[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...

[mkr-hn]

And it was still funny.

Everyone I know is fully aware of how some groups are treated in SA. I think this is the disconnect: You see TDS as a news source, and are worried that its viewers take it as news. But they don't.

We watch it to be entertained. We're already well-informed on what they're joking about.

[w00pla2]

> Everyone I know is fully aware of how some groups are treated in SA.

Nope. Most people will simply not get the nuances. I sincerely doubt (no offense) that you know anything about the situation (economic, cultural, etc...) of several groups.

By the way - getting the interview under false pretenses is still unethical.

But yeah, he is now branded as a racist.

> You see TDS as a news source, and are worried that its viewers take it as news.

TDS is an opinion former. What it does is presents a warped and highly subjective view of certain complex topics.

In any case, I guess that TDS is simply the result for a demand of such programs. Just like the dumbing down of CNN is because of demand factors.

People like their news like they like their fast food: Only the juicy bits and they don't care whether it is accurate or not.