NationStates Jolt Archive


Daily Show As Substantive As Network News

Sarkhaan
05-10-2006, 22:21
That's right. Indiana University recently did a study that will be published next summer in the Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media

"It is clearly a humor show, first and foremost," Fox said of Stewart's program. "But there is some substance on there, and in some cases, like John Edwards announcing his candidacy, the news is made on the show. You have real newsmakers coming on, and yes, sometimes the banter and questions get a little silly, but there is also substantive dialogue going on … It's a legitimate source of news."
Not surprisingly, a second-by-second analysis of The Daily Show's audio and visual content found considerably more humor than substance -- Stewart himself has insisted that he is a comedian and not a journalist. A similar analysis of network coverage found considerably more hype than substance in broadcast newscasts. Examples of such hype included references to polls, political endorsements and photo opportunities.

Perhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources. I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.

The article (http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html)
Free shepmagans
05-10-2006, 22:22
That's right. Indiana University recently did a study that will be published next summer in the Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media




Perhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources. I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.

The article (http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html)
Cool. So I'm... news hungry... yeah.
Farnhamia
05-10-2006, 22:25
[QUOTE=Sarkhaan;11768438] ... I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.
QUOTE]

So would I, certainly in the local news. Two of the three network affiliates in Denver are associated with one of the newspapers, and very often the local stories are just commercials for the paper. I don't mind that people are encouraged to read the paper, but really, just report the damn news. And I really think they should stop with the stories about cute kittens and puppies being abused. Really, I don't need to see that before going to bed.
PsychoticDan
05-10-2006, 22:29
Needs more fart jokes.
Schull
05-10-2006, 22:30
Perhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources. I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.

You've got to love TDS - I about fell out of my chair the other night when Pervez Musharraf was on. Great interview.
Rhaomi
05-10-2006, 22:31
The Daily Show is the one of the highest-quality news shows on TV, simply because they report on stuff that no one else does. (I'm focusing on the opening monologue bit, btw).
Whereyouthinkyougoing
05-10-2006, 22:31
Perhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources.

I honestly think that those who say it's horrible have never watched The Daily Show in their lives. It's so obviously not "Fake News". It dissects pertinent questions and points out inconsistencies so much more accurately and poignantly than other "real news" sources, it's not even funny.
Except that it is. :p
Sarkhaan
05-10-2006, 22:36
I honestly think that those who say it's horrible have never watched The Daily Show in their lives. It's so obviously not "Fake News". It dissects pertinent questions and points out inconsistencies so much more accurately and poignantly than other "real news" sources, it's not even funny.
Except that it is. :p

exactly. If you want "fake" news, then look to something like the onion. The news stories are real. They are presented in a very clear and straightforward manner, on par with any other news group. Then, instead of bullshitting us, Steward makes a joke...usually, his jokes open up much more intelligent debate and considerations than the polls and graphs other news networks use.
Rhaomi
05-10-2006, 22:36
I honestly think that those who say it's horrible have never watched The Daily Show in their lives. It's so obviously not "Fake News". It dissects pertinent questions and points out inconsistencies so much more accurately and poignantly than other "real news" sources, it's not even funny.
Except that it is. :p

Yes! Exactly. Too many people make snap decisions about the show. They see it as no more relevant than Jay Leno running through his nightly monologue. But if you sit and watch and listen, it's plain to see that the show is much more than a few topical jokes.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
05-10-2006, 22:42
exactly. If you want "fake" news, then look to something like the onion. The news stories are real. They are presented in a very clear and straightforward manner, on par with any other news group. Then, instead of bullshitting us, Steward makes a joke...usually, his jokes open up much more intelligent debate and considerations than the polls and graphs other news networks use.
Word to everything.
Which is why I secretely wish they wouldn't have that "Fake News" slogan in the first place. Or at least they'd ditch it. Because it's simply... wrong.

Yes! Exactly. Too many people make snap decisions about the show. They see it as no more relevant than Jay Leno running through his nightly monologue. But if you sit and watch and listen, it's plain to see that the show is much more than a few topical jokes.
Yeah, but what stymies me is that it's not exactly like you'd have to sit and watch and listen all that hard. I mean, it's right there.
Rhaomi
05-10-2006, 22:48
I secretely wish they wouldn't have that "Fake News" slogan in the first place. Or at least they'd ditch it. Because it's simply... wrong.
"The Most Important News Show... Ever" fit much better. Too bad they felt they had to ditch it after 9/11. Ah, well... his post-9/11 speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkuqoTseUPo) certainly made up for that loss.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
05-10-2006, 22:53
"The Most Important News Show... Ever" fit much better. Too bad they felt they had to ditch it after 9/11. Ah, well... his post-9/11 speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkuqoTseUPo) certainly made up for that loss.
Oh, I never knew that had been their slogan! I only know the Daily Show since, hm, sometime during the run-up to the 2004 election, which is when it started to be shown here on CNN International as a weekly half-hour compilation of segments of the week's shows.
But yeah, I saw that speech a few months ago after searching for it forever. Tough.
Daemonocracy
05-10-2006, 23:00
That's right. Indiana University recently did a study that will be published next summer in the Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media




Perhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources. I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.

The article (http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html)

The show is still a comedy show and the day they start taking themselves too seriously is the day they lose their audience. They have to poke fun and crack jokes in order to keep their audience and this often results in a very cynical message. Cynicism is fine, as long as it is not all you are exposed to.

College students should take their government and world affairs more seriously and getting their news through what is essentially a comedy show shows they lack this seriousness. Everything is just a big joke or so it would seem.
Sarkhaan
05-10-2006, 23:01
"The Most Important News Show... Ever" fit much better. Too bad they felt they had to ditch it after 9/11. Ah, well... his post-9/11 speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkuqoTseUPo) certainly made up for that loss.

I remember watching that speech when it first aired. I was watching the show because I was so sick of everything going on that I just really wanted to laugh about...well...anything. Honestly, I think that was one of the most important speeches of that month. I didn't even end up watching the episode...I just kinda sat there and thought about what he had said.

While every other reporter sat there showing the same images again and again and politely disassociated themselves from what had happened for the sake of the story, Stewart was blatantly honest with his viewers, as he always is.
MeansToAnEnd
05-10-2006, 23:09
The Daily Show is a formulaic fake news show in which lame jokes are cracked by Jon Stewart and various "journalists," the target of which is invariably Bush or another Republican. They are a disgrace to our country and decidedly unpatriotic. To call it "substantive" is blasphemy.

Edit: the "they" refers to Stewart and the journalists, not Bush and the Republicans.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
05-10-2006, 23:11
The show is still a comedy show and the day they start taking themselves too seriously is the day they lose their audience. They have to poke fun and crack jokes in order to keep their audience and this often results in a very cynical message. Cynicism is fine, as long as it is not all you are exposed to.
Except that the Daily Show isn't a "cynical, joke-cracking show".
The necessary cynicism of their news segments - how could (and should) those not be cynical, considering the content - is more than balanced by the writers', the correspondents', and most of all the host's palpable despair over how things are going and their almost naive longing for things to get better.

College students should take their government and world affairs more seriously and getting their news through what is essentially a comedy show shows they lack this seriousness. Everything is just a big joke or so it would seem.
Which makes me wonder if you have ever actually seen the show.
It is exactly not "a big joke", and analyzing the news with biting humor is decidely not the same as lacking seriousness.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
05-10-2006, 23:13
The Daily Show is a formulaic fake news show in which lame jokes are cracked by Jon Stewart and various "journalists," the target of which is invariably Bush or another Republican. They are a disgrace to our country and decidedly unpatriotic. To call it "substantive" is blasphemy.

Edit: the "they" refers to Stewart and the jounralists, not Bush and the Republicans.
Gotta love the edit. :rolleyes: :D
IL Ruffino
05-10-2006, 23:14
I'll stick with FOX, kthnxbai.
Desperate Measures
05-10-2006, 23:14
The Daily Show is a formulaic fake news show in which lame jokes are cracked by Jon Stewart and various "journalists," the target of which is invariably Bush or another Republican. They are a disgrace to our country and decidedly unpatriotic. To call it "substantive" is blasphemy.

Edit: the "they" refers to Stewart and the journalists, not Bush and the Republicans.

Let's elope, Tiger. The world can be our oyster.
Sarkhaan
05-10-2006, 23:15
The show is still a comedy show and the day they start taking themselves too seriously is the day they lose their audience. They have to poke fun and crack jokes in order to keep their audience and this often results in a very cynical message. Cynicism is fine, as long as it is not all you are exposed to.They have no doubt in their mind that they are a comedy show. I suggest watching Stewart on Crossfire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmZkw169xEI). He points out time and time again that he is a parody.

And what is the problem with being cynical, dark, sardonic, and subversive about what is going on? Mark Twain was very much so. In fact, most people who are critical of their government and the other stories on The Daily Show will be dark with their humor. It is incredibly difficult to crack light hearted jokes when you are running a story about a congressman who is molesting children.
College students should take their government and world affairs more seriously and getting their news through what is essentially a comedy show shows they lack this seriousness. Everything is just a big joke or so it would seem.Because we would rather laugh instead of be lied to? Because I would rather hear a joke instead of seeing statistics that have absolutly no value? There was a study that demonstrated that those who watch the Daily Show are more politically active than those who don't. The ones who are watching
College students who watch the satirical TV program, “The Daily Show,” are more skeptical and knowledgeable about politics and media, according to two East Carolina University political science professors.

