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.)

Comments

Fox?

[PrvtBurrito]

Isn't O'Reilly on Fox, not CNN?

Re:Fox?

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Nice moderation (-1 OFFTOPIC), as usual. The headline is incorrect. The Daily Show's viewers bested views of CBS [Letterman], NBC [Leno], and Fox News [O'Reilly]. CNN is not involved in these 3 shows. In fact, CNN isn't even under the same parent company as any of the other shows. And this is offtopic?

The headline should be corrected.

Re:Fox?

[sevinkey]

The reason O'Reilly's name was brought up is that he recently called the Daily Show's audience a bunch of "pot smoking slackers", which is the whole point of this post.

Re:Fox?

[Lars T.]

And if you dig deeper: The Daily Show: Global Edition

Re:Fox?

[nekoniku]

Okay, so the survey dispels the "slacker" stereotype in regard to Daily Show viewers. Now we need to find out who smokes the most pot, O'Reilly, Daily Show, Letterman, or Leno viewers.

Re:Fox?

[AltaMannen]

I would guess Letterman viewers have the most pot smokers. My reasoning: the "will it float" segment commonly features edible items and posing the question whether it will float or not and then tries it out. This strikes me as most relevant to the market groups 'pot smokers' and 'soup chefs'.

cable...

[cheeseSource]

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.

Re:cable...

[jc42]

... but that's what the 'net for, info.

Yeah, and it's too bad that ComedyCentral.com has such screwed-up HTML that on a wide range of systems and browsers, you can't watch most of the videos.

For example, my Mac PowerBook now has 8 browsers installed, and none of them is successful at showing more that 5% to 10% of their video clips. My linux box has 5 browsers, and about the same rate of success. We even have a Windows box in our house, so I can test to see if it's another example of a web site that's designed to only work with IE on Windows. Nope; the failure rate there is about the same.

It's not bad video files. When I can find the actual URL for a clip, I can feed it to either Real Player or WMP (the only formats they seem to use), and it always works just fine.

I've seen a number of discussions of this in several newsgroups. The general explanation seems to be simply that the HTML is so insanely bizarre that it's surprising that any browser can handle it correctly. I've dug into a few of their pages, and I'd agree with this summary.

One thing that's funny is that the latest Real Player comes with its own browser. It works pretty well for every site I've tried except for ComedyCentral.com.

I wonder if there's any way we can prevail on them to provide a page that just lists the clips with simple descriptions, and has a plain hyperlink to each clip? If they'd do this, their online viewership would probably go way up.

I've dug around a bit in their web site, looking for an email address so I could send them some questions about the problem. But so far, I haven't found any sort of "user feedback" link. They have a reference to a discussion page, but it just contains a notice that it doesn't work.

So I guess we're just limited to watching Jon Stewart on TV. Around here, it comes on at 11 pm. Those of us with things to do in the evenings (political meetings, technical meetings, gigs, whatever) find that this cuts seriously into our Daily Show fixes ...

Re:cable...

[Blakey Rat]

I have a DishNetwork PVR... I just have the box record it each night and then watch it the following evening when I get off work. The problem with DiskNetwork is that I live in Washington and they don't time-correct their feeds, so I see the east-coast Daily Show... that means the show that's supposed to come on at 11:00 PM comes on at 8:00... RIGHT DURING PRIME TIME on other networks! Very annoying; fortunately, they have a later showing I can record without missing any prime-time shows.

Re:cable...

[BoomerSooner]

Dude, you sound like my grandma: "I can't miss my shows."

Sad really.

Re:cable...

[jc42]

Yeah, but if you miss the Daily Show, you miss one of the few TV shows that's actually informative about American politics.

(I hardly watch any TV at all, actually, and most of what I watch is the Comedy Channel. There's hardly anything else that has any real information content. The last time I watched more than an hour in one day was Sep 11, 2001. ;-)

Re:cable...

[Anonymous Coward]

"When I had Cable I watched the Daily Show. No more cable means pretty much ignoring news on the TV"

Well, thanks for sharing that insightful comment with us. I remember just this morning thinking, "I wonder if Cheese Sauce still watches the Daily Show with John Stuart?"

Neither

[scumbucket]

I can't stand either of them. Give me John McLaughlin and his McLaughlin Group over those other clowns anyday.

Re:Neither

[Anonymous Coward]

If your objective is to stay awake McLaughlin Group isn't for you. But if you want a snooze fest you can't go wrong with the McLaughlin Group.

Re:Neither

[Kesha]

I disagree completely, you will be hard pressed to find a more animated and intelligent political discussion. I even set up my server to record every episode - they may not be prophets, but they are the next best thing.
Paul.

Re:Neither

[TheCarp]

I never think about that show, ive only seen it once or twice, but yah its good.

The thing that strikes me... even tho John Stewart calls his show "the most respected name in fake news"... its not really fake news. They don't make shit up (like the onion), they take real news, and insert funny little quips.

The fact is THEY ARE REAL NEWS. They are biased, they poke alot of incessant fun at the news. However, they still report real news and, I think, do it better than the average news show.

Most news shows spend alot more time on car accidents, shootings and just generally parading out the clowns and disasters in society, whereas the daily show generally reports on relevant political and social issues (only occasionally parading out some freaks).

Sure they make fun of them alot, and don't really try to cover the whole story. But they do make the issues fun, and they talk about more real issues. That instantly puts them ahead of any network news I have seen . Who seem to try and make the political news as short and boring as possible.... so they can as quickly get back to scaring the shit out fo you with the human freaks.

-Steve

Re:Neither

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If "Occasionally parading out some freaks" means "any night we can't have an in-depth joke comentary on some public figure, usually at least twice a week", then I agree.

Re:Neither

[Anonymous Coward]

What not enough flashy, moving background graphics for you? Not enough baseless inflammatory diatribe? Not enough PABLUM? Yeah, run yelping back to your football and your MTV.

Re:Neither

[barawn]

They are biased, they poke alot of incessant fun at the news.

How are they biased? Bias would imply that they have a preferred viewpoint that they choose over the facts, regularly.

Stewart's got a liberal viewpoint - that's fairly obvious. But he blasts Democrats just as much as Republicans, and he has people from both parties on the show, and he's equally kind to both of them.

One of the best Daily Show episodes was when Stewart interviewed the author of a book about a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. This happened right after the 9/11 Commission put out their statement that no, there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. So Stewart was interviewing someone with an opposite political viewpoint from his, who had written something that was publicly opposed by a nonpartisan committee. Stewart could've skewered him. But he didn't. He let him have his say, and he was very polite in asking each of his questions. It was a terrific example of how you do unbiased reporting.

Stewart's one of the best news reporters on TV. Leaps and bounds ahead of O'Reilly - who doesn't even try to be objective.

Re:Neither

[Rayonic]

> This happened right after the 9/11 Commission put out their statement that no, there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Not quite. The Commission said there were connections, just no direct cooperation. Yes, they've specifically said this.

Re:Neither

[rpillala]

generally parading out the clowns and disasters in society, whereas the daily show generally reports on relevant political and social issues (only occasionally parading out some freaks).

The clowns and disasters in society are often the people involved in relevant political and social issues.

:)

Re:Neither

[IPFreely]

Yeah, I saw that show. In fact I liked it so much I kept it on Tivo so I could watch it over again and again.

It was Stephen Hayes and the book The Connection that was being reviewed. That particular show Stewart skewered Hayes more sevearly than he usually does to his guests, but it was over his facts and writing style rather than his partisanship. The most explicit remark was toward the end of the interview.

Hayes used a lot of unsubstantiated data to make his case, and Stewart called him on it. Then Stewart had a question where he lists off some conditions:
1. WMD
2. Terrorist connections.
3. Human rights abuses.
then he asks "Who am I talking about? you don't know. it could be Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Iran. So why Iraq?". Hayes replies that some proof on Iran was unsubstantiated. Stewart grabs the book, holds it up and says rather strongly "You're not one to be complaining about unsubstantiated data?" and then ends the interview rather briskly. It was the only time I've seen Stewart skewer someone even that much.

But yes, he didn't go into the 9/11 Commission report much. There was enough in the book itself and Hayes himself to skewer him on his own merits.

On the other hand, O'Reilly does that and worse to his guests all the time.

oreilly.com Yep, I am in that camp.

[tod_miller]

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

Daily Show

[Bravo_Two_Zero]

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.

Re:Daily Show

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Wow, Godwin's law already? That was quick.

Re:Daily Show

[Flexagon]

... Franco...

