playful, isn’t he?

I hope Rachel Sklar isn’t saying that America’s network news anchors—you know: the people who bring us word about war, mudslides, floods, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, government incompetence, corporate greed, national security, housing-bubble bursts, and so forth—can improve their credibility with a skeptical public as a source of information by playing along with one comedian’s provocations.

But I’m afraid she is:

Comedians (and, specifically, comedic interviewers like Stephen Colbert) create situations that people have to react to. It’s a test: If you play along you’re funny and cool, and if you don’t your’e stiff and boring. So how people like Brian Williams and Katie Couric and Bill O’Reilly react to him are an indication of what they are really like - . In the case of news anchors, that’s about as far from “Voice of God” as you can get - their interactions with Colbert take place outside of their tightly-scripted and minutely-produced 22 minutes of news.
…

It’s not part of the traditional job description of the network news anchor to either make jokes or take jokes - but because Colbert is bringing this kind of comedy into the world of news, suddenly handling this well speaks to character, which is pretty important when deciding who you want to spend half an hour with every day - or who you instinctively turn to in moments of national crisis.

Where to start? How about here:

[anchors']instinctive reactions are measures of their good humor and authenticity and humanity

Um, no. Anchors’ “instinctive reactions” are the finely honed on-air mannerisms of people who make their living in front of a camera. Some of them are naturally “authentic”; some of them are deliberately over-the-top. All of them are trained professionals, the product of speech lessons and wardrobe advisers and image makeovers.

We know nothing about them, much less their characters. Some of them are indeed very skillful at coming across as authentic. So what? Their very presence in the anchor chair gives them a huge advantage: they’re there, night after night, steady as she goes. The predictability of their appearance night after night gives them presence and authority—the Voice of God—beyond their personal tics, quirks, and “humanity.” Well … unless they’re this guy.

As for Colbert’s “bringing this kind of comedy into the world of news”—is that a good thing? Why should Charles Gibson, who’s at the top of his game and who took his news broadcast to the top of the heap with his deliberately old-fashioned amiable-but-also-stern-when-need-be manner, play along with Steven Colbert? To show Rachel Sklar that he’s got a sense of humor? I don’t think so.

Besides, is that what we want?—to muddy the waters between news and entertainment even more? Surely what ails journalism is not an absence of a sense of humor about itself.

In 1994, the cultural sociologist Joshua Gamson wrote about the allure of infotainment, and about the slippery slope of treating news as play. For some reason The American Prospect has it listed in the archives as having been published in 2002.

The popularity of infotainment is based on accepting the summons to treat information as play.

Play is best when consequences are small. This is the heart of the matter and the truly disturbing part. Only when people perceive public life as inconsequential, as not their own, do they readily accept the invitation to turn news into play. When the outcome matters, it is not so easy to switch gears and give up the need for significant and trustworthy information. Today, a shrunken sense of political efficacy makes possible the unsurprising conversion of news into infotainment. [e.a.]

I’ve got more to say, but it’ll have to wait. Meanwhile, you could read the whole thing.

Welcome, ETP readers! Have a look around. Especially for your benefit, I’ve corrected the spelling of Joshua Gamson’s name (see above). All other typos since February 2006 remain in place, as does our affection for ETP.