge of Public Affairs", "News Reports by The Daily Show and CNN," and "Fakeness, Reality, and the Postmodern Viewing Public." Jones disintegrates the argument on the other end in a logical manner that paves the way for his argument. Jones employs rational language throughout the delivery of his case as he evaluates and opposes the common notion that the only real news emanates from the traditional news programs.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center happens to be the source of the myth about young Americans. The study deliberated for the people as well as the press reported that "47 per cent of people under the age of thirty were informed at least occasionally regarding the campaign or candidates by the late night talk shows" (Jones 180). The results from this survey were inconclusive; hence they formed the basis for the myth. Jones disproves the argument by highlighting that the survey question was way too generalised for even the least facts to be collected. It is believed that bias and misinterpretation must have distorted the results.

Furthermore, Jones indicates why the survey was susceptible to inaccurate data: "the question doesn't help us understand the underlying normative assumption of whether the respondent should know the differences between Al Gore's and Bill Bradley's positions on Social Security reform, or whether the respondent is simply expected to know their names and that they are running for office" (Jones 181). The overall structure of the question applied by the Pew research Center eliminates any potential evidence that could be picked from the information because the answers provided by the respondents would be varied in the initial perception. Jones critically analyses the inferences of what "being informed" implies and further explains that the survey did not give any credibility to it. However, Jones does not assert what "being informed" is to him; he claims that the notion has several explanations to be defined precisely. By re-affirming this, Jones discredits the survey.

In the article, there exists a compare and contrast approach regarding the coverage of both The Daily Show as well as CNN. By bringing the two shows at a close-up, Jones can identify the infinite variations in what is typically reported and how it is presented. The Daily Show happens to report more news compared to what is indicated by mainstream television such as CNN. The Daily Show explores and reports the scenes captured from the actual coverage rather than reporting in summarisation form. The parts that CNN omits can include more in-depth clips of the events and the tapings of presidential speeches to the personal interviews with candidates.

In some cases, such coverage can be regarded as insignificant by the journalists. In the article, Jones claims, "the speech covered by CNN does not include policy material they initially agreed merited free air time as a newsworthy presidential statement" (Jones 187). This distinction is essential as proof for the people because it not only backs up the point of CNN failing to air sufficient and "good" news but in comparison puts The Daily Show at a better position (Hennefeld 2). These points sum up to Jones disproving another part of the argument by those who oppose the idea of acquiring political information from comedic news programming where he employs critical fallacy that their case is not legitimate if either its evidence or inference is false. In this view, they must assume that mainstream media is more informative than nonmainstream press for it to be factual. The comparisons made by Jones illustrate that not only did CNN report less news but also that it "simply repeats the administration's position, as is standard journalistic convention," and how Jon Stewart on The Daily Show approached similar political issues is that he, "reported this part of speech differently, but with much more scrutiny to what Bush actually said" (Jones 185). These apparent differences illustrate to the audience that not only does The Daily Show provide in-depth information, but also that the information provided contains a higher quality compared to its competitors.

The concept of quality is essential to readers and viewers. Jones mentions that "the Daily show can provide quality information that citizens can employ in making informed choices about national politics" (Jones 193). The word choice demonstrated by Jones is crucial since the concept of "quality" and "myth" disagrees on a consistent level; when these two words are used concurrently, the reader should be able to cast out the fake argument almost immediately. It can be captured that after the substantiation put across to support Jones' claim that The Daily Show offers elaborate news, the credibility of CNN's news goes down. This leads us to the question of what is "real" when it comes to the two sides of news reporting.

In the third section of the article "Fakeness, Reality, and the Postmodern Viewing Public", Jones confirms his point. Jones claims that news broadcasting channels such as CNN are no more "real" than The Daily Show. Hence CNN news is termed as "fake" How Jones starts to mention this "myth" as fact begins to transform the terminology in other aspects such as "fake" into "real" and so on. This gives his argument a more firm stand, and it opens up the questioning of public news. Drawing back to the words employed in the title of this part, Jones applies the words to illustrate that the "reality" is not always comprehended by the public and is thus difficult to recognise. The contest between reporter and comedian tends to contradict between "real", and "fake" and Jones claim that "the postmodern claim that 'fake' is more real than the 'real' is perhaps not such an unsettling notion after all" (Holt 1). Jones further refers to "real" news as less than credible when gathering political information.

Conclusion

In the entire article, there is an aspect of making efforts to disprove the allegory that "47 per cent of people under the age of thirty were 'informed at least occasionally' about the campaign or candidates by late night talk shows". Not only does Jones disagree with this statistical figure, but also enforces the concept of authenticity in the knowledge that an audience can derive from comedic news programs such as The Daily Show. Jones achieves to illustrate all that through his critical deconstruction of the myth and the implications in a chronological manner while questioning the accepted theories. There are the use and impact of words such as "fake" and "myth". Jones also goes further to persuade the reader on what news should entail, ranging from quality to authenticity. By questioning and later rejecting his opposing side, Jones affirms to the readers that his theory is not only reasonable but is the most rational concept.

Works Cited

Hennefeld, M. "Fake news: From satirical truthiness to alternative facts." New Politics (2017).

Holt, Jason, ed. The Daily show and philosophy: moments of zen in the art of fake news. John Wiley & Sons, 2009.

Jones, Jeffrey P. "Fake News versus Real News as Sources of Political Information: The Daily Show and Postmodern Political Reality." Politicotainment: Television's take on the real (2007): 129-149.

Jones, Jeffrey P. "The Daily Show and Postmodern Political."

Love, Robert. "Before Jon Stewart." Columbia Journalism Review 45.6 (2007): 33.