Part of my relationship with my mother requires that I hear a large amount of information that I hardly care about. I receive all sorts of news – good and bad – about people that I do not know, cannot remember, or never will meet. Maybe this is part of every son’s relationship with his mother.
So, a few months ago, when my mom began our conversation with “D, I just heard the worst story,” I immediately settled into my feign-interest mode. My mom then went on to tell me about an employee of the florist she works with as part of her event planning business who had been having terrible headaches and had repeatedly been put off by doctors claiming they were too busy to see him or perform the necessary tests. She told me that had any one of us – the relatively privileged and well-connected – had a similar malady, we would have had no trouble getting an appointment and diagnosis from the doctor, but because this person was poor and black and had no health insurance, he kept running into obstacles that were potentially threatening his life.
The man has since been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. He can no longer work. He certainly cannot afford his medical care. His family who depended on him is now taking care of him, making sacrifices in every way imaginable.
I have rarely seen my mom so passionate and compassionate about something. She was obviously upset that this man was suffering and angry that he was not being properly taken care of. And I know what happens when my mom gets angry.
Over the next couple of months, my mom did something amazing. Heroic even.
Rather than simply allowing this man to continue unaided, she, along with the two florists the man had worked for, took it upon herself to make a difference in his life. She acted on her compassion. She decided that she would not wait for someone to help this man – why wait, she concluded, when she could help him herself?
This holiday season, my mom, along with the two florists, has led a campaign to gather money for this man and his family – to be used for Christmas presents or food or health care. Their effort raised over $1,500, an amount that was matched by Target. Thanks to these efforts - efforts that were not required and that were undertaken without knowing how they would turn out - this man and his family will have the opportunity for a relatively pleasant Christmas during this most difficult of times for them.
She reported that the man was in tears as he thanked her. “I didn’t know there were people who would just give like this,” he sobbed. There were tears in my mom’s eyes as she relayed the story to me.
What my mom did is inspiring. It means far more than any of the gifts she and my dad got for me or my wife or my daughter. It captures the spirit of charity that should be at the heart of this season, during which we have the opportunity to reach out and help those not as fortunate as ourselves. And perhaps most inspiring, it shows what happens when people act. It is so easy to simply criticize and ponder the ills of the world. It is far more difficult to act. But it is only when people act out of compassion for others or passion for making a difference that things change.
Thank you, Mom, for living this lesson this holiday season.
December 18, 2006
December 11, 2006
Leaving Brown Behind - Part II
[NOTE: This is a follow up to last week's column]
During the Supreme Court hearing on the voluntary school integration cases heard last Monday, I was struck by a question posed by Justice Antonin Scalia. For the past week, I have grappled with the question and its implication, struggling to figure out how I might have answered it.
Frank Mellen, the attorney representing the Jefferson County (Kentucky) Public Schools, was attempting to make a distinction between the use of race confronted in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the use of race by the JCPS plan aimed at maintaining a racial balance in schools of between 15 and 50 percent African American students. Brown was different, Mr. Mellen argued, because there existed two entirely distinct school systems, one white and one black. “That stigmatized the black children. It sent the message that the white race was dominant and superior and that the black race was inferior.”
At the word “stigmatized,” Justice Scalia piped up. He wondered whether the assumption underlying the JCPS plan was not itself stigmatizing. The JCPS plan, Justice Scalia said, was “based on the notion that a school that is predominantly black or overwhelmingly black cannot be as good as a school that is predominantly white or overwhelmingly white.” The potentially stigmatizing message sent by that assumption, Justice Scalia asserts, is similar to the message in Brown – that the white race is superior and the black race is inferior.
What Justice Scalia’s question exposes is that the JCPS plan to provide a quality education to all of its students is based upon the assumption that quality educational may not be available for students in a mostly-minority school. That assumption, Justice Scalia suggests and I agree, is potentially stigmatizing.
But the assumption Justice Scalia is so concerned about is not really an assumption at all, but a statistically-verified fact. Students in the typical mostly-minority schools do not receive the same quality educational opportunities as students in mostly-white schools or racially-balanced schools. This is measured in terms of teacher experience, teacher qualification, access to honors courses, diversity of curriculum, and many other ways.
