|jangbones - 2010-12-18 |
Frickin character limits.
|IrishWhiskey - 2010-12-18 |
Passionately arguing a position and talking to people who agree with it doesn't make you a Fox News host. In fact its the opposite.
In order to become "a liberal version of a Fox News host", he'd have to pretend to be objective, stack the panel so that the argument was wildly unbalanced, actively lie or misrepresent essential facts, and give his opinion using only open questions and innuendo, rather than committing to solid statement. For example: "Some people are saying that the GOP are blocking the bill to assist Al-Qaeda. But is it actually motivated by racism? With me to discuss this are Bill Maher, Michael Moore and a Tea Party member currently off his medication."
Watch Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity speech again. He argues against advocacy journalism.
Yet this panel is just that. He stole a script right off of Sean Hannity's desk. I have never seen anything like this on the Daily Show before.
I don't think that speech meant what you think it meant.
John Stewart argues against advocacy journalism. True.
John Stewart is a journalist. False.
Satire is a genre that casts a wide net, dealing with many social topics. Because Stewart poaches on the territory of journalists does not make him a journalist nor does require him to conduct himself in ways becoming of journalists.
I'd dispute that he argues against advocacy journalism. I just reread his remarks from that day, and while he criticizes the media for demonizing and distorting opponents in service of their advocacy, there's nothing in their about impassioned and opinionated journalism being bad.
More to the point, advocacy in journalism is a good thing when its done right. There's a difference between describing events and reporting on events, and the latter is essential for a free society. The problem isn't that the news channels have opinions. Its that opinion channels are lacking in actual news.
Stewart keeps getting news in my comedy, we build fences for a reason dammit!!!
|memedumpster - 2010-12-18 |
The whole episode should be here really.
And don't miss this.
Again, for my fellow Canadians:
|Corporate God King - 2010-12-18 |
Why is it that I'm getting a grey screen? Five stars on principal.
Follow the links people have posted to actually see the episode. POETv doesn't like the daily show.
|StanleyPain - 2010-12-18 |
It's a mistake to associate bias with propaganda on the level of Fox News. Good journalism is not always about "fair and balanced" which is a myth. Sometimes good journalism means taking a position (sort of like a scientific proposal) and sticking with it until the end, even if the end turns out to be opposite of the position you were taking. Some bias is OK so long as the journalist is not making shit up in order to keep going down that path and their agenda is ultimately the truth.
|SolRo - 2010-12-18 |
need an option to 5 star the video and 0 star jangbones
|Ranma X. - 2010-12-18 |
There's a certain irony, which a lot of people have stated, that Fox News is so ridiculous that we worry about the objective journalstic stance of one of the bad guys in The Faculty.
|Pillager - 2010-12-18 |
Jon Stewart shouldn't be totally fucking outraged?
|FABIO - 2010-12-18 |
The need to polarize and label everything that doesn't agree with the Republican party as "liberal version of..." means the pundits couldn't have done a better job.
|phalsebob - 2010-12-18 |
|joelkazoo - 2010-12-18 |
After this bullshit the Republicans pulled, I now completely understand the term "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed"...
...aw, fuck that, I'm fuckin' PISSED!
It's not because you're not mad when you say that; it's because you're SO mad that if you gave in to your anger even a little bit you'd go and do something really, really stupid, like seeing just how many of the people who voted 'nay' you can physically assault before being sent to jail.
Yes, that's exactly it.
|Hooker - 2010-12-18 |
I think people need to seperate methods (using emotionally charged ways of framing a situation, such as bringing out suffering heroes of 9/11 or, alternatively, attacking someone for not supporting the troops) with justification (is the point these methods are in support of nevertheless just or not). I would say this piece on a comedy show is absolutely justified, but that doesn't mean its methods are fair.
If they're telling the truth, it's fair.
Yeah, what's the big fucking problem with using the truth to rip republicans a new one?
Republicans LOVE it when all the shit they pull is reported without context and only using their press releases because of some paranoid fear of looking "biased".
|dead_cat - 2010-12-19 |
It's really sad, Jangbones, when sanity itself is declared a Liberal position.
|Hammer Falls - 2010-12-19 |
Liberal, or an impassioned New Yorker (via New Jersey) who's been bitching about this for a while and uses an 8 minute segment on his comedy show, arguably 7 minutes more than any news organization has devoted to it, to talk about it.
|Ocyrus - 2010-12-19 |
Anyone that cannot find it in themselves to support the men and women who risked life and limb for their fellow countrymen is not deserving of being called human.
|John Holmes Motherfucker - 2010-12-19 |
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have been caught lying and lying and lying. In my opinion, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck can be as hard right as they wanna be, and I'm not troubled by it. Especially on the right, there's a weird fascination with "bias", and a weirder lack of concern over the quality of facts.
In a similar vein, however, I think that Mitch McConnell (who is such a disingenuous scumbag political opportunist that even GW Bush called him out for it in his memoir) can get teary about any damn fool thing he likes as long as he does his fucking job. Taking care of first responders is key to defence of the homeland, if we want the cops and firefighters rushing into the buildings next time America becomes a war zone.
If you ever saw John Stewart's first post-9/11 daily show, you know that like half of Manhattan, he could see the World Trade Center from his apartment. I think he got a little bit carried away here, and he crossed a line when he screened the McConnell footage, but it wasn't a moral line, it was a relevance line. It was an editing line. Stewart could rail against the GOP and he could cry on camera like Glenn Beck (on the that first 9/11 show, he did just that) and he still wouldn't be "a liberal Glenn Beck" because Glenn Beck is a proven, documented liar.
One of those people has on Comedy Central, and it's not the one with the funniest material
|Bort - 2010-12-19 |
"Is Jon Stewart finally becoming a liberal version of a Fox News host?"
Is jangbones pulling the Fox trick of asking a question to imply a falsehood?
Is it because jangbones once raped and murdered a young girl on the steps of a church, in the butt?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|