View Full Version : The Daily Show
Divinus Arma
09-06-2008, 02:33
Biased? What say you, though I find it obvious, of their lean?
CountArach
09-06-2008, 02:39
Left, but mainly because the stuff he satirises is to his right. In most countries the bias would just be considered common sense (Which is why it is popular outside the US).
woad&fangs
09-06-2008, 02:50
Left, but mainly because the stuff he satirises is to his right. In most countries the bias would just be considered common sense (Which is why it is popular outside the US).
what he said
Left and right, but not center, the jokes are directed towards whomever holds more political power currently and mostly towards the top. But for now yeah it's left, maybe next year it will be right.
KukriKhan
09-06-2008, 02:56
For anyone who doesn't know about The Daily Show, here's a link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/
How can anyone NOT know the daily show? I'm from Portugal and I laugh my ass off with Jon Steward. xD
I'll more-or-less repeat what I said in another thread: first and foremost TDS has to be funny. If they ever lose sight of that — if they ever decided to be the partisan warriors they get accused of being — they'll lose it, cease to be amusing, and quickly get yanked off the air for another America's Funniest Animals show.
Incongruous
09-06-2008, 03:19
Because in Britain political shows are of a much higher caliber than a man sipping coffee and pulling a funny face every time he thinks something funny has happened...
I mean, its just such a lame show, why anyone worries about I don't know.
But yeah it does lean to the left, simply because the right is atm easier to make fun of and the show is just not smart enough to take a dig at the left.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-06-2008, 03:19
http://www.hulu.com/watch/32968/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-guess-whos-coming-to-denver---obamas-acceptance-speech#x-4,vclip,1
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-06-2008, 03:26
Because in Britain political shows are of a much higher caliber than a man sipping coffee and pulling a funny face every time he thinks something funny has happened...
Yes, Minister has to be the best political-related comedy show of all time. No question.
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 07:35
I can laugh about my side plenty. There is plenty to laugh at, but over the past few years the funny stuff has been replaced by repetitive political hackery. The daily show has become for the left what radio shows like Limbaugh are for the right - they are both entertainment for their respective followers. It's all spin and it has become more absurd and less fair - more serious and less funny.
It is sad because a fake news show is a good idea - I wish they'd try it instead of being simply anti-conservative/Republican.
The onion tilts left, but I don't find that the majority of their jokes to be unfair. They should port the onion onto a television channel to give the daily show some centrist competition.
There is no question at all that the Daily Show is vile leftwing propaganda. And it's not even ever the least bit funny, either.
CountArach
09-06-2008, 11:54
There is no question at all that the Daily Show is vile leftwing propaganda. And it's not even ever the least bit funny, either.
Maybe not, but that post was :laugh4:
Louis VI the Fat
09-06-2008, 12:20
TDS is urban and progressive.
Which is not the same as 'biased', never mind 'partisan hackery'. These qualifications belong to a specific US conservative, partisan mindset.
The equivalent would be to call Limbaugh or Coulter 'reactionary enemies of the proletariat'. Neither are. Because these qualifications belong to a specific communist mindset.
'Media bias', 'liberal elites' - these are not neutral terms to describe the American political media landscape, they instead belong to a specific political outlook. The qualifications don't make sense outside of this discourse. John Stewart is no more a biased liberal partisan than Limbaugh is an ememy of the proletariat.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/32968/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-guess-whos-coming-to-denver---obamas-acceptance-speech#x-4,vclip,1Alas! I get a 'US only' message. Is it available on YouTube?
Edit: for similar reasons, Navaros' posts make perfect sense to me. He posts from yet another very different persective altogether. Within his discourse, he is perfectly logical and consistent.
Edit II: I prefer open polls. I'm always curious to see who votes what.
Left, but mainly because the stuff he satirises is to his right. In most countries the bias would just be considered common sense (Which is why it is popular outside the US).
Quoted for truth.
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 15:09
TDS is urban and progressive.
Which is not the same as 'biased', never mind 'partisan hackery'. These qualifications belong to a specific US conservative, partisan mindset.
The equivalent would be to call Limbaugh or Coulter 'reactionary enemies of the proletariat'. Neither are. Because these qualifications belong to a specific communist mindset.
'Media bias', 'liberal elites' - these are not neutral terms to describe the American political media landscape, they instead belong to a specific political outlook. The qualifications don't make sense outside of this discourse. John Stewart is no more a biased liberal partisan than Limbaugh is an ememy of the proletariat.
Alas! I get a 'US only' message. Is it available on YouTube?
