6 ms·

John Stewart’s show is probably the worst show that someone could create. He does not even attempt to be objective. A large part of 20 somethings use this as th

by w00pla2 16y ago

John Stewart’s show is probably the worst show that someone could create. He does not even attempt to be objective. A large part of 20 somethings use this as their main news source. It is sad when people are not willing to watch news for news’ sake (instead of having it mixed with comedy – like a child gets medicine mixed with syrup). And whilst the Daily Show serves as the main news source for many of 20 somethings, it does not even try to be objective. It often cuts video tapes completely (usually making fun of someone whose ideology differs from that of the viewers), uses video out of context, have interviews under false pretences and does not give fair coverage. Yet the excuse for that is that “it is a comedy show and not a news show”. It must choose, either one or the other – either it is a news show (and should subscribe to journalistic ethics) or it should be a comedy show (and try and involve itself in politics).

ugh 16y ago
Who told you that politics is off limits for comedy? I have literally never ever heard that sentiment expressed.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Hundreds of years of political satire (cartoons, opinion pieces) agree with you.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    > Thousands of years of political satire (cartoons, opinion pieces) agree with you. Fixed that for you.
mkr-hn 16y ago
You're making a lot of claims that don't make sense. "A large part of 20 somethings use this as their main news source." I'm a 20 something and know quite a few of them. You'd think that if this were true, my group of 50 or so would show at least one who treats TDS as anything more than a comedy show. They may use it as a starting point for stories they didn't know about, but you would be laughed out of the room if you tried to claim any portion of them treated Jon Stewart as a news man. "It often cuts video tapes completely (usually making fun of someone whose ideology differs from that of the viewers), uses video out of context, have interviews under false pretences and does not give fair coverage." Just like a comedy show. Even "news" shows do this, so I don't see why you single out TDS for it. " It must choose, either one or the other – either it is a news show (and should subscribe to journalistic ethics) or it should be a comedy show (and try and involve itself in politics)." Again, why single out TDS? All comedy shows dip into politics, and do a poor job of representing things.
- w00pla2 16y ago
  > I'm a 20 something and know quite a few of them. Quite a few of my friends view this as a "serious" news show. If you do not believe this, look at any large social site such as Reddit (where the Daily Show is taken as a serious news source). > Just like a comedy show. Of interviews with politicians which they obtained under false pretences? The objective of the Daily Show is to make one ideological grouping laughable. It is inherently a political show that parades as a “quasi-news” show and uses the “comedy show” excuse so that they do not have to show any integrity (journalistic or otherwise). > Again, why single out TDS? All comedy shows dip into politics, and do a poor job of representing things. That is quite debatable. Most “comedy shows” do not dip into politics. If it is, it is mostly human interest (and around election time). The Daily Show also parades around CNN International (a “news network”). Why is it on this channel then? But I guess that this is just how real journalism fades. Papers become bankrupt whilst people read online “news sources” such as Huffington Post or Alternet. News networks like CNN become Twitter Crazy and airs shows like The Daily Show.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    We're not going to get anywhere with dueling anecdotes. And you're referencing things I don't recall, and I've been watching TDS for years. "But I guess that this is just how real journalism fades. Papers become bankrupt whilst people read online “news sources” such as Huffington Post or Alternet. News networks like CNN become Twitter Crazy and airs shows like The Daily Show." Journalism is doing fine. You're just looking in the wrong places. "Of interviews with politicians which they obtained under false pretences? The objective of the Daily Show is to make one ideological grouping laughable. It is inherently a political show that parades as a “quasi-news” show and uses the “comedy show” excuse so that they do not have to show any integrity (journalistic or otherwise)." You are once again making bold and seemingly ideologically-driven claims that don't reflect my own observations. Can you cite something?
    - w00pla2 16y ago
