Jon Stewart interview on Fox News

[quote name='spmahn']My problem is Stewart is the same one I always had with Al Franken, which is that they have their moments where they make an attempt at serious journalism and reporting, and at times express a desire to be taken seriously in such endeavors, but at the same time, they are allowed to exaggerate and mix up facts and truths, and say it's ok because they are comedians, and you are at fault for trying to take them seriously in the first place. This was brought up at one point in the interview, but I think Stewart largely dodged the issue. At least Stephen Colbert realizes that his show is an unabashed farce and a parody and at no point attempts to be taken seriously.

For a very large percentage of the American public, the only exposure to what is going on in the world of politics (sadly) comes from Jon Stewart, and I think he has a duty and responsibility to stop blurring the lines between journalism and comedy. While it's certainly not his fault that so many people are ignorant enough to believe that he is actually reporting the news, it is still his burden to bear.[/QUOTE]
The reason why a lot of Americans have that as their primary source is the complete and utter failure of mainstream news. I don't agree that people should be using Stewart purely for news, but I can't blame them when the mainstream press has failed us.
 
[quote name='spmahn']I think he has a duty and responsibility to stop blurring the lines between journalism and comedy. [/QUOTE]

He has no duty or responsibility at all.
[quote name='spmahn']
it is still his burden to bear.[/QUOTE]

It's not his fault people are ignorant and turn to him. He has no responsibility to them.
 
[quote name='IRHari']He has no duty or responsibility at all.


It's not his fault people are ignorant and turn to him. He has no responsibility to them.[/QUOTE]


He may not want the responsibility, but you can't argue that it's been given to him anyways. By blurring the lines between journalism and comedy, he's only confusing the ignorant masses and leaving them even less informed than they would be if all they watched was Fox or MSNBC. If he doesn't want the responsibility of being the main source of political news for millions of Americans, then he needs to do a better job of informing him that it's a comedy show, not a news show.
 
[quote name='spmahn']My problem is Stewart is the same one I always had with Al Franken, which is that they have their moments where they make an attempt at serious journalism and reporting, and at times express a desire to be taken seriously in such endeavors, but at the same time, they are allowed to exaggerate and mix up facts and truths, and say it's ok because they are comedians, and you are at fault for trying to take them seriously in the first place. This was brought up at one point in the interview, but I think Stewart largely dodged the issue. At least Stephen Colbert realizes that his show is an unabashed farce and a parody and at no point attempts to be taken seriously.

For a very large percentage of the American public, the only exposure to what is going on in the world of politics (sadly) comes from Jon Stewart, and I think he has a duty and responsibility to stop blurring the lines between journalism and comedy. While it's certainly not his fault that so many people are ignorant enough to believe that he is actually reporting the news, it is still his burden to bear.[/QUOTE]

I disagree that he dodged that at all. I thought he dealt with it skillfully saying that he wants his voice to be heard and that is why he became a comedian. At his best he is not a journalist though he is still a comedian making political commentary and that the joke is that he is taken seriously because the media is so horrible nowadays.
 
[quote name='spmahn']He may not want the responsibility, but you can't argue that it's been given to him anyways. By blurring the lines between journalism and comedy, he's only confusing the ignorant masses and leaving them even less informed than they would be if all they watched was Fox or MSNBC. If he doesn't want the responsibility of being the main source of political news for millions of Americans, then he needs to do a better job of informing him that it's a comedy show, not a news show.[/QUOTE]
The show comes on Comedy fucking Central, what more do people need? It isn't his fault people are stupid. i mean I watch Real Time with Bill Maher every week, but I know he's a comedian first and foremost. you know how I know? He does a monologue before every show, kinda gives it away. That and the multiple stand up comedy specials. Hell, George Carlin commented on politics all the time, no one ever accused him of being anything but a comedian. Lewis Black does it all the time too, does he have that responsibility too?
 
FOX commentators should go out of their way to state that their works are opinion pieces and not news. The people have a right to be informed!

Comedians shouldn't go out of their way to state that their works are comedy and not news. Screw the stupid people!
 
[quote name='Rei no Otaku']The reason why a lot of Americans have that as their primary source is the complete and utter failure of mainstream news. I don't agree that people should be using Stewart purely for news, but I can't blame them when the mainstream press has failed us.[/QUOTE]

Missed this before. I cant disagree strongly enough. People do not make the daily show their only source of news because the media sucks, they do so because people are idiots that think everything should be fun and easy now days. People want their medicine to taste like candy, their work to be as automated as possible and their news to be spoon fed to them.

