Women’s Wear Daily publishes a feature story about Adam Chodikoff who stands behind Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and calls him a producer with “an old-fashioned passion for the old-fashioned media.”

Comedy Central’s Daily Show is a phenomenon. As the New York Times observed some time ago, ”at a time when Fox, MSNBC and CNN routinely mix news and entertainment, larding their 24-hour schedules with bloviation fests and marathon coverage of sexual predators and dead celebrities, it’s been The Daily Show that has tenaciously tracked big, ‘super depressing’ issues like the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power.”

Here are some secrets from Chodikoff’s toolbox, as described by WWD journalist Irin Carmon:

“Chodikoff reads seven newspapers a day in print, sits through hours of hearings on C-Span on a Saturday and watches Sen. John McCain grilling on Rachael Ray’s talk show. But consuming everything is only half the task. The competitive advantage he gives Stewart is having some historical memory in an amnesiac news cycle inherently more invested in the next angle than in context…

Chodikoff doesn’t use Google to turn up inconsistencies, preferring news stories on LexisNexis, and he ignores Wikipedia. Explaining why he prefers print over the Web, he cites a scene from the movie ‘Back to School,’ when Rodney Dangerfield asks his son why he’s buying used books. “And he says, ‘Because they’re already underlined, see?’ And Rodney says, ‘But that guy could have been a maniac.’ And that’s the problem with the Internet.”

When a [host Jon] Stewart rant fortified by his research generates millions of Web hits, as did the contrast between right-wing pundits’ takes on Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears’ teenage pregnancies, Chodikoff is only vaguely aware. ‘I’m out of the whole hipster, viral thing,’ he says…

He’s particularly proud of the moments when his research has pointed out substantive stories the major network newscasts mostly ignored, such as the second phase of the Senate Intelligence report in June, which concluded that the Bush administration lied in making the case for the Iraq war. Stewart skewered the Big Three for using their airtime for froth instead. ‘When they set themselves up for a target,’ Chodikoff said, ‘I love going in and getting them.’ “

In the Chronicle of Higher Education’ article Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University, cites research on reading online and analyses its impact on learning skills of children:

”A decade ago, [Jakob Nielsen, a Web researcher] issued an ‘alert’ entitled ‘How Users Read on the Web.’ It opened bluntly: ‘They don’t.’

In the eye-tracking test, only one in six subjects read Web pages linearly, sentence by sentence. The rest jumped around chasing keywords, bullet points, visuals, and color and typeface variations. In another experiment on how people read e-newsletters, informational e-mail messages, and news feeds, Nielsen exclaimed, ‘Reading is not even the right word.’ The subjects usually read only the first two words in headlines, and they ignored the introductory sections. They wanted the ‘nut’ and nothing else.

A 2003 Nielsen warning asserted that a PDF file strikes users as a ‘content blob,’ and they won’t read it unless they print it out. A “booklike” page on screen, it seems, turns them off and sends them away.

Another Nielsen test found that teenagers skip through the Web even faster than adults do, but with a lower success rate for completing tasks online (55 percent compared to 66 percent). Nielsen writes: ‘Teens have a short attention span and want to be stimulated. That’s also why they leave sites that are difficult to figure out.’ For them, the Web isn’t a place for reading and study and knowledge. It spells the opposite.”

Professor Bauerlein, an author of a book The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30), thinks that Nielsens’ research projects help explain ”one of the great disappointments of education in our time” – the huge investment schools have made in technology.

”Ever since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, money has poured into public-school classrooms. At the same time, colleges have raced to out-technologize one another. But while enthusiasm swells, e-bills are passed, smart classrooms multiply, and students cheer — the results keep coming back negative.

When the Texas Education Agency evaluated its Technology Immersion Pilot, a $14-million program to install wireless tools in middle schools, the conclusion was unequivocal: ‘There were no statistically significant effects of immersion in the first year on either reading or mathematics achievement.’

When University of Chicago economists evaluated California schools before and after federal technology subsidies (the E-Rate program) had granted 30 percent more schools in the state Internet access, they determined that ‘the additional investments in technology generated by E-Rate had no immediate impact on meas-ured student outcomes.’

In March 2007, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance evaluated 16 award-winning education technologies and found that ‘test scores were not significantly higher in classrooms using selected reading and mathematics software products.’

Last spring a New York State school district decided to drop its laptop program after years of offering it. The school-board president announced why: ‘After seven years, there was literally no evidence it had any impact on student achievement — none.’”

What are the dangers?

”This is not so much about the content students prefer — Facebook, YouTube, etc. — or whether they use the Web for homework or not. It is about the reading styles they employ. They race across the surface, dicing language and ideas into bullets and graphics, seeking what they already want and shunning the rest. They convert history, philosophy, literature, civics, and fine art into information, material to retrieve and pass along.

