Slashdot Mirror
Daily Show's Viewers Best O'Reilly's In Political Quiz
tjg89 writes "CNN.com has an interesting article about some deragatory comments made about Daily Show viewers by Bill O'Reilly and how Comedy Central reacted. They not only proved that the Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of his show, but they are also more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen. Are more slashdot readers Daily Show people or O'Reilly people?" Update: 09/29 16:55 GMT by T : The Daily Show's audience actually topped viewers of "The Tonight Show,""The Late Show" and "The O'Reilly Factor"; CNN just carried the story. (Thanks to reader Robert Nevitt for the correction.)
Isn't O'Reilly on Fox, not CNN?
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
When I had Cable I watched the Daily Show. No more cable means pretty much ignoring news on the TV - but that's what the 'net for, info.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
I can't stand either of them. Give me John McLaughlin and his McLaughlin Group over those other clowns anyday.
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
Although WROX also make a fine good yarn.
:-)
Who is this Letterman guy? Is he another hyped up CTO who publishes a blog, or has he written any good books/articles...
*comes down from development high*
Oooooooh comedy... I'll take Seinfeld Series 1-3 thanks.
"Twiiiiiiix!"
Today is INDUCE act call in day
Call now and state your opinion
(US) 800.469.9269
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Jon Stewart is the man. O'Reilly is just a bully and a blowhard. And, while the Daily Show is fake news, it's still more real than The Factor.
To be fair, I did try listening to the Radio Factor for a few weeks. O'Reilly is head and shoulders above Hannity and Rush. But that's like saying Franco was head and shoulders above Hitler and Stalin. It's all relative.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Too bad he's a dyed-in-the-wool Leno fan- no wonder he's voting for Bush.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Bill O'Reilly is actually on Fox News, not CNN.
I guess you could say I'm a huge O'Reilly fan, not only because of his show, but because of all those top quality Computing books he finds time to write. It's just wronger to say us O'Reilly viewers are less intellignet.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
Fix this god damn category so that when we select POLITICS from the "exclude from front page" preferences, it ACTUALLY FUCKING WORKS.
for my favorite quote of this circus so far:
"The Facts are obviously biased against the Bush administration."
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
O'reilly is a twit. How can you take someone seriously who writes romance novels and hosted a tabloid television show (Inside Edition) for many years?
Second, the summary says, "Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of [O'Reilly's] show", which is also incorrect. The CNN article states that more Daily Show viewers are 4+ years college educated and $100K+ salaried, but it says nothing about who is more informed between O'Reilly and the Daily Show. The Daily Show viewers are more informed than Letterman etc.
Story submitters and mods need to do a better job and actually read the articles they submit.
The poll was taken by Annenberg, not CNN, and wasn't taken in response to anything in particular.... This PDF from them directly has more specific stats and methodology. (I'm just amused that someone had to classify all the jokes. <g>)
... but he kept cutting my Mic.
Daily Show all the way; CNN the rest of the way here but Never, Never FoxNews. The only Fair and Balanced they are is to the far right.
(Although Laurie Dhue is a FOX!!! How do you do Laurie Dhue, I would love to do you too...)
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
If you have seen "OutFoxed" you see him totally reem a guy whos parents died in 9-11 just because he said something that Bill didn't agree with. Had the guy escorted off the studio only after insulting his dead parents. Great guy that O'Reilly.
On the other hand... Jon Stewart is a comic genius. I get more real news from the first 15 minutes of the daily show than watching CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX all day. Plus I get to LOL on many occasions. Jon definitely deserves a shot at the tonight show after Jay is gone, or even Letterman's spot.
I hate my sig.
Captain Kangaroo people at times if you ask me.
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
Stewart is great. O'Reilly is a one-dimensional asshole. What I really miss is "Politically Incorrect".
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
You would like The Diane Rhem Show then. http://www.wamu.org/dr/index.html
--chris
Watch OutFoxed... they give plenty of proof. Also, read Rolling Stone a few issues back. Here is the online article: The guy is just a jerk who lies and screams and intimidates if he doesn't get his way.
I hate my sig.
This is not surprising for two reasons: first, Bill O'Reilly saying something derogatory about anyone is about as novel as shit coming out of my ass. He's the Rush Limbaugh of TV: extremely close minded and very inflammatory to those who don't agree with him.