... who is still dead, BTW.

Re:Daily Show

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, Godwin's law already? That was quick.

These are the Bush years, man. Godwin's law is always quick.

Re:Daily Show

[Doc Ruby]

How about the law that states "Invoking Godwin's Law to block historical analysis of Hitler immediately discredits the invoker"? If we don't learn from those assholes in our history, we'll get them again.

Re:Daily Show

[Bravo_Two_Zero]

Bzzt... wrong answer... I was picking on dictators, not Nazis. I could have just as easily picked Mao in place of Hitler. Is it rhetorical overreach? You must think so, or you wouldn't cite Goodwin's Law.

If you like it better, I'll say:

"But that's like saying RC Cola is head and shoulders above Pepsi and Coke. It's all relative."

I'd have to accept that you find all three beverages as palatable as malted battery acid.

Re:Daily Show

[justins]

These are the Bush years, man.

I thought the seventies were the bush years.

Re:Daily Show

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

What question that you posed was I answering exactly?

Guess what - you're a fucking moron. Go fuck yourself and take your "Bzzt... wrong answer" horseshit with you. And what the fuck is "Goodwin's Law"?

You've got shit for brains, idiot.

Re:Daily Show

[Ohreally_factor]

O'Reilly is just a bully and a blowhard

You forgot liar.

Been trying to tell my father-in-law that for year

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Too bad he's a dyed-in-the-wool Leno fan- no wonder he's voting for Bush.

FOX not CNN

[VJoseph]

Bill O'Reilly is actually on Fox News, not CNN.

Re:FOX not CNN

[sevinkey]

RTFA

Re:FOX not CNN

[VJoseph]

I did RTFA. In fact I saw this story somewhere else yesterday. But the subject here says "Daily Show's Viewers Best CNN's In Political Quiz". It should read "Daily Show's Viewers Best FOX's In Political Quiz". It's a minor mistake that I just figured I would point out.

Re:FOX not CNN

[sevinkey]

I agree with that! No offense. Just saw about 12 comments like that so randomly picked one to say RTFA to. No hard feelings :)

Well..

[SimianOverlord]

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.

Fix This Category

[Anonymous Coward]

Fix this god damn category so that when we select POLITICS from the "exclude from front page" preferences, it ACTUALLY FUCKING WORKS.

Re:Fix This Category

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican on the loose! Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.

O'Reilly Rules!

[CreamOfWheat]

He simply reports and YOU decide. I love watching him take slack-jawed, limp-wristed Liberals apert though.

Re:O'Reilly Rules!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

The Daily Show is responsible...

[Sevn]

for my favorite quote of this circus so far:

"The Facts are obviously biased against the Bush administration."

Re:The Daily Show is responsible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which got turned into the best slam against jingoism this century.

Why do the facts hate America?

Quote from O'Reilly

[wcbarksdale]

"You know what's really frightening?" O'Reilly asked Stewart. "You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it's true."

I can think of someone whose influence frightens me more.

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[Keebler71]

I'll play devils advocate here and suggest that perhaps O'Reilly wasn't wasn't trying to deride Stewart for having an influence on the election, but rather its frightening that the politcal views of his audience are influenced by a comedy show. Then again, I only read the transcript but it seems like the interview was done in good fun. But I do think O'Reilly has a point: my vote, despite exhaustive research on issues and candidates, carries with it precisely the same voting power as someone who learns of the issues by accident while channel surfing. It may be fair, but it is still terrifying.

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[(trb001)]

I watched the segment with Stewart, I'm an O'Reilly fan, and even I didn't like where he was going with it. O'Reilly is (don't flame me) a bit pompous. It comes across in interviews like this. He kept pounding on Stewart's viewers, and it was unfair in my eyes. Eventually, he did stop, and we'll see if Stewart is the bigger man when he has O'Reilly on his show.

--trb

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[dpilot]

Actually, I suspect Steward has MORE influence than O'Reilly. Isn't O'Reilly preaching to the choir, for the most part?

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[An Onerous Coward]

Shut up!

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[justins]

Eventually, he did stop, and we'll see if Stewart is the bigger man when he has O'Reilly on his show.

Of course he will. Badmouthing people isn't very funny.

(and I don't think the perverse pleasure O'Reilly's fanboys get from his bullying style qualifies as "comedy," even though I'm sure they sometimes laugh...)

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Indeed, they were the first to suggest that we somehow deserved it. Very quick.

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, they were the first to suggest that we somehow deserved it. Very quick.

Can you troll more elaborately, please? This is a bit succinct for me.

Re:Quote from O'Reilly

[Anonymous Coward]

Summed up the situation pretty good

"pretty well".

O'Reilly

[(trb001)]

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.

--trb

Re:O'Reilly

[Edax Rarem]

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[roj3]

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[sfjoe]

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.'"

Re:O'Reilly

[(trb001)]

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

Re:O'Reilly

[(trb001)]

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

Re:O'Reilly

[Edax Rarem]

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[T.Hobbes]

FAIR is a place to start looking, especaially their article "The 'Oh Really?' Factor: Bill O'Reilly Spins Facts and Statistics".

Re:O'Reilly

[sneakers563]

The "Glick thing" was shameful. In that case, it does an asshole make.

Re:O'Reilly

[An Onerous Coward]

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[HebrewToYou]

Good post.

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the study guides for his book was amazing:

the book based on the show

for the lazy I will supply some links:

Study Guide Chapter 1-4

Study Guide Chapter 5-9

Meet your Lobbyist

Stephen Colbert's Guide to Dressing and Expressing Like a TV Journalist

Re:O'Reilly

[HebrewToYou]

"The "Glick thing" was shameful. In that case, it does an asshole make."

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[walt-sjc]

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[OreoCookie]

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[tordia]

they've come up with nothing except a misspeak on Bill's part

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[tordia]

How can you say he was a disgrace to his father's memory? Do you know Glick's father personally?

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:

"O'Reilly's not there to debate. He's there to intimidate, he's there to bait his [guests]. And that's why, when he said that stuff about my Dad, the reason why I was calm is not because that wasn't hurtful or outrageous, it was because that's exactly what he wants to do. He wants to push your buttons."

Re:O'Reilly

[(trb001)]

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

Re:O'Reilly

[zCyl]

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

Re:O'Reilly

[HebrewToYou]

"Do you know Glick's father personally?"

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."

...which is just full of incorrect information. The recruited 'mujahadeen' numbered in the thousands -- not [b]hundreds[/b] of thousands. The Afhgani government at the time was far from democratic; it was a republic with very few democratic principles. It was very much a tribal-dominated country even then. Also, and most importantly, GHWB (George Bush Sr.) wasn't the director of the CIA six months prior to the Afghan invasion. GHWB served from 1967-1977, just short of a year. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan occured in 1979.

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?

Re:O'Reilly

[Rayonic]

And that's why Franken's (and Moore's) books are always classified as "satire". So they don't get sued for libel.

Re:O'Reilly

[(trb001)]

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

Re:O'Reilly

[Politburo]

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."

Re:O'Reilly

[neema]

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[An Onerous Coward]

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.

Re:O'Reilly

[An Onerous Coward]

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."

Summary has several errors

[fnord123]

First, the title of the summary says "Daily Show viewers best CNN viewers" - which is incorrect, CNN viewers where not included in the quiz.

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.

Re:Summary has several errors

[jwbing]

What about this whole bit:

But 60 percent of "Daily Show" viewers answered all six questions correctly. Just 42 percent of those who read a newspaper four days a week aced the test. Only 40 percent of those who watch network news four days a week got every answer right.

Seems like that means something along the lines of "Daily Show Viewers are smarter". Granted, it's network news, not Cable 'news' which Fox would be (mis)labeled as.

Re:Summary has several errors

[fnord123]

I think the study actually has several flaws which make it difficult to conclude the viewers are smarter. For instance, it could be that newspaper readers are flipping straight to the sports section. Sports fanatics don't tune into the Daily Show or to O'Reilly, so the newspaper readership comparison isn't too relevant to the relative smartness. Ditto for network news - at 6pm and 10pm network news is on a lot of channels for people who don't have cable, maybe we are just seeing that audience's smartness, which again, isn't the same audience as O'Reilly (which is only on the FNC cable channel) or the Daily Show.

Re:Summary has several errors

[seasleepy]

Actually, the poll does ask about cable news viewership.

