|
What will the Nightly Show be like? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| A news parody, like the Daily Show |
|
15 | 13.27% |
| A pundit satire, like the Colbert Report |
|
7 | 6.19% |
| Something else entirely |
|
91 | 80.53% |
| Total: | 113 votes | ||
|
VagueRant posted:"How dare you report things you reasonably thoroughly checked out at the time?" Like sure, it sucks in retrospect that the government was manipulating the press so bad, but what were they supposed to do without prior knowledge? Why be so angry at reporters for reporting rather than the actual politicians behind it all? If you're reporting on what someone says without verifying, questioning or otherwise hedging the information you're receiving, you are a not a journalist, you're propaganda. The media outsourced journalism to the government, accepted what was told to them at face value, and will accept no responsibility for being wrong.
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
VagueRant posted:Why be so angry at reporters for reporting rather than the actual politicians behind it all? Pretty sure this is a case of "as well as", not "rather than." They've spent over a decade taking the Bush administration to task for their role.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Also if she had said, yes I messed up and didn't verify properly which allowed me to be manipulated for the government's purposes Stewart wouldn't have been hounding her. She just refused to take any actual responsibility for it. I mean she wrote a loving book about how they got things wrong but then refused to admit that it was a massive journalistic failure or even individual journalists being manipulated. That poo poo's infuriating. I'm with John on that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Also if she had said, yes I messed up and didn't verify properly which allowed me to be manipulated for the government's purposes Stewart wouldn't have been hounding her. She just refused to take any actual responsibility for it. I mean she wrote a loving book about how they got things wrong but then refused to admit that it was a massive journalistic failure or even individual journalists being manipulated. That poo poo's infuriating. I'm with John on that. Thing is she did do all that as well as was possible. The intelligence community hosed up, they and the hawk fucks Rumsfeld and Cheney and the imbecile Bush are the ones more to blame. I mean it's easy to say in hindsight she should have known, but how could she really? Crucifying a journalist that reported on what by all accounts was, at the time, the consensus of the intelligence at the time is cathartic but not really needed or useful. Everyone pretty much signed off on the two wars of the 2000s who had any say. I was against it then in spite of that reporting, but I don't feel the need to get super pissed at this lady, in my mind it was STILL poo poo we shouldn't have gotten involved in even if it was accurate. You can argue that we were misled, but if you were in favor of Bush's actions you're just as culpable as this reporter lady.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
D1Sergo posted:If you're reporting on what someone says without verifying, questioning or otherwise hedging the information you're receiving, you are a not a journalist, you're propaganda. I mean how much more could she have verified anything?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
She not only is not willing to admit her own failure (which really now; "how much more could she have verified"? we started a loving war partly on this information) she is also not willing to admit that she was at minimum completely taken for a ride. My sympathy is currently going to the more needy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Well that wasn't a bad episode. I wouldn't call it great, but I didn't really cringe at anything.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Jessica Williams, walking among human dildos.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:Jessica Williams, walking among human dildos. There were moments in that report where if I were her, I'd be kind of concerned for my safety. The people there were particularly crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Nichael posted:There were moments in that report where if I were her, I'd be kind of concerned for my safety. The people there were particularly crazy. That one popular bigot in particular seemed ready for violence.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Why is the daily show convinced the supreme court with five strict constructionists on the bench are going to okay gay marriage? The news says it's all up to chief justice kennedy, he's already made history by agreeing obamacare can be a tax, he's got nothing to gain and all his questions have been leaning towards "it's weird and I don't like it."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Why is the daily show convinced the supreme court with five strict constructionists on the bench are going to okay gay marriage? The news says it's all up to chief justice kennedy, he's already made history by agreeing obamacare can be a tax, he's got nothing to gain and all his questions have been leaning towards "it's weird and I don't like it." Kennedy is not the Chief Justice, that's Roberts. Kennedy has already been the swing vote on three other gay rights decisions. His question during oral arguments hinted pretty strongly that he'll go the same way on this one. It will be 5-4, with a very outside chance of a 6-3 with Roberts deciding he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Nichael posted:There were moments in that report where if I were her, I'd be kind of concerned for my safety. The people there were particularly crazy. Why did that one guy assume she was a lesbian?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