So, after a week of wondering what made Justice Scalia wrong, I’ve concluded that he is actually right. Yes, it is stigmatizing to assume that black schools will not be as good as white schools. But, it is also stigmatizing – and far more damaging, in my opinion – to ignore the fact that mostly-minority schools typically are not as good as white schools and then confine black students to those mostly-minority schools.
In an ideal world, plans like that in JCPS would not have to exist to ensure that the most students receive a quality education. But we do not live in an ideal world. In the world we live in, Justice Scalia is likely to vote to strike down the JCPS plan. He will do so knowing that the effect will likely be an increase in the number of minority students attending mostly-minority schools. And he will do so knowing that mostly-minority schools in the United States in 2006 (the real world) do not typically provide equal educational opportunities to their students. In effect, his vote will be to send more minority students to schools providing fewer educational opportunities.
Justice Scalia would probably respond to such a charge that as a Supreme Court justice, it is not his job to consider the consequences of his decisions, but rather to interpret the Constitution. In other words, it is the world that must change, not his interpretation of the Constitution, if this unfortunate result for minority students is to be avoided.
This is precisely what makes Justice Scalia’s interpretation so dangerous. The fictional world for which he interprets law – a colorblind and ideal world – is appealing. It just is not the world in which the effect of this decision will be felt. But though Justice Scalia’s intepretation can wear the clothes of colorblindness and loyalty to the Constitution, it will achieve the exact same real world result as Jim Crow school segregation: separate and unequal schools with minority children being left behind.
During the Supreme Court hearing on the voluntary school integration cases heard last Monday, I was struck by a question posed by Justice Antonin Scalia. For the past week, I have grappled with the question and its implication, struggling to figure out how I might have answered it.
Frank Mellen, the attorney representing the Jefferson County (Kentucky) Public Schools, was attempting to make a distinction between the use of race confronted in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the use of race by the JCPS plan aimed at maintaining a racial balance in schools of between 15 and 50 percent African American students. Brown was different, Mr. Mellen argued, because there existed two entirely distinct school systems, one white and one black. “That stigmatized the black children. It sent the message that the white race was dominant and superior and that the black race was inferior.”
At the word “stigmatized,” Justice Scalia piped up. He wondered whether the assumption underlying the JCPS plan was not itself stigmatizing. The JCPS plan, Justice Scalia said, was “based on the notion that a school that is predominantly black or overwhelmingly black cannot be as good as a school that is predominantly white or overwhelmingly white.” The potentially stigmatizing message sent by that assumption, Justice Scalia asserts, is similar to the message in Brown – that the white race is superior and the black race is inferior.
What Justice Scalia’s question exposes is that the JCPS plan to provide a quality education to all of its students is based upon the assumption that quality educational may not be available for students in a mostly-minority school. That assumption, Justice Scalia suggests and I agree, is potentially stigmatizing.
But the assumption Justice Scalia is so concerned about is not really an assumption at all, but a statistically-verified fact. Students in the typical mostly-minority schools do not receive the same quality educational opportunities as students in mostly-white schools or racially-balanced schools. This is measured in terms of teacher experience, teacher qualification, access to honors courses, diversity of curriculum, and many other ways.
So, after a week of wondering what made Justice Scalia wrong, I’ve concluded that he is actually right. Yes, it is stigmatizing to assume that black schools will not be as good as white schools. But, it is also stigmatizing – and far more damaging, in my opinion – to ignore the fact that mostly-minority schools typically are not as good as white schools and then confine black students to those mostly-minority schools.
In an ideal world, plans like that in JCPS would not have to exist to ensure that the most students receive a quality education. But we do not live in an ideal world. In the world we live in, Justice Scalia is likely to vote to strike down the JCPS plan. He will do so knowing that the effect will likely be an increase in the number of minority students attending mostly-minority schools. And he will do so knowing that mostly-minority schools in the United States in 2006 (the real world) do not typically provide equal educational opportunities to their students. In effect, his vote will be to send more minority students to schools providing fewer educational opportunities.
Justice Scalia would probably respond to such a charge that as a Supreme Court justice, it is not his job to consider the consequences of his decisions, but rather to interpret the Constitution. In other words, it is the world that must change, not his interpretation of the Constitution, if this unfortunate result for minority students is to be avoided.
