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.'"
You'll also notice that the daily show is one of the only "news" outlets that will show a video clip of a public figure saying one thing in 2004, then a new video with them saying something that completely goes against their first comment on the matter in 2004. None of the big news outlets dare show such a stunt because that would make public figures accountable. Of course the daily show usually has Jon Stewert making a funny face and then goes to the next topic, but at least they aren't afraid to make someone eat their own words.
The BBC's politeness is due to them refraining from using biassed language ("bombers" versus "terrorists", etc.). They do do some very deep investigations - I don't know if they make it to the US (BBC News 24 is just one tiny facet of the reporting).
Trying to find one news source to get your news is a bad idea - more than one source is essential, just to make sure you're getting as much information as possible.
The economist is very good. They've got something of a libertarian bias, but they're open about it. There analysis is much more in-depth than what you'll see most other places.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Yes, but the Daily Show is not SUPPOSED to have "substance". It's on the COMEDY CHANNEL for chrissakes.
Yes and no. The daily show is supposed to be funny, but I think it's very clear that, on a certain level, it's about raising important issues. They do it by making fun of the ridiculously stupid things that are happening. Unfortunately, the current government in the U.S. is just a goldmine of material for them.
I'll give you an example. Back when the plot to blow up planes flying out of Britian was uncovered, they ran an episode where he was interviewing John Oliver, one of their "correspondants". The exchange went something like this:
Stewart: John, will these steps server to diffuse the threat is the question?
Oliver: Not at all John. Unfortunately there's a larger issue here. The fact is, the men arrested are British citizens, which means the form of government in Britian must not be democracy. For as you know, Democracy is the only known antidote to extremism.
Stewart: So what does that mean?
Oliver: It means ranging change John. America must topple the British government...
Now, funny, yes. Hysterical even. But look at what they're doing: They're showing how absolutely ludicrous the rhetoric of the current administration is. I don't know of a single news program that could show that in a clearer way than to do it with humor, as they have. It's incredibly effective.
So yes, they're on Comedy Central, but I don't think that means they should be or even try to be devoid of substance. On the contrary, I think humor is simply their way of delivering substance.
Sorry - I agree with almost everything you said, but unless you were being sarcastic here I have to call complete bullshit.
1. The news media's credibility is in tatters because in the USA you lack a proper, independant news media - almost every show or channel is shilling for one party or the other, separated only by degree. The fact is that the news media isn't even trying for objectivity any more, let alone trying and failing.
2. Objectivity is an "impossible standard to reach", but then so is "law-abiding", "equality" and "moral". That doesn't stop anyone from agreeing we should try to be each of those, so why does it excuse the news media's descent into partiality?
Maybe you weren't offering this phrase as any kind of excuse, but it's the favourite get-out of media-bias apologists and a pet hate of mine so I'm kind of on a hair-trigger for it now - apologies if so.
3. "Straight facts" are straight facts, and "obvious bias" is obvious bias. People always try to claim their opinions are facts, but these people are wrong. Please don't imply they're in any way interchangeable, even jokingly. There are plenty of fuckwits out there who honestly believe this is true already.
These people also often try to claim that "obvious facts" are "someone else's opinion". These people are retreating from reality, refusing to confront essential facts, and are arguably therefore not merely wrong, but actually insane.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
He's thrown softballs to Bill O'Reilly and that Afghan Hound Lookalike Ann Coulter, even though you KNOW he's ready to annihilate them with a small burst of logical discourse 101. His interview segments are very soft fluff; if they weren't, no one would ever go on his show. Remember Rosie O'Donnell? Not my cup-o-tea, but she had a highly rated talk show UNTIL she ambushed Tom Selleck on the topic of gun control. After that she couldn't book any guests, and her show suffered... it was doom.
If Bush had shown up for an interview before his 2nd term, he too would probably have gotten a soft interview. Now there's just too much baggage to let him off; he barely shows up in public for fear of being subpoenaed and/or indicted I suspect.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Note to mods: parent posting (my own posting) is *not* a +5 post. I expected to get hit for flamebait on this, but I am sick and tired of Republicans talking about how they and only they represent "American values" - especially now that we can see that the Emperor has no clothes (when he's IMing his pages).
Any good book on the relativity of truth will tell you that the word "fact" is itself a fiction. It's like lying with statistics. It's not the facts that are important, it's how they are displayed and presented. It's as important what is not shown as what is shown. And that's what the original poster is getting at. Even the most apolitical entity will show bias if one looks for it.
Consider two economic facts: New home sales in America rose by 1.1% in August. New home sales in America rose by 0.9% in September.
Consider the presentation of these two facts:
"More new homes were sold."
"Sales of new homes are slowing."
"The housing market is in decline."
"The housing market is stagnant."
"The housing market is growing at a steady rate."
"Housing is showing a seasonal decline."
What biases can you discover in these?
Then consider all the assumptions about capitalism, economic rent, urban growth, the arbitrary granularity of "one month" in determining economic output, the use of percentages rather than dollar values (possibly hiding a rise in low-cost housing), the environment, sociological norms, cultural values, and the relevance of monthly new home sales on any future decision you may make in your lifetime.
What about the economics report that ignores this metric altogether, but focuses on the rise in consumer spending instead? What about the report that ignores the rise in spending to focus on this decline in housing? (Is housing even in decline?)
No single entity can hope to glean all the facts on an issue, and there are no doubt conflicting reports about the current state of the economy, diplomacy, the arts, health care, etc. at any given moment. To suggest that with all the facts on the table one can come to a rock-solid conclusion - that somehow interpretation of facts is devoid of bias - is not just wrong, but preposterous.