Slashdot Mirror
Daily Show's Viewers Best O'Reilly's In Political Quiz
tjg89 writes "CNN.com has an interesting article about some deragatory comments made about Daily Show viewers by Bill O'Reilly and how Comedy Central reacted. They not only proved that the Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of his show, but they are also more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen. Are more slashdot readers Daily Show people or O'Reilly people?" Update: 09/29 16:55 GMT by T : The Daily Show's audience actually topped viewers of "The Tonight Show,""The Late Show" and "The O'Reilly Factor"; CNN just carried the story. (Thanks to reader Robert Nevitt for the correction.)
Isn't O'Reilly on Fox, not CNN?
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
I can't stand either of them. Give me John McLaughlin and his McLaughlin Group over those other clowns anyday.
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
Jon Stewart is the man. O'Reilly is just a bully and a blowhard. And, while the Daily Show is fake news, it's still more real than The Factor.
To be fair, I did try listening to the Radio Factor for a few weeks. O'Reilly is head and shoulders above Hannity and Rush. But that's like saying Franco was head and shoulders above Hitler and Stalin. It's all relative.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
I guess you could say I'm a huge O'Reilly fan, not only because of his show, but because of all those top quality Computing books he finds time to write. It's just wronger to say us O'Reilly viewers are less intellignet.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
for my favorite quote of this circus so far:
"The Facts are obviously biased against the Bush administration."
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Second, the summary says, "Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of [O'Reilly's] show", which is also incorrect. The CNN article states that more Daily Show viewers are 4+ years college educated and $100K+ salaried, but it says nothing about who is more informed between O'Reilly and the Daily Show. The Daily Show viewers are more informed than Letterman etc.
Story submitters and mods need to do a better job and actually read the articles they submit.
The poll was taken by Annenberg, not CNN, and wasn't taken in response to anything in particular.... This PDF from them directly has more specific stats and methodology. (I'm just amused that someone had to classify all the jokes. <g>)
If you have seen "OutFoxed" you see him totally reem a guy whos parents died in 9-11 just because he said something that Bill didn't agree with. Had the guy escorted off the studio only after insulting his dead parents. Great guy that O'Reilly.
On the other hand... Jon Stewart is a comic genius. I get more real news from the first 15 minutes of the daily show than watching CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX all day. Plus I get to LOL on many occasions. Jon definitely deserves a shot at the tonight show after Jay is gone, or even Letterman's spot.
I hate my sig.
You would like The Diane Rhem Show then. http://www.wamu.org/dr/index.html
--chris
Watch OutFoxed... they give plenty of proof. Also, read Rolling Stone a few issues back. Here is the online article: The guy is just a jerk who lies and screams and intimidates if he doesn't get his way.
I hate my sig.
This is not surprising for two reasons: first, Bill O'Reilly saying something derogatory about anyone is about as novel as shit coming out of my ass. He's the Rush Limbaugh of TV: extremely close minded and very inflammatory to those who don't agree with him.
Second, anyone who watches The Daily Show has to be pretty open minded and independent thinking. The Daily Show pokes fun at everyone: Republicans, Democrats and even themselves! Their brand of humor also takes a little bit more thought, so those who don't "get it" usually stop watching.
Nathan's blog
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
Someone should ask Bill O'Reilly abount the Paris Business Review.
Yet Another Web Site
Something like this came out about a year ago from the Pew Trust.
Basically, viewers of certain TV networks were less informed than viewers of other networks - not naming any names here, mind you - and people who got their news from other sources, such as radio and newspapers tended to be more informed than people who got their news just from TV.
Such polls don't give proper credit to the tough job that some of those TV hosts have on their hands, the challenges they must confront to educate their viewers.
But picking on viewers of certains shows is like picking on special ed teachers for the abilities of their class - those teachers have a tough job on their hands and people need to cut them some slack. Here they are, working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man, and people ridicule them for mistakes of their students.
Let's "Leave No Viewer Behind."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
O'Reilly didn't just misspeak, nor did he make an error.
He manufactured the "Paris Business Review" magazine, out of thin air, to support his OTHER lie about this "French Boycott" that cost over $10billion in trade to France.
So, not only was the trade quote a lie, he backed it up by manufacturing the reference material. There is no "Paris Business Review".
This is his game. Like Coulter, they give references, but they all end up being bogus. They are there for petty-intellectuals, like you, who trust in references, and make other people check facts for you.
They not only proved that the Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of his show, but they are also more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen.
I call troll. After RTFA twice now it clearly says that the survey was between Daily Show, Late Night, and The Tonight Show, nowhere did they survey The Factor viewers. So how does this "prove" the viewers of the Daily Show are better informed than The Factor viewers?