Additionally, you ignore the fact that the article posted demonstrates that The Daily Show has as much actual news as network news. Perhaps you should go and read it again, as you seem to have missed the point of it

Again, The Daily Show does not claim to be a news show. Jon Stewart has no need to distance himself from the stories to report objectively, nor should he. Reporting objectively leads to the sense that we are being bullshitted. When there is a blatant contradiction or point of contention, he calls it forward. He is not a reporter. The viewers are not so stupid as to think he is...but the news stories he comments on are accurate news stories comprable to those on CNN and other news stations.

You can hardly judge how a very large demographic values politics and how seriously we take the world based on the fact that we watch a certain TV show.

Like I said, I would much rather have humor with my news instead of hype.
MeansToAnEnd
05-10-2006, 23:17
It is exactly not "a big joke", and analyzing the news with biting humor is decidely not the same as lacking seriousness.

Yes, their recent "law and order" segment on the police force 900 years ago was serious news analysis and definitely not just a big joke. I rarely watch it, but when I do, it's not news -- it's just propaganda without a leg to stand on in the world of facts. It's ficticious, slanderous, joke reporting.
Neo Undelia
05-10-2006, 23:17
The show is still a comedy show and the day they start taking themselves too seriously is the day they lose their audience. They have to poke fun and crack jokes in order to keep their audience and this often results in a very cynical message. Cynicism is fine, as long as it is not all you are exposed to.

College students should take their government and world affairs more seriously and getting their news through what is essentially a comedy show shows they lack this seriousness. Everything is just a big joke or so it would seem.

I pity someone who isn’t cynical toward their government.
MeansToAnEnd
05-10-2006, 23:18
Let's elope, Tiger. The world can be our oyster.

Let's frolic, gazelle. The sky can be a blue whale. Wtf? :confused:
Sarkhaan
05-10-2006, 23:20
The Daily Show is a formulaic fake news show in which lame jokes are cracked by Jon Stewart and various "journalists," the target of which is invariably Bush or another Republican. They are a disgrace to our country and decidedly unpatriotic. To call it "substantive" is blasphemy.

Edit: the "they" refers to Stewart and the journalists, not Bush and the Republicans.

"fake" news is the onion. The news stories on the daily show really happened. They are looked at differently, but you cannot deny that the stories are real.

Also, they make no claims to being reporters. Ever.

And there is still nothing unpatriotic about calling our president a dick or saying our country is going in the wrong direction.
Desperate Measures
05-10-2006, 23:21
The Daily Show says more about the sad state of our news organizations and I think that is Jon Stewarts point. He's basically saying its not all that hard to do better and to make it entertaining. Should a news organization crack jokes every five seconds? I'd rather they didn't but when flipping through the stations, I'll always pick Daily Show over any other news programming at that hour. And I'll get more out of it.
Rhaomi
05-10-2006, 23:24
There was a study that demonstrated that those who watch the Daily Show are more politically active than those who don't.
There was another study which showed that TDS viewers were more knowledgeable about current events than viewers of "real" news shows.

The Daily Show is a formulaic fake news show in which lame jokes are cracked by Jon Stewart and various "journalists,"
Lame jokes, really? Excuse me for a moment, I have some congestion...

*cough* Two Emmies *cough* Peabody Awards *cough* *cough* one of the most popular *cough* shows on television *cough*

Sorry about that.

the target of which is invariably Bush or another Republican.
Maybe it's because they do things deserving of ridicule? Besides, why would they make fun of the people who AREN'T in power?

They are a disgrace to our country and decidedly unpatriotic.
Jon Stewart and his crew are some of the most patriotic Americans I have ever seen. They don't merely spew platitudes like other politicians. They understand America's true values and mean what they say.

To call it "substantive" is blasphemy.
I find your choice of words amusing...

Edit: the "they" refers to Stewart and the journalists, not Bush and the Republicans.
:rolleyes:
WangWee
05-10-2006, 23:29
The fact this is considered "news" in america says alot about their media.
Llewdor
05-10-2006, 23:30
You've got to love TDS - I about fell out of my chair the other night when Pervez Musharraf was on. Great interview.
The Pervez Musharraf episode was excellent.

It was funny, but it was also quite informative. Musharraf was remarkably candid. Unfortunately, it did not deal with Musharraf's rise to power (military coup), which I think most Americans should hear, but overall I quite liked it.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
05-10-2006, 23:32
Let's elope, Tiger. The world can be our oyster.
I just might sig that little exchange. :p
Neo Undelia
05-10-2006, 23:33
Unfortunately, it did not deal with Musharraf's rise to power (military coup), which I think most Americans should hear, but overall I quite liked it.
Meh. He's doing better than the people he replaced.
Intestinal fluids
05-10-2006, 23:33
Jon Stewart was at his most brilliant with his diatribe on the Media use of the question mark. Yanni? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EKFE2jGmVI
Free Soviets
05-10-2006, 23:33
He's basically saying its not all that hard to do better and to make it entertaining.

don't even need to focus on entertaining. if the news just adopted the daily show's refusal to allow people to change their stories or lie without pointing it out, things would be much better.
German Nightmare
05-10-2006, 23:37
"The Most Important News Show... Ever" fit much better. Too bad they felt they had to ditch it after 9/11. Ah, well... his post-9/11 speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkuqoTseUPo) certainly made up for that loss.
Thanks for that link - I'd never seen it till now. :fluffle:
College students should take their government and world affairs more seriously and getting their news through what is essentially a comedy show shows they lack this seriousness. Everything is just a big joke or so it would seem.
I'd like to disagree. The Daily Show most definitely is not the only source for political news - I simply appreciate their take on it. Besides, if it makes The Daily Show, you've either heard about it from somewhere else, or (at least I will) am going to look into the matter elsewhere.
The Daily Show is a formulaic fake news show in which lame jokes are cracked by Jon Stewart and various "journalists," the target of which is invariably Bush or another Republican. They are a disgrace to our country and decidedly unpatriotic. To call it "substantive" is blasphemy.

Edit: the "they" refers to Stewart and the journalists, not Bush and the Republicans.
:rolleyes: The likes of Jon Stewart and a program like theirs is the pretty much the only thing that still gives me hope for the USA...

What your country needs is more of that kind of people, definitely not less!
Naturalog
05-10-2006, 23:47
The trend of people turning toward "The Daily Show" or other such shows as their source of news is distressing, because it is under no obligation to be honest. It is not unpatriotic and it is not propaganda (it parodies real news shows more than anything else) and it is incredibly funny. But if you look to it as your source of information about the world, your perception is going to be tainted.

The best source of news remains, I believe, newspapers, like the Washington Post or New York Times. Newspapers are not sensational as television and they remain, by and large, fair. NPR is another good source, not just for news but for analysis and interviews.
Nguyen The Equalizer
05-10-2006, 23:50
Let's frolic, gazelle. The sky can be a blue whale. Wtf? :confused:

The world called. It wants your experiences back.
Snakastan
06-10-2006, 00:08
The Daily Show is a formulaic fake news show in which lame jokes are cracked by Jon Stewart and various "journalists," the target of which is invariably Bush or another Republican. They are a disgrace to our country and decidedly unpatriotic. To call it "substantive" is blasphemy.

Edit: the "they" refers to Stewart and the journalists, not Bush and the Republicans.

Is there anything more patriotic than criticizing the people who are making the country worse than it once was? I think in reality it is you who is unpatriotic, since you clearly do no love what this country stands for and are completely willing to let the Republicans destroy it.
MeansToAnEnd
06-10-2006, 00:18
Is there anything more patriotic than criticizing the people who are making the country worse than it once was?

No, it is quite patriotic to do so. Unfortunately, The Daily Show does not criticize the Democrats nor does it cast the terrorists in a bad light -- it simply slanders the Republicans.
Sarkhaan
06-10-2006, 00:20
No, it is quite patriotic to do so. Unfortunately, The Daily Show does not criticize the Democrats nor does it cast the terrorists in a bad light -- it simply slanders the Republicans.

you admitted yourself that you rarely watch it. I've seen them criticize everyone and everything they present.

and "slandering" one side would still not be unpatriotic.
Desperate Measures
06-10-2006, 20:51
don't even need to focus on entertaining. if the news just adopted the daily show's refusal to allow people to change their stories or lie without pointing it out, things would be much better.

But thats where the Daily Show is most entertaining. I'm extremely entertained by actual questions that don't provide room for stock responses.
Desperate Measures
06-10-2006, 20:52
No, it is quite patriotic to do so. Unfortunately, The Daily Show does not criticize the Democrats nor does it cast the terrorists in a bad light -- it simply slanders the Republicans.

Jon Stewart does love him some terrorists.
Szanth
06-10-2006, 20:58
The Daily Show is a formulaic fake news show in which lame jokes are cracked by Jon Stewart and various "journalists," the target of which is invariably Bush or another Republican. They are a disgrace to our country and decidedly unpatriotic. To call it "substantive" is blasphemy.

Edit: the "they" refers to Stewart and the journalists, not Bush and the Republicans.

Oho. How predictable, the right-wing nutjob doesn't like The Daily Show. Not only that, but he whipped out the "unpatriotic" card! Silly child.
Khadgar
06-10-2006, 20:59
He's not a right wing nutjob, he's a troll.
Szanth
06-10-2006, 21:01
He's not a right wing nutjob, he's a troll.