      > Journalism is doing fine. You're just looking in the wrong places. Nope. Journalism isn’t doing fine. The majority of papers that do good investigative journalism have serious financial problems. > Can you cite something? Here is a good example: Daily Show of 13 July 2010. A large part deals with racism in South Africa and race relations. The author paints a completely wrong picture (of an incredibly difficult and nuanced subject – which involves language and culture rights, economical aspects and poverty, land ownership, illegal immigration, and xenophobia, black economic empowerment, etc…). In that he made a 6 hour interview (under false pretences) with a person with a pretty nuanced view (he only aired snipped parts out of context – his whole interview style was baiting). The whole fucking video pisses me off – it is such a complex subject which he is making light of (and painting a wrong picture). WTF? But yeah, let’s make fun of extremely complex and delicate subjects because our viewers will laugh!
binarymax 16y ago
According to the article, there is a 1.8 million viewer base per night. So a large part of 20-somethings is innacurate. Maybe a large part of 20-somethings you know? In any case, this line is a brilliant response to your claim: “We’re not provocateurs, we’re not activists; we are reacting for our own catharsis,” Stewart says. “There is a line into demagoguery, and we try very hard to express ourselves but not move into, ‘So follow me! And I will lead you to the land of answers, my people!’ You can fall in love with your own idea of common sense.
- w00pla2 16y ago
  I guess I will be heavily downmodded today. > According to the article, there is a 1.8 million viewer base per night. It gets viewed more often than that (through video streaming). It also appears on CNN International at different times (WTF?). Many people also watch it irregularly. > In any case, this line is a brilliant response to your claim: He just confirms what I've said, but put it more eloquently. > And I will lead you to the land of answers, my people!’ > You can fall in love with your own idea of common sense. Usually rational people form conclusions (i.e. reaches answers to questions) based on an objective discussion from all angles/sides to a story. Does this happen on the Daily Show? No. Does the Daily Show go into depth (from all sides) to complex and important news topics, allowing the viewer to come to his own nuanced conclusion? No. Does it quote people out of context, have interviews under false pretences, cut tapes to put people in bad light, add questions which the interviewee was never asked and break all rules of journalistic ethics? Yes. The idea of the Daily Show is simple – they would make fun of groups such as the Republican Party (through some of the methods above). Their audience laugh – not because it was really funny, but because it reinforces their own ideological bias. PS: I am not American, and that show completely irritates the hell out of me. The whole of CNN for that matter went down the drain. If you want (somewhat good) television journalism, it seems that only Al-Jazeera can provide it.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    After reading this, I don't think you understand what the Daily Show is. This is probably the best discussion about what the show is all about (note: crossfire was canceled almost immediately after this). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
IgorPartola 16y ago
I am a 20 something and my main news source is Hacker News :). By that, I mean that I try to avoid conventional news sources on purpose. As far as I can tell news divides into two categories: sensationalist murder stories (which depress me) and political theater (which mostly bores me). Having said that John Stewart to me is just like Bill O'Reilly but funny.
vaksel 16y ago
1. According to a study, Daily Show viewers are more informed about current events than those that watch FOX, CNN, etc. 2. They are a comedy show, so it's ok to do that(even though they don't abuse that). FOX on the other hand does more than that, and they are supposed to be a news channel. i.e. take that Hannity clip from a few days ago: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-9-2010/are-you-ready-for-some-midterms----msnbc-s-political-narrative http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-9-2010/are-y... (fast forward to 5 minutes) 3. Everything doesn't have to be objective, just because you have a scientist on talking about evolution, doesn't mean you have to bring in someone who wants to talk about creationism. This whole "balanced" reporting that you want is one of the reasons all these fringe nut jobs get their legitimacy. "Of course the president was born in Kenya....I saw someone say that on a news show".
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  According to a study, Daily Show viewers are more informed about current events than those that watch FOX, CNN, etc. Would love to see a source for that statement. If true, it's very interesting.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-28/entertainment/comedy.politics_1_viewers-o-reilly-quiz?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-28/entertainment/comedy.poli...
  - vaksel 16y ago
    here you go(2nd graph): http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-curre...
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      Thanks! Cool stuff! Looking at the numbers, though, I'm not sure it says what you think it says. My impression is that it says that people who are interested in politics -- political humor from Jon, major newspaper websites, O'Reilly Factor watchers -- know more than folks who just passively consume news every now and then (Fox News Channel). That's the way the data looks to me, anyway.

