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.'"

21 of 669 comments (clear)

  1. Wouldn't it be better to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That the News has as little substance as The Daily Show?

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but the Daily Show is not SUPPOSED to have "substance". It's on the COMEDY CHANNEL for chrissakes.

      To say that the Daily Show has as much substance as network news is a vague statement about the Daily Show; to say that the news has as little substance as the Daily Show is a sharp criticism of the news.

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because it is on the Comedy Channel and you are supposed to laugh does not mean it is not substantive, insightful, critical, thought provoking, sad, true, accurate, dramatic, etc...

      Of course then there are the fart jokes.

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    3. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Stewart shilling for the latest Democratic candidate?
      You mean like when he compared the dems to Ewoks? Sure, that's a resounding recommendation. Sorry, but your post is nonsense. Do you even watch TDS?

      I'd say you're projecting. If you think that opposition to Bush stems only from dems or liberals, then I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. There are plenty of right wingers, including almost every conservative who isn't either a religious loony or a neo-con, who dislike Bush for reasons ranging from the deficit (fiscal conservative my ass) to civil liberties (remeber when "rights" were a conservative ideal? It was what seperated us from the USSR for crying out loud!)

      Stewart sounds like a cynical libertarian to me, not a liberal. He'll readily decry the democrats when they go against his own idea of right and wrong, or when they act spineless, or when they suck up to the neo-cons. He'd fit right in on /., which may explain his popularity here.
    4. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the impression I got from the AC was that he doesn't agree with the assessment that Stewart is liberal, or a supporter of the Democratic party. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply he was, but saying the show had a "liberal slant" does give that impression.

      I'd say that Stewart is a centrist and definately a cynic. By most international standards (I'm Canadian for the record), he's actually more conservative than liberal. Libertarian is perhaps a bit optimistic (I don't entirely agree with the other AC on that), but he certainly isn't liberal from where I'm standing.

      Now, Stewart might support the Democrats over the Republicans on balance, but that isn't quite the same as having liberal bias. Disliking someone and liking their opposite aren't the same. And, softball interview with Kerry or no, he has gone to town on the Democrats more than once. If they controlled any branch of the government, he'd probably go after them more, since he seems to work by attacking the establishment.

      Even if he does support a Democratic candidate, for him that might be as simple as wanting to restore balance of power; I've seen many Americans arguing in favour of having different parties in control of the different wings of government to keep them deadlocked. I could see him supporting a classical conservative candidate if the Republicans chose to field one.

    5. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by ivano · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Correct! People keep on saying how unsubstantive TDS is but it is the ONLY news program that I watch that regularly catches out what politicians say. A case in point: When the VP Dick Cheney said that he never said, or that he couldn't remember saying, that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda, the Daily Show was the only program to immediatedly follow that denial with the clip of him saying it. If this isn't *objective* journalism then I don't know what is.

      The whole point of the press and news in general is to help the common guy/girl with how their democracy and their representatives are doing. I should not be expected to make a concerted effort everytime a politician says something to go through my archive of news bullentins stretching back a few years to see if the VP was lying/deceiving or not. It is the responsibility of the press and news to do the leg work for me in an objective way as possible. If one news organisation wants to say "he couldn't remember, which is different from lying so we won't pick up on it" that's fine; but I also expect some people to pick up on the codewords for "i know i said it but I'll play safe and hope the average viewer won't remember" which is what TDS did.

      It's a fine line between a democracy that is for the people and a democracy that is for some of people.

      Ciao

    6. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Bloggs_99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But "Many a true word is spoken in jest" Court & Castle Jesters have a long history of saying politically emotive things in the form of jest or song. Saying things that would be unpalletable in serious conversation. And anyway Satire is the only logical way to treat politics. Politicians deserve to have the P*** taken. If you start to take them seriously, you might end up beleiving them, and that path leads to insanity.

    7. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by lubricated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> You do remember that he softball interviewed Kerry during his campaign, don't you?

      He doesn't grill people that come on the show. In general he has celebrities and the interviews are usually about them. Essentially he softballs everyone because it's not a news show. Those aren't news interviews they are more akin as to what happens on the late show. Bush was also invited and he would have gotten the same treatment.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    8. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by kalidasa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very nice repetition of Tucker Carlson's argument against The Daily Show on Crossfire in - what, 2004? Do you guys have some kind of handbook that you use to remind you what the Party Line is? Perhaps a Little Red Book?

      Outright hatred of AMERICAN values? I've got news for you, buddy: Current Republican "values" are closer to al Qaeda's values than they are to American values. Most of your "values" issues are ones on which the average Wahabbist could nod his head in agreement.

  2. Entertainment = Retention by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While you might be able to make a case for any news show being 'full of bullshit,' it is my opinion that The Daily Show's viewers retain so much more information because it is entertaining. News? Entertaining? That's right.

