NationStates Jolt Archive

So anyhow, during my stumbling around the internet, reading stuff at random, I found a link to the Jon Stewart interview on Crossfire. Although I'd heard about it, it had sort of slipped into the far reaches of my mind. Re-reading it, I discovered that Mr. Stewart and I were very much in agreement in our assessment of the media.

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that...
STEWART: Yes.
BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.
STEWART: Yes.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious.

The media is so obsessed with providing entertainment and getting ratings, that they no longer seem to care about bias, accuracy or fairness. Call me an idealist, but it really, really pisses me off. I don't care if it's some hick with a bow-tie on Fox News or some artsy-fartsy Liberal idiot somewhere else; I only care that they insist on either/or scenarios. Either you support gay marriage/are going to hell or you support traditional marriage/are a bigot.
Basically, it isn't a black & white world, and attempts to portray it as such are laughable.
(caveat: with some[very few] exceptions)
Thanks for reading this admittedly over-long post.
Here's the link to the entire transcript, if you're interested:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

Arn't you more worried about claims that its make American increasingly paranoid?

Arn't you more worried about claims that its make American increasingly paranoid?

No, and I'll tell you why.
People like Michael Moore make those claims, and they're part of the problem. They launch into their theories about how people vote Republican out of fear, and fear mongering is leading to violence, and so on, and then someone on the right of the political spectrum calls Mr. Moore a big fat liar, with emphasis on the fat, and the mudslinging begins. It's a joke, really, and if it weren't for the need of the media to combine news with entertainment, those allegations of causing paranoia wouldn't exist.

You are exactly right. It heartens me to think there are more who have and understanding of the farce that plays out in our media daily.

I saved the video of that show to my hard drive, watching it occasionally to remind myself that not everyone likes the theater in politics.

You are exactly right. It heartens me to think there are more who have and understanding of the farce that plays out in our media daily.

I saved the video of that show to my hard drive, watching it occasionally to remind myself that not everyone likes the theater in politics.

Thanks for posting. I was starting to worry that I was the only one here who thought like this.

When our top stories include crap like Michael Jackson and his accusers, you realize that most of the news is crap.

Thanks for posting. I was starting to worry that I was the only one here who thought like this.
Cripes I can't even stand to watch the news anymore because of it.

When our top stories include crap like Michael Jackson and his accusers, you realize that most of the news is crap.

Or the OJ Simpson trial, or Princess Di, etc., etc., etc.
I prefer CBC Newsworld and BBC News to pretty much anything from the states, though I still watch CNN on occasion. I find that they focus a little less on "entertainment news".

what i dislike is "news by press release" where they tell you what, for example, the republicans say about some issue, then "rebut" with what the democrats have to say about it, through press releases, without ever looking to see what the reality is.

there is no journalism involved just an insane "lack of bias" by only reporting what is on the relevant press release. if there is no "rebuttal" from the other side, it goes un-rebutted. they dont look into it for themselves at all, just "fair and balanced" reporting.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4583007

Listen from about 4:52 to 6:25.

Or you can just watch it for yourself.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831?htv=12

I no longer watch t.v due to the massive amount of crap that is put on the air

you kids should check out www.democracynow.org. It's a good news show, definitley liberal, but they actually have like repoting and facts and such.

The media is a collection of private institutions, and they air what sells. And what sells is seen as idiotic by some. If you don't like it, then ignore it. Or find alternate sources of information.

So anyhow, during my stumbling around the internet, reading stuff at random, I found a link to the Jon Stewart interview on Crossfire. Although I'd heard about it, it had sort of slipped into the far reaches of my mind. Re-reading it, I discovered that Mr. Stewart nad I were very much in agreement in our assessment of the media.

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that...
STEWART: Yes.
BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.
STEWART: Yes.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious.

