[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.

[w00pla2]

> he's just regurgitating conspiracy theories that float around in right-wing circles as

Firstly, I am not "right wing". I am libertarian and socially liberal.

> as a way to explain their often public embarrassments.

This is exactly the idiocy that I was talking about. Note that you put everyone in an "us" and "them" basket.

I do not care what the content of the program is, as long as it is objective.

Unfortunately many people on the internet (such as yourself) just flock to news sources that agree with your point of view (such as Huffington Post, reddit.com, Alternet, TDS, etc...) and the right flock to their websites and programs (Glen Beck, Redstate, whatever).

In the end those programs just end up engaging in character assassination instead of having a constructive and rational debate. But I guess that is too much too ask.

[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]

Stewart knows his audience. They're the sort of people who go looking for longer clips of stuff like that, so he's less concerned with accuracy and more so with comic effect.

Those 20 somethings (myself included) I mentioned readily criticize him whenever he misquotes or misrepresents. But it's still funny.

It's a comedy show, not a news show.

[elblanco]

Sorry to all reddit here but whooosh.

[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...

[mkr-hn]

Are you referring to the interview with Dan Roodt?

Because if he wasn't in on the joke or was bothered by it, you'd expect to see some mention of the interview on his blog: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22daily%20show%22%20site:htt...

[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.

[krschultz]

Any time you start off a point by saying "Of course, Stewart is a socialist ....." and then go on to call blogs propaganda outlets, I 100% tune out your opinion. If you are trying to call out someone else as being uninformed, you probably should cut out the double speak before trying to make your point if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who is not indoctrinated into that school of thought.

Guess what, I think socialism is an interesting concept, not the boogeyman! And I have been a registered big L Libertarian from before Ron Paul and Glenn Beck were even known! I ran as a libertarian candidate once, and I still don't use socialist as a degrogatory adjective like you clearly have. Get a grip on reality.

[mquander]

That's sure a big rude assumption (that if you think Stewart is accurate, you must not know anything about Glenn Beck.) I watch Beck every once in a while and I thought Stewart's portrayal of him nailed it.

You should start citing specific things you take issue with.

[mkr-hn]

"Of course because your understanding of becks general manner comes from the daily show."

Nope. I watched him on HLN, then for a while on Fox.