This is precisely what makes Justice Scalia’s interpretation so dangerous. The fictional world for which he interprets law – a colorblind and ideal world – is appealing. It just is not the world in which the effect of this decision will be felt. But though Justice Scalia’s intepretation can wear the clothes of colorblindness and loyalty to the Constitution, it will achieve the exact same real world result as Jim Crow school segregation: separate and unequal schools with minority children being left behind.
December 04, 2006
Leaving Brown Behind - Part I
Today, the public schools of Jefferson County, Kentucky will take the national stage as the Supreme Court grapples with whether JCPS’s student assignment plan, a plan that takes race into consideration, passes constitutional muster. As an outsider who has studied the unsuccessful path to integration in Memphis, I hope that the Court recognizes the wisdom of taking action, as JCPS has, to achieve the goals set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision more than a half century ago.
The Brown decision in 1954 famously put an end to the practice of “separate but equal” schooling. In addition to declaring state-imposed segregation unconstitutional, the Court recognized the importance of education in preparing the next generation of Americans. “Education,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “is the very foundation of good citizenship.” The Court recognized not only the necessity of outlawing legally-sanctioned segregation, but also the value of integrated schools in helping students adjust to the multiracial communities beyond the school’s walls.
Many cities, crippled by white flight from inner city school districts, have long since given up on integrated schools. Memphis is one such city. When Memphis was faced with court-ordered desegregation in the 1970s, the community essentially fractured into a black city school system, a white county school system, and a very white private school system. In the three decades since, those divisions have become seemingly permanent. Not only are the students largely separated by race, but, as is the case across the country, schools with the highest concentrations of minority students tend to perform the most poorly.
In Jefferson County, however, the community has embraced the values the Supreme Court identified in Brown. Since 1984, when JCPS began tinkering with its own court-ordered desegregation decree in order to make the schools more attractive to more families, enrollment – but more impressively, white enrollment – stabilized.
When the desegregation decree was lifted in 2000, rather than allowing its schools to resegregate as occurred elsewhere, JCPS enacted the student assignment plan that is the subject of the lawsuit to be heard today. The stated goals of the plan are to provide a competitive and attractive public school system, to maintain community support for JCPS, and to prepare students for life in a democratic and racially diverse society. The courts below found the plan constitutionally acceptable, holding that the JCPS policy of integrated schools is “both important and valid.”
Social science has shown just how important integrated schools can be to communities and, more importantly, to students. Integrated schools have been shown to produce increased levels of tolerance among students of all races. Surveys of Jefferson County students have shown high levels of tolerance – more than 92% of students reported that they were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” working with students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
In addition, African American students tend to perform better and attain better educational outcomes coming from integrated schools. These benefits are especially pronounced in systems, such as JCPS, where integration is voluntary and begins at an early age. Indeed, the black-white achievement gap is shrinking in Jefferson County even as it persists elsewhere.
Many other cities, including my home town of Memphis, have proven unable to meet the aspirations of Brown. In contrast, Jefferson County keeps trying. With its student assignment plan and its continued commitment to integration, Jefferson County has sought to create a system that is largely integrated and equal, while other cities have regressed to a state of separate and unequal. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to embrace, as it did fifty years ago, the ideals embodied by the JCPS plan. For the sake of Jefferson County and its students, we should all hope it does.
The Brown decision in 1954 famously put an end to the practice of “separate but equal” schooling. In addition to declaring state-imposed segregation unconstitutional, the Court recognized the importance of education in preparing the next generation of Americans. “Education,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “is the very foundation of good citizenship.” The Court recognized not only the necessity of outlawing legally-sanctioned segregation, but also the value of integrated schools in helping students adjust to the multiracial communities beyond the school’s walls.
Many cities, crippled by white flight from inner city school districts, have long since given up on integrated schools. Memphis is one such city. When Memphis was faced with court-ordered desegregation in the 1970s, the community essentially fractured into a black city school system, a white county school system, and a very white private school system. In the three decades since, those divisions have become seemingly permanent. Not only are the students largely separated by race, but, as is the case across the country, schools with the highest concentrations of minority students tend to perform the most poorly.
In Jefferson County, however, the community has embraced the values the Supreme Court identified in Brown. Since 1984, when JCPS began tinkering with its own court-ordered desegregation decree in order to make the schools more attractive to more families, enrollment – but more impressively, white enrollment – stabilized.