Second, anyone who watches The Daily Show has to be pretty open minded and independent thinking. The Daily Show pokes fun at everyone: Republicans, Democrats and even themselves! Their brand of humor also takes a little bit more thought, so those who don't "get it" usually stop watching.
Nathan's blog
If I can find a transcript I'll post it, but basically this "News" about O'Reilly calling the Daily Show viewers stoners is way out of context. O'Reilly was interviewing Jon Steward, and they were Steward and Bill were joking about competing for the same time slot, and both basically agreed that Jon had the college/stoner crowd while O'Reilly had the older folks thus no competition.
hi, Stewart is completely different now b/c frankly, he's got amazingly funny writers.
For a great sample, buy his audiobook from Audible.com ($8.00).
If you like the Onion, you'll love The Daily Show. The former editor in chief is one of the executive producers.
I noticed that they attached a quiz to this story, apparently to test readers' ability to answer questions about, no, not politics -- late night talk shows. Huh???
Thank you very much.
If I get flamed by people accusing him of lying and slanting, please back it up with some facts..
You ought to consider getting a new hero:
"But the picture that emerges of O'Reilly from talking to former colleagues at WFAA is very different. They accuse him of lifting stories from the newspaper and undermining newsroom colleagues. 'In a business where there are a lot of reprehensible people,' says longtime WFAA reporter Byron Harris, 'he stood out as particularly dishonest, obnoxious, self-centered.'"
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
I think we all know that most of the "news" on TV is crap anyway, at least with John Stewart I know to take everything with a grain of salt and I can laugh my ass off too.
I have watched Outfoxed, it's a complete load of crap masquerading as a serious documentary. From the anonymous sources, to the disgruntled ex-employees, to the single source (FAIR) for all its statistics, to focusing on the editorialists of FoxNews instead of the anchors, to the ridiculously small number of daily memos (33) they reviewed and then didn't show all of them, to using quotes of out context, to using quotes when the anchor *was quoting someone else*...
Come on, Outfoxed was horrible! Give me $300,000 and a few months and I'll take enough clips from Air America to make it look like it has a right wing slant.
The most damning things they showed about O'Reilly were his interview with Glick and him telling people to "shut up" 6 times on his show. The Glick thing was bad, but 1 bad interview in 8 years does not an asshole make. The "shut up" point was ridiculous...if you look at the clips they show, only once was he telling someone on his show to shut up...the other times he was either reading a talking point (as in "why don't they just shut up about xyz") or was talking to someone (like the gay high schooler) asking why they didn't just shut up about an issue when pressed on it. I'm actually surprised they didn't take a clip of him saying someone else told HIM to shut up and use it as an example...because he said the words doesn't mean he was commanding somone on the spot to do that.
--trb
Because when you go to CNN and click on the article there's a link saying "pop quiz". I took it, thinking that it would be the Annenberg quiz and that I could test myself against it.
Wrong.
Instead, it was an idiotic CNN poll "quiz" about how many times the people on Leno make fun of Bush or Kerry. 7 Questions. All stupid. Probably someone who watches a lot of Leno/Letterman made up such a silly, unnewsworthy CNN poll...
Someone should ask Bill O'Reilly abount the Paris Business Review.
Yet Another Web Site
The Annenberg Public Policy Center is here, a detailed release fo the specific study is here (it's a pdf).
Canthros
So the facts I ask you to present me with are a Rolling Stone piece, quoting a former coworker that dislikes him. And neither the Rolling Stone piece, nor the coworker, back up these charges with facts.
The Rolling Stone piece starts out disliking him...read the first half of the article and tell me they aren't out to get him. Even the quote you give is prefaced by him saying "I made every possible political mistake." You think people at that station would have liked him?
Again, you can dislike him or his reporting style, but until you show me something he intentionally made up or lied about, you're shooting blanks.
--trb
Something like this came out about a year ago from the Pew Trust.
Basically, viewers of certain TV networks were less informed than viewers of other networks - not naming any names here, mind you - and people who got their news from other sources, such as radio and newspapers tended to be more informed than people who got their news just from TV.
Such polls don't give proper credit to the tough job that some of those TV hosts have on their hands, the challenges they must confront to educate their viewers.
But picking on viewers of certains shows is like picking on special ed teachers for the abilities of their class - those teachers have a tough job on their hands and people need to cut them some slack. Here they are, working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man, and people ridicule them for mistakes of their students.
