“The organization’s goal is not to comment on the format in which the news is written. Instead, The Onion uses the style of journalism as a means of delivering a joke” (“The Onion: Satire in the News,” 2012).
A lesson like this really shows me how out of touch with the world I really am. I’m sort of embarrassed to admit that before this weeks lesson I had never even heard of parody news and watching Colbert’s “Fallback Position” shows was the first contact I’ve ever come with Parody News. I’ll admit I did enjoy watching those two five minute episodes, I found the jokes amusing and I agreed with the farmers that Colbert did not qualify to working on a farm.
However while watching it I thought that a lot of it looked staged, they only showed him doing minutes worth of work, and yes it was only a five minute episode so he was doing hours worth of work it would be impossible to show that. But the way they showed him packing the corn, doing it so badly, then he picked the beans all wrong, and bothering all the workers around him. The entire thing felt like a staged comedy. So when I was watching Colbert’s testimony and responses, when someone questioned whether he actually did the work or not, I totally understood why they questioned him.
As far as whether parody news is valuable or worthless, I’m going to take the middle ground. Its not necessarily valuable, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say its worthless. One thing that I got out of Colbert’s testimony was that the parody news show he did prompted people to think about jobs that only immigrants are willing to do.
So I can see parody news, which has humor to get people to watch it, can inform audiences about issues that should be addressed. But on the other side turning a problem into a parody can water down the importance of it, and it will always have some type of bias which could be good or bad. “It inadvertently gets at one very real truth” (Kakutani, 2008).
After reading everything that was assigned for this lesson, I have a general idea of the point of parody news. And I think that its to make a point. Colbert wanted to make a point that only immigrants are willing to work the farm jobs in America. In 1835 some articles were published about finding life on the moon, and it was so well done that everyone believed it. This is now known as the “Great Moon Hoax” because it was later found out that it was all a lie. “Locke explained that he had intended the lunar narrative to be a satire, not a hoax at all, and that the object of his satire was the unchecked influence of religion upon science” (“The Great Moon Hoax,” n.d.).
References
350px-Great-Moon-Hoax-1835-New-York-Sun-lithograph-298px [Photograph]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax
colbert-mocked-the-gops-libya-gate-with-this-genius-fox-news-parody [Illustration]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/colbert-mocks-libya-fox-news-benghazi-video-2012-10
The great moon hoax of 1885. (n.d.). Retrieved July 8, 2013, from The Museum of Hoaxes website: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_great_moon_hoax
Kakutani, M. (2008, August 15). Is jon stewart the most trusted man in america? Retrieved July 8, 2013, from The New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
making-point [Photograph]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://marksremarks.org/2011/10/20/difference-vs-point/
The onion: Satire in the news. (2012, December). Retrieved July 8, 2013, from The Onion: A History of Satire website: http://onionsatire.wordpress.com/satire-in-the-news/
rmk243 
I agree if you were expecting Colbert to take the job seriously then it is hard to take him seriously. But I understand why he did what he did. Often in testimonials and other opportunities to provide public opinion, you are allotted your speaking time, but that is about it. There is no guarantee anybody will listen to you or take what you say seriously. Colbert admitted he was using his celebrity to get the point out, and he indeed did. Any person can come testify and say they have worked on farms and tell how terrible it is, woopty doo. One of the men on the committee indeed said he watched the show, and I think that is a big deal. What Colbert did different is made it ridiculous so people had to listen. It made it more likely for the committee to listen to what he said because I am sure they were all waiting for bait to denounce him with. If a nuclear scientist is coming to testify do you think all of the Congressman are waiting to catch an error in his math? Probably not, they figure a nuclear scientist is smarter than them. But with Colbert, he seems like an easy target due to his sarcasm. But sarcasm is how he gets people to listen.
I agree with you on the parody news as not an actual news source, but what they are trying to convey in a funny matter is very serious. I think they frame it in a way that their target audience, young adults, can relate to and actually listen to. Personally, I cannot watch the actual news with all those monotonous voices.
Colbert’s day on the farm was incredibly staged, but I definitely think it was a meaningful episode. The “Take Our Jobs” Campaign had only 16 participants and none of the individuals were drawing any sort of media attention. By Colbert participating, he not only brought much needed attention to the campaign, he also presented it on his show which has millions of viewers. Although he stayed in character when he addressed Congress, I believe that he also brought publicity to the entire meeting and topic. The atrocities and hardships that migrant workers face on a daily basis is an issue that is rarely addressed in our media, national dialogue or (especially) Congress. I thought it was very interesting when he broke out of character while answering questions and said, “These people are powerless.” I think it demonstrated that, although he can a comedic performance out of anything, this was an issue that he actually cared about and has invested time in. People may be watching his show simply for the comedy, but they’re also inadvertently being introduced to important topics and ideas that are shaping our political discourse.