He's a trolling right-wing nutjob. Little difference.
Desperate Measures
06-10-2006, 21:02
He's a trolling right-wing nutjob. Little difference.

He's probably left wing looking for some laughs or apolitical.
Iztatepopotla
06-10-2006, 21:02
No, it is quite patriotic to do so. Unfortunately, The Daily Show does not criticize the Democrats nor does it cast the terrorists in a bad light
Yes, they do.

-- it simply slanders the Republicans.
No, they don't.

It may seem that they're unfairly balanced towards Republicans, and sometimes they've exaggerated or twisted things to get a laugh (which is okay, because it's a comedy show), but that's because they mock the ridiculous, specially when it comes from power, and since the Republicans have more power right now and have been quite willing to provide fodder, well, the Daily Show just obliges.
Szanth
06-10-2006, 21:05
He's probably left wing looking for some laughs or apolitical.

*shrugs* Then he RP's as a right-wing nutjob troll. :p
MeansToAnEnd
06-10-2006, 21:24
Jon Stewart does love him some terrorists.

I never claimed that he loved them. However, he certainly does not display his hate of them, if he does even hate them. After all, he may be yet another of those America-hating, terrorist-loving liberals that are all too common these days (I'm not saying that all libelars conform to the ideas of those extremist liberals, however). Oh, and I am most decidedly not left-wing.
Desperate Measures
06-10-2006, 21:28
I never claimed that he loved them. However, he certainly does not display his hate of them, if he does even hate them. After all, he may be yet another of those America-hating, terrorist-loving liberals that are all too common these days (I'm not saying that all libelars conform to the ideas of those extremist liberals, however). Oh, and I am most decidedly not left-wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4XShsS8q5Y
Ashmoria
06-10-2006, 21:36
I never claimed that he loved them. However, he certainly does not display his hate of them, if he does even hate them. After all, he may be yet another of those America-hating, terrorist-loving liberals that are all too common these days (I'm not saying that all libelars conform to the ideas of those extremist liberals, however). Oh, and I am most decidedly not left-wing.

he displays his hate of terrorists on a regular basis. he says bad things about them, he mocks them frequently.

he made fun of hugo chavez on his recent trip to the UN. he mocked harry belafonte for going to venezuela and dissing bush. he laughed when dennis miller made fun of danny glover hanging out with hugo chavez.

jon stewart makes fun of anyone who needs making fun of. he has no problem making democrats look like idiots. he has no problem making republicans look like idiots.

if you dont want to watch the show, thats your right but where do you get off making things up about the show and its host?
Szanth
06-10-2006, 21:47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4XShsS8q5Y

I think his speech was better than any other speech on 9/11.
Shasoria
06-10-2006, 22:05
The Daily Show is news, but you have to be smart enough to know that before you tune in. It doesn't offer just cynicism. It's not a Democratic sounding board. It's a legitimate program that brings things to your attention as a viewer. Yes, they do it through jokes. But what difference is there between that and getting your point of view through media anchors who instead use tactics like fear or hype as someone else in this thread stated?

You cannot tune into the Daily Show and expect your news to be given to you on a platter. You've got to go in with an inquisitive mind that wants to know about the things going on in the world, and you've got to be ready to make your mind up about it.

How is that any different between that and the rest of the media? Do you think programs like Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs - do you think any of these shows expect you to do the thinking?

If elements like humour, or hype, or fear destroy the media, then our media is already destroyed. The truth is, the Daily Show is not the worst of offenders. It may not be wholely objective, but it is informative on the state of the world, just as much if not more than the other mainstream media outlets.

Humor doesn't destroy the facts. If anything, I'd rather get my news with humor, because that is far less distortive than fear. It gives you breathing room to do the thinking.
New Domici
06-10-2006, 22:12
I honestly think that those who say it's horrible have never watched The Daily Show in their lives. It's so obviously not "Fake News". It dissects pertinent questions and points out inconsistencies so much more accurately and poignantly than other "real news" sources, it's not even funny.
Except that it is. :p

Reminds me of the Terry Pratchett bit on the nature of "real" money.

"Is it real?"

"Depends on what you mean by 'real.' It isn't a Morporkian Gold Crown."

"I knew it. I'll kill him."

"You misunderstand. Our gold coins are mixed with so many other metals that there's only about 10% left in them. This is pure gold."

People who call it fake news have a point. Of sorts. It's not like real news shows, in that real news shows are pretty bad at what they claim to do. TDS both does the job that other news outlets are supposed to do, and reports on the fact that other news outlets aren't doing their jobs. Personally I'd love to see the opening monologue expanded to a half hour segment.

I wonder if PBS would get any more donations of some of the TDS writers started doing a weekly news show for them that was just the news without their TV magazine spoof segments.
MeansToAnEnd
06-10-2006, 22:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4XShsS8q5Y

I didn't hear him mentioning that what the terrorists did was wrong. He didn't even do that much -- he just cracked jokes like he always does while planning various ways we could surrender to the terrorists.
Shasoria
06-10-2006, 22:17
I didn't hear him mentioning that what the terrorists did was wrong. He didn't even do that much -- he just cracked jokes like he always does while planning various ways we could surrender to the terrorists.
Maybe because repeating what everyone has already said doesn't accomplish much. Maybe because rather than try to light the fire underneath everyone, he instead touched the nation's hearts, because with all the speeches that week, someone had to at least try.
New Domici
06-10-2006, 22:27
I think his speech was better than any other speech on 9/11.

Wow! My daughter thought so too. As soon as it started, she stopped playing, walked over to me, crawled into my lap, and watched the whole thing.

That might not sound impressive. But she's 15 moths old! She loves the Daily Show, I had thought, because it's full of clapping and laughing. But that video was as unfunny as you can get and she sat and watched and listened to the whole thing! Both videos. A 15 month old sat still and was mezmerized by an 8 minute speech that she didn't understand a single word of.

And what really impresses me about her. When GWB is on TV, she yells at the screen. Not actual words, because the only words she knows are "light" "ball" "kitty" and the pet names of her parents and grandparents. She just stands there posturing at the TV yelling "BA! BA! AAAOOOUUUUU!!!"

I've said it before. If you're even a little bit nice, it doesn't matter how ignorant you are. You can still tell that Dubya is a horrible person. Apparently, you can also tell that Jon Stewart is a really good one.
New Domici
06-10-2006, 22:28
I didn't hear him mentioning that what the terrorists did was wrong. He didn't even do that much -- he just cracked jokes like he always does while planning various ways we could surrender to the terrorists.

That's because the sound is muffled by your asscheeks againt your ears.
Lunatic Goofballs
06-10-2006, 22:32
That's because the sound is muffled by your asscheeks againt your ears.

You are the sunshine of my life. :)
New Domici
06-10-2006, 22:32
Humor doesn't destroy the facts. If anything, I'd rather get my news with humor, because that is far less distortive than fear. It gives you breathing room to do the thinking.

I read somewhere that in parts of medieval europe the jester was the only one allowed to mock the king. That's why the scene in hamlet where the Jester Yorik is found to be dead is such a horrible scene. Only the worst of villains would attack the Jester. You know, like canceling Bill Maher.

Even Medieval autocrats new that someone had to be allowed to tell him he was doing a bad job. And ideally, that guy should be funny.
Rhaomi
06-10-2006, 22:35
I didn't hear him mentioning that what the terrorists did was wrong. He didn't even do that much -- he just cracked jokes like he always does while planning various ways we could surrender to the terrorists.

Did you even watch the video?

You know, all this talk about "these guys are criminal masterminds, they’ve gotten together their extraordinary guile and their wit and their skill…” It's… it’s… it’s a lie. Any fool can blow something up. Any fool can destroy. But to see these guys, these firefighters, these policemen, and people from all over the country, literally, with buckets… rebuilding… that’s extraordinary. And that's why we’ve already won! They can't… it’s light! It's democracy! It’s … we’ve already won! They can't… shut that down.

They live in chaos. And chaos, it can't sustain itself – it never could. It's too easy and it's too unsatisfying.

The view… from my apartment… was the World Trade Center. And now it's gone. And they attacked it. This… symbol, of American ingenuity and strength and labor and imagination and commerce and it is gone. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty.

You can’t beat that.

What part of that is cracking jokes? What part of that is surrendering to terrorism? I'd love to here your reasoning on this.
Desperate Measures
06-10-2006, 22:38
I didn't hear him mentioning that what the terrorists did was wrong. He didn't even do that much -- he just cracked jokes like he always does while planning various ways we could surrender to the terrorists.

You really are a funny man. Kiss me.
New Domici
06-10-2006, 23:51
I never claimed that he loved them. However, he certainly does not display his hate of them, if he does even hate them. After all, he may be yet another of those America-hating, terrorist-loving liberals that are all too common these days (I'm not saying that all libelars conform to the ideas of those extremist liberals, however). Oh, and I am most decidedly not left-wing.

Common? I suppose, but I'm having trouble finding them because right now there's this massinve influx of virgin fairy princesses, and the unicorn infestations that that's causing is just making it impossible to get around anywhere. But as soon as the goblin get's here with that pizza I ordered I'm going to ask him if he saw any terrorist loving liberals on the way. He gets around a lot. So I'm sure if anyone's seen them, he has, since he travels by Pegasus.
Darknovae
07-10-2006, 00:39
That's right. Indiana University recently did a study that will be published next summer in the Journal of Broadcast and Electronic MediaPerhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources. I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.