When the desegregation decree was lifted in 2000, rather than allowing its schools to resegregate as occurred elsewhere, JCPS enacted the student assignment plan that is the subject of the lawsuit to be heard today. The stated goals of the plan are to provide a competitive and attractive public school system, to maintain community support for JCPS, and to prepare students for life in a democratic and racially diverse society. The courts below found the plan constitutionally acceptable, holding that the JCPS policy of integrated schools is “both important and valid.”
Social science has shown just how important integrated schools can be to communities and, more importantly, to students. Integrated schools have been shown to produce increased levels of tolerance among students of all races. Surveys of Jefferson County students have shown high levels of tolerance – more than 92% of students reported that they were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” working with students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
In addition, African American students tend to perform better and attain better educational outcomes coming from integrated schools. These benefits are especially pronounced in systems, such as JCPS, where integration is voluntary and begins at an early age. Indeed, the black-white achievement gap is shrinking in Jefferson County even as it persists elsewhere.
Many other cities, including my home town of Memphis, have proven unable to meet the aspirations of Brown. In contrast, Jefferson County keeps trying. With its student assignment plan and its continued commitment to integration, Jefferson County has sought to create a system that is largely integrated and equal, while other cities have regressed to a state of separate and unequal. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to embrace, as it did fifty years ago, the ideals embodied by the JCPS plan. For the sake of Jefferson County and its students, we should all hope it does.
November 20, 2006
Protecting Our Most Vulnerable
In the twelve months since last Thanksgiving, I've added one very small (but growing every day) thing to be thankful about. For almost ten months now, I've been the proud dad of a beautiful baby girl. So far, my wife and I have been extremely lucky -- our daughter is a great and easy kid and she has been healthy and happy thus far. It is this that I am most thankful for this year.
But even as lucky as we have been, raising a child is difficult work. For those of you who are parents, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. For those who are not parents, the difficulty and incredible sense of responsibility of child rearing cannot be fully understood until you are staring down at a tiny, helpless human being and you know that it is now your job to turn her into an independent person. The process is filled with joy, but it requires patience, sacrifice, and careful attention to the details through which babies send us signals about their health, hunger, and happiness.
This week, my thankfulness stretches even deeper as I realize I live in the city with the highest infant mortality rate among the sixty largest American cities. In Memphis, 14 of 1,000 infants die before they reach their first birthday. That's more than double the national average. More human beings die in Memphis as infants than from homicides. In some of the poorest areas of Memphis, the rate is four times the national average. Even though these children live in the most medically-sophisticated country in the world, a child born in these areas has about the same chance of reaching its first birthday as the average child born in several third world countries.
While infant mortality is often viewed as a medical statistic, it is more properly understood as a symptom of deeper social failures. The U.S. has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per capita than Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, but has a higher infant mortality rate than these countries. The problem is not that we lack the doctors or facilities. Infant mortality risks begin well before a pregnant mother reaches a hospital. They begin the moment a woman becomes pregnant and the U.S. -- Memphis, in particular -- has done a poor job of delivering information and services to the pregnant women whose children are most at risk.
The characteristics most highly correlated with an increased risk of infant mortality are poverty, lack of education, lack of access to health care, and a mother's use of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs while pregnant. Many mothers do not see a doctor during the entire term of their pregnancy until they enter the hospital for labor. They neglect a visit to the doctor because they do not have health insurance or they dont know that regular visits during pregnancy are important or they cannot get time off from their employer or a thousand other reasons. Even if our health care system removes these barriers in theory, many women are still paralyzed by them in reality. This lack of early and regular prenatal care puts infants at a disadvantage even before they enter the world.
As a society, we should be alarmed that in a country where we are capable of achieving medical miracles, so many of our fellow citizens do not have access to the information or health care needed to give their children the best opportunity to survive. Even in the best of circumstances, raising a healthy child is a difficult task. To avoid making it even more difficult, we must do better at getting information to pregnant women that will allow them to have safer pregnancies and births, and we must remove barriers these women feel toward seeing physicians early and often during their pregnancies and during a child's earliest months. We will not reach every pregnant woman and we'll never eliminate the tragedy of infant mortality, but we must do better at protecting our most vulnerable.