Its just human nature and unless people recognize the lazy/stupid side we all have within us you cant overcome it. Thus people dont.
 
Because fox and MSNBC are opinion masked as news. Fox News is on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC is on the Microsoft National Broadcasting Channel (or is it different now?).

The daily show is comedy that uses news as fodder. The daily show is on COMEDY Central. I go to the comedy channel for comedy and the news channel for news right?

These are different. I go to the hospital for a broken leg, but there's a cafeteria there. I don't go to Applebees when I have a broken leg and expect anything other than a Mudslide...
 
I dont think MSNBC claims to be news. Their old tagline was, "The place for politics". Its political commentary AROUND THE CLOCK, up until it gets late and they put on prison documentaries or something.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I dont think MSNBC claims to be news. Their old tagline was, "The place for politics". Its political commentary AROUND THE CLOCK, up until it gets late and they put on prison documentaries or something.[/QUOTE]

It's true. I've heard that Ed guy come out and say point-blank that he's a populist and they all admit their left bias. Chris Matthews plays it more down the middle but he's one of the only ones.

Do they still have Joe Scarborough hosting a show in the morning? That guy is also no Communist.
 
I'm not sure why comedy is so often considered a lower forum of communication, or a comedian-statesman is somehow worse than a lawyer-statesman, farmer-statesman, or specialinterests-stateman.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Missed this before. I cant disagree strongly enough. People do not make the daily show their only source of news because the media sucks, they do so because people are idiots that think everything should be fun and easy now days. People want their medicine to taste like candy, their work to be as automated as possible and their news to be spoon fed to them.

Its just human nature and unless people recognize the lazy/stupid side we all have within us you cant overcome it. Thus people dont.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely this. The fact that so many people rely on the daily show as their only source for politics says nothing about the lack of quality in our news media, but everything about the ignorance of the American public. I can guarantee you if you polled a random sample of people whose only source of news is the Daily Show, you would get a fairly large percentage who would tell you that they weren't even aware of the fact that it's not a serious news show, despite being on comedy central, and if not for the Daily Show, they would be otherwise completely ignorant and unaware of anything going on in relation to our government.

People don't watch the daily show exclusively to protest the quality of the mainstream media, they do it because they are dumb, and John Stewart perpetuates that ignorance by continuing to blur the line between comedy and journalism. John Stewart is not an idiot, he knows who is audience is, and if he changed the tone of his show to make it more obvious that what he is doing is just bad comedy as opposed to comedy veiled as journalism, there's a good chance a lot of people would stop watching.

Yes, it sucks that our legitimate news media has devolved into little more than infotainment, but there are still a lot of good resources out there. To write everything off as junk and to instead praise carnival barkers like John Stewart is just totally ignorant.
 
[quote name='spmahn']John Stewart is not an idiot, he knows who is audience is, and if he changed the tone of his show to make it more obvious that what he is doing is just bad comedy as opposed to comedy veiled as journalism, there's a good chance a lot of people would stop watching.[/QUOTE]

What kind of comedy do you enjoy? I'd be most intersted in the specific comedians you find funny.
 
[quote name='camoor']What kind of comedy do you enjoy? I'd be most intersted in the specific comedians you find funny.[/QUOTE]

Im not a big fan of Political Satire, to me it always comes off as condescending. To me, the end all be all of standup is Rodney Dangerfield, even if his act was mostly just based on one premise. I liked Carlin until he got political, Richard Pryor and Chris Rock were great too. I grew up a fan of Mad Magazine, Weird Al, and The Simpsons, so my sense of humor tends to be a little far out there sometimes.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Missed this before. I cant disagree strongly enough. People do not make the daily show their only source of news because the media sucks, they do so because people are idiots that think everything should be fun and easy now days.[/QUOTE]

People might make it their only source of news on tv because regular media sucks and keeps you ignorant through either active misinformation or the fact that most anchors/pundits are basically stuffed animals.

There no reason why being informed should be a long hard slog.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Im not a big fan of Political Satire, to me it always comes off as condescending. To me, the end all be all of standup is Rodney Dangerfield, even if his act was mostly just based on one premise. I liked Carlin until he got political, Richard Pryor and Chris Rock were great too. I grew up a fan of Mad Magazine, Weird Al, and The Simpsons, so my sense of humor tends to be a little far out there sometimes.[/QUOTE]

Somewhat ironic that you find political satire condenscending, but just get a load of your previous post. By your own admission you don't like political satire but then you go farther and dismiss people who enjoy watching John Stewart as "completely ignorant and unaware of anything going on in relation to our government", "dumb", "ignorant" (again) and possessive of bad taste.