Let's "Leave No Viewer Behind."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
O'Reilly didn't just misspeak, nor did he make an error.
He manufactured the "Paris Business Review" magazine, out of thin air, to support his OTHER lie about this "French Boycott" that cost over $10billion in trade to France.
So, not only was the trade quote a lie, he backed it up by manufacturing the reference material. There is no "Paris Business Review".
This is his game. Like Coulter, they give references, but they all end up being bogus. They are there for petty-intellectuals, like you, who trust in references, and make other people check facts for you.
All, the headline's WRONG. It should read that they (we) bested FOX News viewers, not CNN.
Why am I not surprised?
Did you read the Rolling Stone article?
Here!
excerpt:
At which point O'Reilly executes his signature move -- the bellowing, bullying, peremptory interruption. "They've lost billions of dollars in France, according to the Paris Business Review!" he thunders.
In short, amazing TV -- the modern media equivalent of witnessing a Christian torn apart by lions, with a touch of opera buffo thrown in. (Boycott Canada?) It mattered not that most of what O'Reilly said bears no relation to the truth. The Paris Business Review doesn't exist, and the "billions" of dollars France supposedly lost reflect figures dating to the 2001 recession, predating by two years O'Reilly's call for a ban on buying French goods (since then, French exports to America have actually gone up).
He just makes stuff up... so he must be a brilliant journalist.
I hate my sig.
I loved the Indecision 2000 coverage. But this time it's more mean-spirited. Last time you could be either of the major parties and have fun, but this time it seems to be aimed more for the Democrats.
It's not fun to watch anymore, so I don't. (And no, I don't watch O'Reilly either)
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
They not only proved that the Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of his show, but they are also more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen.
I call troll. After RTFA twice now it clearly says that the survey was between Daily Show, Late Night, and The Tonight Show, nowhere did they survey The Factor viewers. So how does this "prove" the viewers of the Daily Show are better informed than The Factor viewers?
Also did anyone else catch the percentages?! From the CNN.com article But 60 percent of "Daily Show" viewers answered all six questions correctly. but from the PDF it says that the average score was 60% and that dropped to 48% for the 18-29yro class (less than guessing?!) and only 34% got 5-6 questions correct. Perhaps CNN should RTFA
PDF here
I think O'Reilly's statment may be correct.
FAIR is a place to start looking, especaially their article "The 'Oh Really?' Factor: Bill O'Reilly Spins Facts and Statistics".
The issues are there in either type of show; the difference is that I research the DS stories afterwards more often. (probably because they pick the most insane real life stuff to begin with, and the stories that *don't* make it to other media outlets.)
People who watch other 'news' shows take for granted that the story, as presented, is all there is to it. (In my experience)
Much like the Patriot Act is anything but what its name alludes to - there is always more to the story.
Bill O'Riley is a tool. Of the right, btw.
I was appalled by the video of O'Reilly interviewing Glick. O'Reilly was incredibly presumptuous and unprofessional, and the part where he talked about the guy's father was a real jaw-dropper.
The "Glick thing" was shameful. In that case, it does an asshole make.
Bill O'Reilly saying something derogatory about anyone is about as novel as shit coming out of my ass.
I know you're not supposed to post comments that don't add anything to the discusson, but this statement just made me crack up. ^___^
Joseph?
It depends on the comedy, and the alternatives. Humor comes from learning something unexpectedly quickly, which makes us laugh. We can learn something false, or something true, or partial. Compare the info conveyed in comedic style on _The Daily Show_ to the info conveyed in news style on the "non-fake" news shows. My anecdotatal experience, measured in frequency of screaming back at the talking head, shows Stewart's info to be much more accurate, as cross-referenced by decades of research in books, films, classes and the Internet.
"It's funny because it's true!" - Homer Simpson
--
make install -not war
He lied when he told Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
He said this before the war, and after combat operations ended and the WMD caches kept not pouring in, he started spinning to give himself breathing room. At first he said "in the next few weeks," then continually extended the deadline. Finally, in another interview in February 2004, he gave a half-hearted apology, but still shows no signs of distrust of the Bush administration. [source]
O'Reilly lied when he said he was a political independent. This is another one documented in Franken's book. His own voter registration shows himself registered as a Republican, and he's donated thousands to Republican causes, none to Democratic ones.
