The Thin Line between Journalism and Entertainment

This post was originally going to discuss the recent recent retraction of a This American Life, and how it affected our class discussion of the Mike Daisy's performance. However, Mr. O'Conner beat me to the punch, and posted is own on our American Studies blog, here.
So, in order to keep things different, I wanted to talk about the difference between entertainment and journalism, or more importantly, when we should call into question the differences.

As we saw in the incident with Mike Daisy's performance, he altered and changed facts about his experiences, which in an effort to provide a more compelling story. Only within the confines of theater and entertainment would most people consider this an OK practice. Bloomberg News reports Daisy's own opinion of merging fact with fiction, “’This American Life’ is essentially a journalistic ­- not a theatrical ­- enterprise, and as such it operates under a different set of rules and expectations,” Daisey wrote. “For this reason, I regret that I allowed ’This American Life’ to air an excerpt from my monologue. What I do is not journalism.”

Yet, even with Daisy's statement, I am left with doubts of his intentions. In the picture to the right, Daisy's desk has a shocking similarity to that of a news anchor's desk. This may just be me looking to far into it, but perhaps we are seeing an under-layer of journalism being hid in all works of fiction. And maybe even the other way around.


It is common knowledge that even the most reputable news sites and shows sometimes exaggerate or give leading statements that hyperbolize and issue. Even Don Dellilo in his book  White Noise talks about the phenomenon of news broadcasts giving reports without actual information. In the book, before being called The Airborne Toxic Event, the news were labeling the cloud as first a "feathery plume" and then a "black billowing cloud." Both terms seem ominous, and probably used to incite certain emotions from viewers and listeners. Maybe Delillo was the first to catch on to the blurred lines between storytelling and news, entertainment and journalism.


 What do you think? Is this barrier between fact and fiction really this frail? Has it always been so?

Looking for Alternatives

 Somewhat recently in class we watched a video about the Prison Industrial Complex, and how the current prison system is not working right, or at least not ideally. The actual arguments made in the video are not as important as what my first reaction was to the video, and the reaction to my reaction.

Because while I may have agreed with some of the points the video brought up, the first question I asked was, "what is their alternative?" Seems logical enough to me, right? But as soon as the question was asked, another classmate immediately followed up with the question, "Why was his first question for an alternative? Do we need an alternative?"

This point made me consider what I had said more carefully. Why do we care about alternatives, and should we?


I look first to the world we live in today, a world fueled by deeming whether or not something is practical. we live in a practical society. Here is where alternatives come into play. While we can step back and criticize and existing fact or concept, as a society, we do not see that as worth it. What is the point to complaining about something if there is no other more practical solution.

So here is where I stand. I think that, as a society, it is important, if not necessary, to be looking for alternatives. We cannot simply sit back and talk poorly about things if we do not have a better solution. It is both not fair, and, I have to say it, not practical.

What do you think? Should we be worried  about alternatives?