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."
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.
For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch.
Yes, it is the only "news" program I watch, however, I also read the newspaper and listen to National Public Radio daily. The rest of the news programs are generally filled with a bunch of sensationalist bullshit that I don't care about. Just because I don't watch the 5:00 news doesn't mean I'm less informed, and I'd have to say that most of the Daily Show watchers are also fairly well informed, otherwise they wouldn't understand the majority of the jokes.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
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.
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...
"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.