I would but reality has been distorted so much that it is indistinguishable from fiction. News source != statements of fact from research through which an audience becomes informed of the world they inhabit && Journalism/News == humorless && Grey, Gray, and #808080 do not exist.
As opposed to, because they make me laugh I don't have to hold them to any standard that I would normally hold for anyone else telling me the exact same thing but didn't make me laugh. Great one.
Then he is presenting the facts. His show is built around presenting facts in a comedic fashion. How are they not a news outlet that should be held to the same journalistic standards?
semantics that really doesn't matter in a court for this purpose. The show isn't using a shield protection so determining if it is journalism or not doesn't matter.
Sure. but the OP said: "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show that mentions current events. If you want journalism, you should find a reliable news outlet.". I disagree.
Is there a section for comedic news in the cable sat guide? Then why would I use an incomplete and arbitrary definition? BTW, there is nothing wrong with LWT being a news outlet but lets call it for what it is and not give them a free pass because the jokes on you.
I am not ignoring the word satire. Is satire a form of joke?
To see the distinction between a comedic 'news outlet' and a wholly comedy show about some current events. South Park compared to LWT.
If you watch South Park, you will not be informed on current events. Mr. Garrison did not win the presidency and Ads have not evolved into people form. If you understand current events and some philosophy you can interpret the South Park events much more broadly and with various lenses of critique on modern society in addition to the comedic aspects of satire and scat.
If you watch LWT, you will be informed on a current events and you can take action in the real world based on the events they do. Murray is a Coal executive. Coal is failing as a an industry. Murray has filed similar lawsuits before. If you didn't understand the events before watching his episode you will afterwords. There are a limited number of ways to interpret the events portrayed in the show and any additional analysis will require additional facts of the events. However, that does not mean that the information presented will not be used to decide policy and voting behavior of the audience. Just like any other news source.The comedic value is the absurdity of reality and the way they present that absurdity. News through the lens of a joke is a still news. Does his audience consider him a credible source of information for current events? That is more important then the lens through which they show reality.
I never said anything about censorship. I don't understand why you bring it up.
Why does it matter what people think about the show? Because the show and people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to use it to inform their decisions yet without the responsibility of journalism. I don't care but don't pretend it isn't a news outlet when it is.
So the analogy still stands. No it doesn't. They are not mutually exclusive. Can you be a comedy show and a news outlet? Perhaps badly worded the point is that it isn't only a comedy show and it is fact a news outlet of comedic journalism. Just because it is a "comedy show" does not mean they have to give up journalistic integrity if they are also a news source.
Do they convey facts with legitimacy to convey those facts as truth? Do they have teams of researchers to find out the truth of the matter? If not then it is opinion and that means the defamation from Murray has grounds to stand on.
"research more into this yourself, I'm not the definitive nor complete source".
When people use it as a source to be informed about news, politics, and current events. Does that even matter? They want it both ways. They want to present the facts of events and inform audiences about said events with some jokes but don't want to have the responsibility to ensure that the information they give to their audience is accurate like any journalist.
They have a teams of researchers, yet not journalist. They present news, current events and politics with said research, yet not journalist. People use their presentation of the facts and research to become informed, yet not journalist.
I still do not understand. How are they not journalists?
Because they present themselves as an informative source of information on a topic that people then use it to justify policy. How is it not journalism?
John Oliver presents an opinion about certain situations.
If so then that means the lawsuit presented by Murray has legitimate grounds, doesn't it? After all, if it is not facts that people use to inform their position that costs Murray money and reputation then Oliver is defaming Murray on an opinion. If it is based on fact that is presented as an opinion then it is bad journalism even if there are a few jokes.
it's often about things which should be news.
From their website their show is about news, politics and current events with a satirical look. Just because you add some jokes to news does not mean it is not news.
This is clearly not neutral news....He often puts his finger on situations where the news outlets forgot their neutrality.
He gets away without being neutral because opinion. Yet talks about things that the news should talk neutrally about because it is news worthy but oh it isn't news when he does. How is it not journalism?
The description from their website: "presents a half-hour satirical look at the week in news, politics and current events.".
How is my characterization not addressed in their description? Their intent is to present news, politics and current events with a satirical look. They also present themselves as an informative source of information that people use to become informed on topics. How are they not a news outlet?
When people use it to be informed on current events it ceases to be a "comedy show" even if they do jokes. It presents itself as an informative source for information on a topic yet wants doesn't want to have the responsibility associated with being an " informative source for information" because they make a few jokes. Just because it does news with jokes does not mean it is not a news outlet.
The real question is, how is it not journalism? Even if it is bad journalism with jokes.
If those protests are over mundane "not my president" or "I want free stuff" then so what how many there are?