O'Reilly lies when he calls his show "The No-Spin Zone." This lie is so manifest, it's hardly worth taking time to document it.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
That _Rolling Stone_ article includes descriptions of O'Reilly's famous (imaginary) "Paris Review", quoted in another post in this thread. His coworker dislikes him because he's a bad guy, and the Rolling Stone journalist dislikes him because he's a bad journalist, and a bad guy. "The facts are obviously biased against O'Reilly", to reapply another post in this thread. Why ignore the documentation, unless your mind is too made up to be confused by these biased facts?
--
make install -not war
"Basically, viewers of certain TV networks were less informed than viewers of other networks - not naming any names here, mind you - and people who got their news from other sources, such as radio and newspapers tended to be more informed than people who got their news just from TV."
Yup. I'm with you so far.
"But picking on viewers of certains shows is like picking on special ed teachers for the abilities of their class - those teachers have a tough job on their hands and people need to cut them some slack. Here they are, working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man, and people ridicule them for mistakes of their students."
Nope. That's the problem. The "political" talk show hosts aren't "working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man".
They have their agenda to push and the manner in which they push it determines their audience.
If you are a small-minded, mean bigot, your audience will, primarily, be others of that type.
Therefore, surveying the self-selected audience gives you a good indication of the nature of that show.
Daily show, of course.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
I'm glad you've actually looked into the "shut up" issue.
It's a sad day when a News *ANALYST* is being assaulted by the far-left for actually running an entertaining show. Bill O'Reilly may be a pompous, arrogant bully -- but he is an *entertaining* pompous, arrogant bully.
He frequently pokes fun at himself.
He frequently gives the last word to the left-wingers he has on.
He frequently reads viewer mail that is unfavorable to The Factor.
The man is just a good host; like him or not, he's popular with a great segment of this country and abroad. The military seems to enjoy his analysis as well by the viewer mail he reads from them.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
the book based on the show
for the lazy I will supply some links:
That CNN quiz seemed more like a push poll. I download the Daily Show every day, but the only real reason I knew the answers to the questions is because my girlfriend is strongly anybody-but-Bush so I dig up dirt from both sides to humour her.
Besides, I always figured the crowd watching O'Reilly were the people who watched talk shows during the daytime and then O'Reilly at night just to feel smarter while still getting inflamatory characters onscreen. The conservatives I know are much more boring than that and stick to Brit Hume, who serves more constructive conversation anyway. O'Reilly's followers no doubt have a good smattering of liberals who think they should be Republican because no one who yells as much as O'Reilly could possibly be wrong. Sheep.
Direct away from face when opening.
That Glick kid was a nut.
I saw that interview when it debuted on the factor.
He was a disgrace to his father's memory and ought to be ashamed of himself.
Bill O'Reilly was totally right for going off on him.
Glick deserved a good scolding.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
ROFL
Fantastic analysis by CNN on this one.
Maybe it's because most people who watch The Daily Show are the people laughing at all the poor interviewees being lambasted by clever editing. I enjoy the show thoroughly, but c'mon....sometimes they are just ridiculously mean-spirited.
The show has turned from a wonderful comedy half-hour hosted by Craig Kilborn ( I miss Thursday's Dance Dance Dance and the 5 questions) into a left-wing bombthrowing extravaganze. From Mess-o-potamia to Indecision 2004 (a.k.a Anybody But Bush-a-palooza) -- John Stewart is now hosting a show that is merely appealing to the leftist youth of the East and West coasts.
I watch the show every day as I am one of said youths.
Thank heavens I'm open-minded enough to see through John Stewart and Stephen Colbert's biased 'coverage.'
I love comedy when it's funny, not angry.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
"more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen"
. htm
Wow, do the Lettermen still perform shows?
http://www.grabow.biz/Nostalgia/Lettermen
Is that the press in this country has become so toothless, so infotainment [ahrg...I said Infotainment] focused, so utterly devoid of the principle of good journalism, so lax (as to be virtually absent) in their watchdog role, that one of the best TV new sources these days is a comedy show.
That's frightening.
What were you expecting?
How do you register to be an independant? Who would you register with?
501 Not Implemented
I watch both the Daily Show and O'Reilly on a farily regular basis. In enjoy both - maybe because I'm more of a centrist leaning a little to the socially liberal side, try to be balanced between consumer and business, and tend to lean towards fiscal responsability (smaller government.)