raditts posted:Why did that one guy assume she was a lesbian? No concept of allies.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
raditts posted:Why did that one guy assume she was a lesbian? If you are not explicitly a disgusting and hate-filled human being, then you're probably gay. I imagine that's how they view the world.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
raditts posted:Why did that one guy assume she was a lesbian? Big Law and Order fan
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Kennedy is not the Chief Justice, that's Roberts. Kennedy has already been the swing vote on three other gay rights decisions. His question during oral arguments hinted pretty strongly that he'll go the same way on this one. It will be 5-4, with a very outside chance of a 6-3 with Roberts deciding he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history. There are too many justices please reduce them by four so I can keep them in order.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:There are too many justices please reduce them by four so I can keep them in order. The lazyass in time that slayed nine.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Kennedy has already been the swing vote on three other gay rights decisions. Not only that, but Kennedy wrote those decisions. (Assuming you mean Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor, at least.) There's technically a chance that Kennedy will back away from putting the finishing touches on his legacy, but I wouldn't put money on it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
I loving hate Ted Cruz's face. It looks like a melting wax figurine and it's just so punchable.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Good to know Mike Huckabee is less of a psychopath than his son.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Jon has Ernest Moniz on to talk about nuclear issues, and all I can think is that the guy looks like his own political cartoon caricature.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:This thread is making me glad I gave up on TNS after week two. But I kinda wish it had a separate thread so I didn't have to wade through that mire looking for TDS stuff. You're missing out. TNS is still in its early days, and is clearly trying different things to suit its audience. Last night's show was loving fantastic. There's obviously a ton of people on this thread making GBS threads all over TNS, but it's going through its growing pains, and it's still good in spite of all the ridiculous vitriol. It's had some really unfortunate missteps here and there (Mike Tyson as a lauded guest after the much-deserved ridicule heaped on Bill Cosby), but that's rarely mentioned. Goons goon and (etc whatever)  So, mire away, I guess. Old Boot fucked around with this message at 16:55 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Yeah TNS still has its share of misses, but it has been solid the last couple weeks. Dare I say the Baltimore riots were a turning point for the show?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:Jon has Ernest Moniz on to talk about nuclear issues, and all I can think is that the guy looks like his own political cartoon caricature. While true, would you say that was a bad interview? He seemed interestingly transparent. I wouldn't have expected him to be so obviously coy with "we will verify" or whatever. This show was weird for me, because the guy looks like a caricature of a British PM, but he seemed pretty comfortable getting right to the brink of confidential disclosure.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
kittenmittons posted:Yeah TNS still has its share of misses, but it has been solid the last couple weeks. Dare I say the Baltimore riots were a turning point for the show? Definitely. It was legit bad for a good while there with only a worthwhile episode here and there despite Old Boot's tired "hurr goons" comment, but it got slightly better when they dialed back the panel and reduced it to 3 people and the last week has been solid. The making GBS threads on it got beforehand though was well deserved.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm a bit curious about the whole 'Beloved Mike Tyson' thing these days. I guess, since he did go to jail for it, all is forgiven and he can have cartoons now?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
I think its abundantly clear that TNS is great at covering things through a racial lense - and topics like Cosby, police brutality, or rioter's motivations really have led to great episodes. But the further they get from that, the dicier everything gets.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Steve Vader posted:Yeah, I'm a bit curious about the whole 'Beloved Mike Tyson' thing these days. I guess, since he did go to jail for it, all is forgiven and he can have cartoons now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKE9W0O8bX8