But to the meat of your question. NO ONE has the answer. It's easy to say when for extremes but for little slights and political loses? No.
one party keeps winning office, despite losing the popular vote,
I would say the losing party is doing a terrible job with the message and also that the rules were set and understood to be fair before anyone alive was born. We are not a full democracy for a reason, Madison was fearful of "Excessive Democracy". Democracy isn't the end all be all of governance. It has flaws that are detrimental to the rights of individuals.
So has speech. With any power comes responsibility. How many criminals could we stop if we did away due process or any constitutional right? The object that made this thread is the same object that protected blacks from the KKK. It is also the object that ensured rights for so many people across time. The ability to abuse is the same ability as to protect.
Contrary to popular belief, the government does not have a monopoly on violence. Self defense is a violent act. The right of arms is way to ensure that my right to self defense not be arbitrarily limited by the government as to be a victim of government complicity or violence. Guns are an equalizer that ensures that the weak and few can defend themselves against the strong and many.
If you are not willing to accept the cost of rights, any of them, then you are not willing to understand the power of rights and they will soon be taken away by a zealous government that promises protection.
You must not pay attention to recent events or only read WaPo. No, the police did not act swiftly. It wasn't until after there was a large outcry because while people getting beat up the police/security did nothing multiple occasions.
Anyway, I said it was an opinion and you are doing a shit job to convince me that my opinion is wrong because you are ill-informed, narrow minded and have a lopsided view of events. That is not a good place to have a conversation and is a terrible way to try and change someones mind.
And if the government is complicit, no harm no foul? One way the KKK and the south took the rights away from blacks was with a complicit government. If the government chooses not to enforce the law to protect the rights of its citizens, in effect, it is no different than if it had arrested those people to begin with. Do you think it mattered to the black man that a mob of KKK members stopped his speech or vote than if it was a line of police officers? A society that does not value freedom of speech will soon not have a government that protects it. A government that does not protect freedom will take it away. Your view is narrow and lacks the reality of history.
Slashdot Mirror
I would but reality has been distorted so much that it is indistinguishable from fiction. News source != statements of fact from research through which an audience becomes informed of the world they inhabit && Journalism/News == humorless && Grey, Gray, and #808080 do not exist.
All I see is your bad reasoning and poor logic. I guess, that is funny in a scatological sense. You should work on your humor. It's a little flat.
Does The Onion report facts? Does The Onion audience consider them a credible source of information for current events?
As opposed to, because they make me laugh I don't have to hold them to any standard that I would normally hold for anyone else telling me the exact same thing but didn't make me laugh. Great one.
Then he is presenting the facts. His show is built around presenting facts in a comedic fashion. How are they not a news outlet that should be held to the same journalistic standards?
semantics that really doesn't matter in a court for this purpose. The show isn't using a shield protection so determining if it is journalism or not doesn't matter.
Sure. but the OP said: "It's not journalism, it's a comedy show that mentions current events. If you want journalism, you should find a reliable news outlet.". I disagree.
I must have missed the punch line.
Is there a section for comedic news in the cable sat guide? Then why would I use an incomplete and arbitrary definition? BTW, there is nothing wrong with LWT being a news outlet but lets call it for what it is and not give them a free pass because the jokes on you.
I am not ignoring the word satire. Is satire a form of joke?
To see the distinction between a comedic 'news outlet' and a wholly comedy show about some current events. South Park compared to LWT.
If you watch South Park, you will not be informed on current events. Mr. Garrison did not win the presidency and Ads have not evolved into people form. If you understand current events and some philosophy you can interpret the South Park events much more broadly and with various lenses of critique on modern society in addition to the comedic aspects of satire and scat.
If you watch LWT, you will be informed on a current events and you can take action in the real world based on the events they do. Murray is a Coal executive. Coal is failing as a an industry. Murray has filed similar lawsuits before. If you didn't understand the events before watching his episode you will afterwords. There are a limited number of ways to interpret the events portrayed in the show and any additional analysis will require additional facts of the events. However, that does not mean that the information presented will not be used to decide policy and voting behavior of the audience. Just like any other news source.The comedic value is the absurdity of reality and the way they present that absurdity. News through the lens of a joke is a still news. Does his audience consider him a credible source of information for current events? That is more important then the lens through which they show reality.
I don't know. What did your original comment had to do with the peanut in my shit I took this morning?
I never said anything about censorship. I don't understand why you bring it up.
Why does it matter what people think about the show?
Because the show and people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to use it to inform their decisions yet without the responsibility of journalism. I don't care but don't pretend it isn't a news outlet when it is.
So the analogy still stands.
No it doesn't. They are not mutually exclusive. Can you be a comedy show and a news outlet? Perhaps badly worded the point is that it isn't only a comedy show and it is fact a news outlet of comedic journalism. Just because it is a "comedy show" does not mean they have to give up journalistic integrity if they are also a news source.
