I agree with Lee Siegel when he states “we are living a popularity culture, where being liked is the supreme value” (154). In trying to prove his point, uses Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as examples. He describes them as ridiculous and sarcastic, but I happen to enjoy both of their shows. What I do not understand is why Siegel uses these men to try and prove his point. He could have used much better examples such as Larry King or Bill O’Reilly.
Both of those men broadcast their shows on news-based stations (FOX News and CNN). But do either of them use effective methods of broadcasting information? I personally don’t think so. Larry King, for example, is supposed to be one of the best interviewers of our time. But what is an interview with Paris Hilton teaching me and why the hell is it on CNN? And Bill O’Reilly does not do a much better job. His show, The O’Reilly Factor, has the same general concept as The Colbert Report. Both men give their opinions on certain situations. The only difference is that Stephen Colbert is funny, which should not be ironic being that his show is on COMEDY Central. The purpose of The Colbert Report is entertainment, not to be informative.
Does anyone agree with me?
1 comment:
I completely agree with you. I also did not understand why Siegel was attacking Stewart and Colbert for pushing out more information when there are more reliable news stations that are doing practically the same thing. Stewart and Colbert are comedians, not journalists or news broadcasters even though in their show they do mimic them. I do not think anyone who watched those shows actually watch for the factual information. They watch it because it is funny, plain and simple. I’m not sure why Siegel believes our generation actually relies on comedy programs as our source of the news, because like you said they are on the Comedy Central network. I’m not sure why Siegel expected something else from their shows.
You made a great example with Larry King and Bill O’Reilly because people actually do watch their shows for news, not for comedy. They do have some pointless interviews; with like you mentioned, Paris Hilton. She definitely is not contributing any knowledge into our society. Those shows should be trying to turn the mass amounts of information into some form of knowledge for our population. Siegel should have targeted them; he would have made a much better, reasonable argument.
Post a Comment