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Steve Vader posted:Yeah, I'm a bit curious about the whole 'Beloved Mike Tyson' thing these days. I guess, since he did go to jail for it, all is forgiven and he can have cartoons now? Well, that is the way the system is "supposed" to work, so I guess? Seems like he's turned himself around and rehabbed his image in a big way in the last decade or so as well. I think his cameo in the Hangover movies helped too
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
raditts posted:Well, that is the way the system is "supposed" to work, so I guess? All OJ needs is a Naked Gun reboot and a face tattoo?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
IRQ posted:All OJ needs is a Naked Gun reboot and a face tattoo? Well, murder's probably a bit tougher for people to look past, also the fact that he didn't get convicted for said murders. But it's not totally implausible that he could have rehabbed his image, if he didn't go on to continue being a psychopath and wind up in jail anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
ultramiraculous posted:While true, would you say that was a bad interview? He seemed interestingly transparent. I wouldn't have expected him to be so obviously coy with "we will verify" or whatever. This show was weird for me, because the guy looks like a caricature of a British PM, but he seemed pretty comfortable getting right to the brink of confidential disclosure. I honestly can't say. I got distracted with work during it. The initial part seemed a step above the usual guest fare.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Nightly was solid this week; I almost want to say it's a permanent improvement; it helps they didn't limit their coverage of Baltimore to one episode. But I do get the sense that there's still a much lower "quality ceiling" than TDS or the Report. We haven't gotten that one moment yet where people will look back years from now and be like "That was a really good bit" when Colbert practically knocked it out of the park on Day One. I know comparing Nightly to Colbert is unfair, but Colbert's also the future competition.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
I want a Daily Show Choose Your Own Adventure.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
I want a half hour of the rubber dinosaur movie
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Nightly was solid this week; I almost want to say it's a permanent improvement; it helps they didn't limit their coverage of Baltimore to one episode. They still need to come up with some bits that work too, pretty much all the ones they've done so far have been cringeworthy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
raditts posted:Definitely. It was legit bad for a good while there with only a worthwhile episode here and there despite Old Boot's tired "hurr goons" comment, but it got slightly better when they dialed back the panel and reduced it to 3 people and the last week has been solid. The making GBS threads on it got beforehand though was well deserved. It's not exactly tired when the reason for 'hurr goons' gets tired in the first place. TNS was bound to go through growing pains. They have two huge acts to follow. Viewing it through that lens, the mistakes weren't nearly as bad as they were trumped up to be. That isn't saying they weren't bad, but the hyperbole got pretty intense when the show first aired. I'm not surprised that they weren't entirely sure what direction to take. How could you know? Colbert had a character he could act as, and was incredibly talented at performing satire, and repeating that would seem like a cheat. Wilmore has always been incredibly talented when it came to commentary on TDS, and doing a satire for the first black late-night show host would seem really awkward. So, basically, it had to be NOT Colbert 2.0, and NOT TDS 2.0. It was, and is, a hairy situation in terms of defining a new show, especially since I'm sure CC was pushing as hard as it could to create a new brand once Colbert got replaced. So, instead of the hurr goons comment, I'll say this: poo poo on it, sure, but spraying hot 'I just ate a table's worth of bad thai food' diarrhea all over it is another entirely. They hosed up, they made missteps, and I'll be the first to agree that some of the guests they had on absolutely did not deserve to be there (edit: vaccine lady), but it's still growing pains. It was never going to be Colbert straight out of the gate, but it has a lot of aspects that have sustained pretty well so far. I'm not 100% pleased by it in general, I do have a lot of qualms with some of the content, but it has gotten better, and I hope to see it continue get better. If it doesn't? Well, gently caress, I'm wrong, but keeping it on the air to see where that path leads always seemed pretty worthwhile. EDIT: Also, having the wildly opposing view of the audience on, and hearing them out, seemed more like a suit's dumbshit idea than anything else, if only as an attempt to snag viewers who wouldn't necessarily watch Colbert or TDS due to what's seen as a 'liberal bias,' so I try not to blame it for that. They've been way better about not bringing in those toxic opinions since then. Maybe I've got rose-colored glasses on in that respect, but the fact that it's been more or less corrected is a good sign. Old Boot fucked around with this message at 14:59 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:It's not exactly tired when the reason for 'hurr goons' gets tired in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
should've picked Olbermann
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:32
|
|