Do they convey facts with legitimacy to convey those facts as truth? Do they have teams of researchers to find out the truth of the matter? If not then it is opinion and that means the defamation from Murray has grounds to stand on.
"research more into this yourself, I'm not the definitive nor complete source".
When people use it as a source to be informed about news, politics, and current events. Does that even matter? They want it both ways. They want to present the facts of events and inform audiences about said events with some jokes but don't want to have the responsibility to ensure that the information they give to their audience is accurate like any journalist.
They have a teams of researchers, yet not journalist. They present news, current events and politics with said research, yet not journalist. People use their presentation of the facts and research to become informed, yet not journalist.
I still do not understand. How are they not journalists?
How can you even think this is journalism
Because they present themselves as an informative source of information on a topic that people then use it to justify policy. How is it not journalism?
John Oliver presents an opinion about certain situations.
If so then that means the lawsuit presented by Murray has legitimate grounds, doesn't it? After all, if it is not facts that people use to inform their position that costs Murray money and reputation then Oliver is defaming Murray on an opinion. If it is based on fact that is presented as an opinion then it is bad journalism even if there are a few jokes.
it's often about things which should be news.
From their website their show is about news, politics and current events with a satirical look. Just because you add some jokes to news does not mean it is not news.
This is clearly not neutral news. ...He often puts his finger on situations where the news outlets forgot their neutrality.
He gets away without being neutral because opinion. Yet talks about things that the news should talk neutrally about because it is news worthy but oh it isn't news when he does. How is it not journalism?
No. It's like saying if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck. It's probably a duck even if it is missing the feathers.
No, CNN. Fox being the butt of news jokes was sooo last decade.
The description from their website: "presents a half-hour satirical look at the week in news, politics and current events.".
How is my characterization not addressed in their description? Their intent is to present news, politics and current events with a satirical look. They also present themselves as an informative source of information that people use to become informed on topics. How are they not a news outlet?
When people use it to be informed on current events it ceases to be a "comedy show" even if they do jokes. It presents itself as an informative source for information on a topic yet wants doesn't want to have the responsibility associated with being an " informative source for information" because they make a few jokes. Just because it does news with jokes does not mean it is not a news outlet.
The real question is, how is it not journalism? Even if it is bad journalism with jokes.
Once again, thanks to technology our problems are solved by doing nothing. Huzzah!
No, we really need you to be baked in Alaska with a Baked Alaska. Are you even trying?
I'll only believe it when I hear it! On a different note, the CIA cafeteria lunch menu will be meatloaf on Tuesday.
If those protests are over mundane "not my president" or "I want free stuff" then so what how many there are?
But to the meat of your question. NO ONE has the answer. It's easy to say when for extremes but for little slights and political loses? No.
one party keeps winning office, despite losing the popular vote,
I would say the losing party is doing a terrible job with the message and also that the rules were set and understood to be fair before anyone alive was born. We are not a full democracy for a reason, Madison was fearful of "Excessive Democracy". Democracy isn't the end all be all of governance. It has flaws that are detrimental to the rights of individuals.
So has speech. With any power comes responsibility. How many criminals could we stop if we did away due process or any constitutional right? The object that made this thread is the same object that protected blacks from the KKK. It is also the object that ensured rights for so many people across time. The ability to abuse is the same ability as to protect.
Contrary to popular belief, the government does not have a monopoly on violence. Self defense is a violent act. The right of arms is way to ensure that my right to self defense not be arbitrarily limited by the government as to be a victim of government complicity or violence. Guns are an equalizer that ensures that the weak and few can defend themselves against the strong and many.
If you are not willing to accept the cost of rights, any of them, then you are not willing to understand the power of rights and they will soon be taken away by a zealous government that promises protection.
You must not pay attention to recent events or only read WaPo. No, the police did not act swiftly. It wasn't until after there was a large outcry because while people getting beat up the police/security did nothing multiple occasions.
Anyway, I said it was an opinion and you are doing a shit job to convince me that my opinion is wrong because you are ill-informed, narrow minded and have a lopsided view of events. That is not a good place to have a conversation and is a terrible way to try and change someones mind.
And if the government is complicit, no harm no foul? One way the KKK and the south took the rights away from blacks was with a complicit government. If the government chooses not to enforce the law to protect the rights of its citizens, in effect, it is no different than if it had arrested those people to begin with. Do you think it mattered to the black man that a mob of KKK members stopped his speech or vote than if it was a line of police officers? A society that does not value freedom of speech will soon not have a government that protects it. A government that does not protect freedom will take it away. Your view is narrow and lacks the reality of history.
not sure, but when i interfaced with both party's one was willing to tolerate different opinions while the other shunned any dissent.