It's very clear that John Steward and co. are fairly far left, anti-Bush. That doesn't stop him from bashing Kerry now and then however. Likewise, Bill mostly toes the Bush line, but not always. The real truth is somewhere in the middle.
I will say that the Daily Show, being comedy oriented does not need to be (and clearly isn't) fair to either side. They frequently take quotes out of context because they are funny - but that doesn't give the person watching the full story. If you are using the Daily Show as your main source of news you are not getting a true picture of what is going on in the world.
I believe O'Reilly tries to be fair, and most of the time he is spot on, but occasionally it's pretty obvious he is pushing his own adgenda without regard to reason or truth - occasionally going on rants that make me skip forward (tivo).
It's hard to get the real facts, and the full truth out of the media in general. We don't (for example) hear anything about the good things going on in Iraq. All we hear about is the bombings, kidnappings, etc. The negative stuff.
I love the Daily Show, and watch it just about every night. I've probably only missed a handful of episodes since it went on the air with Craig Kilborn all those years ago. However, I'm a little annoyed with it this election cycle, because I feel like Jon's not being an equal opportunity offender. There's plenty of dumb stuff on both sides of the aisle, but these days he hammers the Republicans, and lets the Dems completely off the hook.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The Daily Show, much to my surprise, does a great job with the important national news, and helps you laugh at it as opposed to cry. And it crams the rest of the half hour with a great "Human interest" story, and an interview that can be pretty great.
The Daily Show is fake news. And they're probably the best actual journalists out there. The tragedy of this dismal state of affairs is not lost on me. Nor is the irony that inevitably finds itself connected to great comedy.
Now O'Reilly. Well he's a whore who loves the sound of his own voice. And if it wasn't for a kinda nutty austrailian he'd be living in a Maytag box. He makes his insulting throw-away hyperbolic comments, which is fine, and he starts shitting blood if anyone does the same to him. Pussy. Now you might call me biased. But how can anyone respect a person who comports themselves in such a disingenuous and hypocritical fashion. Rather than say I'm biased against republicans, say I'm biased towards integrity.
IMHO: If the moderators on Slasdot disagree with you then you get modded Troll or Flamebait. If they agree with you then you are Interesting or Informative. They might just as well change moderation to only two choices Agree-Disagree.
If he misspoke once, and then corrected himself, after becoming aware of the mistake that's one thing. But when he repeatedly says he won a Peabody award (which he never did), instead of a Polk award, and makes no effort to correct the situation when it is pointed out to him, I don't think you can put that down to just plain misspeaking.
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
There is no such thing as "non-partisian"!
Everyone has an agenda. Every piece of information you absorb was written by folks who lean one way or the other.
Stop calling shows "left" or "right" leaning. It shouldn't matter if you're open minded and do your own research.
When you complain that a show doesn't cater to your specific political slant, you advertise that you're too lazy to figure things out for yourself and you want someone to chew your food for you.
Be a big boy and stop whining. Everything is slanted. Exercise your brain to do your own research instead of exercising your mouth to complain about it.
I agree with all of Slashdotia when I say that Fox News is conservative. If any of you think that the Daily Show isn't biased, you are wrong.
Yes, the show pokes fun at everything that is news, but not in a fair and balanced way. I love the Daily Show to death and it is my primary source of TV news (Internet is #1) but you must realize that the news is presented with a bias towards humor, and a minor bias towards the left.
Would I change it if I had the power? No. The Daily Show is near comedy perfection, but it is not fair and balanced.
O'Reilly went off on Glick, because that's what he does. He doesn't want to interview or have a civil discussion with some of his guests. It's more beneficial to him if he incites them and makes them come off looking like jerks or idiots because he gets them so riled up and flustered. Maybe Glick just figured that out and didn't want to play Bill's game.
At least that's how Glick puts it.
According to Glick, after the interview Bill completely lost his shit. He slammed his fist on the table and shouted "Get out! Get out of my studio before I tear you to fucking pieces!" In a radio interview, Glick later explained the lesson that Al Franken and innumerable other O'Reilly Factor guests would have benefited greatly from:
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
He lied when he told Good Morning America...
And as you mentioned, he apologized. I'm not sure how you want him to express distrust, but he doesn't give the president a pass on anything. Watch his interview with him tonight, he questioned the president on the WMDs. He questioned him on his service record, the Swift Boat Vets, etc. He's not going to burn GW's picture on national television, but will he "trust" him again as he did at first? Neither you nor I can say that, we can just judge him in the future and bring this up.
