Hyperlink Essay

Humour. ..it’s Not a Laughing Matter

News through Satirical Talks Shows

Alternative sources of information might have started through zines and collages of fan culture however with the emergence of  participatory culture they've evolved through a multiplication of sources.  With an abundance of information coming our way, satirical talk shows such as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are acting as alternative sources of information; with regards to political news in particular.The benefits in this trend are that entertainment has an additional value which allows its viewers to get an alternative perception. The problem emerges when people take satire literally and when the information providers believe their opinion is the only truth.

Ingram points out that news can come from anywhere, however it is not news until it is publicized by a news source. While traditional media are not the only sources of information, who’s to decide that they should have exclusive accreditation? Considering  21st century news in not free of bias we are more prone to look elsewhere for information. As Danah Boyd points out “the more people working on freeing information, the more we maximize people’s cultural and structural access to information”, which has an encouraging propaganda for free speech. It is in this potential where not only bloggers and activists are alternative sources of information but the satirical shows are eye openers as well.

 Satirical shows have an agenda, and that agenda often chooses a course which questions the socio-economic and political states that the world is in. Aside from  informing the public, these types of shows can inspire others to take their lead, such is the case of the Egyptian John Stewart.

If you are doubting the credibility of information which comes from satire then you are right to do so. As the title points out it’s not all a laughing matter. The problems arise when the viewer is dedicated to the satirical show as the only source of information.  The literal understanding without accompanied clarification and reference can cause problems not only for what is being said but for what isn't as well.  If watching satirical shows such as the Daily Show, one should have a critical approach and “should not look to them for answers but rather to see them as a posting question that might lead to further reflection and inquiry” (Jenkins).

Despite the problems of satirical news shows, and the fact we cannot classify their hosts as traditional journalists, they are providing an alternative counterargument to much of the mainstream media. These shows can be an appropriation of indymedia not in the production sense but perhaps within the content being provided ( Chris Atton).  They also act as agents of inspiration to TV show hosts in countries where critiquing the ruling government would be unacceptable. Satire talk shows may not be the primary  news source which we should go to, but they have definitely been an inspiring source of information which might make us question the systems we function in,as well as inspire us to share the news. 

How much copyright is too much copyright?

Being inspired by the topics discussed in two of my communication studies classes I started to think about the limitations that copyright laws try to impose on the creative public citizen as well as the active public citizen.

If we are going to implement change then it is almost primary that we utilize the tools and the works of art/culture that were created by others before us. A wave of people who are producing content for the sake of sharing, teaching, and celebrating creativity and art form, and not for making a profit is something of a problematic notion.

Economists and certain artists (Metallica) alike are baffled and appalled by this trend,considering it a form of theft.In most cases the value of mash-ups, remixes and collages is not measured in monetary but rather cultural value and despite that, the author of the original piece of work is "threatened".

Well too bad! If we don't speak out then we will feel threatened. Our everyday lives have been transformed due to our ability to not only enjoy art but also utilize it towards a cause. Internet has allowed us to discover and reshape content in a way which we never thought was possible. The appropriation of content motivates, inspires and engages us to share and not just to passively consume. Imposing limitations which are irrelevant just cages people up. Now not to be mistaken with taking someone's work and claiming it your own, in a pure form of plagiarism, but rather giving credit where credit is do while giving it your own appropriation. The laws of copyright should not be so black and white but rather should incorporate the current stage of the digital movement, and the civil movement within it. Laws that choke creativity should be disregarded because those are the same laws that can choke positive civil change; it should all be balanced.

We may not all be incredibly talented to produce something purely original, I don't think anyone has ever because works of the future are inspired by the works of the past . For all the artists which are a part of a multi billion industry :if you were a true artist that was in it for the music you would find alternative ways to make money and that would not be your primary concern. Just like it's not the primary concern of active consumers who are becoming producers of their own entertainment.

What do you think? Do you feel empowered, or do you feel like a dangerous criminal when you share, re-create someone else's work or download illegally?