The article (http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html)


I love TDS. I can actually pay attention to it. My parents watch MSNBC, Faux, and CNN but I can't pay attention to it because they drone on and on about 9/11 and bird flu ALL THE EFFING TIME, so that I have to resort to the little scroll thingy at the bottom of the screen. TDS keeps me alert. It's far better to have humor, than senseless hype. *nods*

Stewart for prez 2012 (because that's the year I can vote for him! :p)
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 01:18
You really are a funny man. Kiss me.

Stay away from me you sick, twisted freak.

What part of that is cracking jokes? What part of that is surrendering to terrorism? I'd love to here your reasoning on this.

You can't expect him to be cracking jokes every second about how the WTC towers fell down -- get real. However, the event was completely unamusing, and his gall to actually laugh about it appalls me. I don't see the victims laughing, nor their families. He can't keep a straight face even when 3000 Americans died at the hands of ruthless, fanatic, evil terrorists. I also did not claim that he was talking about surrendering to terrorism. You are putting words in my mouth, there.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 01:21
I've said it before. If you're even a little bit nice, it doesn't matter how ignorant you are. You can still tell that Dubya is a horrible person. Apparently, you can also tell that Jon Stewart is a really good one.

I'm sure your daughter is very smart for her age and all that, but seriously! She's barely a year old -- she doesn't know the first thing about George Bush, Jon Stewart, politics, and only knows a few words in the English language. I base my judgments on more substantial criteria. Due to Bush's honesty, hard-working nature, and belief in his ideals, I can tell he is a much better person that Jon Stewart who makes fun of this country's leadership day in and day out.
Sarkhaan
07-10-2006, 01:31
You can't expect him to be cracking jokes every second about how the WTC towers fell down -- get real. However, the event was completely unamusing, and his gall to actually laugh about it appalls me. I don't see the victims laughing, nor their families. He can't keep a straight face even when 3000 Americans died at the hands of ruthless, fanatic, evil terrorists. I also did not claim that he was talking about surrendering to terrorism. You are putting words in my mouth, there.
oh really?
I didn't hear him mentioning that what the terrorists did was wrong. He didn't even do that much -- he just cracked jokes like he always does while planning various ways we could surrender to the terrorists.
weird...looks like you put the words in your own mouth.

I also point out, yet again, that you admit you don't watch the show, and therefore, you are talking out of your ass (not including the 9/11 speech that was linked)

I would also point out that episode didn't air on 9/11. It was in response to 9/11, but TV was all still off air. They were one of the last to go on, and did no new segments...they instead did a clip show. That speech was the only new thing recorded that night.
And he never once, not a single time, laughed about the events of 9/11. He mocked his own reaction, yes. but incase you missed it, he also started to cry while discussing the view from his apartment and the south of manhattan.
Daemonocracy
07-10-2006, 01:31
I've said it before. If you're even a little bit nice, it doesn't matter how ignorant you are. You can still tell that Dubya is a horrible person. Apparently, you can also tell that Jon Stewart is a really good one.

Jon Stewart falls in line with your politics, so he is a good person. George W Bush does not fit your politics, so he is a horrible person.

gotcha.

something tells me you would disown your daughter if she became a Bush conservative. Then again, she might not ever "come out" to you for fear of this happening.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 01:55
weird...looks like you put the words in your own mouth.

You appear to be unable to differentiate between planning something and broadcasting something to millions of people. For example, Brutus planned to kill Caesar. He did not, however, give a speech about how he was going to kill Caesar in front of a large audience. The same applies to Jon Stewart.

you are talking out of your ass (not including the 9/11 speech that was linked)

Have you ever tried emitting something other than a fart and poop from your ass? I think I should be commended on my skill of talking out of various body orifices.

he also started to cry

Aww...did little Jon Stewart have a good cry? Poor baby. :(
New Domici
07-10-2006, 01:59
I'm sure your daughter is very smart for her age and all that, but seriously! She's barely a year old -- she doesn't know the first thing about George Bush, Jon Stewart, politics, and only knows a few words in the English language. I base my judgments on more substantial criteria. Due to Bush's honesty, hard-working nature, and belief in his ideals, I can tell he is a much better person that Jon Stewart who makes fun of this country's leadership day in and day out.

That's why I said that it doesn't matter how ignorant you are. She's 15 months old and is completly 100% ignorant of politics. But she's a sweet and affectionate kid. That's why I said "no matter how ignorant you are about politics..."

You can't be more ignorant about politics than my daughter unless you possess FOX news Anti-information ('facts' that aren't true).

My point was that ignorance alone does not explain being pro-Bush. One must be ignorant and evil. Bush appeals to the hatefulness and fear in people, and so those who are particularly hateful or cowardly will convince themselves that Bush is a good person and president even when it's soooooo obvious that he's evil that litearally, even a baby can see it. She probably can't tell that he's a bad president, but she can tell he's a bad person.

Just take a look at what you've had to use to convicne yourself of the opposite of the truth. Dubya lies constantly. But he appeals to your hateful cowardly nature, so you pretend otherwise. Having already sided with Bush, you dismiss the more virtuous Jon Stewart as his enemy. Because you are so blinded by your own character flaws you are literally less aware of the state of the world than a baby. Specifically my baby, but probably many others.

This is the stuff of tragedy since the dawn of storytelling. Dark characters like you side with dark characters like Bush, but cast aside light ones like Stewart and lead yourselves to your own destruction, but take the rest of us down with you. That's why the villain of Othello, Iago, was not the one to kill the heroine. Othello sided with the dark character and destroyed the light one. You're the Othello of your own little tragedy. Dubya is Iago, and America is Desdemona.
Darknovae
07-10-2006, 02:00
Aww...did little Jon Stewart have a good cry? Poor baby. :(

He's not he only one. Only famous person, perhaps. But quite a few people DID cry after that. :rolleyes:

Come back to this thread when you have a higher IQ than that of a shovel.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 02:02
Dubya is Iago, and America is Desdemona.

And this conclusion is based on a 15-month-old (albeit an intelligent 15-month-old) throwing a tantrum? Give me a break.
Darknovae
07-10-2006, 02:09
And this conclusion is based on a 15-month-old (albeit an intelligent 15-month-old) throwing a tantrum? Give me a break.

Apparently that 15 month old is smarter than you.
New Domici
07-10-2006, 02:11
Jon Stewart falls in line with your politics, so he is a good person. George W Bush does not fit your politics, so he is a horrible person.

gotcha.

something tells me you would disown your daughter if she became a Bush because he kconservative. Then again, she might not ever "come out" to you for fear of this happening.

No. Bush is a horrible person because he champions policies that kill thousands of people. He can't convince people that it is right that he do so by being honest, so he has to lie about it. Every argument he puts forward for having started the Iraq war has turned out to be a lie. Why? Because it was wrong to do it. That's why he's a horrible person.

Everything Bush does, he lies about it. Because he is doing the wrong thing, and he knows that if he were honest about it, we would stop him. So he lies about it to get us to do what he knows is wrong. That's why he's a horrible person.

I disagree with Penn Gillette's politics. But he's honest about them. So I think he's a decent person. If he were to run for office and find that he met too much opposition in having his policies implemented and used deceptive and coercive means to implement them, to disasterous ends, and then pretended that it all worked out fine, then I'd think he was a horrible person too.

What I like about Jon Stewart is that he's honest. He will criticize liberals that I agree with every chance he gets, but there's just soooo much criticism to level at the Republicans that he doesn't even have time to cover it all. Stewart doesn't argue a political agenda. He just points out the stuff that the politicians say that is wrong, decietful, or retarded, and makes fun of them for it. It's not his politics that I like, it's his integrity. There aren't any conservative comedians who are able to do the same for conservative politics because in order to defend conservative politics you have to lie. Show me one Bush defender who doesn't lie to defend him (or simply argue the evil side of things like MeansToAnEnd or Rush Limbaugh) and I'll recant.

You ain't got jack, Jack!

What tells you that I'd disown her is your own intolerance. This is what happens when conservatives try to put themselves in the shoes of another. Their cloven hoves end up distorting the shape of those shoes, so that they're not really the same shoes anymore. You think that if your child were to become a liberal that you'd disown her, so in my place you think I'd do the same. It's like how Conservatives are defending Foley by saying that the Democrats only released this information for political purposes. If they were in the Dems shoes they would only allow this information out if it suited their political purposes, just like they tried to hide it to secure their political positions, even if it meant allowing a sexual predator to ply his compulsion.
Sarkhaan
07-10-2006, 02:12
You appear to be unable to differentiate between planning something and broadcasting something to millions of people. For example, Brutus planned to kill Caesar. He did not, however, give a speech about how he was going to kill Caesar in front of a large audience. The same applies to Jon Stewart.the implications are the same.



Have you ever tried emitting something other than a fart and poop from your ass? I think I should be commended on my skill of talking out of various body orifices.
Metaphor, N. 1. A figure of speech in which a name or descriptive word or phrase is transferred to an object or action different from, but analogous to, that to which it is literally applicable; an instance of this, a metaphorical expression. Cf.
Learn it. Use it. Love it.



Aww...did little Jon Stewart have a good cry? Poor baby. :(Yes. Ignore the point. This will help with people calling you a troll. You said that he laughed about 9/11. He didn't laugh: he cried.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 02:32
the implications are the same.

