The year 1963 was pivotal for broadcast news. Walter Cronkite forever changed how the American people receive their news when he anchored the first 30 minute nightly news. During the 60s, television news had two stron...The year 1963 was pivotal for broadcast news. Walter Cronkite forever changed how the American people receive their news when he anchored the first 30 minute nightly news. During the 60s, television news had two strong rivals： the newspaper and the radio. The target audience for nightly newscasts was to a generation of people that were used to getting news elsewhere. Since people were familiar with getting the news from radio, news stations relayed the news the same way as it was done on the radio： as talking heads. In other words, the news stations used a trusted face to read the news to people without any improvements on presentation. This all changed when CBS and NBC saw a robust and lucrative future for the nightly news. This paper will outline the steps taken by the two networks to make an extended half hour evening news a reality.展开更多
For a young, media savvy, radically globalized generation, television as a platform for news has lost momentum. Ironically, however, in a media landscape with a variety of news providers competing for audiences and tr...For a young, media savvy, radically globalized generation, television as a platform for news has lost momentum. Ironically, however, in a media landscape with a variety of news providers competing for audiences and trust, television news parodies like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report attract new audiences as they seem to fill a gap. They succeed not only in entertaining and informing （even educating） a previously ＂deactivated＂, relatively young target audience, but also in initiating activism by using old and new （social） media. How can it be that a comedy show succeeds in promoting reason and gets young people to stand up for more sanity in politics and culture？ In the sense that, in this case, critical （subversive） practice comes fxom within the mainstream, is television, as the platform that has been criticized for ＂dumbing down＂ audiences （cf. Postman 1985）, actually becoming the solution for commitment7 In this constellation, what is the role of self-determined （intrinsic） and acquired （extrinsic） practices in relation to mobilized practices and practices determined by other factors？ And how do they work differently in comparison to the subversive practices of tactical media and media activism that question the methods of biopower？ This paper examines several responses to the （more and less serious） calls for action of the two shows and discusses their delicate role as entertainers, watchdogs, and activists for reason, sanity, and what is left of truth in the media. Furthermore, implications for critical media studies are considered by questioning the claims of education towards truth （of. Mitterer, 1983）.展开更多
文摘The year 1963 was pivotal for broadcast news. Walter Cronkite forever changed how the American people receive their news when he anchored the first 30 minute nightly news. During the 60s, television news had two strong rivals： the newspaper and the radio. The target audience for nightly newscasts was to a generation of people that were used to getting news elsewhere. Since people were familiar with getting the news from radio, news stations relayed the news the same way as it was done on the radio： as talking heads. In other words, the news stations used a trusted face to read the news to people without any improvements on presentation. This all changed when CBS and NBC saw a robust and lucrative future for the nightly news. This paper will outline the steps taken by the two networks to make an extended half hour evening news a reality.
文摘For a young, media savvy, radically globalized generation, television as a platform for news has lost momentum. Ironically, however, in a media landscape with a variety of news providers competing for audiences and trust, television news parodies like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report attract new audiences as they seem to fill a gap. They succeed not only in entertaining and informing （even educating） a previously ＂deactivated＂, relatively young target audience, but also in initiating activism by using old and new （social） media. How can it be that a comedy show succeeds in promoting reason and gets young people to stand up for more sanity in politics and culture？ In the sense that, in this case, critical （subversive） practice comes fxom within the mainstream, is television, as the platform that has been criticized for ＂dumbing down＂ audiences （cf. Postman 1985）, actually becoming the solution for commitment7 In this constellation, what is the role of self-determined （intrinsic） and acquired （extrinsic） practices in relation to mobilized practices and practices determined by other factors？ And how do they work differently in comparison to the subversive practices of tactical media and media activism that question the methods of biopower？ This paper examines several responses to the （more and less serious） calls for action of the two shows and discusses their delicate role as entertainers, watchdogs, and activists for reason, sanity, and what is left of truth in the media. Furthermore, implications for critical media studies are considered by questioning the claims of education towards truth （of. Mitterer, 1983）.
