Slashdot Mirror
Jon Stewart to Save the Gamers?
Joystiq's political column, courtesy of GamePolitics, talks this week about the bad rep games and gamers get in the popular press. They ask the question: 'Who will save the gamers?' Their answer: Daily Show host Jon Stewart. From the article: "Pennsylvania's Joe Pitts, mocked by Stewart for saying that violent games might affect ghetto children differently from affluent kids, actually protested -- after his opponent in a tough election campaign exploited The Daily Show fiasco for political gain. And that's precisely why Jon Stewart could be the savior of games. People tune in. For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch. Stewart, and colleague Stephen Colbert are seen as smart, funny, credible and relentlessly sticking it to the man. Elected officials, on the other hand, can't afford to come off as bumbling, low-tech and clueless. Naturally, Stewart helps them do so on a nightly basis."
And that's precisely why Jon Stewart could be the savior of games. People tune in. For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch.
This is what we on the Internets call "preaching to the choir."
Rob
After all, he is the resident expert on such matters.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The daily show is on *Comedy Central*. Apparently that isn't a strong enough hint, so Jon Stewart regularly denies that the Daily Show is a news format. If young people still consider it news, then things are in really bad shape.
Not much else to say really. If gamers go out and vote, and have a measurable effect, then yes, Stewart, Colbert, et al could be their spokespeople. Pot smokers too. Until they start voting no one will care what their spokespeople say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LenbSKbn-U
There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
The problem is that Jon Stewart isn't a politician. He's just a witty guy who makes smart jibes from the sidelines.
If gamers really want to make a difference, they have to be nice to politicians to gain their trust and support. I don't think Stewart will be any help there.
It all depends on what the issue being addressed is. If the problem's simply one of all the game playing public not seeing the threat that these politicians pose, and the comedy news shows expose them to it, then it could really help spread the message that they're under attack.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
But consider the past two American presidential elections. They have allegedly been so flawed and manipulated that it's doubtful that an increase in voting from video gamers, or any other group, would have any beneficial effect whatsoever. And it's even possible that such an unexpected influx of voters may wreak havoc with the manipulated vote tallying algorithms.
Sure, but maybe watching comedies for your information on world events isn't the best idea.
I like John Stewart, he's funny, but it isn't "The News"
I think the Vice City advertisement under the article blurb is quite fitting.
after getting to the "comments" page, I'm greeted with an ad for "Vice City Stories"
Maybe Slashdot can save the games too; one advertisement at a time!
Karnal
A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite is worse than no opinion at all.
That's my opinion.
Well, if the elections are rigged enough then we will see things happen like in Mexico and Thailand. Fact is that a corrupt minority cannot rule over and angry majority.
I love Jon Stewart and I love the Daily Show. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. For 4 years, Jon Stewart was lambasting George Bush, ridiculing his policies, and Bush won with a greater margin of victory in 2004 than in 2000.
Yes, most young people watch the Daily Show, but it doesn't translate very well in the polls. Say what you want, but the theory was that most younger people would vote Democrat, and that the entertainers had the ear of the young people, and true, the last election had a record number of young people voting. But in the end, Bush still won, so all this hollering and clammering that celebrities do didn't add up to a pile of beans.
a corrupt minority cannot rule over and angry majority
...
Well, maybe not with free elections, but tell that to the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq
For me, it's not primarily political satire. It's satire about the news, a lot of which is news about politics. Yes, sometimes it's about the subjects of the news, but the very best of the Daily Show for me is the stuff they do that lampoons the news biz itself, not the news, per se. Maybe this distinction is just in my brain, because none of the other posters seem to see it, either.
--
Senior Slashdot Zeitgeist Correspondent
When the electorate is evenly split you get a tally that approaches the statistical margin of error in the count.
Scream fraud all you want. But nothing good can come from seeing your own candidate limping uselessly into the presidency. The victim of a recount that ended in his favor. But left the House and Senate unchanged.
Yay! John Stewart to the rescue! I will now sit back and enjoy my moment of zen. :)
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
After the No Spin Zone had a serious slam at Daily Show, Comedy Central did some demographic polling and it turns out that by viewership, Bill is speaking for fewer people, and more pot smokers, than Jon Stewart.
