|
I gotta say, when Stewart literally kissed Andrew Napolitano on his show this past week it made me retch. And his "nah, we're really buddies" cop-out at the end of every interview he does with Bill O'Reilly is depressing. I really wish he'd walk the walk more, but...what are ya gonna do.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Start a revolution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
But... that's so uncivil. So extreme. I'm not sure the more "center-minded" among us could survive the shock.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
You're right, I'll just continue to have an opinion about other revolutions. Have you heard about the Ukraine and Russia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:American political discourse is a farce only for rich whites whose lives are largely unaffected by whose President except that maybe their wealthy upper-class gay friends might be a little more comfortable. For people killed by drones at weddings or having their food stamps taken away, American political discourse is deadly serious. What the gently caress are you talking about? How were Obama and Occupy Wall Street disasters? Is being ineffective and constantly undermined a disaster? That's nonsense. I don't like Stewart, and there was that interview with a former TDS staff writer that made him seem like a huge prick, but comparing him to Limbaugh is asinine. Oh, he won most trusted news anchor in an online poll? Who do you think is most likely to participate in an online poll? Young people. Most people who responded to that poll probably didn't know who half the other anchors were. And beyond that, an online poll from a magazine that can only loosely be called journalism is nothing to hang any sort of argument on, much less make any sort of absolute claim about something. The difference between Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart is that when one isn't defending their "reporting" as entertainment, he's touting himself as a courageous purveyor of truth and the only person who is going to give you the REAL story about an issue. Guess which one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:But... that's so uncivil. So extreme. I'm not sure the more "center-minded" among us could survive the shock. You'll be surprised at their agility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:American political discourse is a farce only for rich whites whose lives are largely unaffected by whose President except that maybe their wealthy upper-class gay friends might be a little more comfortable. For people killed by drones at weddings or having their food stamps taken away, American political discourse is deadly serious. You've got the wrong idea. American political discourse is a farce because it requires voters to constantly vote against their own interests repeatedly. The only thing our two party system would ever agree on is not having a third party. e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TFx9u1t1LY
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:The difference between Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart is that when one isn't defending their "reporting" as entertainment, he's touting himself as a courageous purveyor of truth and the only person who is going to give you the REAL story about an issue. Guess which one. This, right here, the center of the actual extreme difference between Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh. Stewart has never really wavered from "I'm a comedian before I'm anything else. The Daily Show doesn't have any specific ideology. It's comedy. I make jokes. That's it." The reason it became "the most trusted news source" for a lot of people is that, unlike most other news sources these days, it doesn't have any sort of attempt to sway viewers in one direction or another. The whole thing is literally "here is a thing that happened, here is a joke." The reason they make fun of the GOP so much is because it's so goddamned easy. The GOP is basically a parody of itself at this point. But yeah, there isn't any doublethink on Stewart's part. He's a comedian. That's it. He just happens to make fun of the news. Limbaugh, on the other hand, constantly twists reality to fit his needs. He deliberately, knowingly lies about things and reality is whatever he needs it to be at the moment. He portrays himself as a speaker of truth that will tell you things they don't want you to hear while informing listeners that those drat liberals are a terrible, evil force that are intentionally destroying America because they hate it and everything it stands for. However, when somebody calls him on actually, knowingly lying or spreading misinformation (which would be, you know, illegal for the actual news to do) he says "well I'm just an entertainer and I'm not running a news show so I can say whatever I want." Fox News does this poo poo constantly. The words you need to look for are "some people are saying..." They do this all the time. You can say whatever you drat well please after that statement. "Some people" could be Bob and Sally standing at the water cooler talking about how they think Obama is actually a robot built by aliens in low orbit over Saturn. Now you can say "well some people are saying Obama isn't even actually human let alone American."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
It really doesn't matter if Limbaugh lies or not. His is a political talk radio show focused on the opinions and thoughts of the host, Rush Limbaugh. It is mainly broadcased on news-talk networks that either have news coverage and/or political opinion talk shows. Compare that to Stewart who is on a comedy network on a comedic show that just happens to be making fun of news and politics and government. Both are entertainers is true, but the purpose of their entertainment is entirely different. Limbaugh's purpose is his opinion, and if he happens to be funny or entertaining or whatever, that's a happy side effect. Stewart's objective is to be funny, and if he happens to make a point while doing so, great!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Both are entertainers is true, but the purpose of their entertainment is entirely different. They're both entertainers but they play on different emotions. Stewart is trying to get you to laugh. Limbaugh is trying to get you to scream. Limbaugh is an entertainer but he is not a comedian -- he's running a rage factory. As a result, when Limbaugh strays into fiction he has to pretend it's true, because you won't get angry about fiction. Stewart can label his fiction clearly because you'll still laugh at it. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
