comedy vs. real news – USA Gov Policy

The concept of “fake news” has become a major topic in recent months.

There has always been an ample supply of reporting that is demonstrably reality-challenged. Supermarket tabloids breathlessly headline stories that strain credulity, discussing ridiculous topics about visitors from outer space, the whereabouts of Elvis, or other nonsense. Even in more respected sources, unsubstantiated articles devoid of provable facts have creeped into publications, defying journalistic ethics.

But there are two new aspects to the issue. One involves the increased frequency with which many, particularly young people, get their “news” from non-news sources, such as comedy shows. The second is using the pejorative label of “fake news” for articles that reveal facts that accurately contradict preconceived notions based on the ideology of those making the accusation.

Comedy and Satire vs. Real News

A Harvard Crimson analysis found that “Political satire outlets have risen in popularity considerably in recent years. In fact, Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” were the two most-watched late night talk shows among 18- to 49-year-olds in the first quarter of 2013. ‘The Onion’, a well-known satirical newspaper and website with a political section, started with modest beginnings and now boasts 7.5 million viewers monthly. This meteoric rise has led scholars and laymen alike to question the impact humorous news outlets have on politics… political satire chooses reports based on comedic value, which—instead of deviating from essential information… some have argued that political satire encourages cynicism, trivializes politics, and promotes a narrow point of view (stemming from the predominantly liberal leanings of most political satirists and comedians).

A Pew Research study found that a significant portion of Americans get their news from non-news sources, particularly comedy and entertainment television programs. Pew noted that in 2014, 10% overall got their news from the Colbert Report comedy program. Within that 10%, Younger males were “the most likely to use and trust The Colbert Report as a source of news about government and politics.” In the survey of online adults, according to Pew, nearly a quarter (22%) of 18- to 29- year-old males say they got news about politics and government from The Colbert Report in the previous week. That is more than twice that of 18- to 29- year-old women and significantly higher than any other age group. Also, these younger males are more likely to trust The Colbert Report as a source of political news; almost three-in-ten say that they trust it, more than any other age group.”
Advantages of Brachytherapy This procedure is minimally invasive and requires no prescription sildenafil very little time to complete. Most people experience this as feeling lethargic, moody, unica-web.com levitra without prescription or depressed without sugar. Apply 8 to 10 drops of this herbal oil and apply along the length of sexual activity Penile erection that is not firm levitra in india price enough to penetrate the vagina Inability to obtain a penile erection Develop abruptly morning erection or loss in interest in libido, then it is a psychological problem Reduced sexual desire Develops gradually and persistently, there is probably a physical cause;. Kamagra tablets are used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) in men, by increasing blood flow into the penis. *Vibrators – These are useful in urging lethargic penis into life. order viagra on line
The Report also found that Those with consistently liberal political views are the most likely to use and trust The Colbert Report. “Roughly a quarter (26%) of consistent liberals reported getting news about government and politics from The Colbert Report in the previous week. That is far more than other ideological groups. In fact, a mere 1% of consistent conservatives say they get news from the show. The share of consistent liberals who get news from The Colbert Report is similar to that of The Huffington Post (29%) and CBS News (30%), but somewhat lower than its lead-in The Daily Show (34%), as well as a number of more traditional sources including NPR (53%) and CNN (52%). Trust follows the same pattern. About a third (36%) of consistent liberals trust The Colbert Report, more than any other ideological group.”

The Impact on the National Conversation

The impact on national politics, according to a recent review by the Boston Globe, is significant. The Globe calls it “The John Oliver Effect” – an influence on the national conversation that has been known to affect policy.

Joe Hale Cutbirth, writing in Columbia University’s Academic Commons, notes “the blurring of lines between news and entertainment, public policy and popular culture, is not a new phenomenon. Yet, re cent concerns that journalism is being subsumed within the larger field of mass communication and competing with an increasingly diverse group of narratives that includes political satire are well-founded… When Time recently asked readers to identify “the most trusted newsperson in America,” Stewart was the runaway winner… It argues that they seek him out because the para-political talk he offers helps them connect with a larger community of like-minded fellows Early scholarship on the increasingly complex relationship between satire and traditional journalism has focused on the satirists and attempted to define their narratives as something more than comedy – some type of popular journalistic hybrid or emerging narrative that is a new form of journalism.…”

Comedy and satire have always been a part of the political conversation. They play a valuable role in highlighting absurdities and inconsistencies among leaders. However, there is a growing problem in that many if not most of the most popular comedians and satirists of the day tend to be less interested in pointing out hypocrisy than in promoting a particular point of view, generally skewing to the left, rendering them partisan participants in the political process rather than objective critics and observers of that process.

Tomorrow: The Fake News Debate

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.