Is it News or "News?"

Geoffry Baym discusses in his article “The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism," the modes of discourse presented in "fake" newscasts like the Daily Show. Baym says, “This is not simply the move toward “infotainment,” although the fundamental blurring of news and entertainment- a conflation that cuts both ways- certainly is a constituent element. Rather, it is a more profound phenomenon of discursive integration, a way of speaking about, understanding, and acting within the world defined by the permeability of form and the fluidity of content. Discourses of news, politics, entertainment, and marketing have grown deeply inseparable: the languages and practices of each have lost their distinctiveness and are being melded into previously unimagined combinations." This can be clearly seen in the video above. In the very opening scene we see a title reading "The Daily Show" that is very similar to that which you would see on a news cast. It then cuts to Jon Stewart at his desk, talking to his audience like it is a talk show. These are two forms of the discourse of which Baym discusses. Baym also says, “Drawing on live broadcast coverage of public statements and government proceedings, the content of The Daily Show resembles much of the mainstream news media. Empowered by the title of “fake news,” however, The Daily Show routinely violates journalistic conventions in important ways. For one, while it covers the same raw material as does the mainstream news, its choices of sound bites turn contemporary conventions on their head.” (264) This is a technique that is often used by both the "real" news and the "fake" news. This is the process by which audio clips are manipulated to make the same argument as the rest of the news clip.

I Think of Them as Friends

I found "I Think of Them as Friends"- Interpersonal Relationships in the Online Community by Nancy Baym to be a very interesting article on a couple different levels. This article discusses the people on R.A.T.S. (a soap opera discussion and opinion site) and how they interact with each other. So, you would think that a website filled with cat loving (it says it in the text!), soap opera watching women talking about their opinions of the show would be full of opposition, but it is surprisingly not so. They call oppositional language "flaming," and it is looked down upon in the R.A.T.S. community. Instead of resorting to "flaming," these women avoid confrontation. The do this by qualifying their opinions (like "I may be wrong but...), apologizing for disagreeing, and by framing their argument as non-offensive (as in "I think it's funny that..." or "No offense but..."). They also build interpersonal relationships online to avoid confrontation. They use each others names, partially agreeing with differing opinions, acknowledging other perspectives, and elaborating on their opinions to avoid confusion. But what I'm asking is "who cares?" My view is that you're never going to meet these people.

The weird thing is...they do meet each other. They send each other gifts and lend each other their cars when members from out of state are in town. Some of them consider each other their best friends! I find this so interesting that they initiated their entire relationship on the fact that they like the same soap opera. I can't imagine not seeing a person more than once a year and considering them your "best friend." I mean, I haven't seen my friends from high school and our friendships have already lessened. Maybe I'm just a skeptic, but I don't really believe in online dating or any of that nonsense. Maybe this is just a giant conglomeration of non-confrontational people, and that is why they get along so well.