[w00pla2]

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).

[vaksel]

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-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]

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.

[vaksel]

here you go(2nd graph):

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-curre...

[DanielBMarkham]

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.

[vaksel]

yes but out of those who actively consume this sort of news, Daily Show has higher numbers.

[DanielBMarkham]

I need to go back and study it some more, because from the abstract at the bottom, titled "Knowledge Levels by News Source", The Daily Show/Colbert Report looks like it's tied or bested in almost every category by folks who read newspaper websites. In fact, if you call the margin of error around 4%, there's really not much difference in the top several items. And I can't believe something like this would be accurate down to 1 or 2 percentage points or less.

[mkr-hn]

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-28/entertainment/comedy.poli...

[mkr-hn]

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]

> 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.

[elblanco]

> Of interviews with politicians which they obtained under false pretences?

Why do you say that? I've watched TDS since before Stewart was the host. I think it's pretty clear they are a comedic satire show when they do their interviews. They stage and prompt their interviewees to make the interviews more fun.

"Say, 'I like Cocaine'"

"I like Cocaine"

Only morons believe it's a real news show. But it does a fabulous job, through comedy and satire, at revealing the uncomfortable hypocrisy that underlies an awful lot of news and politics.

There are tons of comedy shows that dip into politics. Lampooning politicians is probably one of the oldest and most common forms of comedy. I won't even attempt to list some, you'd have to be willfully trying to avoid it if you aren't aware of this.

[w00pla2]

> I think it's pretty clear they are a comedic satire show when they do their interviews.

Nope. They often have interviews under false pretenses (the interviewee doesn't know he is from the daily show). The questions and the persons facial expressions) is often edited in afterwards.

[bbatsell]

Not according to John Oliver; every pre-arranged interviewee knows exactly who they will be speaking with and what their schtick is. Man-on-the-street interviewees are told they're with The Daily Show, but it's on them to know what that is.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1222483...

[mkr-hn]

Can you cite this?

[elblanco]

Don't even bother engaging him anymore, he's just regurgitating conspiracy theories that float around in right-wing circles as a way to explain their often public embarrassments.

[RickHull]

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/04/14/behind-the-scenes-ffrf...

[mkr-hn]

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]

> 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!

[elblanco]

> 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!

That's called comedy.

Just like a caricature exaggerates features of a person to look funny, comedy often exaggerates or simplifies complex situations for laughs. (my god I can't believe I have to explain this, I'm suddenly teaching humor to Data from Star Trek).

[lzw]

Caricature exaggerates an aspect that exists for comedic effect.

Stewart fabricates lies to denigrate political opponents for comedic effect.

One is honest,the othervis dishonest.

[mkr-hn]

"Nope. Journalism isn’t doing fine. The majority of papers that do good investigative journalism have serious financial problems."

I did say you were looking in the wrong places. You said you weren't in the US, so I wouldn't expect you to know about what local and regional papers do. Journalism does exist, but you have to go to the locals to find it. By narrowing their focus, they're able to limit the costs.

They have one beat, and it's usually in their own neighborhood.

"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…)."

I can't find any reference to that day's episode or the clip you mention. Can you be more specific by providing a link?

[w00pla2]

> Journalism does exist, but you have to go to the locals to find it. By narrowing their focus, they're able to limit the costs.

There are many facets of journalism (including regional papers). Regional papers are surviving. But the fact of the matter is that all papers addressing national and international issues are fading and declining (almost as fast as my Karma today).

> I can't find any reference to that day's episode or the clip you mention. Can you be more specific by providing a link?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-5-2010/oliver---w...

[lzw]

Here's a citation: basically everything Stewart has said about beck is a flat out lie. Of course, Stewart is a socialist and to them, beck must be a theocrat and so they portray him as such, but realitybis, he believes in freedom of religion, not theocracy. He supports individual rights, unlike Jon stewart.