Yes. However, I did not contradict myself as you claimed.

Learn it. Use it. Love it.

Ditto. Sarcasm. Learn it. Love it. Employ it.

He didn't laugh: he cried.

And as we all know, laughing and crying are mutually exclusive. The fact is that he did laugh -- numerous times -- prior to weeping on camera.
Minaris
07-10-2006, 02:39
And as we all know, laughing and crying are mutually exclusive. The fact is that he did laugh -- numerous times -- prior to weeping on camera.

In many cases, laughing is a way to cope with things that make you nervous, anxious, depressed, etc. to a really extreme point. So, by laughing, he was preserving his sanity.

So there. Beaten by psychology.

OH! OH!
United Chicken Kleptos
07-10-2006, 02:41
And as we all know, laughing and crying are mutually exclusive. The fact is that he did laugh -- numerous times -- prior to weeping on camera.

...Are you stupid? The Daily Show, as I understand, is aired live.

Even so, how would you know this?
United Chicken Kleptos
07-10-2006, 02:43
In many cases, laughing is a way to cope with things that make you nervous, anxious, depressed, etc. to a really extreme point. So, by laughing, he was preserving his sanity.

So there. Beaten by psychology.

OH! OH!

I love you.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 02:43
...Are you stupid? The Daily Show, as I understand, is aired live.

Even so, how would you know this?

No, I mean that he made a number of jokes, at which he laughed, prior to growing somber and crying.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 02:45
In many cases, laughing is a way to cope with things that make you nervous, anxious, depressed, etc. to a really extreme point. So, by laughing, he was preserving his sanity.

Well, that certainly looks logically watertight. Jon Stewart is just another one of those liberals that is a stone's throw from full-blown insanity and only by chaotic, pointless laughter is he able to hold on to a tenuous connection with sanity.
Minaris
07-10-2006, 02:46
Well, that certainly looks logically watertight. Jon Stewart is just another one of those liberals that is a stone's throw from full-blown insanity and only by chaotic, pointless laughter is he able to hold on to a tenuous connection with sanity.

9/11 was a tragedy that tested all... so don't be a troll.
Gravlen
07-10-2006, 02:49
I didn't hear him mentioning that what the terrorists did was wrong. He didn't even do that much -- he just cracked jokes like he always does while planning various ways we could surrender to the terrorists.
:rolleyes: Yeah - I'm sure that's what he was planning.
I'm equally sure you're an inebriated cumquat :)

That's because the sound is muffled by your asscheeks againt your ears.
:D :fluffle:
New Domici
07-10-2006, 02:51
Aww...did little Jon Stewart have a good cry? Poor baby. :(

You know, I've been reading a very interesting book recently about the nature of story telling and how it is a construct of our subconsious understanding of good and evil, masculinity and femininity, and childishness and maturity.

It broke characters down along lines of how light or dark the were and how masculine and feminine they were.

Light masculine - Courage, honor, strength to scare off or defeat rivals
Dark masculine - Rage, stubborness, strength used to take from others
Light feminine - Shows understanding, gives comfort, provides clarity
Dark feminine - Manipulative, gives messages of fear, decietful

A character like Iago from Othello or Wormtounge from Lord of the Rings has no masculinity, but also has no femininity, so they have to do their evil with trickery.

A character like Darth Vader has masculinity to burn, but has no empathy. He is on the Dark Side, like Dick Cheney has admitted to being (seriously. he said it). They leave themselves open to all sorts of manipulation because they lack understanding or knowledge gained form it.

A big theme with these characters is that they can't understand qualities that they don't have. Like Captain Ahab who describes the Moby Dick as a horrible monster, but Ishmael sees it as beautiful. It's a symbol for life, but Ahab lacks life-giving femininity. The villain from the movie Ravenous lacks masculinity, so he doesn't understand courage. "It's not courage to resist, it's courage to give in," he says. And Ravenous is so overt about its symbolism that they don't even try to disguise it as anything other than a rebuke of a lack of masculinity. But even in that movie, the closest thing there is to a hero is the guy who retains a feminine sense of compassion for others and ends up killing all 3 cannibals.

This is the problem with Conservatives. Particularly Neo-cons. They are cheuvanists who believe that the more feminine, the less masculine. And since they lack masculine courage, or feminine empathy, they don't know how to spot and correctly identify either one. So they are happy to see Dubya saying stupid and simplistic stuff. They take his lack of understanding to be evidence of his strength. They don't see Kerry's masculinity despite his being a decorated war hero who played football in college back when they wore leather helmets. If he demonstrates any sort of complexity or understanding, then they take it to mean he's a "sissy." They don't see how that's any more manly than a draft dodging college cheerleader. They think that indiscriminate murder is the same as necessary war. They think that useless token security measures that are a huge inconvenience are as good as useful ones, and even better than useful ones that aren't an inconvenience.
New Domici
07-10-2006, 02:51
To clarify my previous post for those who don't want to read the whole thing.

Baisicly, the problem with conservatives is they lack balls and heart. And they only identify the absence of one by the presence of the other.
New Domici
07-10-2006, 02:54
Well, that certainly looks logically watertight. Jon Stewart is just another one of those liberals that is a stone's throw from full-blown insanity and only by chaotic, pointless laughter is he able to hold on to a tenuous connection with sanity.

No. He's one of those mature adults that gets upset at things like the deaths of thousands of innocents and in order to forestall a brief emotional outburst takes control of his moods.

The difference between the liberal you describe and the conservative you are, is that he's actually able to keep insanity away by throwing a few metaphorical stones. Conservatives have been hallucinating since 9/11 happened, and haven't shown any signs of lucidity since.

Also, see my above post about how lacking the capacity to feel and to mourn the suffering of others does not make you more of a man, it just makes you less of a human.
New Domici
07-10-2006, 02:57
...Are you stupid? The Daily Show, as I understand, is aired live.

Even so, how would you know this?

No. It's filmed at 4 or 5 in the afternoon and aired several hours later.

That's why on election nights, or the nights of big speeches that the president makes at 8:00 EST they will joke about how they've watched the speech and will comment on it tomorrow. Well, they'll say that, and the audience will laugh, because to the audience it's the afternoon, and they know that he's speaking for the benifit of the 11:00 viewers.

It's also why Stewart said "we can edit that out."
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 03:00
:rolleyes: Yeah - I'm sure that's what he was planning.
I'm equally sure you're an inebriated cumquat :)

You don't think I'm an inebriated cumquat? Well, thanks! :)
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 03:01
Also, see my above post about how lacking the capacity to feel and to mourn the suffering of others does not make you more of a man, it just makes you less of a human.

I'll try to respond to that post, but it's pretty long and I don't have enough time today.
United Chicken Kleptos
07-10-2006, 03:03
No. It's filmed at 4 or 5 in the afternoon and aired several hours later.

That's why on election nights, or the nights of big speeches that the president makes at 8:00 EST they will joke about how they've watched the speech and will comment on it tomorrow. Well, they'll say that, and the audience will laugh, because to the audience it's the afternoon, and they know that he's speaking for the benifit of the 11:00 viewers.

It's also why Stewart said "we can edit that out."

Ohh, sorry about that. I always thought it was aired live.
Kyronea
07-10-2006, 03:13
In many cases, laughing is a way to cope with things that make you nervous, anxious, depressed, etc. to a really extreme point. So, by laughing, he was preserving his sanity.

So there. Beaten by psychology.

OH! OH!

No WONDER all I can do is laugh whenever someone is approaching me with that "I'll fuckin' kill you!" gleam in their eye.

The Daily Show is hilarious and fun. MeansToAnEnd doesn't know what the word fun means, though. No sense of humor at all.
Gravlen
07-10-2006, 03:15
You don't think I'm an inebriated cumquat? Well, thanks! :)

See? You got it! :D
Kyronea
07-10-2006, 03:22
No. He's one of those mature adults that gets upset at things like the deaths of thousands of innocents and in order to forestall a brief emotional outburst takes control of his moods.

The difference between the liberal you describe and the conservative you are, is that he's actually able to keep insanity away by throwing a few metaphorical stones. Conservatives have been hallucinating since 9/11 happened, and haven't shown any signs of lucidity since.

Also, see my above post about how lacking the capacity to feel and to mourn the suffering of others does not make you more of a man, it just makes you less of a human.

New Domici, your insight into various posters and topics of discussion are amazingly educational.

...would you like to go out to dinner sometime? ;)
Cyrian space
07-10-2006, 03:23
You appear to be unable to differentiate between planning something and broadcasting something to millions of people. For example, Brutus planned to kill Caesar. He did not, however, give a speech about how he was going to kill Caesar in front of a large audience. The same applies to Jon Stewart.



Have you ever tried emitting something other than a fart and poop from your ass? I think I should be commended on my skill of talking out of various body orifices.



Aww...did little Jon Stewart have a good cry? Poor baby. :(
What were you doing on 9/11? Masturbating to the idea of eating middle eastern babies? You can't critisize a man for fucking crying on 9/11.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 03:31
What were you doing on 9/11? Masturbating to the idea of eating middle eastern babies? You can't critisize a man for fucking crying on 9/11.