by w00pla2 16y ago

ugh 16y ago

Who told you that politics is off limits for comedy? I have literally never ever heard that sentiment expressed.

krschultz 16y ago
Hundreds of years of political satire (cartoons, opinion pieces) agree with you.
- elblanco 16y ago
  > Thousands of years of political satire (cartoons, opinion pieces) agree with you. Fixed that for you.

mkr-hn 16y ago

You're making a lot of claims that don't make sense. "A large part of 20 somethings use this as their main news source." I'm a 20 something and know quite a few of them. You'd think that if this were true, my group of 50 or so would show at least one who treats TDS as anything more than a comedy show. They may use it as a starting point for stories they didn't know about, but you would be laughed out of the room if you tried to claim any portion of them treated Jon Stewart as a news man. "It often cuts video tapes completely (usually making fun of someone whose ideology differs from that of the viewers), uses video out of context, have interviews under false pretences and does not give fair coverage." Just like a comedy show. Even "news" shows do this, so I don't see why you single out TDS for it. " It must choose, either one or the other – either it is a news show (and should subscribe to journalistic ethics) or it should be a comedy show (and try and involve itself in politics)." Again, why single out TDS? All comedy shows dip into politics, and do a poor job of representing things.

w00pla2 16y ago
> I'm a 20 something and know quite a few of them. Quite a few of my friends view this as a "serious" news show. If you do not believe this, look at any large social site such as Reddit (where the Daily Show is taken as a serious news source). > Just like a comedy show. Of interviews with politicians which they obtained under false pretences? The objective of the Daily Show is to make one ideological grouping laughable. It is inherently a political show that parades as a “quasi-news” show and uses the “comedy show” excuse so that they do not have to show any integrity (journalistic or otherwise). > Again, why single out TDS? All comedy shows dip into politics, and do a poor job of representing things. That is quite debatable. Most “comedy shows” do not dip into politics. If it is, it is mostly human interest (and around election time). The Daily Show also parades around CNN International (a “news network”). Why is it on this channel then? But I guess that this is just how real journalism fades. Papers become bankrupt whilst people read online “news sources” such as Huffington Post or Alternet. News networks like CNN become Twitter Crazy and airs shows like The Daily Show.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  We're not going to get anywhere with dueling anecdotes. And you're referencing things I don't recall, and I've been watching TDS for years. "But I guess that this is just how real journalism fades. Papers become bankrupt whilst people read online “news sources” such as Huffington Post or Alternet. News networks like CNN become Twitter Crazy and airs shows like The Daily Show." Journalism is doing fine. You're just looking in the wrong places. "Of interviews with politicians which they obtained under false pretences? The objective of the Daily Show is to make one ideological grouping laughable. It is inherently a political show that parades as a “quasi-news” show and uses the “comedy show” excuse so that they do not have to show any integrity (journalistic or otherwise)." You are once again making bold and seemingly ideologically-driven claims that don't reflect my own observations. Can you cite something?
  - w00pla2 16y ago
    > Journalism is doing fine. You're just looking in the wrong places. Nope. Journalism isn’t doing fine. The majority of papers that do good investigative journalism have serious financial problems. > Can you cite something? Here is a good example: Daily Show of 13 July 2010. A large part deals with racism in South Africa and race relations. The author paints a completely wrong picture (of an incredibly difficult and nuanced subject – which involves language and culture rights, economical aspects and poverty, land ownership, illegal immigration, and xenophobia, black economic empowerment, etc…). In that he made a 6 hour interview (under false pretences) with a person with a pretty nuanced view (he only aired snipped parts out of context – his whole interview style was baiting). The whole fucking video pisses me off – it is such a complex subject which he is making light of (and painting a wrong picture). WTF? But yeah, let’s make fun of extremely complex and delicate subjects because our viewers will laugh!

