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.'"

24 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 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

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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!

    12. 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.

  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.
  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".

  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. Deep Truth by Gorimek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A journalist can tell you facts.

    A comedian can tell you truths.

  9. 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.

  10. 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