This is another one documented in Franken's book.
He explained it: "When I registered in Nassau to vote in 1994, there was not a box for an independent. I left all the boxes empty. Somehow, I was assigned Republican status." And Franken fails to mention that O'Reilly corrected the registration issue the day after he was told he was registered Republican. If you want to believe that he registered as a Republican and is lying about it to seem more to the center, there isn't a lot that I or he can do to convince you.
--trb
Christian science monitor article.
" Stewart is funnier, but I haven't watched his program since, oddly enough, I was in college. I started watching O'Reilly about 2 years ago and got hooked.
If I get flamed by people accusing him of lying and slanting, please back it up with some facts...plenty of people have taken him on, the most famous probably being Al Franken, and they've come up with nothing except a misspeak on Bill's part. You can hate him for being a blowhard, but don't insinuate he outright lies on his show without proof."
What is trollish about that post? Whoever modded that, read the damn guidelines. The poster attacked no one, didn't deride anyone, simply stated an honest, thoughtful opinion. Whoever modded the poster troll, I hope you get pounded in metamoderation, because what you're doing is modding down because you don't like his opinion: that's it. That's wrong, totally against the spirit of the moderation process.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
O'Reilly went off on Glick, because that's what he does.
I believe this quote sums it up nicely:
"You scuttled away from the issue. The issue is not policy, the issue is defamation. I'm not going to discuss policy with you." -- Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor
Could it be that the Daily show primarily makes fun of assholes and idiots and the Republicans just happen to have more than their fair share of both?
It's like when the conservatives claim liberal bias is rampant on college campuses. They're saying that the most enlightened, educated, intellectual people in our nation tend to be liberal, and they see this is a problem with higher education rather than a problem with the conservative viewpoint.
Mark Racicot, chairman of Bush's reselection campaign, was the guest. He says, "This campaign is so focused on being positive," and the audience spontaneously busts out laughing like it was the punchline to a joke.
That's what happens when you try to pawn off bullshit platitudes on an informed audience. They laugh at you. Unfortunately all of America is not so well-informed.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
The Daily Show got just over 50%, and the questions were easy.
Advantage: people who read.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
If you make fun of someone enough and even if your points about them are salient they will become in many peoples eyes the underdog. People like the underdog even when he is already on top.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Your sig: "Every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build [a freer] world." - GW Bush
And, to George W. Bush, that means killing Iraqis and more profits for his friends and family. How is making war equivalent to "seeking peace"?
Of course not. But what I do know is that what Glick was saying during the interview...
http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/w eek_2003_02_02.html#000159
And I quote: "...six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."
This Glick fellow was lying and/or uneducated in history.
"It's more beneficial to him if he incites them and makes them come off looking like jerks or idiots"
And maybe, just maybe Glick is an idiot and/or a jerk...
Ever think of that one?
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
Often, race politics is rearing its ugly head. A Hispanic moderator will mod down articles supporting the deportation of illegal aliens. Indian moderators will mod down articles opposing H-1Bs.
These moderators hate people like Bill O'Reilly because he calls the situation for what it is (most of the time). Don't allow the moderators on Slashdot to bother you. Do what I do. I call talk shows and write letters to journals. These moderators cannot shut you up in those forums.
If you hate[1] what is happening to our nation, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
[1] The best way to fight race politics is to vote against any politician who brings his "ethnic" identity into the race. You often hear Indian politicians start by saying, "As a person with a proud Indian heritage, ..."
By that theory- shouldn't everybody who listens to Air America Radio or the Daily Show be voting for Bush by now? FIRETRUCK! (ob ref- fake swift boat veterans advert on Air America Radio)
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
O'Reilly claims the viewers average test scores did not reflect a true random sample.
"Of the Daily Show viewers polled, only those with enough drive and ambition took the quiz (and did well). The "pot smoking slackers" on the other hand, were up and rattled for a few seconds, then took another hit from the bong and forgot about this nonsense all together."
Of course I'm joking...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
Often, race politics is rearing its ugly head. A Hispanic moderator will mod down articles supporting the deportation of illegal aliens. Indian moderators will mod down articles opposing H-1Bs.