binarymax 16y ago

According to the article, there is a 1.8 million viewer base per night. So a large part of 20-somethings is innacurate. Maybe a large part of 20-somethings you know? In any case, this line is a brilliant response to your claim: “We’re not provocateurs, we’re not activists; we are reacting for our own catharsis,” Stewart says. “There is a line into demagoguery, and we try very hard to express ourselves but not move into, ‘So follow me! And I will lead you to the land of answers, my people!’ You can fall in love with your own idea of common sense.

w00pla2 16y ago
I guess I will be heavily downmodded today. > According to the article, there is a 1.8 million viewer base per night. It gets viewed more often than that (through video streaming). It also appears on CNN International at different times (WTF?). Many people also watch it irregularly. > In any case, this line is a brilliant response to your claim: He just confirms what I've said, but put it more eloquently. > And I will lead you to the land of answers, my people!’ > You can fall in love with your own idea of common sense. Usually rational people form conclusions (i.e. reaches answers to questions) based on an objective discussion from all angles/sides to a story. Does this happen on the Daily Show? No. Does the Daily Show go into depth (from all sides) to complex and important news topics, allowing the viewer to come to his own nuanced conclusion? No. Does it quote people out of context, have interviews under false pretences, cut tapes to put people in bad light, add questions which the interviewee was never asked and break all rules of journalistic ethics? Yes. The idea of the Daily Show is simple – they would make fun of groups such as the Republican Party (through some of the methods above). Their audience laugh – not because it was really funny, but because it reinforces their own ideological bias. PS: I am not American, and that show completely irritates the hell out of me. The whole of CNN for that matter went down the drain. If you want (somewhat good) television journalism, it seems that only Al-Jazeera can provide it.
- elblanco 16y ago
  After reading this, I don't think you understand what the Daily Show is. This is probably the best discussion about what the show is all about (note: crossfire was canceled almost immediately after this). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

IgorPartola 16y ago

I am a 20 something and my main news source is Hacker News :). By that, I mean that I try to avoid conventional news sources on purpose. As far as I can tell news divides into two categories: sensationalist murder stories (which depress me) and political theater (which mostly bores me). Having said that John Stewart to me is just like Bill O'Reilly but funny.

vaksel 16y ago

1. According to a study, Daily Show viewers are more informed about current events than those that watch FOX, CNN, etc. 2. They are a comedy show, so it's ok to do that(even though they don't abuse that). FOX on the other hand does more than that, and they are supposed to be a news channel. i.e. take that Hannity clip from a few days ago: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-9-2010/are-you-ready-for-some-midterms----msnbc-s-political-narrative http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-9-2010/are-y... (fast forward to 5 minutes) 3. Everything doesn't have to be objective, just because you have a scientist on talking about evolution, doesn't mean you have to bring in someone who wants to talk about creationism. This whole "balanced" reporting that you want is one of the reasons all these fringe nut jobs get their legitimacy. "Of course the president was born in Kenya....I saw someone say that on a news show".

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
According to a study, Daily Show viewers are more informed about current events than those that watch FOX, CNN, etc. Would love to see a source for that statement. If true, it's very interesting.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-28/entertainment/comedy.politics_1_viewers-o-reilly-quiz?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-28/entertainment/comedy.poli...
- vaksel 16y ago
  here you go(2nd graph): http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-curre...
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    Thanks! Cool stuff! Looking at the numbers, though, I'm not sure it says what you think it says. My impression is that it says that people who are interested in politics -- political humor from Jon, major newspaper websites, O'Reilly Factor watchers -- know more than folks who just passively consume news every now and then (Fox News Channel). That's the way the data looks to me, anyway.