Daily Show viewers tie heavy (4+ days/week) cable news viewers and beat the ones that watch less. The poll doesn't break out which cable network they prefer. So technically, Daily Show viewers are just as or better informed than O'Reilly viewers *and* CNN viewers, but CNN's not going to tell you that in their article. ;)

Re:Summary has several errors

[amacek]

There is related polling and article that shows Daily Show viewers are more informed than almost any other TV show even accounting for demographics and earnings.

Re:Summary has several errors

[Anonymous Coward]

Story submitters and mods need to do a better job and actually read the articles they submit

Most of the blame actually should go to the editors. But then, that would take the fun out of the headlines intentionally meant to push the average Slashdot reader's buttons and spur lots of discussion - true or not. I'm not naive enough to think these are "mistakes". Slashdot has become the "Enquirer" of news sites plain and simple. Take all articles with a grain of salt and you'll be okay. Especially with headlines that end in a question mark - "Will Hospitals Require RFID Implants in all Newborns?". Bleh.

Re:Summary has several errors

[pipingguy]

Don't forget that The Daily Show got a huge boost in viewership last year after the spammer interview (which was wildly popular as it struck a nerve in most all net-connected people). A lot of people glommed onto the show after that. A lot of viewers are wannabes that just want to be able to find common ground at the proverbial water cooler at work. It's viral marketing.

Lately there seems to be more bias to the left, but I still watch it because it's very often very funny.

Re:Summary has several errors

[ImaLamer]

Second, the summary says, "Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of [O'Reilly's] show", which is also incorrect.

No, no no... that is correct. Another, actually many, polls has shown that FOX news viewers are more likely to believe things that never happened.

Read: Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war

From the article:

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.
People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it. ...

In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.

PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.

The original report can be found here (PDF) from PIPA.

Re:Summary has several errors

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that I would really like to see some statistics on the correlation between education level and party affiliation. Perhaps I'me being a troll, but I think it would be very interesting to see.

Re:Summary has several errors

[PetWolverine]

Educated people are more likely to be Republicans. This has to do with all sorts of things, the most important of which is probably that people with more money tend to be both better-educated, and Republican.

A lot of Republicans like to see the relationship between education and party affiliation to be causal, but I've never seen evidence for that. Meanwhile, the fact that scientists tend to lean to the left shows that intelligent people can, in fact, be "leftists".

Re:Summary has several errors

[kria]

Forgive me for no longer having a link to the article, but actually, what I had read is that the more education you have, the more likely you are to be polarized to one side or the other.

Is this true in real life situations? I really don't know - I find asking my friends questions related to politics results in less friends...

Coincidence

[seasleepy]

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>)

I was a Bill O'Reilly fan...

[bergeron76]

... 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...)

Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Edax Rarem]

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.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[(trb001)]

Outfoxed is a load of crap, and I'll be happy to slam it point by point if you so desire. The scene that you're referring to, the interview with Jeremy Glick, was certainly not O'Reilly's high point, but to dismiss the 8 years he's had the Factor on FoxNews because of it is ridiculous.

First, this was a taped segment that O'Reilly showed, and apologized for twice. Second, he cut Glick off for multiple reasons; a personal insult saying that O'Reilly had used 9/11 to push his own agenda, referring to the Florida election as a "coup", falsely accusing Bush Sr. of training 100,000 moujahadeen, and finally because Glick wouldn't stop talking and pressing his points, essentially filibustering. Third, O'Reilly never once in the interview insulted Glick's parents, not once.

If you have any more accusations against O'Reilly, please, I'm all ears.

--trb

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Edax Rarem]

Well, not sure if your ears help online... But, did you read the Rolling Stone article?
He just makes up stuff to prove his point.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Anonymous Coward]

Glick wouldn't stop talking and pressing his points, essentially filibustering.

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.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[(trb001)]

<i>What is the point of an interview if not to get the guest's views?</i>

If The Factor was simply a news show, I would agree. But it's not, it editorializes the news and makes no bones about it. Look at Bill Maher, look at Dennis Miller...similar formats, they can cut their guests off anytime they want. The McGlaughlin (sp?) group as well...they present news, debate it, and you're left to make a decision.

As far as the business of "The Paris Business Review", I remember him correcting himself, saying he got the name of the periodical wrong, but I can't find a transcript anywhere.

--trb

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[ericspinder]

In a different thread, he says that he (your post's Parent Poster) has said that he did read the article and attributes the accusations in it to disgruntled co-workers, etc.

One thing that I have to say about that guy (trb001), is that he sure is quick to defend O'Reilly and has some very specific defenses to attacks on O'Reilly's actions.

I watched O'Reilly for a couple of months when I found my cable company had FNC. He is mostly a right leaning motor mouth, who had developed a style of badgering his quests. It's no wonder that he doesn't really do the 'one-on-one' interview style where the interviewee is within arm's reach; someone whould have belted him by now (perhaps they already have...). Once you get over the whole "Jerry Springer" type confrontation (you know kinka fake, overblown, and forced), there is really little content to watch.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

He didn't get the periodical wrong, several groups did searches of the Business Review type papers in France, Canada and the US and found nothing to support his claims. The whole episode that sparked this off was over an interview with a Canadian official where O'Reilly threatened her with the "effectiveness" of his boycott of France, which he completely made up. The official practically laughed at him on air. We're talking about a guy who was doing crap entertainment journalism before he found out how effective his tabloid tactics were in wake of Limbaugh.

Not to mention that O'Reilly totally misleads people about his background. He came from an upper middle class neighborhood and his father was a oil industry accountant. He claims he grew up in a more working class neighborhood across town and that coal miners are "his" people. Mike Wallace did a really good job of calling him on this crap last week, it provided much entertainment to watch him just sit there and expect viewers to believe the amazing lack of consistency in his statements. Al Franken has bet O'Reilly $10K to prove his statements about his background are true and has had numerous people who grew up with O'Reilly refute his claims.

Try comparing The Al Franken show on Sundance to The O'Reilly Factor sometime, the contrast in quality discussion is stark.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I get more real news from the first 15 minutes of the daily show than watching CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX all day.

Agreed but it's 24 hours late- thus it's still worthwhile reading the newspaper as well (it takes time to make up all of those jokes). The closest ever will be Thursday Night after they've spent the entire time of the debate getting clips and making up jokes.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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?

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[(trb001)]

Isn't this exactly what the conservatives have done?

Do you mean conservatives or Republicans? I'll grant you that O'Reilly leans conservative, but not Republican. We can argue this one if you want, but he's a registered independant and while he happens to agree with many Republicans *because* they're conservative, he has opposed the Bush administration on issues (in other words, he's not a talking head like Hannity).

A coup doesn't have to be violent

I would argue you're not even technically correct (from Websters, "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics"), being that there was no use of force in the election, but people on both sides have beat that horse to death.

Bush I was indeed the inspiration for the training of 100,000 Moujahadeen

"Inspiration"? That's your argument? Are you agreeing with me that Bush *didn't* train them or are you saying he did? Glick said Bush trained them, I disagree and call Glick a liar. Address that point, don't prance around the issue by saying it's subtlely implied in a roundabout sort-of fashion.

--trb

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[BigZaphod]

"Jon definitely deserves a shot at the tonight show after Jay is gone"

I wish that were to be... however they have already promised the job to Conan. Which is sad, I think. Conan is funny sometimes, but I just don't think it is right for the Tonight Show. Jon would be a FAR better fit.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[(trb001)]

How, exactly, do you prove you grew up in a blue-collar, middle class town? I grew up in a middle class family, but short of providing my parents' tax returns, I don't know that I could prove it.

Franken's challenge to O'Reilly was that he lived in Westbury. O'Reilly says he lived in the Westbury part of Levittown. If people accept that Levittown was a blue-collar, working class town then the proof is in the deed.

--trb

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Do you mean conservatives or Republicans? I'll grant you that O'Reilly leans conservative, but not Republican. We can argue this one if you want, but he's a registered independant and while he happens to agree with many Republicans *because* they're conservative, he has opposed the Bush administration on issues (in other words, he's not a talking head like Hannity).

I would say conservatives in general- Republicans are the worst of the lot, but every conservative I've ever seen, including the ones who are so liberal that they've wrapped around to being conservative, has used 9/11 to promote their personal agenda; even when it has absolutely no connection (like Pat Robertson on the 700 Club claiming that 9/11 happened because of sexual immorality).

I would argue you're not even technically correct (from Websters, "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics"), being that there was no use of force in the election, but people on both sides have beat that horse to death.

Webster's is usually 5-10 years behind the common usage of words, just because of their immense publishing lead time, but I agree- people on both sides have beat the horse to death.