Edit: for similar reasons, Navaros' posts make perfect sense to me. He posts from yet another very different persective altogether. Within his discourse, he is perfectly logical and consistent.
Edit II: I prefer open polls. I'm always curious to see who votes what.
I don't understand. Are you claiming that the right has some sort of manifersto that holds sole proprietorship over the terms "partisan" or "hackery" (which I believe is a made up word.)?
We can't use terms that can be applied to any side of "partisan hacks"? I've used the term to describe both Limbaugh and Stewart. They both have an angry and sarcastic tone that harps on ideological issues at the expense of objectivity. I think we can call them both hacks who are exceptionally good at what they do - entertain listeners who want to hear about politics in a wya that gets their blood boiling.
I can use "political hackery" without being the same as a Marxist who uses terms like Proletariat and Burgeoisie - which are arguable ideological groupings - rather than objective adjectives.
Left and right (center just isn't funny). If Obama gets elected, they will rip him because they will have to. Otherwise the show will die. If anyone shows incompetence, hypocrisy, and huge amounts of spin, they will jump on it. If the media fails to properly cover a story, they will jump on it. Don't forget their source material. Except for their silly stuff, they are showing news footage/editorial and the "victim's" own words. When the Dem politicos get their time in the spotlight, expect the same treatment.
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 15:21
Left and right (center just isn't funny). If Obama gets elected, they will rip him because they will have to. Otherwise the show will die. If anyone shows incompetence, hypocrisy, and huge amounts of spin, they will jump on it. If the media fails to properly cover a story, they will jump on it. Don't forget their source material. Except for their silly stuff, they are showing news footage/editorial and the "victim's" own words. When the Dem politicos get their time in the spotlight, expect the same treatment.
I don't think that they will focus on politics all that much. They will expand into other areas. The daily show only started getting really political in order to attack prosecutors during the Clinton affair. Stewart made the show political - and he will transition to a regular fake news show when Obama is elected. He has been so absolutely obsessed with Iraq that for a few years it was the only thing that he talked about.
I don't believe that the show will become political again until the Republicans have a majority in Congress or a President in the White House. It won't get viewers on the left - nobody would watch someone who attacked their own with that much regularity.
I don't think that they will focus on politics all that much. They will expand into other areas. The daily show only started getting really political in order to attack prosecutors during the Clinton affair. Stewart made the show political - and he will transition to a regular fake news show when Obama is elected. He has been so absolutely obsessed with Iraq that for a few years it was the only thing that he talked about.
I don't believe that the show will become political again until the Republicans have a majority in Congress or a President in the White House. It won't get viewers on the left - nobody would watch someone who attacked their own with that much regularity.
and if he does that (which I don´t think he will) the show will lose popularity (specially outside the US) and he´ll feel the sting.
seems like a self-correcting situation to me.
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 15:37
and if he does that (which I don´t think he will) the show will lose popularity (specially outside the US) and he´ll feel the sting.
seems like a self-correcting situation to me.
I'l bet that he changes focus off of politics and rationalizes like this: "the people in office just aren't that funny right now" and people will buy it. Then they can go ahead and make fun of rednecks around the country and people who think they see aliens like they used to when the show was funnier anyway - maybe throwing an occasional jab at politics when Obama does or says something un-progressive.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-06-2008, 17:16
I can laugh about my side plenty. There is plenty to laugh at, but over the past few years the funny stuff has been replaced by repetitive political hackery. The daily show has become for the left what radio shows like Limbaugh are for the right - they are both entertainment for their respective followers. It's all spin and it has become more absurd and less fair - more serious and less funny.
You should watch the clip I posted. The daily show consistently makes fun of obama using the same avenue of attack that the republicans take. And it's hilarious.
PanzerJaeger
09-06-2008, 17:52
That show is played out. It used to be so much funnier if anyone remembers the old days where Stewart had just taken over from Craig Kilborn or whoever it was. I'm not sure if Stewart is taking himself too seriously, the writing has suffered, or maybe I'm just getting older. Anyway, why are we discussing the political leanings of a comedy show, but there was nothing on the handover of Anbar?
Strike For The South
09-06-2008, 18:07
That show is played out. It used to be so much funnier if anyone remembers the old days where Stewart had just taken over from Craig Kilborn or whoever it was. I'm not sure if Stewart is taking himself too seriously, the writing has suffered, or maybe I'm just getting older. Anyway, why are we discussing the political leanings of a comedy show, but there was nothing on the handover of Anbar?
because the war is lost...duh
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 18:19
because the war is lost...duh
Anbar is a huge deal.
