[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.

[elblanco]

This is probably my last response to you and I'm trying to say this without coming across as mean.

First off, there are no serious claims anywhere that TDS misrepresents itself when filming interviews. People here have asked for citations of your claim several times and you've failed to respond. Please stop regurgitating nonsense. This isn't the place for it.

While I enjoy your willingness to engage on some level, and not immediately degenerate every posting into a Godwin's law violation, you really have a terrible awful lot to learn. I don't mean this in a "if only you knew more about the brilliance of leftist politics, the truth would become obvious" sort of way. I mean this completely apolitically. You actually seem to be completely unawares what political parody, satire, irony, sarcasm and comedy is, its history and how it works. The audience of TDS does know. You are clearly not the audience.

The Daily show has been broadcast in the U.S. for almost 15 years on a channel exclusively devoted to broadcasting comedy programming, it's one of the most popular and well known shows in America. It's commonly rebroadcast on the Internet, on other stations and other programs. Its host, Stewart appears often on popular competing and opposing shows. It's commonly derided by right-leaning talkshow hosts, news programs and commentary shows. It makes no claims to be a news show, unbiased or otherwise. Stewart himself has said on many occasions that he and the show are clearly left-leaning but make a concerted effort to make fun of all-sides. Despite their admitted left-lean, the show has gained a strong reputation among the right-leaning people as a place where they can have a fair conversation during the table-talk guest interviews. Every episode is available online, and youtube is practically clogged with TDS clips. It's won dozens upon dozens of major awards (I don't mean this as a point of legitimacy, but as a point of notoriety). It's well known in most English speaking countries and many non-English speaking countries. They even put this up at the beginning of every episode: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/TDSglobal.png. In other words, what it is, and what it serves is well and widely known by anybody who has ever watched it.

Stewart himself says of how they target the show, "Our show would not be valuable to people who didn't understand the news because it wouldn't make sense," he argues. "We make assumptions about your level of knowledge that... if we were your only source of news, you would just watch our show and think, 'I don't know what's happening.'"

Again, I'm not saying this to be mean spirited, but you are clearly not somebody who they are targeting for their audience. In order to understand the show, you have to be well informed about current events, people in the news, politics, who the major players are, and understand parody, satire, sarcasm, irony and comedy. You clearly don't fit into this mold and that's okay. I don't get the work of Mark Rothko, I'm clearly not the intended audience of his work either.

Your objection is that TDS is not an apolitical objective news program doesn't make any sense because you don't know and understand the things you have to know and understand to "get it", it's like complaining that my car is not a helicopter.

[redrobot5050]

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

Then WHY do you even own a TV?

The Daily Show is a mock-comedy news program. It's objective is to be funny. That you don't get the joke and complain about how "serious" people take it, well, that only underscores that they've hit their objective right on the nose.

You might want to shop around for a startup who can give you a sense of humor.

[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...

[w00pla2]

I am no fan of Roodt, but the Daily Show did its best to misrepresent his nuanced view.

Here is a really bad translation on his website (praag.co.za):

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...

[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.

[lzw]

Of course, i forgot that leftists are always informed about everything, perfectly objectively, and if you catch them in an error, they will simply lie.

Ok, you are all bigots, and you've been told to hate beck so there is no point in taking to you, you will just continue to tell lies.

[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.

[lzw]

Thank you for remoinding me: never argue with a leftist, they'll just lie.