I do not like the bigotry that is apparent in your post. 9/11 was an extremely traumatic event, and to make such insinuations as you did is disgusting and appalling. And as a nation, we have to show strength to get through these hard times -- other news anchors didn't break down and crime. I can and will criticize Johnny boy for crying.
United Chicken Kleptos
07-10-2006, 03:35
I do not like the bigotry that is apparent in your post. 9/11 was an extremely traumatic event, and to make such insinuations as you did is disgusting and appalling. And as a nation, we have to show strength to get through these hard times -- other news anchors didn't break down and crime. I can and will criticize Johnny boy for crying.

If you want to insult Jon, at least spell his name right.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 03:37
Also, see my above post about how lacking the capacity to feel and to mourn the suffering of others does not make you more of a man, it just makes you less of a human.

For now, I'll just say that conservatives are certainly not lacking in the ability to mourn the suffering of others -- we were very active in supporting the victims of 9/11 and we did grieve over them. I don't see how you can stand there and accuse us of lacking compassion. Aid for New York came from all over the country, we sponsored grass-roots fundraisers, and we always kept the victims in our hearts. Liberals, on the other hand, lack the capacity to see past suffering; once they come to a period of suffering in a line of thought, they automatically discard that line of thought. That's why they are against torture, against the war in Iraq, etc. The capacity to analyse objectively is a very human attribute, despite what you say.
Kyronea
07-10-2006, 03:37
I do not like the bigotry that is apparent in your post. 9/11 was an extremely traumatic event, and to make such insinuations as you did is disgusting and appalling. And as a nation, we have to show strength to get through these hard times -- other news anchors didn't break down and crime. I can and will criticize Johnny boy for crying.

Thus proving your lack of humanity. 9/11 was, as you said, an extremely traumatic event. John was being HUMAN when he cried, whereas you seem to have no humanity at all.

By the way, when Sheriff Fred Wegener--the sheriff who lead the response to Duane Morrison's invasion of Platte Canyon High School--had his press conference about his decision to break in and take Morrison down--in the process, Emily Keyes was shot by Morrison while trying to escape--he was crying as well, because he knows everyone in the community and has lived in it for over thirty-five years. He's supposed to be a "bastion of strength" as a police officer. Would you criticize him, too?
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 03:38
If you want to insult Jon, at least spell his name right.

I didn't call him by his name -- I said Johnny boy. I am aware of the way in which his name is spelled. However, I found it improper to say "Jonny."
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 03:39
Would you criticize him, too?

No.
Cyrian space
07-10-2006, 03:49
I do not like the bigotry that is apparent in your post. 9/11 was an extremely traumatic event, and to make such insinuations as you did is disgusting and appalling. And as a nation, we have to show strength to get through these hard times -- other news anchors didn't break down and crime. I can and will criticize Johnny boy for crying.

You can and will be a heartless jackass. Lots of people broke down after 9/11. The world trade center was something Stewart could see from his apartment. It being gone obviously had an impact on him. You apparently seeing that as a sissy thing to do just shows your lack of humanity. I'm not even saying conservatives are uncompassionate, just you. If I honestly considered you a human being, I would be ashamed to be one myself.

It's become rather obvious that it's not that torture is affective that makes you support it, it's that the idea of torture is something you personally enjoy. That along with your near worship of the president, your love of the idea of monitoring everyone, and your complete lack of thought, makes it pointless to try and argue against you. You don't argue, you spout bullshit, and then spout more bullshit to back it up, and none of it is ever even vaguely relevant.
Kyronea
07-10-2006, 03:56
No.

Somehow, I doubt it. I thoroughly suspect you would have mocked--nay, LAUGHED--at him, judging by what you've shown thus far.

But then, your tendency to spout bullshit has been well-documented by this forum. I'm starting to think we should just all completely ignore you. Maybe you'll finally leave us alone.
United Chicken Kleptos
07-10-2006, 03:56
You can and will be a heartless jackass. Lots of people broke down after 9/11. The world trade center was something Stewart could see from his apartment. It being gone obviously had an impact on him. You apparently seeing that as a sissy thing to do just shows your lack of humanity. I'm not even saying conservatives are uncompassionate, just you. If I honestly considered you a human being, I would be ashamed to be one myself.

It's become rather obvious that it's not that torture is affective that makes you support it, it's that the idea of torture is something you personally enjoy. That along with your near worship of the president, your love of the idea of monitoring everyone, and your complete lack of thought, makes it pointless to try and argue against you. You don't argue, you spout bullshit, and then spout more bullshit to back it up, and none of it is ever even vaguely relevant.

And now for something completely different. A man with a tape recorder up his nose.
Rhaomi
07-10-2006, 04:17
You can't expect him to be cracking jokes every second about how the WTC towers fell down -- get real. However, the event was completely unamusing, and his gall to actually laugh about it appalls me. I don't see the victims laughing, nor their families. He can't keep a straight face even when 3000 Americans died at the hands of ruthless, fanatic, evil terrorists.

Aww...did little Jon Stewart have a good cry? Poor baby. :(

9/11 was an extremely traumatic event, and to make such insinuations as you did is disgusting and appalling. And as a nation, we have to show strength to get through these hard times -- other news anchors didn't break down and crime. I can and will criticize Johnny boy for crying.

By the way, when Sheriff Fred Wegener--the sheriff who lead the response to Duane Morrison's invasion of Platte Canyon High School--had his press conference about his decision to break in and take Morrison down--in the process, Emily Keyes was shot by Morrison while trying to escape--he was crying as well, because he knows everyone in the community and has lived in it for over thirty-five years. He's supposed to be a "bastion of strength" as a police officer. Would you criticize him, too?

No.

MeansToAnEnd: master of the art of doublethink. :rolleyes:
New Domici
07-10-2006, 06:08
For now, I'll just say that conservatives are certainly not lacking in the ability to mourn the suffering of others -- we were very active in supporting the victims of 9/11 and we did grieve over them. I don't see how you can stand there and accuse us of lacking compassion. Aid for New York came from all over the country, we sponsored grass-roots fundraisers, and we always kept the victims in our hearts. Liberals, on the other hand, lack the capacity to see past suffering; once they come to a period of suffering in a line of thought, they automatically discard that line of thought. That's why they are against torture, against the war in Iraq, etc. The capacity to analyse objectively is a very human attribute, despite what you say.

Ah, but that's the thing isn't it? You aren't analysing objectively.

It isn't the virtue of masculine strength that enables torture, and because you lack it, you don't see that. It's the absence of empathy and the presence of fear. This is exactly what I was trying to explain about how if you don't have these virtues, you don't recognize them and why the presence of a feminine virtue is not the same as the presence of a masculine flaw.

You see there's the masculine virtue of defending what one loves which does indeed ask if violence against specific people might be necessary. But there's the other one of intillectual analysis that asks what the results might be.

There's the feminine virtues of compassion and empathy encourage one to stop and think about it, and provide the means for determining likely results.

There's also the dark masculine trait of anger that encourages torture, regardless of the results and the dark one of cowardice that weighs possible negative results to one's self. If the prisoner to be tortured is helpless, then cowardice is useless for bringing about prudence.

And there's the dark feminine traits of self-deciet, confusion, and insecurity which encourage brutality and aggression in the dark masculine to show that dark feminine that the world is a place that it controls.

It is because you lack the masculine capacity to conquer your fear of terrorists (that the Bush administration keeps imparting to you) that you are so incapable of standing up to the dark feminine cajoling of "you want to let the terrorists win? don't you love america?" and other deciets.

If you had the masculine virtues of courage and self reliance as well as the feminine ones of empathy and clarity you would understand that there is no good result that comes from torture. We don't get good intelligence, we don't discourage terrorism, we don't make the country safer.

Conservative politicians constantly use dark feminine manipulation, deciet, and confusion to convince you that you must sacrifice one thing to gain another, and in the end they leave you with neither.

They convince you to give up civil rights to gain security, but give you only token security, but won't secure our ports. Why can Hong Kong scan all incoming crates for nuclear material, but we can't?
New Domici
07-10-2006, 06:08
And now for something completely different. A man with a tape recorder up his nose.

Lemon Curry?
Sarkhaan
07-10-2006, 06:30
Yes. However, I did not contradict myself as you claimed.You admit that the implication is the same. Ergo, there is a contradiction.

And as we all know, laughing and crying are mutually exclusive. The fact is that he did laugh -- numerous times -- prior to weeping on camera.Take a picture of a person laughing hysterically. Then take a picture of a person crying hysterically. Show the pictures to random people. You cannot tell the difference.
Crying and laughing are both releases of emotion. Yes, he did laugh. Never ONCE about the actual events of 9/11. He made a joke about himself, and laughed. It was a time when the nation needed to smile, even if only for a second.
And yet, when he was recalling the events, he not only cried...he cried to the point where he couldn't speak. Did he make a joke? Yes. And it was against himself. And the fact that it was not edited out shows his, as well as the production staffs, dedication to remaining emotionally honest about the entire situation
It's also why Stewart said "we can edit that out."Honestly, I think that was one of the best parts. He was completely honest, and didn't edit it to make it seem more "real". It was real enough as is

I do not like the bigotry that is apparent in your post. 9/11 was an extremely traumatic event, and to make such insinuations as you did is disgusting and appalling. And as a nation, we have to show strength to get through these hard times -- other news anchors didn't break down and crime. I can and will criticize Johnny boy for crying.He isn't a news anchor. And yes, others did cry. Others did show emotion.
You can criticize him...but you look like an idiot. You say it is inappropriate to not react. Then you say his laughing is inappropriate. Then you say his crying is inappropriate. Pick one.

