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.
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.
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.
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.
Comedy may not be the best medium for the news, it is a great way to present opinions/editorials. It allows you to present an opinion on a political topic without looking like a raving lunatic. Stewart and Limbaugh both fit into this category in my mind. For one to form an opinion on the topics it IS better to have researched through more traditional news channels, but for many people there simply isn't time to read about every topic. Stewart et al. allow people to be both entertained AND informed, if a topic raised by these pundits is particularilly interesting or important, then people can go out and find more information as needed. The issues they raise will in general be the most interesting to their audience, and a large subset of "interesting" is importance and relevance to society (although not all interesting news is important or relevant, and a lot of important/relevant news is interesting.)
While comedic or entertainment based Op/Ed is not the best format for a sole source of news, it can serve a purpose in getting people interested and involved with the topics of the time. With modern media and the glut of information available, it would be overly cumbersome for every individual to research each and every news source on all the topics available.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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.
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
John Stewart's show is easily as informative as most "real" news shows that people watch. Watch the local news down here in Atlanta some time then tell me Stewart's show isn't both more trustworthy and more to-the-point.
I'll grant you that there are much more respectable news outlets than "The Daily Show". However, in practice, given the alternatives of getting the news from ABC, NBC, or FOX, I'd rather people watch the "The Daily Show" instead. Personally, I've more or less given up on the televised media in the US. There is just too much money in it, and too much of an incentive to filter the information for the sake of ratings and public tastes. I get most of my news from "The Economist". Wading through it once a week is more work than watching NBC, but at least it won't fill my head with crap.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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
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
"A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite....(t)hat's my opinion."
-nuggz on 09-23-06 concerning his opinion of people getting their news from the Daily Show.
A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite is worse than no opinion at all.
That's my opinion.
You're wrong. Soundbytes, or their period equivalent, are the lifeblood of democracy. Remember "taxation without representation"? "divided we fall"? "Remember the Alamo"? "Hell no, we won't go"?
If your argument cannot be distilled into a five-word phrase, you don't really have an argument.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003, which references an National Annenberg Election Survey which found that, "Overall, Daily Show viewers scored the highest out of any group surveyed, with Daily Show viewers answering, on average, 60 percent of the questions correctly."
Is that enough of a defense of the grandparent post's weasel words?
"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.
Stewart-Colbert for President 2008
Actually, over here it's on CNN. And weekly, so the name "Daily Show" doesn't make much sense. I wish it was daily. And at a more reasonable hour.
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.)