"Inspiration"? That's your argument? Are you agreeing with me that Bush *didn't* train them or are you saying he did? Glick said Bush trained them, I disagree and call Glick a liar. Address that point, don't prance around the issue by saying it's subtlely implied in a roundabout sort-of fashion.

Bush I's decision to leave troops in Saudi Arabia was a direct cause of those people being trained as terrorists- just as Kruschev's insistance on invading Afghanistan caused the training of an additional 100,000 (at least!) Moujahadeen 20 years earlier. It's possible to discuss that calmly- because the facts are not in dispute at all.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[(trb001)]

Your reply is, I think, the most civil I've had today defending O'Reilly :)

I might cede the point that everyone with an agenda has used 9/11 for that agenda in some ways. I'm just not sure what O'Reilly's agenda is, per se. If he's not a Republican or a Democrat, and he doesn't advocate one candidate or the other, does he have an agenda past his ratings?

Bush I's decision to leave troops in Saudi Arabia was a direct cause

If you look at the transcripts, Glick wasn't saying that Bush's actions were a direct cause..he's saying that Bush, as the head of the CIA, trained them:

GLICK: ... is that in -- 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.

You can argue that Bush's actions could have caused these men to be recruited, but to say that Bush himself (or the CIA, which he was head of) recruited them is a bit much.

I'm not sure the definition of "coup" has changed much, even in the last 5-10 years.

--trb

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I might cede the point that everyone with an agenda has used 9/11 for that agenda in some ways. I'm just not sure what O'Reilly's agenda is, per se. If he's not a Republican or a Democrat, and he doesn't advocate one candidate or the other, does he have an agenda past his ratings?

Yes- I'd call O'Reilly the fairly typical Irish Traditionalist Catholic. He's conservative, but an independant. As a Traditionalist, he doesn't follow the Pope exactly- since by traditionalist rhetoric the current pope is fourth in a line of false Popes since a Mason was elected Pope back in 1958. Thus he'd be for the war- since that's the typical strong father approach, unlike the Pope, who is against it, for instance. He'd be strongly anti-Death Penalty, strongly anti-abortion, for this Pope is not the first to come out with the seemless garment of life concept (I think it was Pope Leo during the first Vatican Council, but I could be wrong).

GLICK: ... is that in -- 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.

Uh, the CIA was involved in recruiting the mujahadeen- but the Turaki government wasn't democratic, it was Soviet Socialist. Ok, I had the wrong time period- I thought it was meant during Gulf War I, not during the 1970s rebellion. Even Reader's Digest had the article about us funding, arming, and training the Mujahadeen.

You can argue that Bush's actions could have caused these men to be recruited, but to say that Bush himself (or the CIA, which he was head of) recruited them is a bit much.

Not really- given the time frame. Heck, we were even backing Saddam himself back then. It was a different era. CIA was still running the School of the Americas back then, in Miami, especially for this kind of training. The whole point was to defeat the Soviet threat- and the Soviets were backing the Turaki (not that that ever succeeded- three times Western governments have now intervened in Afghanistan- NEVER has any one government been able to get their puppets to control more than 10% of the country).

I'd say that I've noticed the definition of the word "coup" having a secondary, nonviolent meaning, only in the last 4 years or so (though that secondary nonviolent meaning could have equally applied to the 1996 American Presidential election).

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

GLICK: ... is that in -- 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.

I'd also point out his time frame is a bit off, I think. Wasn't it the Ford Administration that started the School of the Americas? And didn't we wait until *after* the Soviet Invasion to start training Mujahadeen? (Mujahadeen is a plural word to begin with I think, no need for the s at the end).

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

The guy grew up in an upper middle class suburb while trying to maintain an image that he had to scrape a living out of the hard world of a blue-collar upbringing. His own mother and childhood neighbors have confirmed that he had an upbringing that was anything but blue-collar. There isn't some kind of gotcha fact that will refute so many people saying the suburb he grew up in wasn't blue-collar. Your logic ignores other evidence. Don't you see a problem with someone who's credibility rests so much with the image of his upbringing? Remember, he's supposed to be in the 'No-Spin Zone', why does he spin his own childhood?

Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt on all of his little gaffes and chalk them up to innocent mistakes, his credibility is seriously lacking. Would you go to a doctor that made this many mistakes, or study math under a professor that was consistently doing the example problems wrong? I mean the guy even spins admissions of mistakes.

One would think he would catch onto his own fallibility and be a bit more humble when making his claims, but he doesn't. When anyone questions him, he just claims they're personal attacks and character assasins. He has yet to honestly defend his position without getting so red in the face, people back down for fear the guy might have a heart attack.

Someone who is this confused about this many things is not a source of wisdom or insight, but entertainment. Bill O'Reilly has more in common with the Hollywood crowd he spends so much time deriding. After all, he used to brag about the Peabody Award he never won on Current Affair or whatever that tabloid show was. At least Hollywood is honest about it's anti-intellectualism and the rich and powerful there don't try to claim they're one of you while trying to sell you crap.

Now to bring this back on topic, 'educated' people prefer the Daily Show because it's fake news that contains nuggets of truth instead of the other way around. It's entertaining, informative (if you aren't already paying attention) and every now and then, damn insightful. Another show that is more real news and nearly as entertaining is Keith Olbermanns' Countdown on MSNBC. IMNSHO, either one is a far better entertainment value for your cable buying dollar.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, he hosted "Current Affair"! There's no spin in that! NONE! He's a reputable, legitimate journalist!!

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point of an interview if not to get the guest's views?

How about answering the question asked? This Glick guy came in with a pre-rehearsed script that he wanted to recite. O'Reilly doesn't allow that on his show. Answer the question or get out is his policy.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you read Al Franken's Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.

It should clear some things about Bill O'Reilly and Glick issue.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[commodoresloat]

This Glick guy came in with a pre-rehearsed script that he wanted to recite

No he didn't. You should actually watch the interview before taking this stand. O'Reilly's only point in having the guy on the show was to insult him and browbeat him. And his comments about the kid's dead father were shameful. And, frankly, I thought the kid did a great job of holding his own under the circumstances.

Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully.

[The Briguy]

I can directly address the training point and state that while the numbers are probably inflated, the statement is in fact true. During the Soviet - Afgan War in the 1980s, President Reagan and Vice President Bush funneled millions of dollars into the Moujahadeen and Bin Laden's terrorist network in order to wage a terror war against the Soviet Union. Bush Sr.'s withdraw of all support in 1989 is what prompted Bin Laden to go against the United States.

/. people are more like

[Blackneto]

Captain Kangaroo people at times if you ask me.

My Vote

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Stewart is great. O'Reilly is a one-dimensional asshole. What I really miss is "Politically Incorrect".

Re:My Vote

[GreyWolf3000]

What I really miss is "Politically Incorrect".

Bill Maher often had intelligent commentary, but I don't miss B-level celebrities trying to convince the world they're still relevant with hackneyed and trite positions on every inane issue which they feel compelled to thrust into the discussion despite Maher's best efforts at keeping the conversation above the high school level..

*gasp*

Re:My Vote

[presearch]

HBO, Friday Night 11PM (ET) - Real Time with Bill Mahar

Re:My Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Maher's new show (Real Time With Bill Maher) has been on HBO for like a year now. It's pretty damn good, and they get to say "fuck." The only thing that bugs me about the show is his blindly left wing Hollywood audience (they cheer every anti-Republican comment regardless of its truth or merit). Bill gives both sides hell equally but most of his guests (and audience) are one-dimensional on either side. Still pretty fun and lots of funny shit (especially the "New Rules" segment or the show).

Re:My Vote

[MillionthMonkey]

Politically Incorrect was a great show. Bill Maher was like a breath of fresh air. It was amazing, hearing someone on the teevee whose opinions and attitudes were so well articulated and sounded so much like my own (or at least what I imagined my own to be).

PI got great ratings, and certainly didn't suffer for a lack of audience. But you don't see it anymore because the advertising dried up. The Man turned that show right off.

Re:My Vote

[N3WBI3]

The Man turned that show right off.

No Bill Maher turned that show off by making stupid comments about 9/11.

I used to like PI when it was first on HBO (before it was picked up by network TV). There was some balance in his opinion and he ueually split the guest 2-2 (both in terms of political leanings and actual substance). He would have on a joker from each POV (comedian, actor, ...) and a semi-serious thinker with each POV.

When he moved to network it because him and three guest who were left and one person on the right (Usually an actor or comedian). It became a sounding borad for his (rather left leaning) views. He got to think he could say anything becuase basicall only lefty knee padders and a token right winger were invited and he went to far..