ETA:
Here is a list of every joke made during his entire speech.
"I know we're late. I'm sure we're getting in right before the cast of Survivor offers their insight"
"There were no jobs available for a man in the fetal position under his desk crying, which I gladly would have taken"
"We sit in the back and we throw spitballs" (he does not laugh here, although there is laughter from the audience)
"Subliminable is not a punchline anymore"(again, does not laugh, but gains weak snickers from the audience)
"Luckily we can edit this"(short laughter into near crying, composes self)
"they gave us cottage cheese" thing (he doesn't laugh, but audience does)
"I"m going to stop slobbering on myself and the desk"(garners no laughs from him or the audience)

just which one is inappropriate for this moment?

By the way, the 9/11 episode aired on 9/20
Poliwanacraca
07-10-2006, 07:24
I do not like the bigotry that is apparent in your post. 9/11 was an extremely traumatic event, and to make such insinuations as you did is disgusting and appalling. And as a nation, we have to show strength to get through these hard times -- other news anchors didn't break down and crime. I can and will criticize Johnny boy for crying.

Bullshit. Many news anchors have cried in the past, over 9/11 and other tragedies. Cronkite's broadcast annoucing the assassination of John F. Kennedy is a particularly famous example. It's not one bit weak to care about the deaths of others, to mourn them, and to show it. It's not one bit weak to cry, and it is absurd beyond all words for you to suggest that it is. Real men cry sometimes; maybe someday you'll grow some balls of your own and learn that.
Sarkhaan
07-10-2006, 07:25
Bullshit. Many news anchors have cried in the past, over 9/11 and other tragedies. Cronkite's broadcast annoucing the assassination of John F. Kennedy is a particularly famous example. It's not one bit weak to care about the deaths of others, to mourn them, and to show it. It's not one bit weak to cry, and it is absurd beyond all words for you to suggest that it is. Real men cry sometimes; maybe someday you'll grow some balls of your own and learn that.

Not to mention, quite possibly the most famous sound clip since the invention of recorded sound,

"Oh, the humanity"
Poliwanacraca
07-10-2006, 07:37
Not to mention, quite possibly the most famous sound clip since the invention of recorded sound,

"Oh, the humanity"

Indeed. But MTAE probably thinks only weak girly-men feel emotion when watching burning bodies fall out of the sky in front of them. :rolleyes:
Sarkhaan
07-10-2006, 07:39
Indeed. But MTAE probably thinks only weak girly-men feel emotion when watching burning bodies fall out of the sky in front of them. :rolleyes:

clearly. Crying is for them no-balled pussy librl intellectual elites up there in them New England states.

Men should, of course, have no feelings. Ever. If they cry, they might as well be a woman:rolleyes:
Rhaomi
07-10-2006, 07:50
It's not one bit weak to cry, and it is absurd beyond all words for you to suggest that it is. Real men cry sometimes

"It’s never okay for men to cry. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnnxL5ACX2M&mode=related&search=) You know who cries? Girls. And little babies. And little baby girls. A man holds it in, until his eyeballs swell up to the size of baseballs, his throat feels like it’s about to explode, and his gut just aches like there’s a snake wrapped round his heart -- that’s why we die earlier. But it’s worth it! At least we don’t look weak while we're alive."

:D :D :D
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 15:35
It isn't the virtue of masculine strength that enables torture, and because you lack it, you don't see that. It's the absence of empathy and the presence of fear.

Torturing isn't a masculine nor a feminine virtue -- it's common sense. I don't care how many terrorists we have to torture if it means protecting innocent American civilians from another travesty such as 9/11. If a few innocent people get beaten up, who cares? Boo-hoo. Get on with your life. We have foiled terrorist plots because of coercive interrogation (not torture, mind you). I shall feel no compunction in not sparing any empathy for those monsters who seek to slaughter the innocent.
And there's the dark feminine traits of self-deciet, confusion, and insecurity which encourage brutality and aggression in the dark masculine to show that dark feminine that the world is a place that it controls.

It is because you lack the masculine capacity to conquer your fear of terrorists

Why don't you go and conquer your fear of jumping off a fucking bridge? I'm sure doing so would reinforce your masculine capacity. Here's a news flash for you: the terrorists are not cute, cuddly kittens. They're trying to kill us. Or haven't you heard? To "conquer our fear" of murderers is ridiculous to the point of inanity.

We don't get good intelligence, we don't discourage terrorism, we don't make the country safer.

Again, we have gotten good intelligence with waterboarding, which isn't even torture. Just imagine what we can get if we step it up a notch. And guess what? Not torturing someone doesn't give better intelligence -- it obtains nothing.
Ashmoria
07-10-2006, 15:55
Ah, but that's the thing isn't it? You aren't analysing objectively.


excellent series of posts, new.

very well written and thought provoking.

*applauds*
Sarkhaan
07-10-2006, 19:03
Torturing isn't a masculine nor a feminine virtue...*snip*
This thread is about the daily show. Now, normally, I don't really care about hijacking and changing topics, but there are quite a few posts that are ON topic that you ignored. Just sayin. If you want to discuss torture, go to the thread you already started about it.
Ikonja
07-10-2006, 19:13
The Daily Show and Colbert are great. Just remember it's comedy. One must realize that Stewart is not afraid to twist stories a little or take things out of context to make them funny, or to suit his opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, since it's comedy and not news, but people need to realize that before taking what he says without skepticism.
Rhaomi
07-10-2006, 19:19
I don't care how many terrorists we have to torture if it means protecting innocent American civilians from another travesty such as 9/11.

I shall feel no compunction in not sparing any empathy for those monsters who seek to slaughter the innocent.

If a few innocent people get beaten up, who cares? Boo-hoo. Get on with your life.

I smell contradiction, with a hint of ethnocentrism...
Desperate Measures
07-10-2006, 19:43
I smell contradiction, with a hint of ethnocentrism...

I think we should all take this in with a fine Pinot Noir.
MeansToAnEnd
07-10-2006, 20:03
I smell contradiction, with a hint of ethnocentrism...

The point of the American government is to protect the American people. I couldn't care less about Canadians who may or may not have been tortured in places like Syria. As far as I'm concerned, we did the right thing.
Nevered
07-10-2006, 20:05
The point of the American government is to protect the American people. I couldn't care less about Canadians who may or may not have been tortured in places like Syria. As far as I'm concerned, we did the right thing.

blood's on your hands, mate.
Rhaomi
07-10-2006, 20:14
The point of the American government is to protect the American people. I couldn't care less about Canadians who may or may not have been tortured in places like Syria. As far as I'm concerned, we did the right thing.
No, the point of the American government is to protect the American ideals of freedom and justice. When America betrays its bedrock principles in favor of security, it's not America anymore.
Killinginthename
07-10-2006, 20:15
The point of the American government is to protect the American people. I couldn't care less about innocent people who may or may not have been tortured in places like Syria. As far as I'm concerned, we did the right thing.

Misquoted for truth!
Soviestan
07-10-2006, 20:17
The point of the American government is to protect the American people. I couldn't care less about Canadians who may or may not have been tortured in places like Syria. As far as I'm concerned, we did the right thing.

Canadians are basically Americans though. Its like torturing your little brother.
Gauthier
07-10-2006, 20:18
Canadians are basically Americans though. Its like torturing your little brother.

And how many Americans actually feel bad about torturing their younger siblings?
Desperate Measures
07-10-2006, 20:42
And how many Americans actually feel bad about torturing their younger siblings?

Are we talking about French Canadians?
New Domici
08-10-2006, 17:05
Torturing isn't a masculine nor a feminine virtue -- it's common sense. I don't care how many terrorists we have to torture if it means protecting innocent American civilians from another travesty such as 9/11. If a few innocent people get beaten up, who cares? Boo-hoo. Get on with your life. We have foiled terrorist plots because of coercive interrogation (not torture, mind you). I shall feel no compunction in not sparing any empathy for those monsters who seek to slaughter the innocent.

It's not common sense. You lack common sense because your lack of maturity doesn't allow you to understand the world properly. You keep saying "if it means protecting innocent American civilians," despite being told over and over that it doesn't protect civilians. It makes them more dangerous. When you say "if it protects civilians" that's the dark feminine telling you to "be a man" when you have no idea what a man is, because deep down, like most conservatives, you're a scared little boy.


Why don't you go and conquer your fear of jumping off a fucking bridge? I'm sure doing so would reinforce your masculine capacity. Here's a news flash for you: the terrorists are not cute, cuddly kittens. They're trying to kill us. Or haven't you heard? To "conquer our fear" of murderers is ridiculous to the point of inanity.

I'm not afraid of jumping off bridges. I've been bungee jumping, and high diving. And the fact that you still fail to differentiate between "suspected terrorists" and actual terrorists goes miles in demonstrating your lack of understanding the world.

Besides. When the WTC was bombed under Clinton, he caught the guys who did it, thwarted several terrorist plots afterwards and prevented any other terrorist attacks on our soil with one hand while fending off Republican attacks with the other and never once tried to scare the American public into supporting him blindly. Mainly because he knows that liberals are too mature for that sort of manipulation. You, and most conservatives have had damp shorts for the last 5 years and are doing anything to keep from admitting it.


Again, we have gotten good intelligence with waterboarding, which isn't even torture. Just imagine what we can get if we step it up a notch. And guess what? Not torturing someone doesn't give better intelligence -- it obtains nothing.