I see Rush and Hannity in the cycle of an electronic billboard, the big orange tagline is 'YOUR NEWS YOUR OPINION' If anything the Daily Show is a just a late comer to the news/editorial/entertainment orgy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I see Rush and Hannity in the cycle of an electronic billboard, the big orange tagline is 'YOUR NEWS YOUR OPINION' This is actually a very clever tagline they use. The networks bill themselves as "news and opinion" but are primarily just opinion. The "your" thing is to make it sound like they're speaking to the people reading and listening individually. They want it to sound like you're sitting across the table from Limbaugh and he's talking directly to you and people that happen to wander in and out (i.e., callers) while broadcasting to millions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Fox News does this poo poo constantly. The words you need to look for are "some people are saying..." They do this all the time. You can say whatever you drat well please after that statement. "Some people" could be Bob and Sally standing at the water cooler talking about how they think Obama is actually a robot built by aliens in low orbit over Saturn. Now you can say "well some people are saying Obama isn't even actually human let alone American." Kurtz, showing a complete lack of cognitive dissonance and being the dumb gently caress that he is, actually responded on his show the following Sunday: Howard Dumbfuck Kurtz posted:"Listen, Colbert, I asked whether it was fair for commentators to harp on her age. I guess that was too nuanced for your 'black and white' view of the world." Now, this is right from Colbert's mouth in the very piece that he's responding to: Colbert posted:"I know it's rude to talk about a woman's age, but that's not what I am doing. I am talking about other people talking about people talking about other people talking about a women's age. That's called journalism"  Oh, and love this from Kurtz on his blog: Howard How-Do-I-Dress-Myself-Kurtz posted:"This guy -- a fake anchor if ever there was one -- has been maligning hard-working journalists for too long," 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Does he seriously not know that Colbert is, in fact, literally a fake news anchor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Does he seriously not know that Colbert is, in fact, literally a fake news anchor? It's the kind of response you would expect someone to drunkenly slur immediately after the moment in a alcohol-fueled childish rage-response: "I...I...I'MMMM A FAKE NEWS ANCHOR?!! WELL, YO...YOU...YOU'RE THE FAKIEST FAKE FAKER NEWS ANCHOR THAT HAS EVER FAKED YOU loving FAKE" ...not something you actually took the time to write, proofread, and post on your blog for the world to see days after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
But proofreading is hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:This is actually a very clever tagline they use. The networks bill themselves as "news and opinion" but are primarily just opinion. The "your" thing is to make it sound like they're speaking to the people reading and listening individually. They want it to sound like you're sitting across the table from Limbaugh and he's talking directly to you and people that happen to wander in and out (i.e., callers) while broadcasting to millions. Oh, I know - I described it in detail because it is such clever propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:You're an idiot who doesn't understand context, congrats. I know, I feel so dumb looking at 2 networks, one who labels themselves as a comedy channel and the other literally named excellence in broadcast, and thinking "gee its like one is entertainment on its face and the other is putting forward deliberately misleading language." But, context, so I'm a stupid person. I wish I understood it like you. Please explain how comedy means serious in context so that I can avoid swallowing mine own tongue, quickly please my time on this mortal coil is drastically limited with all the bottles of drain-o I might accidentally drink.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Stewart plays with that trust and credibility too much for him to act like it doesn't matter at this point. At his stupid loving rally they told lots of jokes, but in the end he got up on stage and delivered a concentrated blast of maudlin centrism that wasn't even supposed to be funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Kurtz has been hacking it out forever as journalism's unofficial and unwanted ombudsman, a job I'm still not sure how he got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Stewart plays with that trust and credibility too much for him to act like it doesn't matter at this point. At his stupid loving rally they told lots of jokes, but in the end he got up on stage and delivered a concentrated blast of maudlin centrism that wasn't even supposed to be funny. I feel like one of the issues that Colbert and Stewart are trying to work on hinges on the fact that they ended up becoming respected news sources and are going "well what the gently caress do we do with this?" If you look at it they never intended to be actual, heavily-watched news shows that people went to for information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Stewart plays with that trust and credibility too much for him to act like it doesn't matter at this point. At his stupid loving rally they told lots of jokes, but in the end he got up on stage and delivered a concentrated blast of maudlin centrism that wasn't even supposed to be funny. I don't think one misstep necessarily means he's lovely garbage forever and a lot of the hatred directed is a holdover from the old LF hypercontrarianism. While there are legitimate complains about NPR I recall the major opinion was also absolute garbage that only morons listen to because they reported one or two stories in a 'give both sides equal representation no matter how crazy' manner. It is a legitimate complaint but it doesn't invalidate everything they do that's good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
quote:American political discourse is a farce only for rich whites whose lives are largely unaffected by whose President except that maybe their wealthy upper-class gay friends might be a little more comfortable. [...] Jon Stewart (and Colbert) sell disaffected irony This is a steaming pile of bullshit. Making fun of the absurdities of something isn't the same thing as being disaffected. Just because he expresses his viewpoints with wit and humor does not mean his show is not full of righteous, rightful outrage. Get the gently caress out of here with this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
