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
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.
Considering a great deal of America's news output... yes, things certainly are.
The sad thing is, Most shows that claim to be news shows aren't anymore. It's all horrific accidents and sensational crimes locally and fear and scandal mongering nationally, with very little international coverage outside of the daily bombing death toll in Baghdad. TV is way behind the internet for news these days, and it has always been way behind the newspapers.
However unlike most "news" programs, which contain less and less real news each year, The Daily Show isn't afraid to air clips of politicians at their most embarassing, which for some of the congress critters like Alaskan Senator and General Dickhead Ted Stevens, is practically every single time they open their mouths.
They also aren't afraid to put clips of what politicians are saying now and what they said two years ago contradicting themselves, unlike most "news" programs.
So despite being a comedy show, The Daily Show has much more power to keep politicians on their toes then regular news programs because they don't have the taboos of regular news programs.
I watch three TV Shows for my "television news," The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Any time I watch any other "news" program I find myself staring in disbelief at how far they have fallen.
A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite is worse than no opinion at all.
That's my opinion.
The Daily Show/ Colbert report is the news with humor on top.
CNN/Fox News/etc is the news with fear, manipulation, marketing, and a lot of general bullshit on top.
In the end you still get the same story, just different presentation. You also get a lot more news in 30 minutes of the dailyshow than you would 30 minutes of Fox News, where likely it would just be 30 minutes covering the same story.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
The Daily Show consistently makes people aware of what is currently going on in the news. There's no less news than on the other news shows. There really isn't.
What there is less of is spin and propaganda from the talking heads. Where you'd get pro-Bush propaganda, you get some humour splashed in to break the tension so you don't explode when you see what's happening in the world.
No, it's not the best source of news. But it's the best news source in America.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
"0% informational" means that one would never learn anything useful from a program. Stating that the Daily Show is "0% informational" is about as fair as stating that Fox News is "100% right-wing slant".
Both are quite obviously untrue if someone bothers to watch either the Daily Show or Fox News. Stating either shows a lack of perspective.
I'm a reporter. I know how The News are made. And believe me, they aren't "The News".
If you want to be well informed, stick to printed press and maybe some of the very best networks --the BBC comes to mind. But your local news crews are assholes and their bosses are idiots. Believe me, I know plenty of them.
Find me a Bush policy that the press actually supports, not just "doesn't bash on as much as you'd like".
As was recently pointed out here in another context, the average story about even a Bush speech will be a couple of snippets from his speech, often out-of-context, frequently so much so that the putative quotes actually say something he didn't, and generally if I read the speech and read their summary, I feel they focused either on the weakest or least important point of the speech while simply ignoring the rest. I don't think this constitutes being "pro-Bush".
As for not asking the hard questions, that's just because journalists aren't particularly capable of figuring out what the hard questions are. Also, given a choice between asking a hard question and getting their access potentially cut off, or just lobbing the soft question, they'll take the soft questions. (I select that example because it went all the way to the top.)