« Home | Irresponsible Press Corps » | Playboy Blog Recommendations » | The Problem with Big Media » | The Real Foley Story » | Video on Critical Media » | The Death of the Liberal Media Bias Myth » | ABC News: 3 More Pages Come Forward » | This is what Journalism Looks Like » | NFL Restricts Post-Game Interviews » | Right Wing Media Blasted for Outing Pages »

Daily Show vs. Network News

Ha:
Which would you think has more substantive news coverage -- traditional broadcast network newscasts or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart?

Would you believe the answer is neither?

Julia R. Fox, assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University isn't joking when she says the popular "fake news" program, which last week featured Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a guest, is just as substantive as network coverage.
It goes on:
The study, "No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign," will be published next summer by the Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media, published by the Broadcast Education Association.
Here is the kicker:
Not surprisingly, a second-by-second analysis of The Daily Show's audio and visual content found considerably more humor than substance -- Stewart himself has insisted that he is a comedian and not a journalist. A similar analysis of network coverage found considerably more hype than substance in broadcast newscasts. Examples of such hype included references to polls, political endorsements and photo opportunities.
So humor to the daily show is like hype to the broadcast newscasts. Sounds about right to me, at least Stewart is honest about it.