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.)
I can't stand either of them. Give me John McLaughlin and his McLaughlin Group over those other clowns anyday.
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
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.
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
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
For better or for worse, quality information is spread because of comedy.
Remember after September 11th, The Onion ran "Holy Fucking Shit: Attack on America"? Summed up the situation pretty good, and actually contained real information (about the history of Muslim anti-American sentiment). Meanwhile all the cable channels could do is have an endless loop of planes crashing into buildings or pundits who knew very little and preached fear.
And more often then not, we remember the lame jokes told during late-night monologs than the long boring congressional sessions on CSPAN. Believe me, I watch both regularly, and a good 30-second joke can sum up a 2-hour fillibuster quite nicely.
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.
What is the point of an interview if not to get the guest's views? I don't care about the host's opinion! We see them every day (and hear them on the radio)! O'Reilly has a segment on his show where he gets his own soap box, save it for then.
Glick was talked over, and over, and over, repeatedly. That's the weakest and lamest excuse for a "filibuster" if indeed he was trying to make one. He had a few points he wanted to make, but certainly did not appear to want to control the show.
Just one horrible incident is enough for a high-profile person to lose all credibility (remember Dean? Yee-haw!). Why should it be any different for O'Reilly, who's repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of tact and social grace (yes, I don't like him because he's a blowhard).
Maybe 99% of what he says is true. Maybe not. But if you're going to an interview a guest, don't assume how their recently murdered father would feel about current politics, don't talk over your guests, and try listening to people instead of being afraid they're "pushing an agenda".
It's really sad to see a hostile interview, not because of the guest, but because of the host.
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.
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
"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.
he cut Glick off for multiple reasons;
Let's take a look at these reasons one at a time:
a personal insult saying that O'Reilly had used 9/11 to push his own agenda,
Isn't this exactly what the conservatives have done? If I were them, I'd be proud of it, not insulted by it.
referring to the Florida election as a "coup",
A coup doesn't have to be violent and you can't deny that they *never* had the recount that would prove it one way or the other.falsely accusing Bush Sr. of training 100,000 moujahadeen,
Well, if you consider that the main driving force behind al Qaida was the FIRST war with Iraq and it's aftermath (specifically leaving US troops in Saudi Arabia instead of giving the Saudis the ability to defend themselves from Hussein and then leaving) then yes, Bush I was indeed the inspiration for the training of 100,000 Moujahadeen. So I'm sorry, I don't see what O'Reilly's problem with any of these statements was, UNLESS HE WAS ACTUALLY LYING ABOUT ONE OR MORE OF THEM. Was he?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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?
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 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.
Since the Daily Shows mission is basically to make fun of the media, the current government in power, and coverage of the government by the media - that sort of makes the republicans target numero uno at this point, just because of their own success.