Hey bill how does it feel to be replaced by the hosy of the Man show!

Re:My Vote

[N3WBI3]

network it because

Ackkk mush have more coffee..

Should read

network it bacame..

Re:My Vote

[xlv]

No Bill Maher turned that show off by making stupid comments about 9/11.

Here's the quote from Bill Maher: "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".

That's not really that stupid once you take the knee-jerk reactions out and try to think about it for a while and this is not a praise of the terrorists.

Maybe it's for the best that he's now back on HBO. It gives him a little bit more freedom as the advertisers can not indirectly dictate what is appropriate...

Re:My Vote

[N3WBI3]

""We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly"."

Is an extreemly stupid comment, these guys think they are getting 72 virgins and all they have to do is kill 3 thousand innocent people to do it...

Re:My Vote

[xlv]

His comment was based on the fact that in recent years before 9/11, the US was launching cruise missile from the safety of boats/submarines and that there was no direct contact with or risk of casualties. Whereas the terrorists on 9/11 or at least the leader(s) on each plane knew perfectly well the direct and immediate outcome of their actions on their lives. So in that context, I don't think it's that stupid but what do I know, I'm just a "cheese-eating surrender monkey"...

Re:My Vote

[N3WBI3]

His comment was based on the fact that in recent years before 9/11, the US was launching cruise missile from the safety of boats/submarines and that there was no direct contact with or risk of casualties.

Yes and we spent an enormous amount of money doing everything we could to prevent those bombs from hitting high density civilian targets.

Whereas the terrorists on 9/11 or at least the leader(s) on each plane knew perfectly well the direct and immediate outcome of their actions on their lives.

Dont forget killing 3000 infidels and getting 72 virgins in paradice...

Re:My Vote

[MillionthMonkey]

Yes and we spent an enormous amount of money doing everything we could to prevent those bombs from hitting high density civilian targets.

A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.

Re:My Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real problem with Maher is that that line is a direct, word for word ripoff of Bill Hicks. Just because he's dead, it doesn't mean you should rip him off.

Try her out

[AmBoy00]

You would like The Diane Rhem Show then. http://www.wamu.org/dr/index.html

Re:Try her out

[scumbucket]

I've tried listening to Diane Rhem on NPR, but to tell the truth her voice and the way she talks is a BIG distraction for me. I just end up turning the dial........

Re:Try her out

[the idoru]

I'll second this. The Diane Rehm show is wonderful. She rarely has "talking points" guests who just spout off rhetoric and her questions are excellent. Her guests also show a very good balance of viewpoint.

And I don't mind her voice at all.

Not Surprising . . .

[npsimons]

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.

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.

Re:Not Surprising . . .

[Danny Rathjens]

Their brand of humor also takes a little bit more thought, so those who don't "get it" usually stop watching.

I love the Daily Show, but if that is what passes for requiring thought then I feel really bad about the mental state of our society.

Most of the skits involve the correspondents doing or saying something outlandish and absurd and Jon playing the straight man to it. Then there is the whole category of jokes geared to our inner 12 years olds that are just funny because they use course language, e.g "Bob Novak, 'douchebag of liberty.'" The clips of various politicians are usually amusing just because they said something stupid. And then there is the annoying, cliched self-deprecating jewish stuff. It's sad that stereotype jokes like that still work so well(further evidence on Tough Crowd).

Anyway, as I said, I still like it. Their consistent formula works, and it is funny. But it doesn't require any more thought to get the humour than it does watching Letterman or South Park.

Re:Not Surprising . . .

[npsimons]

I love the Daily Show, but if that is what passes for requiring thought then I feel really bad about the mental state of our society.

Agreed, but I think I may have not clarified that statement enough: what I was referring to was when John does the whole headlines thing, with each headline followed closely by a zinger. People unfamiliar with this format have often confused what John says as really happening, and since truth can be stranger than fiction, it's not too hard to imagine someone taking it seriously. It takes a bit of discernment not normally practiced by TV viewers to realize where the "real" news ends and the joke begins.

I'll grant you that other segments of the show are very sophomoric. They have been my least favorite parts for a long time now, but I guess they keep someone amused, so I keep watching and enjoying the headlines. I do like the interviews, though, as they are very candid, unscripted, and not confrontational. It's a nice change from hateful programs like O'Reilly's, or tame scripted ones like presidential debates.

Re:Not Surprising . . .

[BigZaphod]

O'Reilly is far worse than Rush, I'd say. For one thing, Bill has more power than Rush ever did. The Fox brainwashing about being "fair and balanced" has suckered a HUGE number of people in and they buy it. They really seem to think O'Reilly is somehow "on their side." The fact that Bill himself spouts that line almost every show just further cements that notion into people's heads.

I admit to not listening to Rush very much, but I think he is far less full of himself than Bill is. Rush knows that, if you don't agree, he can at least be good entertainment. Bill, on the other hand, takes the position that if you don't agree, then you're an idiot and, depending on what you said, you might be one step removed from a terrorist.

I used to watch Bill reasonably regularly, but in the past year or two he's managed to get so bad and so extreme that I can't watch the show anymore without wanting to put my foot through his head. Unfortunately, that'd break my TV.

I watch the Daily Show instead.

Re:Not Surprising . . .

[OreoCookie]

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

This is modded 5 Insightful???????
I have thoroughly studied the moderation system and I have a developed an evolutionary theory about Slashdot. In the beginning the founders where the only moderators and they mostly only mod'ed up people they agreed with. Those people accumulated karma and eventually became moderators themselves. They also (mostly) only mod up what they agree with and the cycle repeats. After just a few generations of moderators all objectivity has been culled from the herd. The "genetic marker" carried in the karma ensures that all following generations will agree with the founders. In this way Slashdot can never deviate from that which it was intended by the founders no matter how diverse a community of people attempt to participate. That is a friggin brilliant design if you ask me.

Re:Not Surprising . . .

[laird]

"I love the Daily Show, but if that is what passes for requiring thought then I feel really bad about the mental state of our society."

I disagree. The Daily Show's material is consistently more challenging (and, IMO, rewarding) than Letterman or Leno. If you read the report (cheating, I know) you'll see that the Daily Show's jokes were much longer, and with more substantial topics, than the others.

Re:Not Surprising . . .

[npsimons]

I don't normally respond to trolls, but what the heck . . .

This is modded 5 Insightful???????

insightful, adj : exhibiting insight or clear and deep perception;

I perceive that Bill O'Reilly, as portrayed on his self-produced show, "The O'Reilly Factor", is consistantly inflammatory and hostile towards his guests. He also has a habit of insulting people who disagree with him. I also perceive that shit consistantly comes out of my ass. Therefore, I have made an insightful observation.

(snipped long theory of "groupthink" and leftist conspiracy)

Look, I won't disagree that the majority of people on slashdot have leftist leanings. But a lot of people here are also conservatives when it comes to finance and right to bear arms. Then there's a whole smattering of opinions in between.

Then there's people like you.

I will never truly know if you are a troll, or just some paranoid right-winger. Either way, I don't really care. That's not to say I discount your opinion entirely. But unless you can back it up with some facts or logic, I have no motivation to consider your ideas once they are discredited.

Don't like the political winds of slashdot? Go form your own site where you can practice the same "evolution" of "groupthink" in whatever direction you want. Want to see ALL the opinions instead of the most popular left leaning ones? Just read at Score: -1, and you'll quickly see why I put people like you in my Foes list with an automatic -2 to their comment's Scores, then read only at a Score: 5.

Out of context.

[MindStalker]

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.

Re:Out of context.

[seasleepy]

There's a transcript here, although I don't know if it supports what you're saying. O'Reilly pretty much starts off the interview by saying how scary it is that the "stoned slackers" who watch the Daily Show can vote. (Later on, he does say that he's just making fun of the show.) They do bring up about competition a bit later (since O'Reilly was complaining about how the Daily Show got Kerry to come on and he didn't), but that's a ways into the interview.

Re:Out of context.

[MindStalker]

Your right, but my main point was that it was all extremly light hearted. You'd have to have seen it.

Re:Out of context.

[tordia]

CNN reported that Stewart was "seemingly taken aback" by the repeated "stoned slackers" comments.

Re:Out of context.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, CNN is pulling stuff out its ass. If you watched the segment, you would've seen it was a very high-brow back-and-forth style - not mean-spirited at all. The both of them were having a blast and it was obvious.