The media is so obsessed with providing entertainment and getting ratings, that they no longer seem to care about bias, accuracy or fairness. Call me an idealist, but it really, really pisses me off. I don't care if it's some hick with a bow-tie on Fox News or some artsy-fartsy Liberal idiot somewhere else; I only care that they insist on either/or scenarios. Either you support gay marriage/are going to hell or you support traditional marriage/are a bigot.
Basically, it isn't a black & white world, and attempts to portray it as such are laughable.
Thanks for reading this admittedly over-long post.
Here's the link to the entire transcript, if you're interested:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

Jon Stewart is my hero. I watch his show every night.

Re-reading it, I discovered that Mr. Stewart nad (sic) I were very much in agreement in our assessment of the media.

...

The media is so obsessed with providing entertainment and getting ratings, that they no longer seem to care about bias, accuracy or fairness.

You are in agreement with Jon Stewart that the media is obsessed with providing entertainment and no longer concerned about bias, accuracy or fairness?! ROFLMAO! I always thought Jon Stewart was only concerned about entertainment and had little concern about providing information that was free of bias, accurate or even fair. Jon Stewart is a biased, inaccurate, partisan hack entertainer who really isn't too funny. It would appear to me that he is damning himself and the rest of the media establishment.

You are in agreement with Jon Stewart that the media is obsessed with providing entertainment and no longer concerned about bias, accuracy or fairness?! ROFLMAO! I always thought Jon Stewart was only concerned about entertainment and had little concern about providing information that was free of bias, accurate or even fair. Jon Stewart is a biased, inaccurate, partisan hack entertainer who really isn't too funny. It would appear to me that he is damning himself and the rest of the media establishment.
True, but he admits it.

Actually, he keeps pointing out to the "real" news guys that the fact that people are tuning in to him, a comedian, for their news should be an indicator of what an awful job the legitimate news organizations are doing.

You are in agreement with Jon Stewart that the media is obsessed with providing entertainment and no longer concerned about bias, accuracy or fairness?! ROFLMAO! I always thought Jon Stewart was only concerned about entertainment and had little concern about providing information that was free of bias, accurate or even fair. Jon Stewart is a biased, inaccurate, partisan hack entertainer who really isn't too funny. It would appear to me that he is damning himself and the rest of the media establishment.

Stewart's show is preceded by Reno 911 and followed by South Park. His show is not a news show. Do you fail to understand this?

If his show is not a news show, why would anyone hold him up to the standards of a news show? That's like saying your bookcase doesn't chill your ice cream; utter nonsense, madness. Get a Freezer for your ice cream, your bookcase should hold your books; likewise, watch News shows for news, you entertainment should be entertaining.

If his show is not a news show, and holding something that is not a news show to the standards of a news show is nonsensical...Why did you just make such a utterly pointless observation?

I suggest that you now call an Sponge and a Starfish homosexual, and accuse them of making people think its okay to hold hands. Inaccuracy, bias, and political hackery seems to be less John Stewarts specialty than yours.

Stewart's show is preceded by Reno 911 and followed by South Park. His show is not a news show. Do you fail to understand this?

If his show is not a news show, why would anyone hold him up to the standards of a news show? That's like saying your bookcase doesn't chill your ice cream; utter nonsense, madness. Get a Freezer for your ice cream, your bookcase should hold your books; likewise, watch News shows for news, you entertainment should be entertaining.

If his show is not a news show, and holding something that is not a news show to the standards of a news show is nonsensical...Why did you just make such a utterly pointless observation?

I suggest that you now call an Sponge and a Starfish homosexual, and accuse them of making people think its okay to hold hands. Inaccuracy, bias, and political hackery seems to be less John Stewarts specialty than yours.

Re-read the original post, the poster made the bold face statement that ALL media is concerned with entertainment and is biased, inaccurate, and unfair--he didn't specify simply news media.

You are in agreement with Jon Stewart that the media is obsessed with providing entertainment and no longer concerned about bias, accuracy or fairness?! ROFLMAO! I always thought Jon Stewart was only concerned about entertainment and had little concern about providing information that was free of bias, accurate or even fair. Jon Stewart is a biased, inaccurate, partisan hack entertainer who really isn't too funny. It would appear to me that he is damning himself and the rest of the media establishment.
First, Jon Stewart is funny, saying he isn't is like telling a Confederate his flag is racist. Those are fighting words.