These moderators hate people like Bill O'Reilly because he calls the situation for what it is (most of the time). Don't allow the moderators on Slashdot to bother you. Do what I do. I call talk shows and write letters to journals. These moderators cannot shut you up in those forums.
If you hate[1] what is happening to our nation, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
[1] The best way to fight race politics is to vote against any politician who brings his "ethnic" identity into the race. You often hear Indian politicians start by saying, "As a person with a proud Indian heritage..."
And that's why Franken's (and Moore's) books are always classified as "satire". So they don't get sued for libel.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
The original research report is here (warning: PDF file)
It does not compare the Daily Show to CNN or O'Reilly specifically, but found that the audience of the former was more knowledgeable than the average person who watched "network news", "cable news" or "newspapers."
This finding was held controlling for all other variables, specifically: education level, party identification, 'following politics', watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age, and gender.
I don't think Jon Stewart has as much influence as O'Reilly would like to give him. The reason that most Daily Show viewers are more informed is because they arrive at the show that way.
Think about it. Most of the jokes are political. When Micheal Moore, for example, appears he isn't asked much about the items in his movie - he is just there to talk. Everyone who watches has already heard these items, even if they disagree. The show simply can't be appreciated by those with no political interest.
A long time ago the Daily Show just made fun of most news. Now it has become closer to political news and has developed a larger audience. Are they all liberal? Maybe, that is what bothers O'Reilly I assume. But are they zealots? Likely not. My girlfriend for example likes the show, thinks it's hilarious, but is not a zealot by any means.
To me, the sad thing is that sometimes the Daily Show is the only people actually being critical of the world around us. Jon Stewart was on Charlie Rose last night and he had a lot of very good points about the media today. The biggest point was basically, paraphrased: 'there is a nickname for the area out side of the Beltway, it's called um, America' and he went on to say that too often reporters and those inside the Beltway just dance around the truth about issues that really matter to the rest of us.
Too often CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and the rest of the news agencies and their reporters have developed connections inside of the White House and are afraid to push the hard questions because they worry that will lose their access.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Here you go boss:
http://forums.shuntv.net///index.php?showforum=21
I think you might have to register, and the main site is down. So check http://tracker.shuntv.net/ in a week or so. I think they were revamping the site.
Stop saying Bzzt, you stupid cunt. It's fucking annoying. Also, Godwin's law is "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
You campared Franco with Hitler, so Bzzt yourself, cumsucker.
Lord. He corrected at least twice (once on the radio, once on tv) immediately after Franken corrected him. Have you ever looked at the context in which he misspoke?
Each time, he was defending his previous employer, Inside Edition, by saying that it was a legitimate show. Check this link for a pretty good summary of what Franken has said vs. what O'Reilly has said. He misspoke in defending his old show, in an interview where Inside Edition wasn't the topic of conversation. This wasn't a researched talking point; this was him talking off the cuff trying to defend something someone else was attacking by calling a "tabloid show". If he had researched it and it was the subject of the discussion, I'd call that sketcy. This, though, was just a passing remark. And, remember, it was corrected...he says that himself at the book signing, the video of which is linked to from the site aforementioned.
Another point, he never said he won a Peabody...he said we, meaning Inside Edition. While I don't think it needs a correction, he's acknowledged that the award was won after he left, the "we" was referring to his team at Inside Edition.
--trb
Dude, it's just Timothy. Think of him as Commander Taco's retarded little brother, or maybe Bizarro Quinn (I'm helping! I'm helping!)
I'm french and I managed to answer to 5 of the 6 questions, only knowing that Bush is from the right and Kerry something not too far from the left. The only question I could not reply is the one about the limit for the tax cuts. This quizz has no other meaning that most peoples have no clue about politic.
Give me $300,000 and a few months and I'll take enough clips from Air America to make it look like it has a right wing slant.
Last time I checked, Air America's slogan wasn't "Fair and Balanced."
The problem is that, for some reason, the culture in American news says that the reporter can't take a stand.
If politician A says "my opponent is going to raise your taxes", the reporter can't simply look up the information on politician B's web site, find out that his plan doesn't include a tax increase and report "politician A falsely claimed that politician B would raise taxes". Instead, they have to get a rebuttal quote from politician B saying "He's lying, I won't raise your taxes". And it simply becomes opinion A vs. opinion B.