Lord Winter
09-06-2008, 18:36
Anbar is a huge deal.
Create a thread then...
Strike For The South
09-06-2008, 19:06
Anbar is a huge deal.
My humor is lost on the lot of you
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 19:08
My humor is lost on the lot of you
I was just saying. I know that you know it is.
If it's not sent on Discovery Channel or National Geographic; I obviously haven't seen it. ~D
HoreTore
09-07-2008, 00:29
Holy crap.
Now we're discussing the politics of comedy....?
I fear for the world.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-07-2008, 05:12
Holy crap.
Now we're discussing the politics of comedy....?
I fear for the world.
The problem is when people take comedy seriously as their source of opinion on politics.
CountArach
09-07-2008, 05:14
The problem is when people take comedy seriously as their source of opinion on politics.
That is the same problem with EVERY news outlet. Everyone is innately biased, and as such no news can be seriously covered. The Daily show must be commended for talking about things that many other news outlets don't, as well as holding the news media to task.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-07-2008, 05:22
That is the same problem with EVERY news outlet. Everyone is innately biased, and as such no news can be seriously covered.
I'm rather disenchanted with the media at the moment, actually, for precisely that reason - you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I usually go to Die Welt and BBC News for an idea of what's going on in Germany and the world, and sometimes the National Post or Globe and Mail - and with these it's mostly to get an idea of what the situation is, and I try to base my opinion on the situation rather than the slant (I try, don't always succeed). I haven't watched television news in forever.
BBC News has always been my favorite site to check out neutral news :yes:
CountArach
09-07-2008, 05:41
I'm rather disenchanted with the media at the moment, actually, for precisely that reason - you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I usually go to Die Welt and BBC News for an idea of what's going on in Germany and the world, and sometimes the National Post or Globe and Mail - and with these it's mostly to get an idea of what the situation is, and I try to base my opinion on the situation rather than the slant (I try, don't always succeed). I haven't watched television news in forever.
Yeah I'm pretty much the same, but with different sites... that said I do read heavily slanted news every day, but that is mostly for analysis and after I have made up my opinion.
Crazed Rabbit
09-07-2008, 05:45
You make up your opinion before you read the news?
~;p
CR
CountArach
09-07-2008, 05:47
You make up your opinion before you read the news?
~;p
CR
No, before I read the analysis of the news.
HoreTore
09-07-2008, 12:53
The problem is when people take comedy seriously as their source of opinion on politics.
Yes. As I said, I fear for the world.
ICantSpellDawg
09-07-2008, 15:23
Yes. As I said, I fear for the world.
I agree - it is disturbing to hear a number of people say "I only have time to get my news from "the daily show" or "Rush in the morning"
Holy crap.
Now we're discussing the politics of comedy....?
I fear for the world.
Really, that sort of dedain really doesn't suit lefties.
TevashSzat
09-07-2008, 21:39
I think its pretty obvious there....
As for taking the Daily Show seriously, CNN and Fox News have both criticized Jon Stewart in interviews for not being "journalistic" which I just find hilarious. This is the show that comes on sometimes after Reno 911. Any "real" news outlet comparing themselves to Comedy Central ought to seriously reexamine themselves
I think its pretty obvious there....
As for taking the Daily Show seriously, CNN and Fox News have both criticized Jon Stewart in interviews for not being "journalistic" which I just find hilarious. This is the show that comes on sometimes after Reno 911. Any "real" news outlet comparing themselves to Comedy Central ought to seriously reexamine themselves
Jon Stewart Legendary appearance on Crossfire (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE)
they try to throw the "you don´t make serious news questions either" line at him....his response? "are you kidding me? the show before mine is puppets making crank phone calls!"
he totally embarrasses them and their supposed debate show....the network pulled the plug on crossfire a few days later.
I think he also addresses a lot of the accusations that have been leveled at the daily show here.
ICantSpellDawg
09-08-2008, 02:46
"MSNBC drops Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from anchor chair... David Gregory will anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night.... Developing..."
Suckers.
The problem is when people take comedy seriously as their source of opinion on politics.
Using it as a primary source is perhaps a bit off, but comedy has always been one of the leading methods for criticizing those in power, particularly in the area of politics. This is well-recorded going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece and I personally suspect that it's as old as language itself. Mockery and exaggeration are excellent methods to make undermine someone's position and credibility. Nothing is more degrading to a position than public humiliation. That's why Mel Brooks thinks that the best revenge on Hitler is to simply laugh at him and make him a joke. That's why the history books are replete with hapless 'satirists' being executed for making a dig at the local regent. It's no coincidence that court jesters gained a reputation for being some of the few people who could openly criticize the King.