Please get your facts in a line.
I'm calling Bullshit here. I would MUCH rather have opposing parties in the executive and legislative branches. Especially if the alternative is control of both branches by the religious right. In that situation it would be better to have gridlock than what we have now.
Love sees no species.
Generally, the only people that actually think of the Daily Show as "news" are either
A) Stupid (that would be the "younger" viewers mentioned above), or
B) So deeply neoconservative that they've lost all connection with reality (the kind of people silly enough to ask Stephen Colbert to speak at a Whitehouse dinner and then act surprised when he mocks the president to his face).
Actually, aren't the guys at CNN under the impression that the Daily Show is a competing news program? How can people miss the joke so completely and totally? I mean, come on.
It's funny: Clinton's election campaign was one of the first in America to really recognize that idea (Clinton apparently believed in it quite strongly). And it obviously worked, given the way Clinton was able to do basically nothing and yet maintain non-stop popularity. And yet subsequent democratic party campaigns ditched the idea completely, while the GOP totally embraced it (where it once again works wonders, election after election). What do you call a group of people that fail to learn from their successes, and then fail to learn from their mistakes?
Stewart-Colbert for President 2008
Scary idea that soundbites rule the world.
It might be true, but I don't think it's right.
Of course this is probaly the reason first world countries are in such a mess.
If your argument cannot be distilled into a five-word phrase, you don't really have an argument.
That's 17 words. I'm thinking you don't have an argument.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There are many valid and interesting posts (on topic) modded down to 0 or -1.
Stewart and Colbert will be the ones that wil democracy itself back for us... Don't waste thier talent on gamers. That's just silly.
For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch.
That's such a sad statement, on so many levels.
Beginning with the fact that it's a COMEDY program, not a news program.
Perhaps the distinction is narrowing, but I believe it's still significant.
-Styopa
You have a point, but you didn't take it far enough.
.... which they've already decided to take. I.e., they wanted to support the war, so they invented a justification for it.
People form various justifications for actions
The justification is separate -- sometimes totally divorced -- from the motivation.
It's my personal opinion that such is the case of the War in Iraq; which is why you really don't put a dent in the pro-war camp by proving that there were no WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, etc. Those hammer away at particular justifications, but new ones can (and were) easily invented. They don't get close to the central motivation.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Dude, it was a personal opinion. Chill out.
... you don't need substantiation for that. It's an opinion. He said that his opinion was that Stewart's coverage of Israel was biased. You might disagree, but his original statement was factually correct and self-supporting.
He said "he thought"
Besides which, it's almost impossible to really bring any 'evidence' into this forum; unless you have a show transcript, and who has that? Plus I don't think that quoting part of the show would really be useful in discussing the perhaps subtle or indirect slant of a particular news venue.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The reason these guys will save us is not because they're funny. It's because they represent that most popular of rights, the right to a dissenting opinion, and they do it on a grand platform. They are reminding us all that it's important to question authority, to poke fun at the talking heads, and to not sit idly by and absorb the crap that spews from the "News" shows. I hope they get more viewers, that they get on earlier, on more stations, with a wider audience. Because one thing I've observed, is that watching the Daily Show and the Colbert Report encourages people to think, and we damn well need some more of that.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
I'd certainly agree that Clinton was way ahead of Bush in terms of unshittiness, but I think that unshittiness is way too low a goal to be shooting for. An adequate government would be a nice start, and a mildy positive one would be a world-shattering achievement.
Watch CNN? Are you mad? I watch the CBC (or, to be more precise: I read the CBC). The CBC is consistently quite good. Not too much fear-mongering, a great science page, etc. And I love the Daily Show. I think Jon Stewart and company are American heroes. But you can become informed about the world watching SNL or Jeopardy -- simply providing information doesn't make something a news source. By contrast, the local free paper informs remarkably few people (most people grab it just for the super-easy crossword, a mildly inoffensive way to kill 45 minutes), but still qualifies as news. News isn't effectiveness, I'd say it's more about intent and format.
The growth of jobs in the healthcare field is primarily in insurance benefits administration, both for the insurance companies and for the hospitals. In this modern age, the primary function of a medical care facility is to collect money from insurance companies, with actual healthcare services only as a peripheral, serendipitous occurance!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!