Second, he has little bias.(no bias is impossible, but you can reduce bias)

Third, he is isn't partisan.
Fourth, he is very accurate, how many times has he been inaccurate...I can't remember once!

While Jon Stewart is concerned first with entertainment, his second priority is making us laugh, and his third priority is providing news.

Real news are supposed to be the opposite kinda:
First, Provide news, second entertainment(so people watch, usually just have to be able to stand announcer/anchor), and very few have laughs.

In a way, some news lately has become stagnant and to boost ratings stations have tried to do commentary like Fox news O'Reily. But people start to actually believe that O'Reily's opinion (he never indicates it is opinion on the show so it is possible to be confused) with news. Which is how the Fox news is Biased and very untruthful stories come from.

I perfer the Daily Show personally.

Re-read the original post, the poster made the bold face statement that ALL media is concerned with entertainment and is biased, inaccurate, and unfair--he didn't specify simply news media.

And, quite frankly, it's true.
However, I think it is self-evident that an entertainment program like Mr. Stewart's has the right to be obsessed with entertainment; that's its whole purpose in being. The fact that it compares favourably with newscasts in terms of how trustworthy it is (especially too young people, as shown in recent polls), shows what a joke the news media is.
"The world's most trusted fake news" is just that- fake news, designed to entertain. Personally, though, I find it irritating when the real news follows the same tack.

dude. I work in the media. :mp5: not all of us are out there just for the ratings....you're putting us all in a massive generalization there.

dude. I work in the media. :mp5: not all of us are out there just for the ratings....you're putting us all in a massive generalization there.

Indeed, I am. However, would you argue against:
1) Television channels primarily exist to make money or foster a particular political viewpoint and
2)In the first case, this translates as ratings, and in the second case ratings must be achieved to dissemenate the idea amongst as many people as possible?

That's why I argue that the ratings are the primary focus of the TV industry, and the primary reason it is as blatantly biased and uninformative as it is.
If you have other reasons for its remarkable lack of objectivity, or if you disagree that the media as a whole are doing a poor job, please explain.

Indeed, I am. However, would you argue against:
1) Television channels primarily exist to make money or foster a particular political viewpoint and
2)In the first case, this translates as ratings, and in the second case ratings must be achieved to dissemenate the idea amongst as many people as possible?

That's why I argue that the ratings are the primary focus of the TV industry, and the primary reason it is as blatantly biased and uninformative as it is.
If you have other reasons for its remarkable lack of objectivity, or if you disagree that the media as a whole are doing a poor job, please explain.i'll agree that many of the big newscasters are biased, and only try to get the best ratings instead of just broadcasting the news, but the station i work for broadcasts the news no matter what it is. We are there to provide the public with the news. Of course, our news station isnt big. It is a local news channel.....

i'll agree that many of the big newscasters are biased, and only try to get the best ratings instead of just broadcasting the news, but the station i work for broadcasts the news no matter what it is. We are there to provide the public with the news. Of course, our news station isnt big. It is a local news channel.....

In my own defense, I don't watch every local news channel in my own country, let alone in the US :D
However, they (local news stations) due to their limited audience and lack of resources, can't really do ojective international reporting, since they don't have bureaus in the worlds many far-flung countries. Only the big guys can provide that, and they don't.

In my own defense, I don't watch every local news channel in my own country, let alone in the US :D
However, they (local news stations) due to their limited audience and lack of resources, can't really do ojective international reporting, since they don't have bureaus in the worlds many far-flung countries. Only the big guys can provide that, and they don't.yes. I just dont think you should throw EVERYONE into the category of unfair, and biased, when many of the smaller media groups arent.

yes. I just dont think you should throw EVERYONE into the category of unfair, and biased, when many of the smaller media groups arent.