    How do I know what bills are being passed? How do I know who Zell Miller is? Well, if you ever saw the "Zell on Earth" episode from Indecision 2004, you'd never forget the man. If CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC, whoever else tried to cover that, I would have fallen asleep. Not only does it cover just as much material, but I retain far more of it.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Re:Well duh by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But why did they put "Mark Foley (D)" at the bottom of the screen? When Foley is a congressional Republican? Are you retarded or something?

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  4. The article doesn't say the Daily Show is good. by Freedryk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Note that the article make clear they aren't saying the Daily Show's reporting is good--just that it is equally good as serious news shows. What they are saying is, American TV news is a joke.

  5. News programs ARE entertainment. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They stopped being about "news" a long time ago.

    Now, they are ALL about "entertainment". Which is why CNN has "The Situation Room" and such.

    The Daily Show SHOULD be operating with a handicap. They have to focus solely on the items that they can turn into a joke. That should not be easy. They should be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    But they have one advantage that the "news" shows do not. The Daily Show has SMART people working for it. They REMEMBER previous statements by politicians and they are not afraid to show how the politicians contradict themselves.

    When was the last time you saw actual analysis and comparisons of a politician's statements on a regular news program. Yet they are a staple of The Daily Show. Because it is FUNNY when they catch a politician contradicting him/herself. And then The Daily Show will continue to hammer on the joke.

    It should be stupid. It should be lame. But because the regular "news" shows have abandoned even the pretense of being about "news", The Daily Show wins by default.

    The Daily Show mines recent events for jokes.
    Regular news shows can't even mine recent events for news.

    1. Re:News programs ARE entertainment. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It should be stupid. It should be lame. But because the regular "news" shows have abandoned even the pretense of being about "news", The Daily Show wins by default.
      What they've abandoned is a pretense at being Truthful.

      Balanced & Objective != Truth

      News programs nowadays keep trying to present "both" sides of an issue. Well... not everything has two sides.

      There are facts. Not everyone's opinion or interpretation of those facts is equal to everyone else's.

      The Daily Show is what would be considered advocacy journalism (as opposed to objective journalism). Advocacy journalism "is fact-based, but supports a specific point of view on one or more issues."
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  6. Deep Truth by Gorimek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A journalist can tell you facts.

    A comedian can tell you truths.

  7. Take it from an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We already know. Seriously. The reason everyone I know gets their news from the Internet isn't because it's more convenient, it's because it's more likely to be meaningful.

    The BBC isn't all that, either, you know. It's leaps and bounds better than anything in the States, but it's got a very discernable conservative bias, and it's too damn polite to ever dig very deep. And CNN International? Why are you giving them a pass? It's the same shit with a broader focus, does that make it better?

    The problem is English. Ever since the last bastion of balanced journalism in the US collapsed (NPR in the late nineties), I've been searching for a good English-language news source. I can't find one. I can find plenty of partisan hack jobs with an agenda, from Al Jazeera to CNN, and try to filter through the vapidity and outright bullshit, but frankly I could make up the news and I'd have a good chance of having more insight into current events than any of them.

    So if you know a really good foreign news source with an English version online, I'm all ears. Americans are STARVED for decent news.

  8. Re:Accountable Recordkeeping by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the pols stop talking to the media, they won't get their face in the public. If they don't get that exposure, who will vote for them?

    The politicians need the media a lot more than the media needs the politicians.

  9. Newspapers, anyone? by Cutie+Pi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only one here who gets her news from newspapers, ala The New York Times and The Wallstreet Journal? One of the most enjoyable parts of my day is sipping coffee in the morning while reading the newspapers. I can't stand any evening television broadcast of the news, Daily Show or otherwise.

    Have you ever read transcripts of the television news casts? Each story is usually a paragraph of text at most, whereas the reporting on the same subject in a newspaper will usually be several columns.

    It saddens me that today's youth brags about getting all their news from the daily show while newspaper circulation is in rapid decline.

  10. Re:Old news. by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The issue isn't that The Daily Show is so much better ... it's that network news sucks so bad.

    The big problem is that the mainstream media merely report what politicians say with a straight face, and avoid pointing out the absurdities and hypocrisies behind those statements. Why? Because to do so would make them appear "unobjective". In an environment where politics is a three-ring circus, it takes a comedy show to reveal how things really are done.

  11. Re:CNN carries it, outside the US. Really. by Dionysus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They do put a disclaimer in front. Then again, I don't think most people take CNN seriously as a newschannel outside the US.

    --
    Je ne parle pas francais.
  12. There's more to it: by DG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jon Stewart takes the time to learn about his guest's point of view BEFORE the show happened.

    Last night he had on a political science professor with a book to shill, "The J Curve".

    And it was immediately obvious that Jon had READ THE BOOK, or at least enough of it to grasp the central thesis. He played ignorant a couple of times (for laughs) but he clearly was keeping up with the guest and knew what he was talking about.

    Do you think any of the Fox News pundits ever do that? Can you see Bill O'Reily (say) going to a screening of Al Gore's global warming movie and actually paying attention to it?

    Seriously, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert give me hope that there still exists intelligence and rational thought in America. They should both run on the same Presidential ticket.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book