There's a quiz, too ...

[jkujawa]

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???

Re:There's a quiz, too ...

[Blakey Rat]

There are two quizzes. One of them asks the 6 questions that were in the survey, and another one quizzes you on the political leanings of the three talk shows mentioned. I don't see what you're complaining about... the article is about political knowledge and late-night talk shows, and the quizzes are about political knowledge and how that applies to late-night talk shows.

Re:There's a quiz, too ...

[jkujawa]

I think they updated the story. I'm pretty sure the issues quiz wasn't there the first time I read it.

PARENT IS A TROLL / FLAMEBAIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much.

daily show!

[Anonymous Coward]

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'll Tell You Why

[rwiedower]

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...

Re:I'll Tell You Why

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you had actually bothered reading TFA from the beginning you would have noticed that there was a link to "take the quiz" that they're talking about towards the beginning. So quit yer bitching!

Paris Business Review

[foistboinder]

Someone should ask Bill O'Reilly abount the Paris Business Review.

More on the survey

[Canthros]

The Annenberg Public Policy Center is here, a detailed release fo the specific study is here (it's a pdf).

Cut Em Some Slack

[4of12]

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."

Re:Cut Em Some Slack

[hey!]

I'd agree with you if you were talking about people who watch "Nightline". But don't you think the fact that O'Reilly makes shit up and shouts down anyone who tries to present any information contrary to his opinions my have a teensy bit to do with it?

Personally, getting all you news from Fox is like getting all your news from one politial campaign or another. Roger Aisles is in charge of news at Fox, and he was and for practical purposes still is a Republican operative. If there were a network run by the Democratic party, probably people who used that as their primary source of information, they'd probably be equally misinformed.

Re:Cut Em Some Slack

[minus_273]

you mean like CBS. Rather is democrat even attends democratic fund raisers in texas. I wont even get into his relationship with the republican party and the bush family in particular.

Re:Cut Em Some Slack

[Ohreally_factor]

Personally, getting all you news from Fox is like getting all your news from one politial campaign or another.

It's more like getting all your news from the Ministry of Information.

Re:Cut Em Some Slack

[tjg89]

This is so true. Look at the polls of viewers from the debate last night. Just about every other site has Kerry winning at least 70% to 20% with roughly 10% saying it was a tie. Foxnews currently has it at 40% to 40%...fair and balanced...hmmmmm

Re:Cut Em Some Slack

[Ohreally_factor]

To be fair, they're not presenting it as a scientific poll. It's a poll for Fox News viewers, and I don't know if there are any controls to keep a person from voting more than once.

So what it represents could be that Fox News viewers only see what they want to see, or, alternatively, only see what they're told to see.

Three words: PARIS BUSINESS REVIEW

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Three words: PARIS BUSINESS REVIEW

[Rayonic]

Incorrect. Some joker e-mailed O'Reilly with "facts" from this site.

But hey, at least he owned up to it right away, instead of stonewalling for days and insisting that the statistics were "fake but accurate."

Re:Three words: PARIS BUSINESS REVIEW

[ophi]

Have you seen the sight?

...data analysis demonstrates without question that the united American refusal to say "cheese" when smiling for snapshots has had a significant impact on the French economy.

The Bill O'Reilly Boycott, known here as Le Boicott Billo, has been financially devastating. If it weren't for all the accordion music, one would scarcely know it was Paris.

O'Reilly is a joke.
btw, Jon Stewart is hilarious and the only program I watch daily.

Headline should read "FOX News," not "CNN"

[Anonymous Coward]

All, the headline's WRONG. It should read that they (we) bested FOX News viewers, not CNN.

Aww, what's the matter, no modpoints today?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why am I not surprised?

Given up on the Daily Show

[mbourgon]

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)

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[syrinx]

I agree.. TDS used to be a lot better at making fun of everyone, and it was one of my favorite shows, but now it seems they've just allied themselves with Democrats and attack Bush all the time. If I wanted fake information that attacks Bush, I'd watch Farenheit 9/11 (although at least TDS prides itself on being fake..).

(BTW -- the humor columnist Dave Barry does a good job of making fun of everyone when he writes political humor... sadly that's not to often, but his book Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway is one of my favorite bits of political humor by anyone)

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[mabu]

The Daily Show has always been a bit anti-republican. That's why its audience members are smarter and more informed. They don't fall for that, "They hate us because of our freedom" malarky the right-wing spew. If you're conservative/republican and you claim to be a party supporter yet you dismiss all the intelligence-insulting rhetoric your party routinely spews, you might want to get a grip and start doing your own research instead of demonizing any show that doesn't 100% jive with your agenda.

And let's be honest, the right wingers are the ones all-too-quick to completely condemn an institution if it doesn't meet with their narrow view of "unbiased". Totally unrealistic and naive.

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[bizpile]

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.

I have seen what you mean but I don't think it's as bad as you do. I think they still make fun of both sides penty it's just that this time around Jon Stewart, himself, is having trouble holding back his feeling of disdain for the Bush Administration. The Daily Show is still one of the most balanced shows there is (even if their anti-Bush sentients are starting to peek through). And it's still worth watching just to see Rob Corddry.

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[tordia]

The actual pdf report points out that between July 15th and September 16th, out of 83 political jokes on The Daily Show, 9 were directed at Bush, and 9 were directed at Kerry (page 8). Seems pretty balanced to me. Letterman was just about the same (20 Bush / 21 Kerry). Leno was a bit skewed (97 Bush / 76 Kerry), but, not being a fan of Leno, I would expect him to take the easy route when hunting for a joke. :)

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[dtolman]

In the Daily Show's defense, the Republicans basically control both elected branches of government at this point...

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.

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[mbourgon]

Thanks - didn't realize it included the jokes and percentages. Interesting reading.

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to buy into stereotypes.

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm a conservative Republican that doesn't buy into the spew, and I don't support the crooks who have taken over my party. Maybe that's why I enjoy the Daily Show.

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[mabu]

I'm a conservative Republican that doesn't buy into the spew, and I don't support the crooks who have taken over my party. Maybe that's why I enjoy the Daily Show.

I think the Democratic party has become what the old Republican party used to be - they're a lot more focused on fiscal responsibility and less government regulation. The Republican party has swung so far right that it's now under the control of closed-minded, xenophobic, religious extremists with a precarious and dangerous plan for imposing a new world order.

If you're Republican, Conservative or Moderate, you need to take some time and seriously consider whether it's more practical to support the Democratic party than it is to try to change the extremist path of the current GOP. There's no motivation for the Republicans to do anything different, so if you're not happy with the status quo, it would be crazy to support them come November.

I don't know any Republicans who don't have just as many complaints as Democrats do with the current administration. So why would you maintain the status quo? Does anybody think that during his second term, Bush is suddenly going to become more fiscally responsible? Is he going to mysteriously develop a newfound respect for the rest of the world? Is he going to stop taking money from the people and giving it to huge multinational corporations? No. And if he gets elected in November, it will be perceived as a total validation of his methods and priorities.

One thing you can assume is that as long as the GOP doesn't fear losing its base, it has no intention of changing its priorities, so anyone who wants progress or change won't get it by keeping Bush in office. OTOH, the Democrats are so desperate to regain some of their lost power and status, they're much more impressionable. It would be a lot easier to get Kerry in office and then push for conservative-oriented solutions than it would be to vote for Bush and expect anything to be different.

Re:Given up on the Daily Show

[Ohreally_factor]

Make no mistake, I'm not voting for Bush this November. It's tempting to vote Libertarian, but this election is just too crucial. (Besides which, the Libertarian platform seems a little too extreme.)

So, I'm going to vote for Kerry. And after the first debate, I feel better about my decision, i.e., less like I'm just voting against Bush and more like I'm voting for Kerry. Bush offered nothing of substance and offered no clear vision on where he was leading us. Worse, Bush seemed incredibly juvenile, while Kerry came off as an adult that can lead this country.

So hopefully, we elect Kerry for 4 years, and by the time of the next election we can find a suitable replacement for him. Unfortunately, I'm afraid John McCain will be too old by then, and I see no one else on the horizon.

I'm aware that there is a "more conservative" wing of the Democratic party, but the liberal wing is still very powerful. I don't think "liberal" is a dirty word, but I do have insurmountable differences with the liberal view. At the same time, I'm hardly a model conservative. I'm not completely against social welfare programs, provided we can pay for them without increasing the tax burden or the deficit. I also think we must be extremely selective and focused about which programs get funding.