There are some real problems with NPR right now. For one thing, the current CEO of NPR is "a member of the National Council of the American Enterprise Institute". More disturbingly, they've started taking funding for what are essentially large-scale right wing propaganda campaigns. See, e.g., quote:On December 18th, the Public Broadcasting Service’s flagship station WNET issued a press release announcing the launch of a new two-year news series entitled “The Pension Peril.” The series, promoting cuts to public employee pensions, is airing on hundreds of PBS outlets all over the nation. It has been presented as objective news on major PBS programs including the PBS News Hour. http://pando.com/2014/02/12/the-wolf-of-sesame-street-revealing-the-secret-corruption-inside-pbss-news-division/ Articles like that really put things like the big "expose" NPR did on disability benefits last year into perspective. NPR is getting hijacked by the same moneyed agenda almost everything else is. They ended up returning the "donation" in this instance once they got caught, but how many pseudo-news campaigns are getting funded this way where the funding source isn't getting caught?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
There has never been a comedian who has done his work with the news. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IMk4DsYHnY And if there were, that man would never be trusted and revered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56CRYny7VVw And, of course, people can't tell the difference between a comedian telling news as part of his act, and someone who is purportedly a journalist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWqzLgDc030
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Mark Twain was heavily involved politically and was more than just a comedian though (he was a vocal member of the Anti-Imperialist League, for instance).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
And he was a newsman as well. But the line between his reporting and his amazingly brutal comedy is pretty easily drawn. My point being that there is a long and proud American tradition of speaking comedy with the news, because, really, humanity is effing hilarious. Anyone who can't claim to tell the difference is either very, very stupid (see: Colbert being invited to burn the President) or concern trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Yeah Twain is pretty much the perfect example of the kind of public figure who is currently Not Around. At a glance, Twain would have "gotten" snark and hipsterish world-wisdom, then lampooned it mercilessly and disposed of it in a single essay about brew pubs. In his second day returned to Earth, he'd resume his campaign to destroy nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah Twain is pretty much the perfect example of the kind of public figure who is currently Not Around. At a glance, Twain would have "gotten" snark and hipsterish world-wisdom, then lampooned it mercilessly and disposed of it in a single essay about brew pubs. In his second day returned to Earth, he'd resume his campaign to destroy nationalism. And then be denounced as a dirty socialist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:And then be denounced as a dirty socialist. And then he'd have written an essay lampooning his critics. Twain was the undisputed master of the lampoon, and guy would most definitely been the 800-pound gorilla of the Twitter-burn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Oh man. Mark Twain, Samuel Johnson, Oscar Wilde... so many people born too early for Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There are some real problems with NPR right now. For one thing, the current CEO of NPR is "a member of the National Council of the American Enterprise Institute". I was talking about like 5 years ago, that is a serious issue however and very depressing  Hopefully This American Life doesn't get radically changed/gutted
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
I'm still lost on why people are looking to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to be these beacons of journalistic integrity and intellegent discourse. Sure, people trust them more than actual journalist, but they've been entertainers first and foremost since they started their shows. Just because people do put their trust in them doesn't mean they neccisarily have to honor it, especially since they're hosting a comedy show on a channel that's geared towards teenage stoners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
I'm glad that Jon Stewart and TDS have raised awareness and the cool factor of liberal ideas, but I'd very much appreciate it if we didn't actively try to push the guy from THE FACULTY into becoming the spearhead of an American leftist revolution. Thanks in advance. I mean I'll take it if that's all we've got but...c'mon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Oh man. Mark Twain, Samuel Johnson, Oscar Wilde... so many people born too early for Twitter. Think about Lycurgus and Diogenes who both made careers out of sub-160 character burns on entire nations and schools of thought. If@phillipofmacedon
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:I'm still lost on why people are looking to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to be these beacons of journalistic integrity and intellegent discourse. Sure, people trust them more than actual journalist, but they've been entertainers first and foremost since they started their shows. Just because people do put their trust in them doesn't mean they neccisarily have to honor it, especially since they're hosting a comedy show on a channel that's geared towards teenage stoners. It isn't that people are looking to them to be beacons of journalistic integrity. The problem is, and what people have been pointing out, is that these two guys that don't give a poo poo about journalistic integrity because it isn't in their job description have better journalistic integrity than people whose entire careers supposedly relies on it. As in, new companies. A pair of comedy shows on a comedy network that are comedy first and just happen to make fun of the news are better at journalistic integrity than literally every television news outlet that actually exists. That's the problem. People consider Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to be better journalists than everybody else on television because they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
At the very least, Stewart and Colbert are more trustworthy because they are upfront about being comedians who happen to do news. So many others lead with "Trust us, we are journalists", and then proceed to do obviously biased pieces and tell half truths, or opinions as facts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
I don't even think the writers on The Daily Show are unionized. Same for a lot of MSNBC staff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
ufarn posted:I don't even think the writers on The Daily Show are unionized. Same for a lot of MSNBC staff. I don't know if they are, but the writers for TDS and Colbert went on strike with the writer's guild in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Wasn't Jon Stewart really hard on occupy wall street because his brother was some big dude on Wall Street? I can't remember the details so I may be off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 20:34
|
|