That’s the drift of screen reading. Yes, it’s a kind of literacy, but it breaks down in the face of a dense argument, a Modernist poem, a long political tract, and other texts that require steady focus and linear attention — in a word, slow reading. Fast scanning doesn’t foster flexible minds that can adapt to all kinds of texts, and it doesn’t translate into academic reading.”

It is an argument for newspapers to expand the N.I.E. projects, as the World Association of Newspapers suggests. Not because it is a way to increase circulation etc. but because it will make our kids smarter.

But scanning is not the only problem of today’s children. Reading any stories, including those in newspapers, needs imagination.

Unfortunately, as Jonah Lehrer of the Boston Globe writes, TV watching affects young generation’s capabilities:

”Many scientists argue that daydreaming is a crucial tool for creativity, a thought process that allows the brain to make new associations and connections…

The ability to think abstractly that flourishes during daydreams also has important social benefits. Mostly, what we daydream about is each other, as the mind retrieves memories, contemplates “what if” scenarios, and thinks about how it should behave in the future…

After monitoring the daily schedule of the children for several months, [Teresa] Belton [a research associate at East Anglia University in England] came to the conclusion that their lack of imagination was, at least in part, caused by the absence of ‘empty time,’ or periods without any activity or sensory stimulation. She noticed that as soon as these children got even a little bit bored, they simply turned on the television: the moving images kept their minds occupied. ‘It was a very automatic reaction,’ she says. ‘Television was what they did when they didn’t know what else to do.’

The problem with this habit, Belton says, is that it kept the kids from daydreaming. Because the children were rarely bored – at least, when a television was nearby – they never learned how to use their own imagination as a form of entertainment. ‘The capacity to daydream enables a person to fill empty time with an enjoyable activity that can be carried on anywhere,’ Belton says. ‘But that’s a skill that requires real practice. Too many kids never get the practice.’ ”

His groundbreaking editorial and marketing campaign, ”Lead India,” was awarded this year the Grand Prix at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival as well as the ”The Best of Show” at the Annual INMA Awards competition.

The Times of India’s campaign called for a new generation to ”Lead India” as the world’s largest democracy celebrates 60 years of independence. More than 34,000 readers went on to participate in a contest that ended with a 10-week talent show for political hopefuls. Public interviews and debates helped The Times of India to drag citizens’ attention to the most important issues of their country.

Rahul Kansal, responsible for the ”Lead India” campaign, will be a special guest of the INMA Outlook 2009: European Conference in Vienna on October 1-3, 2008. He will be interviewed on stage on Thursday, October 2, in an interactive session titled ”Newsmedia That Is Relevant to Society” and hosted by two editors of forum4editors.com working for Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza: Grzegorz Piechota and Jerzy Wojcik.

Before coming to Vienna, Rahul answered to our questions by e-mail.

forum4editors: Most of the daily newspapers around the world promote their product – the paper itself, its contents, the speed and accuracy of their journalists. You have decided to use your marketing power to promote an idea – your vision of India. Why really have you done a campaign like this?

Rahul Kansal: As India’s leading brand of newspapers, the Times of India does not feel it needs to tom-tom its own achievements, or product attributes and benefits. We believe instead in outwardly driven communication. Rather than talk about the newspaper, we try and be the platform or the presenter of ideas that come from the readers’ own lives, reflect their hopes, aspirations.

We follow this approach not just in ”big” programmes like the ”Lead India”, but also when required to make more routine or tactical announcements. To illustrate this by an example: when we recently announced the launch of an all-colour newspaper – we did a campaign dramatizing the use (overuse!) of colour in Indian life as seen on our streets and our cinema and linked it back to the product subtly, rather than a narrow campaign focusing on the product itself. We believe this approach helps position us as an iconic brand echoing the mood of India, rather than a self-serving consumer product.

The ”Lead India” worked because it connected powerfully with a strong emotion lying dormant in the hearts of young Indians: that India can only achieve its ”rightful” place on the world stage if we get oursleves a better and more committed set of political leaders.

Have a look the TV spot of the Times of India featuring India’s leading actor Amitabh Bachhan:

Many Western editors would be afraid of activism like this. They see the role of their newspapers just to report the facts and not to try to influence the reality outhere. Could you respond to their concerns? How would you convince them to your vision of the role of the newspaper?

We believe quite strongly in activism, actually. In India, the upper middle-class reader of a newspaper like the Times of India feels a strong sense of alienation from the political system and the administratve machinery. He feels a leadership vaccuum. The Times of India tries to step in and fill this vaccuum, at least partially.

Before the ”Lead India” we had, for instance, taken up 360-degree programmes in each of the important cities we operate in, aimed at the city’s betterment (citizen’s views, panel discussion etc. leading to a ”citizens” charter).

Who was a driving force behind the ”Lead India” campaign? Were they the editors of the Times of India, or your marketing department? How were you cooperating with each other?

The Times of India is blessed in having been able to achieve a very high degree of trust between marketing and editorial. This programme was basically conceived by marketing, as a progressive build on the highly successful activism initiatives we had jointly undertaken with editorial in the past.