Sometimes I feel like Goldilocks. This party is too soft. That party is too hard. Where is the party that is just right?

WTFox?

[Lord Prox]

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.

Re:WTFox?

[HebrewToYou]

"I think O'Reilly's statment may be correct."

As one of the ex-stoners, damn skippy he was correct.
Every night at UCSC (University of California in Santa Cruz) would have folks tuning in to the Daily Show and laughing at the the barrage of anti-conservative jokes. I really enjoyed the show when Craig Kilborn hosted and I somewhat enjoy what John Stewart has done....but look at "correspondents" like Stephen Colbert.

The man does a parody of Bill O'Reilly where he just ridicules the format of The Factor! There is no informed analysis -- only shtick and giggles. The Daily Show is about as relevent to the modern world as Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn. Both shows feature pop-culture 'icons' (I use the word loosely) preaching their beliefs with little fact, a great deal of conjecture and a ton of comedy.

Key word: comedy.

When an ex-stoner can score six out of six (as I did) on a pop quiz, you know it wasn't very difficult. I wish CNN would report news instead of this anti-FSN fluff. Bah humbug.

Re:WTFox?

[Anonymous Coward]

There were two quizzes, you moron.

Re:WTFox?

[Shambhu]

Well you RTFAed rather poorly. The article never said that the Annenburg poll targeted Factor viewers, it said the following:

Comedy Central used its viewers' test scores Tuesday to strike back at Fox News Channel and O'Reilly's viewers.

It also trotted out stats from Nielsen Media Research to show that Stewart's viewers are not only smart, but more educated than O'Reilly's.

Then it when on to quote Comedy Central siting some of the statistics from Nielsen.

Also, if 48% of 18-29 yro Daily Show viewers got all 6 questions right, it may not be that impressive, but it is a lot higher than just guessing! The questions are multiple choice: 5 with 2 choices, and 1 with 4. You do the rest of the math, I'm way too tired.

Re:WTFox?

[coraxo]

Key word comedy is definitely right

but I just can't believe you put tough crowd it the same league as daily show with stewart (haven't seen the previous guy) tough crowd is just plain bullshitting for the audience with intelligence that o'reilly's viewers have.
i would rather compare tough crowd with the man show.

Why the Daily Show works (for me)

[teamhasnoi]

When I see something outrageous on the Daily Show, I look it up to see the truth of it, and end up learning more details than a regular news show would provide.

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.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

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.

kekeke ^___^

[billybob]

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. ^___^

truth hurts less when you laugh

[Doc Ruby]

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

Truth is unbalanced.

[Doc Ruby]

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?

I'll have to disagree with you on that.

[khasim]

"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.

you shouldda let /. eds put this up as a poll!

[museumpeace]

Daily show, of course.

Re:you shouldda let /. eds put this up as a poll!

[!3ren]

They should STILL put this up as a poll, as opposed to the inane crap they have up now.
I mean really, who gives a damn about cartoon characters vs cartoon characters.

Push Poll

[St. Arbirix]

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.

Re:Push Poll

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the best place to d/l it? I don't get expanded basic anymore, but usenet and bittorent are spotty at best. Am I just looking in the wrong place?

CNN Article Ending

[HebrewToYou]

"So the guy watching Stewart may not only be smart, but may also be rich."

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.

Re:CNN Article Ending

[hopemafia]

I disagree on your take on the bias of the show. I've always thought TDS does a great job of picking on everybody...and I'm a conservative (mostly) youth (still, barely) from the midwest (completely).

I can guess from the on set interviews that Stewart is a liberal, but I have to say he and the writers do a good job of keeping the ripping "fair and balanced" (tm)...not to mention damn funny. The Republicans get a bit more coverage simply because they're in charge...that's the way it always works with political comedy.

Re:CNN Article Ending

[Night Goat]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I like a lot of the JS stuff, and I agree with their political slant, but some of that's just plain cruel. Kilborn wasn't quite as mean. A smartass, yes, but it seemed more good-natured. It seemed like they found wackier people to interview when Kilborn was doing the show, too. Now they are more into just acting like asses or taking regular peoples' comments out of context.

Re:CNN Article Ending

[Ohreally_factor]

Craig Kilborn was OK, but he doesn't hold a candle to John Stewart in either humor or intelligence. His late night show sucked, and was never worth staying up for.

Whether or not John has a bias, you can't deny that he's one of the fairest people on TV when it comes to political topics. He's very even handed with the jokes; in fact, I'm pretty sure there's a 1:1 ratio of Bush jokes to Kerry jokes on the show. He's also polite and kind and never arrogant. He doesn't talk down to anyone he has on his show. Even tonight, when he challenged Skeletor, I mean, Giuliani, on what Kerry actually said, and what Rudy said that Kerry said, he was completely civilized. He didn't call Giuliani a liar, though he could have.

I liked Giuliani before tonight. But I feel as though he looked me (and all the other viewers) directly in the eye, and told a direct lie. Previously, I had thought that Giuliani was a leader, but he's just another of the current breed of Republican politician that puts the Party and/or his career above all else. Giuliani showed tonight that he is without honor.

time-warp

[nusratt]

"more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen"

Wow, do the Lettermen still perform shows?
http://www.grabow.biz/Nostalgia/Lettermen. htm

Even More Frightening

[NickFusion]

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.

A registered independant?

[theantix]

How do you register to be an independant? Who would you register with?

Re:A registered independant?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NYS Voter Registration Form, for example, has a check box which reads "I do not wish to enroll in a party".

Re:A registered independant?

[p0knatcha]

Easy, in my state they have a check box labeled 'non-partisan'.

The Daily Show: Fair and Balanced?

[meta-monkey]

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.

Re:The Daily Show: Fair and Balanced?

[mabu]

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.

I don't see where you get this. On every show he makes fun of Kerry. While the Daily Show is anything but right-leaning, they have more high-powered right wing figures as guests than they do the left on average, and they routinely promote the impression that Kerry is a monotone, one-dimensional person that's incapable of inspiring people - the idea of which might have been funny the first 10,000 times they played this tired joke, but that hasn't stopped them from continuing.

Re:The Daily Show: Fair and Balanced?

[meta-monkey]

Mainly I'm talking about his interviews. Watch the difference between how he interviews a left-leaning guest, and how he interviews a right-leaning guest. Today would be a good day to watch. Last night's show featured a top Bush campaign advisor, and Jon took every opportunity to make the guy look like an idiot. You can watch that episode again tonight at 7PM. Then, stay tuned at 11, because then he'll have on a guest who wrote a book that discusses how high up the chain of command the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal goes. Watch as he challenges everything the pro-Bush guy says. Then, watch as he softballs the anti-Bush guy. I wish he'd just mock everybody.

Re:The Daily Show: Fair and Balanced?

[dtolman]

You have to be kidding!?!? He ESPECIALLY throws softball questions to people whose views he disagree's with. And he seems to be extra careful to not cut them off.

Did you see the Ralph Reed interview? Forget softball questions, it was practically T-ball.

Re:The Daily Show: Fair and Balanced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, given that he runs ostensibly a NEWS show, and the Bush administration spin continually contradicts the facts... he would have to TRY to not make fun of Bush, it's just too easy to put fact up first, then the spin, then make a face. That's some funny shit.

Re:The Daily Show: Fair and Balanced?

[meta-monkey]

Okay, I just watched the interview with the anti-Bush guy who wrote the book about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. He makes ridiculous statements. He says that a group of eight or nine neocons have taken over the Pentagon, taken over our country, and isn't it said that our democracy was so fragile as to fall before this coup. This is a preposterous statement that deserves to be challenged by any interviewer. Instead, Jon nods, takes this at face value, and then asks if maybe the CIA could stop these guys. He claims that when "the facts come out" we're all going to learn that the abuses at Abu Ghraib pale in comparison to what's going on in Guantanamo. What the hell? At no time was this man asked to prevent any evidence, or to defend any of his positions. Absolute softball. Where's the evidence? Where's the challenge to these extreme statements? Nowhere. On the other hand, when the conservative was interviewed last night, he was hammered on every point.

Look, I love the Daily Show, and I think it's hilarious, but it would be nice if Jon would make fun of his liberal guests as much as he skewers his conservative guests.

Re:The Daily Show: Fair and Balanced?

