Entertainment v. Infotainment…is there a difference or a problem?

The lines of entertainment and information have been blurred in contemporary television programming when it comes to the delivery of political commentary and coverage in the United States leading to a confusion as to whether or not a television show should be taken as a credible news and political discussion source such as Mad Money or a piece of entertaining theatre that is purely for laughs like The Daily Show. However, these days I don’t think that many people can tell the difference between entertainment and infotainment, but I don’t really think that is such a big problem, unless the focus or agenda of the program becomes more important than the information being presented. I will be looking at the information provided and the agenda behind two hot TV shows that offer information that is viewed as entertainment (Mad Money with Jim Cramer) and a show that offers entertainment which is viewed for information (The Daily Show with Jon Stewart).

Mad Money

CNBC’s Mad Money with Jim Cramer’s is a finance television show whose main focus is on investment and speculation, particularly in publicly traded securities. The general format of the show starts with two segments, where Cramer recommends one or more stocks in a group with his rationale for choosing them. At the end of each segment, Cramer will take one or two calls from viewers with questions about either the stock he recommended, or another stock in the same industry or which the viewer thinks may benefit from the topic discussed.

Now, there is nothing wrong with informing a public audience and educating them on things that could potentially bring them good fortune (of course, investment information given on Mad Money is only speculation and that is state very early on during the show). However, using such an important topic like investments and market health in a time of economic downturn is not something that should be used so much for entertainment. Ironically enough, Jon Stewart in a Daily Show segment calls out Jim Cramer about his over abuse of bringing entertainment and information together without being able to admit that Mad Money is for pure entertainment.


Daily Show

On the other side of the infotainment spectrum comes a show that is built for entertainment and is sold to its audiences as such, just not always looked at in that way.
Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has become more strongly focused around politics and the national media and describes itself as a fake news program drawing its comedy from recent news stories, satirizing political figures, media organizations, and often, aspects of the show itself.
Television ratings show that the program generally has 1.45 to 1.6 million viewers’ nightly leading commentators such as Howard Dean and Ted Koppel say that The Daily Show serves as a real source of news for young people, regardless of its intentions.


Because The Daily show is a nightly entertainment program that is on-air for almost 42 weeks out of the year, it is not hard to see how it can be a reputable and up to date news source. For someone who would have had no idea what had happened during the day the show not only offers the actual information and news from the day, but it also puts its comedic spin onto the story instead of placing a framed media agenda or scare tactic into the story that is possible to come from other news sources.



This clip did its job. It informed the masses about an incident that had occurred earlier in the day. They also went on just like Jon Stewart and offered commentary about the clip itself, however, a major difference is the extension of commentary that occurs to go on and offer the pundits insight to offer the suggestion of resignation of the official responsible, and to make speculation that there were other people on board. This was not information used for news, this was a political agenda of those working on the FoxNews Network to take the credibility away from an official in the White House offices.

This is not to say that the Daily Show is an angel and has not had its biased moments, however never to have gone so far to become one as one sided as FoxNews or CNN television shows may be at times. In fact, Jon Stewarts popularity as a "Fake News Anchor" gained him a reputation good enough to become targeted in 2004 by CNN Network show "Crossfire" where he was brought on to what it seemed like was supposed to be an indictment of him being too easy on Presidential Candidate John Kerry and that he as a reporter did not do his job and was not hard enough on the Senator Kerry.

Jon Stewart is diplomatic to treat both left and right wing debaters as equals and tells them pretty straight forward that it is his job to entertain and it is there job to get the information correct.



As you can see, with such an influx of available information and such a variety of sources the creation of infotainment television has become almost the new norm for gaining information. The lines are blurred but even in such cases as the Daily Show or Mad Money, both programs, though having there own special spin on them do a fundamental job of informing the public about news and other important information. This leads me to believe that blurring the lines of Entertainment and Information...Not such a bad thing.

Disney is just all white with me!

I have found that even in today’s more accepting and global society it is very easy to pick out the old traditional styling’s that went into making some of the earliest films.

Disney Channel Television shows such as Hannah Montana and The Suite Life of Zack and Cody are two prime examples of Disney’s hottest and most popular pre-teen television shows that are fully laden with racial and social stereotypes, token characters, and both follow a classical Hollywood form that quite resembles motion pictures of a much earlier era.



The series Hannah Montana focuses on a girl who lives a double life as an average teenage school girl named Miley Stewart (played by Miley Cyrus) by day and a famous pop singer named Hannah Montana by night, concealing her real identity from the public, other than her close friends and family.

As if the name Hannah Montana could not sound any whiter (besides being named after a state that is 90.6% White according to the Montana Census and Economic Information Center in 2000), the cast resembles the state’s demographics. Out of six listed main characters in the series only one of them would be considered non-white. Moises Arias, a Columbian-American who plays a sly, smooth talking, wisecracking, very child-like “Latino-Lover” beachfront shop owner ironically named Rico.



Not only does this subtly introduce Latin American stereotyped concepts, it also gives Hannah Montana her only recurring token character.
A show even less subtle at token characters mixed with racial stereotypes and new age equalities is Disney Channel’s “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody”. The show centers upon Zack and Cody Martin, twin brothers who live in the Tipton Hotel where their mother, Carey, sings and performs in the hotel lounge. Also residing at the hotel is the hotel owner's daughter, London Tipton, who is impolite and ditzy. Maddie, is the hotel's down-to-earth candy-counter girl. Mr. Moseby, the strict, dutiful and serious manager is often a foil to Zack and Cody's schemes.
Two characters that I would like to concentrate on are Mr. Moseby and London Tipton, the shows token racially defined characters.

Mr. Moseby is described as the somewhat uptight manager of the Tipton Hotel, who speaks with a wide vocabulary and an urbane vernacular, along with speaking a number of different languages besides English (French, Japanese, Swahili, Spanish, etc.). Now, in early film an African American male would not have been portrayed as a successfully employed, educated, and caring person. However, Disney has used classical form to also portray Mr. Moseby as slightly effeminate (closeting homosexual tendancies) as well as allowing him to fill the role of the classical “Coon” character.



Though London is obviously an Asian-American, she is portrayed as a parody of the American socialite Paris Hilton. London is an air headed heiress, and leads a wild girl fabulous life as heiress of the Tipton Estate. She is a spoiled, rich and often insults her peers by comparing how they dress. Her character is very Americentric and naïve. Her character is what I would consider to be an extremely youthfully conservative version of the Victorian defined by the virgin-whore complex. (Benshoff and Griffin, 2008)



The television media industry has come a long way in it's many years producing and developing shows and characters, but when will it be able to leave behind it's formulaic ways and be able to create something completley brand new? Or, is the damage been done so much to say that any way you spin a character there is always going to be something that can be construed as typical or racist of a character?