But even as lucky as we have been, raising a child is difficult work. For those of you who are parents, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. For those who are not parents, the difficulty and incredible sense of responsibility of child rearing cannot be fully understood until you are staring down at a tiny, helpless human being and you know that it is now your job to turn her into an independent person. The process is filled with joy, but it requires patience, sacrifice, and careful attention to the details through which babies send us signals about their health, hunger, and happiness.
This week, my thankfulness stretches even deeper as I realize I live in the city with the highest infant mortality rate among the sixty largest American cities. In Memphis, 14 of 1,000 infants die before they reach their first birthday. That's more than double the national average. More human beings die in Memphis as infants than from homicides. In some of the poorest areas of Memphis, the rate is four times the national average. Even though these children live in the most medically-sophisticated country in the world, a child born in these areas has about the same chance of reaching its first birthday as the average child born in several third world countries.
While infant mortality is often viewed as a medical statistic, it is more properly understood as a symptom of deeper social failures. The U.S. has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per capita than Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, but has a higher infant mortality rate than these countries. The problem is not that we lack the doctors or facilities. Infant mortality risks begin well before a pregnant mother reaches a hospital. They begin the moment a woman becomes pregnant and the U.S. -- Memphis, in particular -- has done a poor job of delivering information and services to the pregnant women whose children are most at risk.
The characteristics most highly correlated with an increased risk of infant mortality are poverty, lack of education, lack of access to health care, and a mother's use of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs while pregnant. Many mothers do not see a doctor during the entire term of their pregnancy until they enter the hospital for labor. They neglect a visit to the doctor because they do not have health insurance or they dont know that regular visits during pregnancy are important or they cannot get time off from their employer or a thousand other reasons. Even if our health care system removes these barriers in theory, many women are still paralyzed by them in reality. This lack of early and regular prenatal care puts infants at a disadvantage even before they enter the world.
As a society, we should be alarmed that in a country where we are capable of achieving medical miracles, so many of our fellow citizens do not have access to the information or health care needed to give their children the best opportunity to survive. Even in the best of circumstances, raising a healthy child is a difficult task. To avoid making it even more difficult, we must do better at getting information to pregnant women that will allow them to have safer pregnancies and births, and we must remove barriers these women feel toward seeing physicians early and often during their pregnancies and during a child's earliest months. We will not reach every pregnant woman and we'll never eliminate the tragedy of infant mortality, but we must do better at protecting our most vulnerable.
November 13, 2006
Jon Stewart is Saving America
Last week as I watched election returns come in and prepared myself for the analysis, re-analysis, reverse analysis, and overanalysis of the evening’s results, I found myself drawn to one channel more than the others – Comedy Central?
I found that I cared more about what Jon Stewart had to say about the election than any of the talking heads on CNN or Fox News.
And I am not alone on this. In its 10 years on the air, The Daily Show has gone from an anonymous program to a bona fide cultural phenomenon. Much of that transformation is a direct result of the sharp wit and political commentary Jon Stewart brought when he took over the show in 1999. Today, 1.5 million viewers watch The Daily Show each night and even though the show touts itself as a “fake news” program, an increasing number of Americans – especially young ones – are getting real news from it.
The Daily Show’s impact can be seen in several ways. First, Stewart has made the mundane hip – a Daily Show viewer is likely to chuckle at a joke about social security privatization, a sign that the viewer is aware of and understands the unexciting issue being lampooned. Engaging young Americans in politics has always been difficult, but Stewart’s mix of substance and humor seems to be making a dent. But the real reason The Daily Show is so successful with young people is perhaps The Daily Show’s relentlessness in its exposure of hypocrisy and doublespeak in politics. In a field where too many people take themselves too seriously, Stewart does not hesitate to point out the sheer ridiculousness of some of our leaders. Idealistic young people respond to this unmasking as they recognize the shortcomings of their government.
Not everyone thinks this is all that funny. Both the Boston Globe and Washington Post have run op-ed columns in 2006 criticizing Stewart for stoking cynicism, pointing out that increased cynicism may ultimately lead to decreased voter participation. However, these criticisms are blaming the messenger: Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are merely highlighting the flaws in our government and the way the media covers it. If cynicism is being heightened by an increased awareness of flaws in the system, it is the system that is the problem, not the reporting.