[Anonymous Coward]

you've got to be kidding me with what you just posted... the evidence you state that he needs to produce is IN THE FRIGGIN BOOK that he wrote. John read the book before he interviewed him, so maybe, just MAYBE john agrees with him. If you want to see the evidence, go RTFB.

how many times has john asked his more right-leaning guests to "provide evidence" for ther ridiculous claims? none. even when the crowd reacts (like when they laughed at reed) he tells them to be quiet and calm down (unlike O'Reilly who would most likely tell them to 'shut up'). and how in the world can you say john "hammered" the guest from the night before? you have obviously never seen a heated interview before.

Re:The Daily Show: Fair and Balanced?

[meta-monkey]

Okay, that's fine, he doesn't have to hammer the anti-Bush guy. But then why does he hammer the pro-Bush guy? I wish I could find a transcript of the interview from Tuesday night. Pretty much he twisted and spat back every word he said. Here's how a Jon Stewart interview goes. First case, liberal guest:

LIBERAL: [Preposterous statement]
JON: Really? That's fascinating! [fawning, open-ended follow up]

Case two, conservative guest:
CONSERVATIVE: [Preposterous statement]
JON: Ah, but don't you really mean [statement about conservatives/Bush being evil and/or dumb]

Here's the thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Here's the thing

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not quite fair. He wouldn't be in a maytag box. He'd still be a highschool teacher, ruining generations of kids by spouting his message of intolerance and hatred.

Can we all agree on one thing?

[mabu]

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.

Re:Can we all agree on one thing?

[bhima]

There is no such thing as "non-partisan"!

But what do you call people who are disenfranchised by both the major American parties and the whole ruling class needs to be removed?

Re:Can we all agree on one thing?

[mabu]

But what do you call people who are disenfranchised by both the major American parties?

Americans, or at least 99.99% of them.

Re:Can we all agree on one thing?

[bhima]

!!HAH!!

Great!

Re:Can we all agree on one thing?

[NidStyles]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Daily Show is Liberal

[dunsel]

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.

Re:Daily Show is Liberal

[npsimons]

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.

Um, duh? I never said The Daily Show wasn't liberal. The thing that they keep my respect with is that they poke fun at *everyone* liberal and conservative almost equally.

Nothing is completely unbiased or fair and balanced, and The Daily Show isn't claiming to be any of these things. Yet they come closer to these ideals than anyone else reporting "news" on television that I have seen.

Disinformation.

[I am Jack's username]

Misperceptions re Iraq war:

FOX CBS ABC NBC CNN Prn N/P
20% 30% 39% 45% 45% 53% 77% None of the 3
80% 71% 61% 55% 55% 47% 23% 1 or more

Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

PIPA/Knowledge networks poll, 2003-10-02, http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02 _03_Press.pdf

Christian science monitor article.

Re:Disinformation.

[4of12]

Thanks for the correction - it was PIPA, not Pew that conducted the poll.

Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

I really wish the upcoming debates in the U.S. were completely closed to TV and radio broadcast.

Imagine if the candidates answers were transcribed into print and then published in the newspaper for readers to evaluate.

How is this a Troll?????

[DesScorp]

" 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.

Re:How is this a Troll?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. The moderation system is in place to keep the liberal group think rolling along smoothly. All points which contain coherent counter points to said groupthink are troll or flamebait.

Could it be . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Could it be . . .

[mbourgon]

Daily show primarily makes fun of assholes and idiots

No, otherwise you'd be mentioned. There's plenty of idiots on both sides.

Re:Could it be . . .

[Guppy06]

"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,"

I'm sorry, I'm having a real trouble associating traits like "enlightened," "educated," and "intellectual" with "college." All too many college degrees say little more than "I found the right sucker to do my work for me."

Re:Could it be . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"I found the right sucker to do my work for me."

Hey man, I almost forgot to tell you: thanks for the econ paper! :^P

Funniest Daily Show Moment

[theghost]

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.

Re:Funniest Daily Show Moment

[Rayonic]

> an informed audience.

There's a fine line between "informed" and "instructed". Really, how many people in that audience, do you figure, research many different sources and reach their own conclusions? Odds are they just take whatever they see (Daily Show included) at face value.

Re:Funniest Daily Show Moment

[theghost]

Do you really want to argue that the Bush campaign has been focused on running with positive message?

You could do that, but then i'd have to laugh at you.

Re:Funniest Daily Show Moment

[Rayonic]

I didn't say that the audience was incorrect on that particular subject. Just that they probably hadn't reached that conclusion on their own. (I'm not saying that the average TV viewer is any better, mind you, but don't mistake agreement with intelligence.)

As an aside, Bush certainly is running a negative campaign -- though I'd say Kerry's campaign is more negative. The way Kerry and his staff reacted to Prime Minister Allawi was simply disgraceful.

Re:Funniest Daily Show Moment

[Ohreally_factor]

So what you're saying is that there were handlers in the audience that incited the audience to laugh on on cue, or that it wasn't a real audience, but people recruited specifically to laugh on cue.

Did I get that right? Otherwise, what the hell are you saying?

The way Kerry and his staff reacted to Prime Minister Allawi was simply disgraceful.

The way that Bush used Alawi as a prop for his presidential campaigh was more disgraceful. The way Alawi allowed himself to be used was equally disgraceful.

The parallels with Vietnam continue. However, in Vietnam, the Vietnamese political leaders and generals misled our leaders, who then misled the American people. In the current case, the Bush team is coaching Alawi to mislead the American people.

Actually, all three audiences sucked.

[Thag]

The Daily Show got just over 50%, and the questions were easy.

Advantage: people who read.

Jon Acheson

Re:Actually, all three audiences sucked.

[goon america]

Advantage: people who read.

No, according to the study Daily Show viewers outscored newspaper readers. (Not joking)

Re:Been trying to tell my father-in-law that for y

[linzeal]

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.

Peggy Noonan probably wrote that.

[Anonymous Coward]

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"?

Re:Peggy Noonan probably wrote that.

[(trb001)]

You can't separate "making war" and "seeking peace" quite that easily. Were we just "making war" when we entered into WWII? How about the Gulf War? How about the Civil War? How about the Revolutionary War? Wars are fought for all sorts of political reasons; removing an obstruction to peace can, and should, be a good enough reason, IMHO.

Moderators are biased.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand how you feel. Too many moderators mod an article based on the viewpoint in the article. For example, if there is an article condemning the Chinese for occupying Tibet, then you can be sure that someone will mod that article down as a "Troll" or "Flamebait". The phenomenon also occurs when you write an article opposing H-1Bs.

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, ..."

Re:Been trying to tell my father-in-law that for y

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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)

This just in....

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

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...

Let's Fight Back

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand how you feel. Too many moderators mod an article based on the viewpoint in the article. For example, if there is an article condemning the Chinese for occupying Tibet, then you can be sure that someone will mod that article down as a "Troll" or "Flamebait". The phenomenon also occurs when you write an article opposing H-1Bs.

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..."

Re:Let's Fight Back

[Anonymous Coward]

Often, race politics is rearing its ugly head. A Hispanic moderator will mod down articles supporting the deportation of illegal aliens.

You're a racist shithead. Hispanics are more hostile to illegal immigration than the population at large. Unless, of course, you think all Hispanics must be illegal aliens.

Re:Let's Fight Back

[moofdaddy]

Can't we just agree that all mexican's should burn in the hell from which they were spawned?

Re:Let's Fight Back

[Anonymous Coward]

"Too many moderators mod an article based on the viewpoint in the article. [...] moderators hate people like Bill O'Reilly because he calls the situation for what it is"

I disagree with that entirely. Mod parent -1, Troll.

Re:Let's Fight Back

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if you want to vote against people who discuss their ethnic identity, then you should vote against Bill O'Reilly, because he uses his last name to inform people of his Irish heritage.

Re:Let's Fight Back

[Anonymous Coward]

vote against Bill O'Reilly, because he uses his last name to inform people of his Irish heritage.

Because he lets people know he's a Catholic Drunk we should vote against him?

It has to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

You Americans are really fucking dumb.

I find this circus you call 'presidential election' to be in extremely bad taste.

Commenter has several errors.

[goon america]

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.

Common Sense...

[ImaLamer]

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.

Daily Show torrents

[Kid_Korrupt]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The Editor is Timothy

[Anonymous Coward]

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!)

The quizz is so easy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

American news is in handcuffs

[Merk]

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.

Re:American news is in handcuffs

[ImaLamer]

I assume you watched the show (Charlie Rose).

Basically Jon Stewart pointed that out. He was asking why a reporter can't just stop someone mid-sentence and say: "That is absolute crap".

But even when the all the facts are out they still let these scum slide.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

people are so down on o'reilly, but what about...

[Milton Waddams]

...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.