Slashdot Mirror
The Daily Show as Substantive as Broadcast News
Walter C. writes "Anyone who watches the evening news with any regularity knows that it's not a bastion of substance. However, a new study conducted by researchers at Indiana University reports that The Daily Show has just as much substance to it as the broadcast news. 'The researchers looked at coverage of the 2004 Democratic and Republican national conventions and the first presidential debate of the fall campaign, all of which were covered by the mainstream broadcast news outlets and The Daily Show... There was just as much substance to The Daily Show's coverage as there was on the network news. And The Daily Show was much funnier, with less of the hype — references to photo ops, political endorsements, and polls — that typically overshadows substantive coverage on network news, according to the study.'"
I've been watching TDS for news for awhile now. I can't stomach the other news shows ... they're so full of bullshit. Just yesterday Fox News repeatedly tried to claim that Mark Foley was a Democrat. No thanks, I think I'd rather watch funny satire than bald-faced lies and propaganda.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
There was a study that already showed The Daily Show's audience was better informed about the news than people who just watched the regular news.o litics/
... it's that network news sucks so bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.p
The issue isn't that The Daily Show is so much better
Or as Mr. Stewart put it (paraphrased) "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls".
For once this doesn't really have anything to do with Slashdot editing. The linked to article makes the same extrapolation. The actual title of the study is apparently No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. I dont see any links to it, but it sounds like it supports that case for at least that specific story. Generalizing the specifics of a story for the purposes of headlines is pretty common amongst news sources.
The Daily Show is an interesting (if perhaps unintentional) solution to the problem of political news. The problem is: politics either is so full of bullshit and spin that it disgusts people, or it's so dry and abstract that it bores people. Either way, the networks found that when they covered politics, their ratings went down, and when they covered other things (read: fluff), their rating went up. Their response was the obvious thing to do when you're in it for the money: cover the bare minimum of politics, and spend more time on other, more "fun" stuff.
The Daily Show, on the other hand, takes a different approach: it covers politics and makes its political coverage enjoyable to watch, by making it funny. Also, because it doesn't bill itself as a serious news show, it is free to say things that traditional news shows can't or won't (ironically, because they want to preserve their reputation for "objectivity", which is in tatters nevertheless... because objectivity is an impossible standard to reach, even in principle. One person's "straight facts" are another person's "obvious bias"). That means that there is often more information available in a TDS episode than in the news, because TDS isn't afraid to connect the dots for its viewers.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I believe crossfire was canceled soon afterwards
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf
Though I think his intention isn't to say that the Daily Show isn't intended to have substance, but acknowledge that they will sometimes sacrifice substance in favor of the presentation in a way that isn't appropriate for a program that intends to be taken seriously.
"I recently read a survey that said that 30-40 percent of Americans get their news from late night comedy shows, and I just want to say one thing to those people... DON'T DO THAT! WE MAKE THINGS UP! WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING!"
- Jon Stewart {The Daily Show}I noticed that as well, and IMDB.com cites Jon Stewart's appearance as the reason Crossfire was canceled. He should probably appear on some other CNN shows if he's the catalyst for cancellation, but what are the odds of that ever happening again?
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
Boy, are you totally missing Jon Stewarts arguments.
His claim wasn't that Crossfire was biased, his claim was that Crossfire was political theater and nothing else. It was simply a show that featured people screaming their heads off at eachother, and Stewart argued that this is detrimental to the political climate. He said that it increased bi-partisanship, it increased disrespect for anyone not sharing all of ones views and it genereally increased division in America. He said that a news show has a responsibility to be clear, to be honest, to give every argument the time that it needed.
To this, Tucker Carlson responded "Well you went really easy on John Kerry. so you suck!", basically commiting all the sins Stewart had accused him off. The fact is this: it's not Jon Stewarts job to ask the hard questions. His job is to be entertaining, to provide a humorous commentary on the top stories in the news. When he has guests on, he treats them (unlike Carlson) with respect, he honestly asks their opinion and lets them give their views on different matters. If he debates them, he is kind and respectful, and he gives them the time to respond in a calm fashion. Tucker Carlson doesn't get this, because in his world-view, if you didn't mercilessly attack your guests, you're not doing your job. He is what is wrong with media in US today, and Stewart confronted him on it. And, to quote Stewart, he faught the law, and the law LOST!
Any law with drawn with intent to influence church attendance. Many of the can't purchase alcohol on Sunday or before noon on Sunday fall into this category.
Oh, how about prayer in school? Hrmm, religious indoctrination? Going even further, wanting to teach a Philosophy as a science (Creationism and ID).
Laws banning sexual behavior amongst consenting adults because a religious text says its bad.
The "value" that a child in the system shouldn't be adopted to a loving and qualified Gay couple based on their sexual orientation. No it's way better to keep those kids in the system - where no one gives a shit, than to let them be exposed to homosexuality. It's not like their getting raped in group homes anyway.
Capital punishment through inhumane means. I guess it's not enough that were killing these fuckers (real Christian by the way), no we have to do it in a painful manner. Electric chairs and hangings. I guess a lethal injection is just to good for them.
Decency and obscenity laws. Are you fucking kidding me? Who the hell are you to dictate personal taste. While there should be laws in place to protect people from being exploited and manipulated. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to as long as there is no harm to outside parties. Is there some material you don't want your kid to see, you control your own kid. Not limit what the adults can do because you suck as a parent.
The suspension of Habeas Corpus.
How that for starters?
I do not submit that most republicans believe all of the below. I do submit that the present (neoconservative) Republican leadership has been acting in a manner consistant with them, however -- and I've been fairly careful to only select items which I can find quotes or actions from present leadership to back up. (That's not to say that I'm necessarily interested in doing so, however). These are only the items off the top of my head; there are certainly many more.
Again: I'm not accusing you of believing these things. I'm accusing the people you helped to elect of acting in a manner consistant with them (and frequently espousing them openly).
Finally, there has absolutely been a departure from the fiscally conservative policies which the Republican party once stood for. I used to support the Republicans on fiscal matters, the Democrats on social ones and the Libertarians at the ballot box; presently, I am obliged to throw my support behind the Dems until we switch to a system of elections (such as Instant Runoff Voting) which would allow me to express a more nuanced view of my beliefs at the ballot box.