And don't flatter yourself, your sense of humor is fairly pedestrian. I mean, I like all the comedians you cite but so do most folks, it's not like you said Andy Kaufman and Victor Borge.
 
[quote name='Msut77']People might make it their only source of news on tv because regular media sucks and keeps you ignorant through either active misinformation or the fact that most anchors/pundits are basically stuffed animals.

There no reason why being informed should be a long hard slog.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. First off while the sources on TV may not be ideal they are at least decent. Second off they became mush because people willed them to be mush. Third off if your willing to read there are tons of sources available. Finally there are subjects that you just cant spice up without dumbing down. Do you really think that we can take advanced economic theory and present a debate about it and keep peoples attentions? Most people do not even watch the daily show because its too much work for them to have to think or be presented with the issues.

This is also not simply an issue of politics. My mother lost her home from taking out multiple loans on her house, not saving enough money and just acting idiotic with her finances in general. My mother in law says all the time that she feels bad she could not afford to send my wife through school, yet she has always had a big screen TV and goes on a multi thousand dollar vacation at least twice a year. I am incredibly liberal and agree that more should be done to help people, but I am sorry I have never bought in to the liberal stereotype that all of our problems can be blamed on others. People are stupid and our very nature is to take the easy/fun road, as a result we tend to find ourselves ignorant and in trouble. Its part of WHY I am a liberal, because people have proved in the last 100 years that as soon as we are presented with forks in the road we chose the path we think will make us rich fast or involve the least amount of work.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']FOX commentators should go out of their way to state that their works are opinion pieces and not news. The people have a right to be informed!

Comedians shouldn't go out of their way to state that their works are comedy and not news. Screw the stupid people![/QUOTE]

Do you think that FNC is comparable to Comedy Central? DOesn't that say a lot?
 
[quote name='camoor']Somewhat ironic that you find political satire condenscending, but just get a load of your previous post. By your own admission you don't like political satire but then you go farther and dismiss people who enjoy watching John Stewart as "completely ignorant and unaware of anything going on in relation to our government", "dumb", "ignorant" (again) and possessive of bad taste.

And don't flatter yourself, your sense of humor is fairly pedestrian. I mean, I like all the comedians you cite but so do most folks, it's not like you said Andy Kaufman and Victor Borge.[/QUOTE]

Andy Kaufman was a bit of an odd sort. Based on what I've read about him (and I've read lots), his work is more of a case study on human behavior than anything resembling comedy. The man was also a certifiable nutcase who seemed to be suffering from some rather severe mental illnesses, which left him completely out of touch with reality by the end of his life, but that's another discussion for another thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='MSI Magus']Disagree. First off while the sources on TV may not be ideal they are at least decent.[/quote]

No, I wasn't joking when I said most pundits out there might as well be stuffed animals.

Ever see the documentary "inside job"? Watch it and take notes how the person conducting the interviews is knowledgeable and doesn't let the people he interviews get by with some glib remark and/or lie.


Second off they became mush because people willed them to be mush.
Click to expand...

Networks don't have to do everything for money or cater to the lowest common denominator.

Do you really think that we can take advanced economic theory and present a debate about it and keep peoples attentions?
Click to expand...

I think you would be surprised what can be explained to average people if you explain it the right way.
 
[quote name='Msut77']No, I wasn't joking when I said most pundits out there might as well be stuffed animals.

Ever see the documentary "inside job"? Watch it and take notes how the person conducting the interviews is knowledgeable and doesn't let the people he interviews get by with some glib remark and/or lie.




Networks don't have to do everything for money or cater to the lowest common denominator.



I think you would be surprised what can be explained to average people if you explain it the right way.[/QUOTE]

Lets say that you are right about all of this, every last thing. You still do not address the fact that most people cant even be bothered to watch something like the daily show. It does not matter if you present things to people in an entertaining way or not, if its not the MOST entertaining option then people do not want to waste time on it now days. Its like how kids say they hate all sorts of foods when the reality is its not that they hate veggie stew it is that their parents let them be picky and thus they choose to eat pizza over moms veggie stew. That is the American public! A picky child who COULD watch the daily show...but why the fuck should they when they can just watch American Idol and Celebrity Apprentice?

