When the press doesn’t call bullshit
Nick Tanner, a British comic and critic, laments that fellow comics and even the newsmakers they joke about have had to take over the role of calling bullshit because the press has stopped. Of course, we know that well in the U.S., where Jon Stewart becomes a trusted voice in news precisely because he does call bullshit. Says Tanner:
But the serious question raised by the growth of comic news is whether the traditional source of investigative news journalism, the independent press, hasn’t been doing its job properly. In a recent lecture Armando Iannucci attacked the need for comics to criticise the abuse of power, remarking ‘this is not the sort of thing it should have been left to a comedian to say’. . . . The message seems clear: until the independent media becomes more robust in its treatment of those in power, it looks likely that much of the responsibility for analysing the news will rest in the hands of the comedians.
Now see Iannucci’s lecture, where he complains that the newsmakers themselves have taken to expressing themselves through humor and parody. He says::
This has come about for three reasons: politicians have stopped speaking to us properly, the media has stopped examining their actions in anything like a forensic way, and broadcast culture has become so watered down, so scared of fact, that people are less inclined to turn to anything other than entertainment for information.Broadcast journalism today promotes itself not so much on what it talks about but on the method it uses: “Broadcasting 24 hours a day, correspondents in over 50 capital cities, giving you all the headlines every 15 minutes, up to six generations of journalists gathered in one newsroom, making you feel all the news you want to feel, even on Christmas Day.” Hi-tech software and speedy transmission makes everything instant news, but we lose sight of the skilled individuals who can process this random unstoppable flow of information and somehow construct a meaningful examination of it. We need narrative. . . .
My favourite quotation from the eminently quotable George Bush is a remark he made last year about the constant attacks on US troops in Iraq: “The insurgents are being defeated; that’s why they’re continuing to fight.” It’s a stunning reversal of all logic. Measuring success in terms of how far you are from success. An even stranger utterance came from Tony Blair at Labour’s 2004 Conference when he defended his actions by saying: “Judgments aren’t the same as facts. Instinct is not science. I only know what I believe.”
I only know what I believe. I find that one of the most chilling statements uttered by a seemingly rational politician. Apart from the fact that it overturns about 16 centuries of western philosophy and questions the entire principle of scientific inquiry, it’s also, surely, how the Taliban get through their day. . . .
There is an emptiness in public argument waiting to be filled. That’s where my lot come in again. If politicians fail to supply politics with content, is it any wonder people turn to other, more entertaining sources?
Or at least more honest.
About a year ago, I was at another Harvard roundtable wondering, whither news? And when
Tags: journalism
October 28th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Amen to all that. I’m a fan of both Stewart and Colbert for those reasons. Olberman is another one who uses satire as a way to point out the ridiculousness of much of what we’re seeing. The whole notion of “fair and balanced” as being to present all sides with equal weight, no matter the facts, is a crock.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
One could also ask why many of the most insightful critics of media (and especially US media) seem to come from the UK.
Not only aren’t we supporting investigative reporters we don’t seem to be fostering a new generation of social critics either (I don’t count the paid critics at the right wing “think tanks”).
Looks like your CUNY program has its work cut out for it, Jeff.
October 29th, 2006 at 4:31 am
wondering when the National Press will calll bullshit on Bush’s new power: being able to call Martial Law and bring in the National Guard whenever he wants.
October 29th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
You are reminding me of the commentary by Olbermann a couple of weeks ago, in reaction to a speech that Bush gave. During the speech, Bush was asked about what Colin Powell had said about the U.S. losing its position of moral authority in the world.
What jumped out at Olbermann was Bush’s phrase “You aren’t allowed to think…” that the insurgents are doing this or that.
You aren’t allowed to think. Thoughtcrime. Indeed. Disagreement is heresy and religions have taken a rather dim view of that, all throughout history.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Whether or not investigative journalists are doing a good enough job isn’t the issue. Whether news consumers think they’re doing a good job is all that matters.
And clearly they don’t.
October 30th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
The reason I love The Daily Show is that they are the only ones who show the lies and reversals for what they are. The dig up the video and compare statements side-by-side. What is so difficult about that, that other media outlets can’t do it?
October 30th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
[...] The other day, Jeff Jarvis linked to the laments of a couple of comedians, Nick Tanner and Armando Iannucci, both of whom wanted to know why comedy seems to have supplanted the serious national conversation that’s supposed to be taking place in the media and by politicians in these grave times of war—as if politicians aren’t publicity whores and the media isn’t dying to give each and every one of them a roll in the hay, the consequences be damned! (For the record: There is serious debate (i.e., nutritious food for thought) for people who live in free societies and are seriously interested in informing themselves about it; it’s available from all over the globe, 24/7, at the click of a mouse. They do have to seek it out, however. If they’re expecting the media to spoon-feed it to them, they’re asking for a junk-food diet.) [...]
October 30th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
This article and the responses are just another example of the solipsism of the left. The big three are outlets of the democratic party, and cnn is an echo of that. Only Fox provides some relief from the monotony of rebuke and dark innuendo coming from the other four. Is it not possible for people to just disagree, and maybe we don’t yet know who is right? But such a reasonable position is anathema to the Bush haters.