Really? Well, I suppose we could begin by problematizing phrases like "free press" and "high hopes" to better understand how this relates to our current networked media. There seems to be an unspoken, at other times clearly indicated, classification for what we take to be "serious" news versus mere farce or caustic satire. Depending on the demographic, one will take the satire as serious, and the other the serious as straight faced farce, i.e. a joke.
In this current election, it has been noted that Newt Gingrich will not do well with women voters. Given the nature of the 'scandal' (I use the term loosely here), and since we have so many women in our class, I'm curious.
I'm relating this post to the overarching sentiment that I began this post with. It is a popular and fashionable idea in the history of communication and media, i.e. the faith and hope that we humanity have placed upon the potential of our communication to bring about democracy and dialogue.
So... Does this sort of media have anything to contribute to democracy? If so, how and what? If not, why?
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Indecision 2012 - The Freaker of the Spouse - Newt Gingrich's Negotiation Skills|