While The Daily Show has been receiving critical acclaim for years, it is now starting to receive some scholarly attention as well. During the 2004 presidential campaign, the National Annenberg Election Survey conducted a survey on campaign knowledge with questions on topics such as – get your yawns ready – social security privatization. Among young people, those who watched The Daily Show scored higher than those who watched four or more days of network or cable news.
A clue as to why The Daily Show viewers are so knowledgeable can be found in the results of another study, this one done by Julia Fox at Indiana University. Fox and two IU grad students scrutinized the coverage of the 2004 national political conventions and the first presidential debate on the national newscasts as compared to The Daily Show. The study concluded that the average amount of video and audio substance in the network news was not significantly different than the average amount of substance on The Daily Show. Doing a second-by-second analysis, the IU study found that The Daily Show had more humor than substance, but that the network coverage had more hype, such as references to polls or endorsements, than substance.
The fact that The Daily Show is becoming a legitimate alternative source for news says as much about traditional news sources as it does about The Daily Show. As the IU study concluded, neither of these sources is particularly substantive. But Stewart and The Daily Show are engaging young people in current political issues while exposing the hypocrisy that is responsible for so much dysfunction in Washington, while broadcast news offers no deeper substance and far less humor.
So maybe Jon Stewart isn’t quite saving America. At least he and The Daily Show are doing their part.
I found that I cared more about what Jon Stewart had to say about the election than any of the talking heads on CNN or Fox News.
And I am not alone on this. In its 10 years on the air, The Daily Show has gone from an anonymous program to a bona fide cultural phenomenon. Much of that transformation is a direct result of the sharp wit and political commentary Jon Stewart brought when he took over the show in 1999. Today, 1.5 million viewers watch The Daily Show each night and even though the show touts itself as a “fake news” program, an increasing number of Americans – especially young ones – are getting real news from it.
The Daily Show’s impact can be seen in several ways. First, Stewart has made the mundane hip – a Daily Show viewer is likely to chuckle at a joke about social security privatization, a sign that the viewer is aware of and understands the unexciting issue being lampooned. Engaging young Americans in politics has always been difficult, but Stewart’s mix of substance and humor seems to be making a dent. But the real reason The Daily Show is so successful with young people is perhaps The Daily Show’s relentlessness in its exposure of hypocrisy and doublespeak in politics. In a field where too many people take themselves too seriously, Stewart does not hesitate to point out the sheer ridiculousness of some of our leaders. Idealistic young people respond to this unmasking as they recognize the shortcomings of their government.
Not everyone thinks this is all that funny. Both the Boston Globe and Washington Post have run op-ed columns in 2006 criticizing Stewart for stoking cynicism, pointing out that increased cynicism may ultimately lead to decreased voter participation. However, these criticisms are blaming the messenger: Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are merely highlighting the flaws in our government and the way the media covers it. If cynicism is being heightened by an increased awareness of flaws in the system, it is the system that is the problem, not the reporting.
While The Daily Show has been receiving critical acclaim for years, it is now starting to receive some scholarly attention as well. During the 2004 presidential campaign, the National Annenberg Election Survey conducted a survey on campaign knowledge with questions on topics such as – get your yawns ready – social security privatization. Among young people, those who watched The Daily Show scored higher than those who watched four or more days of network or cable news.
A clue as to why The Daily Show viewers are so knowledgeable can be found in the results of another study, this one done by Julia Fox at Indiana University. Fox and two IU grad students scrutinized the coverage of the 2004 national political conventions and the first presidential debate on the national newscasts as compared to The Daily Show. The study concluded that the average amount of video and audio substance in the network news was not significantly different than the average amount of substance on The Daily Show. Doing a second-by-second analysis, the IU study found that The Daily Show had more humor than substance, but that the network coverage had more hype, such as references to polls or endorsements, than substance.
The fact that The Daily Show is becoming a legitimate alternative source for news says as much about traditional news sources as it does about The Daily Show. As the IU study concluded, neither of these sources is particularly substantive. But Stewart and The Daily Show are engaging young people in current political issues while exposing the hypocrisy that is responsible for so much dysfunction in Washington, while broadcast news offers no deeper substance and far less humor.
So maybe Jon Stewart isn’t quite saving America. At least he and The Daily Show are doing their part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)