Also did anyone else catch the percentages?! From the CNN.com article But 60 percent of "Daily Show" viewers answered all six questions correctly. but from the PDF it says that the average score was 60% and that dropped to 48% for the 18-29yro class (less than guessing?!) and only 34% got 5-6 questions correct. Perhaps CNN should RTFA
PDF here
I think O'Reilly's statment may be correct.
FAIR is a place to start looking, especaially their article "The 'Oh Really?' Factor: Bill O'Reilly Spins Facts and Statistics".
The issues are there in either type of show; the difference is that I research the DS stories afterwards more often. (probably because they pick the most insane real life stuff to begin with, and the stories that *don't* make it to other media outlets.)
People who watch other 'news' shows take for granted that the story, as presented, is all there is to it. (In my experience)
Much like the Patriot Act is anything but what its name alludes to - there is always more to the story.
Bill O'Riley is a tool. Of the right, btw.
It depends on the comedy, and the alternatives. Humor comes from learning something unexpectedly quickly, which makes us laugh. We can learn something false, or something true, or partial. Compare the info conveyed in comedic style on _The Daily Show_ to the info conveyed in news style on the "non-fake" news shows. My anecdotatal experience, measured in frequency of screaming back at the talking head, shows Stewart's info to be much more accurate, as cross-referenced by decades of research in books, films, classes and the Internet.
"It's funny because it's true!" - Homer Simpson
--
make install -not war
He lied when he told Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
He said this before the war, and after combat operations ended and the WMD caches kept not pouring in, he started spinning to give himself breathing room. At first he said "in the next few weeks," then continually extended the deadline. Finally, in another interview in February 2004, he gave a half-hearted apology, but still shows no signs of distrust of the Bush administration. [source]
O'Reilly lied when he said he was a political independent. This is another one documented in Franken's book. His own voter registration shows himself registered as a Republican, and he's donated thousands to Republican causes, none to Democratic ones.
O'Reilly lies when he calls his show "The No-Spin Zone." This lie is so manifest, it's hardly worth taking time to document it.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
"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.
ROFL
Fantastic analysis by CNN on this one.
Maybe it's because most people who watch The Daily Show are the people laughing at all the poor interviewees being lambasted by clever editing. I enjoy the show thoroughly, but c'mon....sometimes they are just ridiculously mean-spirited.
The show has turned from a wonderful comedy half-hour hosted by Craig Kilborn ( I miss Thursday's Dance Dance Dance and the 5 questions) into a left-wing bombthrowing extravaganze. From Mess-o-potamia to Indecision 2004 (a.k.a Anybody But Bush-a-palooza) -- John Stewart is now hosting a show that is merely appealing to the leftist youth of the East and West coasts.
I watch the show every day as I am one of said youths.
Thank heavens I'm open-minded enough to see through John Stewart and Stephen Colbert's biased 'coverage.'
I love comedy when it's funny, not angry.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
Is that the press in this country has become so toothless, so infotainment [ahrg...I said Infotainment] focused, so utterly devoid of the principle of good journalism, so lax (as to be virtually absent) in their watchdog role, that one of the best TV new sources these days is a comedy show.
That's frightening.
What were you expecting?
I watch both the Daily Show and O'Reilly on a farily regular basis. In enjoy both - maybe because I'm more of a centrist leaning a little to the socially liberal side, try to be balanced between consumer and business, and tend to lean towards fiscal responsability (smaller government.)
It's very clear that John Steward and co. are fairly far left, anti-Bush. That doesn't stop him from bashing Kerry now and then however. Likewise, Bill mostly toes the Bush line, but not always. The real truth is somewhere in the middle.
I will say that the Daily Show, being comedy oriented does not need to be (and clearly isn't) fair to either side. They frequently take quotes out of context because they are funny - but that doesn't give the person watching the full story. If you are using the Daily Show as your main source of news you are not getting a true picture of what is going on in the world.
I believe O'Reilly tries to be fair, and most of the time he is spot on, but occasionally it's pretty obvious he is pushing his own adgenda without regard to reason or truth - occasionally going on rants that make me skip forward (tivo).
It's hard to get the real facts, and the full truth out of the media in general. We don't (for example) hear anything about the good things going on in Iraq. All we hear about is the bombings, kidnappings, etc. The negative stuff.
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.
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.
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
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. :)
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
Mark Racicot, chairman of Bush's reselection campaign, was the guest. He says, "This campaign is so focused on being positive," and the audience spontaneously busts out laughing like it was the punchline to a joke.
That's what happens when you try to pawn off bullshit platitudes on an informed audience. They laugh at you. Unfortunately all of America is not so well-informed.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
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.
O'Reilly claims the viewers average test scores did not reflect a true random sample.
"Of the Daily Show viewers polled, only those with enough drive and ambition took the quiz (and did well). The "pot smoking slackers" on the other hand, were up and rattled for a few seconds, then took another hit from the bong and forgot about this nonsense all together."
Of course I'm joking...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
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.