So Stewart makes stuff up about, selectively edits things out of contexts, and makes fun of him. The liberals who watch think it is real and beck gets less credibility among them, even though vie yet to meet one who could accurately describe becks actual positions.

[nkohari]

This comment sums up the reasons why the Internet is both the greatest and worst thing humankind has ever created.

[elblanco]

I don't think you understand what "citation" means.

[elblanco]

Have you ever watched an entire episode of Beck?

[mkr-hn]

I've watched his show and don't see any divergence between Jon's representations and Beck's general manner. Beck is a political comedian, and political comedians get fun poked at them by other political comedians.

[lzw]

Of course because your understanding of becks general manner comes from the daily show. That's the waht's brilliant about this form of political propaganda- it makes you think your engaging in critical thinking awhile spoon feeding falsehoods to you, to the point that you would sincerely judge the accuracy of the show solely on your understanding derived from the show! You think yore well informed, but you don't even realize how little you actually know.

I'm not saying you havent seen these same falsehoods from other propaganda outlets like huffington post, talking points memo, and daily kaos, etc.

If you knew anything about beck you'd know that his portrayal on the daily show is profoundly dishonest. This is how I can speak conclusively because it is not even a shade of grey.

Elsewhere you assert that you would hold stewart accountable, but here you don't even know enough about beck to know that you're being told lies.

The sad truth is, for so many 20 something, it is a news show and you don't even realize it.

[binarymax]

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]

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.

[GiraffeNecktie]

You don't like the Daily Show because it fails to provide serious, non-partisan, in-depth and balanced analysis of current events????

Did you miss the part about it being being a mock news program?

[elblanco]

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

[lzw]

I'm an American, I used to watch the daily dhow regularly, and you are spot on.

The show pretends to be giving the news, t itbis dishonest, and it essentially tells lies about others in order to mock them.

If it mocked them for things they actually did, it would be one thing, but people believe that it is accurately portraying them and so it spreads misinformation as part of a hate campaign.

I've studied leni reifenstahl as well, and this is propaganda of e highest order. Only instead of targeting Jews, it targets anyone who is not a socialist.

[panacea]

Did you seriously just compare The Daily Show to Nazi Propaganda films?

(And there's no way I accept that it's a socialist hate campaign... that's straight out of Glenn Beck rhetoric land).

[elblanco]

Don't feed the troll. This guy is clearly stuck in 1950's McCarthy-land and thinks Godwin's law is a guidebook, not a admonishment of sloppy thinking. You'll only be debating your grandfather here.

[lzw]

Godwins law doesn't exist. If you bothered to know what You were talking a out you'd know Godwin never made any such law. It is an excuse for holocaust deniers to refuse to admit that the Nazi party was real and did exist and therefore the causes and situations relevant to their existence are worth considering.

Notice also, I did not make any comparison to hitler, i asked how he thought the German people let Nazis come to power and why.

Of course, that was a question that you don't answer, instead you engage in personal attack.

If you actually cared for debate, your only contribution wouldn't be ad hominem and lies.

[lzw]

Absolutely, and I say this as one who studied many semesters in college the films of Germany, Nazi, pre-Nazi and post Nazi.

Of course you won't accept it as a socialist hate campaign.

Do you think that Germans are genetically predisposed to fascism? Do you think they are weak or inferior to Americans in some way? How is it, do you suppose, that they let Nazis take power, and commit such massive crimes?

[krschultz]

Why does socialism == hate campaign? What is the association between them?

There is a huge difference between a Democrat/liberal person and a socialist, and a huge difference between socialists and facists, and all of them are short of being Nazis.

Anyone standing on the right, painting everyone to their left as socialist Nazis trying to destroy America are completely out of touch.

[nkohari]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/bunny%20pancake/DKaidian/...

[ugh]

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

[krschultz]

Hundreds of years of political satire (cartoons, opinion pieces) agree with you.

[elblanco]

> Thousands of years of political satire (cartoons, opinion pieces) agree with you.

Fixed that for you.

[IgorPartola]

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.