I will watch your movie(Im a documentary whore anyways)but I raise you a book. Read Amusing ourselves to death by Neil Postman. Its a great book that talks about how the rise of TV killed public discourse. He wrote the book during a time where it was just TV competing for our attention, now there is the net, texting, a world of movies at our fingertips(netflix), video games and an ungodly amount of TV shows. The more options people have the more likely they are to chose something else over doing something educational no matter how fun the educational option is. Hell even I myself while I do enjoy things like the Diane Rehm Show, political documentaries and other such educational shows would chose a video game over any of them...I just recognize the need to eat my veggie stew from time to time.

Edit - Bah inside job is not on netflix instant watch! I added it to the list anyways but was hoping to watch it sooner.
Edit 2- For your convenience here is the think to amusing ourselves to death
http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourse...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1308871921&sr=8-1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Networks don't have to do everything for money or cater to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

Actually, unless we're going to get publicly financed media, the Networks do have to do everything for money and to cater to the lowest common denominator. The network news outlets are doing all they can to stay relavent as it is. While it would be nice if we could turn back the dial to a better time where we could expect rel journalism from Edward R Murrow or Walter Cronkite, the reality is that there isn't enough demand for that type of reporting for them. The average viewer only wants their news in 30 second snippets, and wants it pre-digested for them so they don't have to think or drawn conclusions, or come up with opinions of their own.

Money is exactly why the news has devolved into sensationalism and infotainment. 35 years ago when Elvis died, it was got a brief mention for a few minutes at the top of the news broadcast, and that was it. 2 years ago when Michael Jackson died, the network news devoted practically their entire broadcast to reporting on it, and it was the cornerstone of the 24 hour networks broadcast for almost the next week and a half. 20 years ago, trashy celebrity news was the domain of the tabloids. In 2011, Charlie Sheen farts, and Brian Williams is on the scene to report on it.

Now who is at fault for training the American Public to care more about the Casey Anthony trial than the debate over the debt ceiling? Is it the 24 hour news networks whose very nature demands that every piece of even marginally important news needs to be treated as though it's a headline? Is it just a shift in society in our post 9/11 world, where people want to revert back to being blissfully ignorant? I don't know where things went wrong, but things have changed, and they're pretty much stuck that way for good now.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Actually, unless we're going to get publicly financed media, the Networks do have to do everything for money and to cater to the lowest common denominator. The network news outlets are doing all they can to stay relavent as it is. While it would be nice if we could turn back the dial to a better time where we could expect rel journalism from Edward R Murrow or Walter Cronkite, the reality is that there isn't enough demand for that type of reporting for them. The average viewer only wants their news in 30 second snippets, and wants it pre-digested for them so they don't have to think or drawn conclusions, or come up with opinions of their own.

Money is exactly why the news has devolved into sensationalism and infotainment. 35 years ago when Elvis died, it was got a brief mention for a few minutes at the top of the news broadcast, and that was it. 2 years ago when Michael Jackson died, the network news devoted practically their entire broadcast to reporting on it, and it was the cornerstone of the 24 hour networks broadcast for almost the next week and a half. 20 years ago, trashy celebrity news was the domain of the tabloids. In 2011, Charlie Sheen farts, and Brian Williams is on the scene to report on it.

Now who is at fault for training the American Public to care more about the Casey Anthony trial than the debate over the debt ceiling? Is it the 24 hour news networks whose very nature demands that every piece of even marginally important news needs to be treated as though it's a headline? Is it just a shift in society in our post 9/11 world, where people want to revert back to being blissfully ignorant? I don't know where things went wrong, but things have changed, and they're pretty much stuck that way for good now.[/QUOTE]

Come on, now. I agree with you up to a point, but sensationalism is an essential aspect of "mass" media. It is not a new creation. Just because you can pluck the names of a few more or less universally respected newsmen out of the mire of the last century and a half of the journalistic profession does not mean there was ever was some sort of golden age where journalistic integrity was ubiquitous and everyone was well-informed about critical issues. We didn't need a 24-hour news cycle to give Lizzie Borden, the Lindbergh baby, or the Black Dahlia an absurdly overinflated degree of importance. The American People have always been quite willing to be distracted and pandered to, and little has changed beyond the mediums through which we elect to be condescended to. The "good old days" mentality is self-deceptive and a little silly; the ghost of Walter Cronkite isn't going to save us from ourselves.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Do you think that FNC is comparable to Comedy Central? DOesn't that say a lot?[/QUOTE]

In that they're both entertainment-driven media designed to sell airspace via ads?
Yup.

It's a sad world - a non-entertainment-driven news source needs funding - no one would watch a channel that doesn't entertain them and no company would be interested in airing ads on a channel that no one would watch...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']In that they're both entertainment-driven media designed to sell airspace via ads?
Yup.

