Column: Political pundits perform the news

By Charles Austin

Published May 4, 2010

Are political entertainers responsible for their fans?

We love getting our news from TV. A 2008 poll by the Pew Research Center showed 70 percent of Americans consider TV a primary source for national and international news. I am curious to see, however, which particular programs people were referring to when they took the poll. Does somebody who only watches Glenn Beck or The Daily Show really get his or her news from TV?

It seems to me there are two types of news-related TV programming. There's "the news" and then there are entertainers who talk about the news. This latter category includes pundits, comedians and whatever "Fox and Friends" is supposed to be.

In my experience, the majority of these latter types (at least claim to) understand their role as entertainers first and foremost. But according to a 2009 poll by Rasmussen Reports, nearly a third of Americans under 40 believe programs like "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show" "are taking the place of traditional news outlets."

This wording is a bit dubious, but at the very least it proves there's a perception that a sizeable portion of the population is conflating news programming with news-oriented programming. And it begs an important question. Is a pundit or a comedian responsible for his audience taking his ideas too seriously?

Glenn Beck has publicly stated, "If you take what I say as gospel, you're an idiot." It's rhetoric like this that makes Beck so divisive. What he's saying in this instance is actually pretty reasonable. However, his detractors like to distort this kind of quote simply to debase his audience, "yeah, all his fans are idiots," while his fans seem to ignore this aspect of his rhetoric.

Beck understands his ideas are his alone, and it's up to his viewers to decide what to believe. This is similar to Stewart's response to people taking him too seriously, but where Beck goes for divisive rhetoric, Stewart sways towards the self-effacing and comedic.

Last month when guest Bryan Cranston said on-air that The Daily Show was his only news source, Stewart responded, "If that is the case, then you will believe that the justice retiring from the Supreme Court was once with Led Zeppelin," referring to a joke earlier in the program. "I just think that may be a problem for people."

The approaches are drastically different, as are the programs, but both hosts take for granted their audience is intelligent enough to distinguish their programs from actual news programs.

It seems to me TV hosts don't have a responsibility to adequately educate their audience. Beck, Stewart and basically any other TV personality that dabbles in politics will emphatically deny that they have any journalistic credentials or intentions. They're entertainers above all else, and major players seem to understand this. Forbes recently ran an extensive and insightful cover story on Beck, in which he brazenly asserts his role as entertainer rather than political figure.

Although his detractors love to think there's something really insidious about Beck, I think the honest truth is he, like Stewart and the rest, just wants to make money to do what he loves.

It sometimes seems upsetting, but it's hard to deny we're better off allowing people to express themselves freely. No matter what you think of Beck or Stewart or their ilk, the responsibility to distinguish between news, comedy and punditry falls solely on the individual. Although it might seem irresponsible for entertainers to deny their impact, it's even less responsible to watch these programs without informing yourself first.