The problem with that is that it allows someone to make ludicrous claims like "my opponent snacks on baby foetuses" and forces politician B to respond to it.
Even when the claim is absurd, the reporter isn't allowed to reach the obvious conclusion him/herself, they have to have an "expert" give them the quote they need.
Being a comedy show, the Daily Show doesn't have those constraints. When someone says something absurd, they can say "that's absurd" and show why it is, without having to pretend to not draw conclusions, etc.
I'll undo my moderation done to these discussions just to refute one of your points.
"And as you mentioned, he apologized. I'm not sure how you want him to express distrust, but he doesn't give the president a pass on anything."
Read his editorial on the interview, found here. The man sounds like a walking hard-on for George W Bush. My favorite quote out of the whole thing:
"For example, I am known for confrontational interviews, but you simply cannot tell a sitting President that you, the interviewer, know more than he does. That would make you look like a moron. So open confrontation goes right out the window."
This is funny. If you ever saw O'Reilly and what he did to that kid Jeremy Glick (transcript can be found here, you know that he really has no qualms in letting his confrontational interviews lapse into inappropriate areas. Jeremy Glick, for those of you who don't know, was the kid of a September 11th victim who was part of an organization that opposed aspects of the Bush administrations "War against Terrorism". Specifically, he criticized the lack of responsibility being put on previous administrations for the funding of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the lack of a promise to never make the same mistake again (a look at the situation in Iraq can tell you that, yes, the US is making the mistake of funding a potential enemy again).
Anyway, O'Reilly goes on to rip through Glick, evoke the memory of his dead father and widowed mother to counter his arguments and cuts Glick's mic, despite the fact that Glick throughout the whole interview was very calm and composed. O'Reilly then had Glick escorted by security, but not before telling him that he would tear the shit out of him. Later, O'Reilly claimed in other shows that Glick claimed that George W. Bush planned September 11, though that was clearly not what Glick said.
Suddenly, however, there is a limit to his confrontational interviewing style. Of course, one could argue that it's just because Bush is the president. But it takes just one look at O'Reilly's treatment of Clinton, and his treatment of Kerry will be much the same if he ends up winning the presidency, to realize that such arguments are bullshit. O'Reilly is clearly a huge Bush supporter. Which would be fine, if he didn't insist that he was this unbiased guy (Al Franken's discovery of previous Republican registration by O'Reilly is further proof of that).
Just a side note: at the end of the editorial, O'Reilly says:
"In the middle of my talk with the President, my mind flashed back for just a second to my childhood in Levittown, N.Y."
Though O'Reilly always makes this claim (and indeed has produced a deed to try to prove it) that he lived in some modest, working-class home in Levittown, in actuallity he lived in the Westbury part of Levittown, now known as Salisbury, which is not quite Levittown. The stakes of pointing this out? Well, Westbury wasn't exactly "modest". It was rick kid suburbia. Another one of O'Reilly's many lies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Check the documentation in Franken's book. If I recall correctly (and I'm pretty sure I do), Franken has a photocopy of O'Reilly's voter registration for Nassau back in 1994.
The box for "Republican" was checked.
The box for "Independent" was available but blank.
In an interview with Terry Gross, Gross points out this documentation, and O'Reilly goes nuts.
Now, you could theorize (in a straw-grasping way) that it was checked by some disgruntled civil servant rather than by Bill himself, or maybe he had a Florida moment and checked the wrong box. But if he voted in the 1994, 1996, and 1998 elections, he had ample opportunity to be made aware of his accidental affiliation. And if he were anywhere near as "independent" as he claims, he would probably have gone in and remedied it. Instead, he remained a registered Republican until well after the 2000 election, when the Washington Post was preparing a story about O'Reilly which mentioned his affiliation.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
...air america?!?
both media are annoying, self righteous and biased but at least the o'reilly factor is funny! i've been in tears laughing from some of the shit that bill says! air america is just plane annoying.
It's too late to matter. Nevertheless:
I did finally find a copy of "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". The photocopied form is indeed a voter registration form from 1994. It does indeed have two relevant boxes, one stating "Republican" and one stating "I do not wish to affiliate with any party." The Republican one is very decisively checked.
Looking for an instance where Bill O'Reilly lied? You just provided it. To wit, "When I registered in Nassau to vote in 1994, there was not a box for an independent. I left all the boxes empty. Somehow, I was assigned Republican status."
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!