welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

An odd commentary on current events...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A credibly objective account of the events being portrayed.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think what makes it useful to people Killgore is that the distortions are the jokes. Unlike Rush Limbaugh (a self proclaimed entertainer) whose distortions aren't made as jokes and hence a bit harder for the credulous to spot.

What's more, to get a lot of the jokes you have to know a little bit about who's being turned into the punchline. Maybe this encourages people to read up on the issues or maybe his humor draws in folks who are already well informed.

Several media and academic organizations have made note of the fact that people actually get information from his show and in general seem to be quite well informed compared to their peers. Even they can't decide if he just draws a well informed audience of if his show is contributing.

For my part I just find him immensely entertaining. I also find his humor really does inspire thought. Maybe that's it's magic. Just like a good math teacher can make something as mind numbingly boring as math exciting maybe he makes politics exciting for folks.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10595
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nathan wrote:
I have to disagree. Viewed at the corporate/establishment level I think your interpretation holds true, but I continually hear people I believe to be genuinely well-intentioned (such as NPR's Neal Conan) go out of their way to give time to the other side, even when it's demonstrably absurd. It's a deeper problem than simple profit incentive. I thoroughly believe there has been a severe shift in the philosophy and self-perception of journalists: it's not that they don't believe an objective reality exists, but they no longer believe it is the role of the media to determine what is and is not true. Rather, journalists act (and shockingly often explicitly claim) that their proper function in a democracy is "to present the argument" in question. Deciding what is or is not true, in their opinion, is the sole responsibility of the viewer.

The fourth estate is no longer a check, merely a balance.

Well, I definitely agree with your perception of journalists' view of their responsibility. Unfortunately, I think the issue is compounded by organizations which purport to be news, but who litter their "news hours" with "analysis" from pundits of strong bias, turning an ostensibly informational segment into warring ideologies thrusting their opinions at the minds of viewers. It seems every major TV outlet can no more run a news story without getting it analyzed by the likes of G. Gordon Liddy and Karl Rove than they can stop themselves from reporting every odd thing Brittney Spears does. All of this is then packaged as news that "lets you decide," when in fact all they've done is offered you the false dichotomy of "sides" rather than bringing you the in-depth information that, as you point out, would require them to point out inaccuracies and misinformation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ideally it would be as simple as presenting the facts in addition to presenting both sides of an issue (assuming equal time is appropriate to the topic).

The information is there to be had, but it's particularly hard work to get in politics and not all the "RIGHT" answers leap out at you. A lot of it is just opinion an individual forms based on available evidence and experience. All of which takes an exceptionally large amount of work to attain these days.

There's no ratings in making viewers think for themselves. Half of them don't want to.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10595
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's why investigative journalists now catch predators rather than catch politicians in a lie. There's ratings in it, and ratings keep their jobs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10252
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kilgore wrote:
Idlethought wrote:
I think the Daily Show is a damn good source for both news and entertainment. Additionally, I think its reliability as a primary news source is limited.


You're an idiot. Stewart himself, in that much ballyhooed Crossfire interview, made no bones about the fact that the Daily Show is explicitly NOT a news program. John Stewart is an entertainer who gets his material from the news, just like the conservative pundits you love to hate.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Daily Show, it's funny as hell. But I'm not credulous enough to think it's got any significant news value, or self-important enough to think that John Steward is objective because I find myself agreeing with him most of the time.


Wasn't there a study or some such analysis done where the Daily Show was found to be as equally informative as a serious news show of a similar duration despite it's apparent lightheartedness and lampooning?

Mind you I'm not saying it's superior or should be a primary news source but I'm pretty sure that the actual amount of "news value" was found to be equivalent?
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes.

I heard from a guy whose sister confirmed it.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Wasn't there a study or some such analysis done where the Daily Show was found to be as equally informative as a serious news show of a similar duration despite it's apparent lightheartedness and lampooning?


Studies have shown that Daily Show viewers tend to be better informed than those of other shows (although if you look at the breakdown in the article, O'Reilly's viewers and Limbaugh's listeners are not that far behind). Those studies don't say anything about whether the Daily Show is itself responsible for that, but the fact that Jon Stewart's viewers are also considerably more likely to have attended 4 years of college and make more than $100k a year than either O'Reilly's viewers or the general population might lead one to suspect that the effect is due more to correllation than causation, unless you think that smug liberal humor is also putting Daily Show viewers through college and landing them high paying jobs.

Interestingly, the Pew Research Center analyzed The Daily Show's news coverage for a year and found that
Quote:
The results reveal a television program that draws on the news events of the day but picks selectively among them -- heavily emphasizing national politics and ignoring other news events entirely. In that regard, "The Daily Show" closely resembles the news agenda of a number of cable news programs as well as talk radio.

Among the findings were that the Daily Show focused a lot more on criticizing the Republicans than the Democrats (no surprise there) and that the show focused on political and celebrity news often to the exclusion of all else. The Daily Show, for example, never mentioned the Minneapolis bridge collapse or the Virginia Tech shootings. Which makes sense, because those things aren't funny, and The Daily Show is not a news program.

Which is all a long way of saying that if you find yourself simultaneously disparaging someone like O'Reilly for his obvious bias and admiring Jon Stewart for being a hard-hitting straight shooter who tells it like it is, maybe you should have a long think about how when you say coverage is "objective" you mean, "it tells me things with which I agree."
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Yorick



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 12101
Location: In the undersnow

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't agree. So I won't listen to you anymore.
LA LA LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA
_________________
Currently experiencing: not summer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

who said the daily show was objective?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Idlethought



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 891
Location: Seattle, WHAAAAAA?!

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kilgore wrote:
Idlethought wrote:
I think the Daily Show is a damn good source for both news and entertainment. Additionally, I think its reliability as a primary news source is limited.


You're an idiot. Stewart himself, in that much ballyhooed Crossfire interview, made no bones about the fact that the Daily Show is explicitly NOT a news program. John Stewart is an entertainer who gets his material from the news, just like the conservative pundits you love to hate.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Daily Show, it's funny as hell. But I'm not credulous enough to think it's got any significant news value, or self-important enough to think that John Steward is objective because I find myself agreeing with him most of the time.


First of all, ouch with the insult. That...that kinda hurt. Second, I know it's not a news program. It's not only obvious in the presentation of the news, but in the fact that they constantly say that it's not a news program (or is a fake news program). I'm very aware of the fact that he is an entertainer first.

With that said, they DO report the news, even if only in a comedic fashion. And when they report they typically do a good job, even if they cannot go into detail. At least they make those who in many cases wouldn't pay attention to the news at all somewhat aware of what's going on, and present it in a way that will keep their attention (with the funny ha ha's).

*edit* And, like I said before, their ability to report what's going on is severely hampered by the fact that they're only actually talking about news for at most 72 minutes (not hours, MINUTES) per week.
_________________
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration." ~Frank Herbert, Dune
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wait... There was a bridge collapse?!!!!


Okay, I'm not that bad off. The basic point that was made about the daily show is that it actually does provide some information about POLITICAL news. Not all of it by any means and you bet your ass it's liberally biased.

It's not all that surprising that they pick more on conservatives than liberals. Conservatives are much better straight men (except that one guy in the bathroom stall HAR HAR). Seriously, it's far easier to pick on someone with a pickle up their ass than someone who doesn't have a pickle up their ass. Smile Okay maybe that wasn't that serious. Maybe I should have said I was totally cereal...
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Idlethought wrote:
First of all, ouch with the insult. That...that kinda hurt.


I apologize. I was out of line there.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group