The video here, in case you don't TiVo Ms. Burnett's show.
My reaction:
1. Since when is it good journalism to interview ONE person and call it a day? I'm no journalism student, but I don't think one guy (who's being ridiculed for being unemployed?!) is particularly representative of a movement that's purposely styled as being leaderless.
2. I'm also not a drummer, but even I know those are CONGA drums (and, if my eyes don't deceive, a djembe, broken bass drum, and 5-gallon tub) in the video clip that corresponds with Erin describing "bongos" (0:47). They are not bongos. Bongos are shown in the previous clip (0:46, meant to illustrate "banjos"). If you're going to mock something, Erin Burnett, please at least know what you're talking about. (That said, come on OWS guys, I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to use drumsticks with congas...you're just hurtin' the cause.)
3. I'm not a pop culture expert either. But I'm aware of the existence of a funny bit called "Really?!" (or "Really?! with Seth and Amy" or "Really?! with Seth Meyers" from Saturday Night Live. Erin Burnett and her staff have to know about this, right? This article backs me up, too. So I figure this is a good time to commemorate Burnett's shout-out to SNL with a little clip from 2009, which is fitting in its re-illustration that the anger at Wall Street isn't brand new. (This article gives some background, for your reading pleasure):
http://www.hulu.com/
4. Uh oh, Wikipedia says she was wrong anyway! Hmmm, I almost trust Wikipedia as much as I trust Erin Burnett right now; at least Wikipedia spares me the attitude.
Fortunately, it doesn't seem like everyone is so confused or immediately judgmental about the OWS movement. Now, John C. Reilly lookalikes aren't usually my cup of tea, but Alan Grayson is my new celebrity crush. This is why:
http://www.politicususa.com/
I'd love to hear anyone's reactions on whether Burnett gave a fair shake to the OWS protesters. We've been talking in class about how the media doesn't tend to lend much credibility in their reporting of movements that challenge the status quo, and I think this might be a really perfect example. They're not quite ignoring it (which I believe was the media's first reaction to OWS), but by mocking it, they're not exactly legitimizing it now either. How do we get to know whether it's truly legit or not, if this
Thanks Allison for this post. I do share similar feelings on the 'Seriously?!' segment about Occupy Wall Street. But it seems that people would prefer to watch a show called 'Seriously?' as opposed to a documentary titled 'The analysis of the present problem in Wall Street'. I know that having a savvy title is no excuse for the content of the news report to be less objective, but sadly these less objective shows seem to be keeping the ratings of these networks up. I don't know what needs to be done. I am still trying to wrap my head around this unfortunate phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, Ayanfe! You're right that slick packaging will get people to show up - and fair enough. I take far less issue with the sassy segment title than with the content of the "reporting." (Read: I found the Wikipedia page on fallacies and found quite a few that Burnett committed: poisoning the well, appeal to ridicule, fallacy of composition...). Unfortunately, you're right; this kind of extreme reaction/unnecessary creation of a spectacle is indeed what gets the viewers, since the absurd is what gets seen and passed around (exhibit A, above... hmmm, could Burnett have just been trying to start her new show with a bang?!?!)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not kidding, people need to stop stereotyping bongos as seen in both Erin Burnett's and Bill Maher's videos above. There are Cuban musicians rolling in their graves, seriously.