However we took care to ensure that editorial had a complete buy-in and joint sense of ownership (for example: we gave shape to the programme jointly, through an offsite workshop, for instance).

The aim of the ”Lead India” campaign was to be a catalyst of a social change. What have you really changed in your country?

It would be naive to say that we have actually mad any big or lasting impact on the country as a whole. India is too vast a country with far too many deep-seated problems for that.

However, we believe we have made a very good contribution towards making the educated elite in india feel connected with the issues of India and to give them a sense of involvement and ownership.

Have a look at another TV spot promoting the ”Lead India” campaign:

Do you plan to continue your efforts started with the ”Lead India” campaign? If so, how?

We intend to take the ”Lead India” forward this year with a far higher tone of realism and urgency, given the context of the forthcoming general election in April 2009.

The ”Lead india” will also go beyond merely being a talent hunt for new politicians, to becoming a guide on ”how to vote in a better parliament this time.”

About Rahul Kansal

He serves as the Chief Marketing Officer of Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd. He is responsible for the business and brand health as well as the overall editorial and content strategy, for the Group’s newspapers: The Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times, The Mirror, range of city newspapers and several regional publications.

During his tenure, The Times of India has emerged as the world’s largest circulated English newspaper across genres and formats, ahead of such giants as USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. Apart from having steered the Times of India to success in most markets that it operates in today, he is responsible for having developed and executed several high profile brand initiatives like ”India Poised”, ”Lead India” and ”Teach India”.

Rahul has been an advertising and marketing professional for 29 years. He graduated from SRCC, Delhi University in 1977, and after an MBA from IIM Calcutta in 1979 has worked with some of India’s leading ad agencies such as JWT, O&M, Mudra and Leo Burnett before joining The Times Group. He is a member of several professional bodies in the fields of advertising and media and has taught at various business schools.

Rahul is 51 years old, is married and has two daughters aged 20 and 17. He is fond of music, films and reading.

Peter Hirshberg is a Silicon Valley executive, entrepreneur and marketing innovator who most recently served as president and CEO of Gloss.com, the major multi-brand beauty ecommerce business co-owned by Estee Lauder Companies, Chanel and Clarins.

Before that Hirshberg served as a chairman of Interpacket Networks, the global leader in Internet Via Satellite, a founder of Elemental Software, developer of the e-business software and a enterprise marketing manager at Apple, where he grew Apple’s large business and government revenue to $1 billion annually and helped lead the company’s entry into the online service arena.

Today Hirshberg serves on the advisory boards of start-ups Technorati and Informative. He is a Trustee of The Computer History Museum and a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute.

He writes a blog on disruptive culture and technology.

He spoke about TV and computers at the Entertainment Gathering conference in December 2007.

Video presented by ”TED. Ideas worth spreading”

The New York Times examines the emergence of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show as ”a genuine cultural and political force”.

It finds that ”at a time when Fox, MSNBC and CNN routinely mix news and entertainment, larding their 24-hour schedules with bloviation fests and marathon coverage of sexual predators and dead celebrities, it’s been The Daily Show that has tenaciously tracked big, ‘super depressing’ issues like the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power.”

So in result ”when Americans were asked in a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to name the journalist they most admired, Mr. Stewart, the fake news anchor, came in at No. 4, tied with the real news anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN. And a study this year from the center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded that ‘The Daily Show is clearly impacting American dialogue’ and ‘getting people to think critically about the public square.’”

Some quotes:

• Jon Stewart on why he prefers serious issues rather than celebrity stories: “In some respects, the heavier subjects are the ones that are most loaded with opportunity because they have the most — you know, the difference between potential and kinetic energy? — they have the most potential energy, so to delve into that gives you the largest combustion, the most interest. I don’t mean for the audience. I mean for us. Everyone here is working too hard to do stuff we don’t care about.”
  ”[The staff is always looking for] those types of stories that can, almost like the guy in ‘The Green Mile’ [the Stephen King story and film in which a character has the apparent ability to heal others by drawing out their ailments and pain] suck in all the toxins and allow you to do something with it that is palatable.”
• Stewart on how unreal get the reality: ”[Given a daily reality in which] over-the-top parodies come to fruition, satire like ‘Dr. Strangelove’ becomes very difficult to make… The absurdity of what you imagine to be the dark heart of conspiracy theorists’ wet dreams far too frequently turns out to be true.”

About The Daily Show

It is a Peabody and Emmy Award-winning American satirical television program airing each Monday through Thursday on Comedy Central in the United States. The half-hour long show premiered in 1996 and was hosted by Craig Kilborn.

Jon Stewart took over as host in January 1999, bringing a number of changes to the show’s content. Under Stewart The Daily Show has become more strongly focused around politics and the national media, in contrast with the more character-driven focus during Kilborn’s tenure.

Describing itself as a “fake news” program, The Daily Show draws its comedy from recent news stories, satirizing political figures and media organizations.  (Via Wikipedia)