It's a sad world - a non-entertainment-driven news source needs funding - no one would watch a channel that doesn't entertain them and no company would be interested in airing ads on a channel that no one would watch...[/QUOTE]

And that is why the Government should keep funding PBS right Bob?!?!?!
 
After that interview I can see the new Fox News slogan

"Fox News - now with less fart jokes then Comedy Central and you can distinguish our 'news' from skits on the Onion*"

*usually. Claims do not apply to Fox&Friends, Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. Use of product may induce bouts of Tea-party inspired hysteria. If you find yourself admiring Palin for more then three days please consult your psychiatrist or other mental care professional.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']And that is why the Government should keep funding PBS right Bob?!?!?![/QUOTE]

Not at all.

When someone funds you, then you have to worry about appeasing them or losing funding.

I don't want my news organizations worried about appeasing the federal government.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not at all.

When someone funds you, then you have to worry about appeasing them or losing funding.

I don't want my news organizations worried about appeasing the federal government.[/QUOTE]

So its bad if corporations fund them but its bad if the government funds them. So all media should rely on public hand out alone then?

Realistically as well just because they are funded by the government does not mean they have to have 1 solid message driven by the government. If we were a dictatorship yes that would be true, but as a Democracy its not.
 
They pretty much train you to be a sensationalist prick in college journalism as well, it's not all surprising how the big news networks operate.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']So its bad if corporations fund them but its bad if the government funds them. So all media should rely on public hand out alone then?

Realistically as well just because they are funded by the government does not mean they have to have 1 solid message driven by the government. If we were a dictatorship yes that would be true, but as a Democracy its not.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it's bad if corporations fund them. I'm saying corporations won't fund them unless they're entertaining. If there are corporations out there that would fund a news-only operation, that'd be great - so long as the McDonald's logo or Walmart logo on the paycheck didn't effect how that news organization reported on stories involving McDonald's or Walmart.

Do you think NPR is going to do a hard-hitting exposé on Steve Israel - or any of the other big-time PBS/NPR supporters in Congress?

And do you think if NPR did a hard-hitting exposé on Doug Lamborn or someone of his like, that any listeners who weren't already against this guy would see it as anything more than a payback scheme?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You do understand that you've basically set up a paradox, right? I mean by your standards no media is ever going to do a negative story on someone who supports them, which someone has to. Granted having lots of small nobody donors lessens that worry, but all public media groups have their bigger donors. I mean it's near impossible to have 100% impartiality if someone is giving you money. For the record though, I don't think NPR is really shy about doing stories which paint them or donors in an unflattering light. When all the hubbub about de-funding them was going on they covered it, when their own president was caught saying they didn't need government funding, they covered that too. When she resigned they covered that as well.
 
[quote name='Clak']You do understand that you've basically set up a paradox, right? I mean by your standards no media is ever going to do a negative story on someone who supports them, which someone has to. Granted having lots of small nobody donors lessens that worry, but all public media groups have their bigger donors. I mean it's near impossible to have 100% impartiality if someone is giving you money. For the record though, I don't think NPR is really shy about doing stories which paint them or donors in an unflattering light. When all the hubbub about de-funding them was going on they covered it, when their own president was caught saying they didn't need government funding, they covered that too. When she resigned they covered that as well.[/QUOTE]

Ding ding ding! Dead on sir, dead on. NPR is one of the only groups out there I see covering everything. They dont focus on just 1 subject all week long. Among those various subjects they bring up....iv heard things involving NPR. Same with the NYTimes which people love to critic as ultra liberal, yet they cover stories like their own predicted demise.
 
A newspaper running an article about the impending demise of newspapers is hardly hard-hitting journalism. That falls clearly under the "Dog bites man" category.

When was the last time that NPR was the source for a major news story that painted them or a major donor in a bad light? I'm not talking about covering it the day after the talking heads on FOX/MSNBC/CNN brought it up.
 
So you mean you expected them to be the ones who broke the story? I mean you realize how their president was caught on tape, right? You want NPR to do shit like that so they can be the source? Either way it doesn't matter, my point is that they don't avoid the issues and they didn't.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not at all.

When someone funds you, then you have to worry about appeasing them or losing funding.

I don't want my news organizations worried about appeasing the federal government.[/QUOTE]Completely agree that the funds don't help. As long as they accept public funding they'll have that conservo-target on their back. Sounds like the local stations need it more though.

NYTimes appeased the government. Doesn't take taxpayer funding like NPR does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top