Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Daily Show as Substantive as Broadcast News

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the can-I-be-on-the-show-now dept.

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.'"

46 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.

      --

      -----
      PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
    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 Jeremi · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes, but the Daily Show is not SUPPOSED to have "substance". It's on the COMEDY CHANNEL for chrissakes.


      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.
    4. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Pedrito · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by lewp · · Score: 4, Funny
      Oliver: It means ranging change John.

      "regime"

      There, now doesn't that... make sense?

      --
      Game... blouses.
    6. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Rooked_One · · Score: 5, Informative
      John Stewart is a true patriot. He was on crossfire a while back (i'm sure its on youtube or something). He reamed the hosts up and down for how they are doing a piss poor job of doing thier job, and instead are making it nothing but drivle. The hosts even had the nerve to compare their show to his, and he laughed at them and told them it was on comedy central.

      I believe crossfire was canceled soon afterwards

    7. 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.
    8. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by treke · · Score: 5, Informative
      The transcripts are available online at CNN:
      http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf. 01.html


      STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

      CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

      STEWART: Absolutely.

      CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...

      (CROSSTALK)

      STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.

      (LAUGHTER)

      STEWART: What is wrong with you?



      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.
    9. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Osiris+Ani · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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}
    10. 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.

    11. 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

    12. 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.

    13. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by gkhan1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!

    17. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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").


      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
    18. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Ubergrendle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?"
    19. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

    20. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

    21. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by cduffy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

      • Government has a legitimate role in enforcing personal morality.
      • Unilateral use of force for purposes other than immediate defense of oneself or one's allies is not inherently illegitimate.
      • Achieving military objectives is more important than maintaining personal liberties.
      • A free media threatens legitimate governmental interests unless placed under substantial controls.
      • A strong, empowered leader granted wide powers (with which to attack our enemies) is a Good Thing.
      • The executive branch of government may have a legitimate need to act outside of the law, and should be able to prevent laws from being enforced which could hamper its actions (when those actions are taken in the interests of national security).
      • The executive branch of government should be able to avoid transparency when it sees fit, including in cases where it uses its powers to act in a manner not consistant with standing law in the interests of national security.
      • Questioning strong leadership in the context of an active conflict is inherently unpatriotic.
      • Noncitizens do not need to be granted the same rights as citizens.

      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.

    22. Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... by kthejoker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  2. Well duh by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. 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.
    2. Re:Well duh by Monkeyboy4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you RTFA, the researcher did a content analysis process that has been used for decades to ascertain the amount of coverage on 'issues v image' where issues are defined as those topics that are on a partiy's or candidate's platform. The definition of substance is right there in TFA.

      The problem is that social scientests efine things in TFA that they publish, and journalists try to make them look intereting when they are bounded conversations about specific variables. However, in this case,The Daily Show covered less marketing adn more real news. Go them!

  3. Remember the old slogan by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Daily Show: Where more Americans get their news than probably should.

  4. Old news. by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.po litics/

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

    Or as Mr. Stewart put it (paraphrased) "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls".

    1. 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.

  5. Puppets making prank calls.. by sponga · · Score: 4, Funny

    are before the show for godsake!

  6. 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.
  7. Accountable Recordkeeping by kingbilly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
  8. Re:Weak, ver weak. But typical. by kjart · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is very weak, and very typical of Slashdot "editing".

    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.

  9. Colbert and Stewart for 2008 by 1155 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The other candidates wouldn't matter, Colbert and Stewart would win by a landslide. I'd actually register to vote them into office.

  10. 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.

  11. 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!
  12. Deep Truth by Gorimek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A journalist can tell you facts.

    A comedian can tell you truths.

  13. 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.

    1. Re:Take it from an American by dave420 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Take it from an American by be-fan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...
  14. 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.

  15. Re:Come On by tb3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apparently Stewart no longer cares about balancing his show for the opinions of his more conservative viewers.

    No, not really, he just knows his audience.

    He realized a long time ago that Republicans have no sense of humor.

    And, they're all child molesters.

    --

    www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  16. 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.
  17. 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