Everyone is biased, although admittedly some groups work very hard to reduce the level of bias.
I hereby modify my original statement to include the caveat:
(with some [very few] exceptions)

Everyone is biased, although admittedly some groups work very hard to reduce the level of bias.
I hereby modify my original statement to include the caveat:
(with some [very few] exceptions)thank you. :)

Reasons that have been stated above are why news ratings have been going down more and more. That fact that there's more competition out there SHOULD help keep news media less biased and more informative, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. The news outlets have turned to entertainment mixed with news (as Stewart said, it's all theater!). Good example is news casts attaching something from Jay Leno or David Letterman to the end of their programs . Whats with that? I can understand trying to add a little humor for the audience, but it's basically using someone else's material for comedy!

Stewart had a guest on his last show, I forget his name, but he wrote this book called "Independent Nation" about how more people today are registering as Independents because the two extremes of the Left and Right have taken over each party. While I'm definately a conservative Republican and am very comfortable where I am, the man's got a point. After the 2004 election, Republicans gleefully pointed to the "Red America" showing that most of the counties across the nation voted for Bush (and yes, I was guilty of this too... but I couldn't help it!). However, what I find much more valuable was the "Purple America" which showed a better indication of who won what areas and by how much.

My point is that there's a political realignment about to take place in America and either party can get their hands on it if they would stop catering to their special interests. As I see it, Illegal Immigration is a smoldering fire that is the next issue that will determine where the majority of Americans will go. As of now, Republicans seem to be in a better position to take hold of this realignment because Democrats have been for more open borders and Republicans control the White House and Congress. But who knows, neither party seems to have the political balls to step up and confront this problem with our border security. Personally, it's not hard to imagine a 3rd party candidate whose main platform is border security rising in 2008 to peel off enough votes to hurt both parties.

There, the warning has been given. All I can do is watch now and hope that my fellow conservative Republicans seize this oportunity before the opposition does....

*Edited for a typo and better formatting*

Bump bump bump!!!

Sorry, wanted some feedback!

Well, here's my rant.

The media is, and always has been biased. This applies equally towards the "right" and towards the "left".

Newspaper owners have a long tradition of supporting one candidate to the exclusion of all others...as long as there have been newspapers this has been the case.

There are idealists - even in the newspapers themselves - that "attempt" to provide balanced coverage - but, at best its a reporter here, or an editor there....the media is designed to be biases. There is no alternative.

Even the mighty Chicago Tribune...their motto reads: "We provide that check upon government that no constitution can."

That statement, by its vary nature, says that they'll watch/attack/expose the government and politicians as they see fit. If, in their judgement, the government of the day is "in check" then they can go easy.

It's all about a mere mortal's judgement. And there is absolutely nothing new about that.

Well, here's my rant.

The media is, and always has been biased. This applies equally towards the "right" and towards the "left".

Newspaper owners have a long tradition of supporting one candidate to the exclusion of all others...as long as there have been newspapers this has been the case.

There are idealists - even in the newspapers themselves - that "attempt" to provide balanced coverage - but, at best its a reporter here, or an editor there....the media is designed to be biases. There is no alternative.

Even the mighty Chicago Tribune...their motto reads: "We provide that check upon government that no constitution can."

That statement, by its vary nature, says that they'll watch/attack/expose the government and politicians as they see fit. If, in their judgement, the government of the day is "in check" then they can go easy.

It's all about a mere mortal's judgement. And there is absolutely nothing new about that.

I'm not just talking about bias though, which I acknowledge is inherent in the system- I'm talking about the black/white approach, the substitution of opinion for fact, and the reporting of the latest things in Hollywood recieving disproportionate coverage.

The state of electronic journalism in this country can be summed up in the following headline: Daily Show Wins Second Peabody.

When the goofy comedians are doing better than the alleged professionals, there is a problem.

Recently, I read a Birmingham News headline that said, and I quote: "Abortion Drove Bomber to Kill". How's that for right-wing bias? :headbang:

The media wouldn't be screwed up if people weren't idiots to begin with.

You can't blame these people for providing a marketable and desired product.