“Fake News” assignments

 

Justification #1

            This past fall, the students in my College Prep Writing class were working on argument analysis papers.  Their task was to choose a speech, editorial, or essay and write a paper in which they discussed the argumentative techniques as well as rhetorical strategies used by the author.  About a week after I assigned the paper, we did a quick “check in” in class in which students shared with each other what argument they would be analyzing, how they thought they would do it, and what challenges they had encountered or anticipated encountering.  One student had selected Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” for his argument.  He didn’t have much to say about it, so I pressed him a little and asked him what he thought so far.  It didn’t take too many questions before I realized that he had no idea that Swift’s argument that societal ills could be cured by eating children was not a literal argument.  He had no idea that “A Modest Proposal” was satire and didn’t pick up on it until I clued him in.  Similarly, about half of the students in my AP Language and Composition wrote a whole essay question analyzing a satirical argument as though it were literal.  So, it’s clear to me that students are not adept at identifying (and appreciating) satire.  From a literature teacher’s perspective, this is justification enough for teaching about Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show.  However, beyond just understanding satire so as a literary genre, I think it is important that students understand how satire works, why it is common, how it makes arguments, and why it is funny.  They will encounter satire in their lives, and the cultural literacy gained from a discussion of it is, I believe, as beneficial as the literary education.

 

Assignment #1

            First, we’ll watch an episode of The Daily Show (or part of one) to whet students’ appetites.  After it is over, we’ll discuss the following questions:

            --What about this is funny?

            --Why are those things funny?

            --What wasn’t funny?

            --Why not?

--What techniques does Stewart use in his humor (e.g. hyperbole, irony, deadpan, etc.)

--What assumptions does Stewart make about his audience?

 

            Next, we’ll take a look at some background on Satire.  Students will read a chapter from Writing: An Exercise in Rhetoric (it’s a book I used to use frequently in class—sorry I don’t have a bibliographic citation….it’s buried in a box packed away at school).  It gives some good background on different types of satire and common techniques used by satire.  Students will then try to identify these elements in the broadcast of TDS (from memory as best they can….I don’t want to spend too much time on this).  I’ll fill in gaps with examples they might not remember.

           

            Then, we’ll talk about the power of Satire to make an argument.  Students will read “A Modest Proposal” and an excerpt from William Hazlit’s “On the Want of Money”, paying attention to the argument made in each.  Students will then discuss these pieces as arguments and tease out how and why these authors use satire to make their arguments.

 

            Finally, students will try a bit of satire on their own.  Using the techniques studied and TDS as a model, students will pick a social issue they care about (could be a school/community, statewide, national, or international issue) and they will craft their own story for a Daily Show-esque broadcast.  Because their final product will be one segment in a ½ hour television show, they should keep it brief and tailor it to a particular viewing audience.  These may or may not be performed for the class (or recorded for the class to watch) depending on the make up of the class.

 

 

 

***Note for CI5472 audience—I realize that my justification for this assignment might be taking the easy way out, as it does not really address the questions raised in this week’s reading, but I do think this assignment is something I could use in my classes and that students really could use a more thorough discussion of satire.  I’d definitely consider following this up with more discussion about The Daily Show and its impact on public policy, elections, etc. 

 

 

Justification #2

            Thinking about Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly as humorists, as discussed in the “When Fake is More Real…” article was really eye opening for me.  In the interest of putting all of my cards on the table, I have to confess that I find just about everything Limbaugh or O’Reilly say to be despicable.  And I’ve never heard them call themselves comedians.  I think this title is too generous, as being a comedian implies that one is actually funny, but that’s a different issue.  I think lumping Limbaugh and O’Reilly in with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert presents some interesting questions that are important in being critical viewers/listeners of this information, especially when these voices are increasingly becoming players in the political scene (Rush Limbaugh is considered by many to be the voice of the Republican party, and Jon Stewart is, for many, a reasonable representative of liberal Democratic beliefs).  Having an understanding of these voices and their potential influences can help them to better participate in the democratic process. 

 

 

Assignment #2

 

            Students will listen to/watch clips from The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, The O’Reilly Factor, and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.  As they are watching, students will record their reactions to the programs.  I will ask them to pay special attention to the techniques of each man and to not ignore the delivery of the messages as they are paying attention to the actual messages.  We’ll spend a day just watching these clips and then sharing our gut reactions to what we have seen.

 

            The next day, we will generate lists of similarities and differences among the four programs.  I imagine the differences will be obvious and numerous.  I will encourage students to consider also the things these programs have in common (beyond superficial statements like “They are very opinionated”).  Then we’ll spend some time discussing whether these four programs should even be classified as the same type of program.  If so, why?  If not, why not?  What difference does it make?  How should viewers approach these broadcasts?  I’ll encourage them to really move beyond their own biases (a challenge that I will have to deal with as well!) to discuss these in an academic forum.

 

           

            For our last day of discussion, we’ll consider some of the bigger questions here, like what influence media personalities such as these can have on audience’s perceptions of current events.  I think I’d like to conclude by having them do some sort of interview with someone they know who watches/listens to one of these programs, but I need to flesh this out a little more.  The last question I would like them to consider is “What is the value of this type of communication?”

 

**This one needs a little fleshing out, but I think the skeleton of questions could be a reasonable start…..