TDS is just a modern version of this old tried and true system. Yes, it is comedy, but it is also serious political commentary. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Goofball
09-08-2008, 22:16
Because in Britain political shows are of a much higher caliber than a man sipping coffee and pulling a funny face every time he thinks something funny has happened...
Funny you say that. I was under the impression that British comedy consisted mainly of men being caught wearing ladies underpants.
Louis VI the Fat
09-08-2008, 22:58
I don't understand. Are you claiming that the right has some sort of manifersto that holds sole proprietorship over the terms "partisan" or "hackery" (which I believe is a made up word.)?
We can't use terms that can be applied to any side of "partisan hacks"? I've used the term to describe both Limbaugh and Stewart. They both have an angry and sarcastic tone that harps on ideological issues at the expense of objectivity. I think we can call them both hacks who are exceptionally good at what they do - entertain listeners who want to hear about politics in a wya that gets their blood boiling.
I can use "political hackery" without being the same as a Marxist who uses terms like Proletariat and Burgeoisie - which are arguable ideological groupings - rather than objective adjectives.Hmmm...perhaps I shouldn't have attributed partisanship and hackery to the right. Partisan not, because both major parties suffer from it. And hackery not, because I in fact haven't got the faintest clue what the word means, if anything at all.
'Media bias', 'liberal elite', and a certain anti-intellectualism though, are distinctly conservative issues. I can't be bothered to write a page long essay about it, sorry. Can't find a decent link either. Which of course, even if I did, would no doubt be considered biased itself. ~;p )
Vladimir
09-09-2008, 15:12
I don't know. The Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/8/124910/0364/816/591072) is about as wacky left as you can get.
I just obtained this info. and need help getting it to go viral. AIP Is not a
harmless group. It seems that they are tied to terrorist. Please help this go viral. If this was a Dem. Candidate, this would be on the msm 24/7.
The scoop below the fold. emphasis added
Sasaki Kojiro
09-09-2008, 16:11
Using it as a primary source is perhaps a bit off, but comedy has always been one of the leading methods for criticizing those in power, particularly in the area of politics. This is well-recorded going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece and I personally suspect that it's as old as language itself. Mockery and exaggeration are excellent methods to make undermine someone's position and credibility. Nothing is more degrading to a position than public humiliation. That's why Mel Brooks thinks that the best revenge on Hitler is to simply laugh at him and make him a joke. That's why the history books are replete with hapless 'satirists' being executed for making a dig at the local regent. It's no coincidence that court jesters gained a reputation for being some of the few people who could openly criticize the King.
TDS is just a modern version of this old tried and true system. Yes, it is comedy, but it is also serious political commentary. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Good point :yes:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 23:18
Using it as a primary source is perhaps a bit off, but comedy has always been one of the leading methods for criticizing those in power, particularly in the area of politics. This is well-recorded going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece and I personally suspect that it's as old as language itself. Mockery and exaggeration are excellent methods to make undermine someone's position and credibility. Nothing is more degrading to a position than public humiliation. That's why Mel Brooks thinks that the best revenge on Hitler is to simply laugh at him and make him a joke. That's why the history books are replete with hapless 'satirists' being executed for making a dig at the local regent. It's no coincidence that court jesters gained a reputation for being some of the few people who could openly criticize the King.
Nonetheless, as you admit, mockery and exaggeration are key parts in political comedy, and therefore comedy should never be your primary source of news.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-10-2008, 03:25
Nonetheless, as you admit, mockery and exaggeration are key parts in political comedy, and therefore comedy should never be your primary source of news.
"A man who reads nothing at all is better educated than a man who reads nothing but newspapers"
--Thomas Jefferson
Why does Thomas Jefferson hate freedom?
seireikhaan
09-10-2008, 05:06
:laugh4:
Big_John
09-10-2008, 05:25
Why does Thomas Jefferson hate freedom?
no it's cool.. he was only talking about the new york times.
CountArach
09-10-2008, 08:39
I don't know. The Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/8/124910/0364/816/591072) is about as wacky left as you can get.
The vast majority of people on DailyKos are very sensible progressives. Its just that with all of the heat of the Federal Election and what they believe Bush has done to the country - they can get a bit heated and zealous at times.
:laugh4: @ Lemur
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.