It was one of the favorite techniques of Pol Pot. It's torture you moron. We have not gotten good intelligence with torture. Torture isn't designed to get intelligence. It's designed to get confessions. The only litmus that the administration has for "it helped prevent a terror attack" is political expedience. It's like all those non-communists whose lives were destroyed under McCarthy. Someone points a finger, lock him up, and he does nothing communist after that.
New Domici
08-10-2006, 17:07
The Daily Show and Colbert are great. Just remember it's comedy. One must realize that Stewart is not afraid to twist stories a little or take things out of context to make them funny, or to suit his opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, since it's comedy and not news, but people need to realize that before taking what he says without skepticism.

The wierd thing is though, if you take what he says without skepticism, you still end up being more well informed than if you watch the Network news.
Daemonocracy
08-10-2006, 18:13
The wierd thing is though, if you take what he says without skepticism, you still end up being more well informed than if you watch the Network news.

I really do not know about that.

Also, the reason why polls show that young people who watch the daily show are better informed than their peers is because, satire or not, the Daily Show does talk about real events. So when they say, or make fun of, House Speaker Denny Hastert, Secretary of State Rice or Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, they are introducing their viewers to those people. So naturally their viewers will be able to answer who the Sec. of Def. is or where Iraq is because this information is covered on the Daily Show unlike American Idol or Laguna Beach.

But I would not say the majority of these young viewers (who make up most of TDS audience) are deep into political philosophy, theory or even world politics and government. They aren't as clueless as most college students but they aren't particularily well informed either.

And yes, outright Cynicism and tilted news coverage, comedy or not, is not healthy. Not when it is all you are exposed to. It is very easy for Jon Stewart to make fun of people's decisions, when he himself is far removed from decision making responsibilities. I actually thought the show was more informative, and funny, when Colbert and Carrell (sp?) were still on the show but now that it has basically turned into "The Jon Stewart Show", it has lost its charm.

my opinion.
Rhaomi
08-10-2006, 19:50
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/

Right. So, not only does the Daily Show have a comparable amount of news content, but its viewers are better informed on the issues than network viewers and even newspaper readers.
Sarkhaan
08-10-2006, 19:59
I really do not know about that.

Also, the reason why polls show that young people who watch the daily show are better informed than their peers is because, satire or not, the Daily Show does talk about real events. So when they say, or make fun of, House Speaker Denny Hastert, Secretary of State Rice or Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, they are introducing their viewers to those people. So naturally their viewers will be able to answer who the Sec. of Def. is or where Iraq is because this information is covered on the Daily Show unlike American Idol or Laguna Beach.

But I would not say the majority of these young viewers (who make up most of TDS audience) are deep into political philosophy, theory or even world politics and government. They aren't as clueless as most college students but they aren't particularily well informed either.

And yes, outright Cynicism and tilted news coverage, comedy or not, is not healthy. Not when it is all you are exposed to. It is very easy for Jon Stewart to make fun of people's decisions, when he himself is far removed from decision making responsibilities. I actually thought the show was more informative, and funny, when Colbert and Carrell (sp?) were still on the show but now that it has basically turned into "The Jon Stewart Show", it has lost its charm.

my opinion.
People keep saying this. What, exactly, is so unhealthy about being cynical? I am pretty cynical, and that is what pushes me to be politically and socially active. My cynicism leads me to see how things are now, and know how things could be in the near future. So what is bad about being cynical?
Desperate Measures
08-10-2006, 20:13
So when they say, or make fun of, House Speaker Denny Hastert, Secretary of State Rice or Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, they are introducing their viewers to those people. So naturally their viewers will be able to answer who the Sec. of Def. is or where Iraq is because this information is covered on the Daily Show unlike American Idol or Laguna Beach.



The questions were more detailed than just a Who's Who. You can check out the test on the link provided.
Daemonocracy
08-10-2006, 21:56
People keep saying this. What, exactly, is so unhealthy about being cynical? I am pretty cynical, and that is what pushes me to be politically and socially active. My cynicism leads me to see how things are now, and know how things could be in the near future. So what is bad about being cynical?

Because if you make a habit outof being cynical and exposing yourself to too much cynicism, you run the risk of becoming jaded. Sometimes daring to be optimistic or put your faith in someone/something is just as courageous as asking questions.

a combination of cynicism and optimism/trust is best for society. imo.
Sarkhaan
08-10-2006, 22:09
Because if you make a habit outof being cynical and exposing yourself to too much cynicism, you run the risk of becoming jaded. Sometimes daring to be optimistic or put your faith in someone/something is just as courageous as asking questions.

a combination of cynicism and optimism/trust is best for society. imo.

Trust I have very little of. I trust society to screw itself over. Optimism, I actually have alot of. I know the potential of what the world can be, and so I have hope for what it will become. Cynicism about the current state of affairs is what gives me the drive to go do something to change it.

but I do get what you're saying.
UpwardThrust
08-10-2006, 22:27
And how many Americans actually feel bad about torturing their younger siblings?

I would ... I never did it really though
Zendragon
08-10-2006, 23:38
Uhm..I've read through most of this, and uh, I do know about The Daily show. But, I don't know when it's on, what station it's on etc, etc.

So, when is it on and on what station? I have to check this out for myself.

Thanks much!
Demon 666
09-10-2006, 00:52
It's on Comedy Central.
And Means, shut the hell up. Quit making us conservatives look like retards.
I'm about as conservative as they get, but your posts on Stewart are crap. Stewart above all is comedy. You know, things that make you laugh? Or perhaps laughing is unmasculine?
Stewart pokes fun at the GOP simply because we're the ones in power. When the Dems regain power, Stewart will poke fun at them.
I haven't watched the Daily Show much either (I think Colbert's a lot better) but Stewart has poked fun at Dems before. He's a little to the left, but when you consider that we're in power (which means we get made fun of) and that most of TV is somewhat left-wing, anyway, there's nothing to complain about.
So quit whining. You're making conservatives like me look like tards.
MeansToAnEnd
09-10-2006, 01:11
When the Dems regain power, Stewart will poke fun at them.

Well, that's encouraging. When Hell freezes over, Stewart will poke fun at the Democrats. I completely agree with you there, man. However, you do not speak for all conservatives -- not all of us agree with your policies. Similarly, not all of you agree with my policies. Live and let live, dude; conservativism encompasses a large and diverse group of people, not all of whom share your views.
Rhaomi
09-10-2006, 01:39
Uhm..I've read through most of this, and uh, I do know about The Daily show. But, I don't know when it's on, what station it's on etc, etc.

So, when is it on and on what station? I have to check this out for myself.

Thanks much!

It's on Comedy Central, Monday through Thursday at 11:00 PM eastern time. The Colbert Report comes on a half-hour later. If that's too late for you, you can just go to YouTube; Comedy Central tacitly allows viewers to post clips of both shows there, so just do a search for either show and you can find tons of free video on virtually any topic.
Liuzzo
09-10-2006, 02:33
I never claimed that he loved them. However, he certainly does not display his hate of them, if he does even hate them. After all, he may be yet another of those America-hating, terrorist-loving liberals that are all too common these days (I'm not saying that all libelars conform to the ideas of those extremist liberals, however). Oh, and I am most decidedly not left-wing.


1. You rarely watch the show
2. He's made fun of everyone from every political party
3. His viewers re found to be more intelligent and informed that those that say watch the "O'reilly factor."
4. You "rarely watch the show."
5. You're a frothing asshat
6. Get a sense of humor you miserable shit
7. Maybe if there weren't so many opportunities to make fun of Republicans right now he wouldn't be able to. I mean , Christa almighty, he doesn't make the shit up. These things really happen and he just makes it a little more tolerable by getting us to laugh at it.
8. God damn you're a miserable troll.

Thank You
UpwardThrust
09-10-2006, 03:01
Well, that's encouraging. When Hell freezes over, Stewart will poke fun at the Democrats. I completely agree with you there, man. However, you do not speak for all conservatives -- not all of us agree with your policies. Similarly, not all of you agree with my policies. Live and let live, dude; conservativism encompasses a large and diverse group of people, not all of whom share your views.

No shit ... and the same goes with the liberal party ... yet you have no problem steriotyping all of THEM
BackwoodsSquatches
09-10-2006, 03:01
8. God damn you're a miserable troll.

Thank You

Thats absolutely right!

By "miserable" we mean "Hes not even very good at it".

Hes just some teenage conservative wanna-be, who has very little idea of how the world truly works.

Hes not the first, nor the best, nor the last.

Hes just the current trolling asshat to "grace" the forums.
Minaris
09-10-2006, 03:33
Well, that's encouraging. When Hell freezes over, Stewart will poke fun at the Democrats. I completely agree with you there, man. However, you do not speak for all conservatives -- not all of us agree with your policies. Similarly, not all of you agree with my policies. Live and let live, dude; conservativism encompasses a large and diverse group of people, not all of whom share your views.

So you are saying that the Democrats will ALWAYS look competent next to the Republicans? yeah, I can (almost) buy that.
Silliopolous
09-10-2006, 03:33
Because if you make a habit outof being cynical and exposing yourself to too much cynicism, you run the risk of becoming jaded. Sometimes daring to be optimistic or put your faith in someone/something is just as courageous as asking questions.

a combination of cynicism and optimism/trust is best for society. imo.


Frankly, simply putting your faith in someone instead of asking questions and making an informed decision is hardly indicitive of courage. Willful blindness and/or pridefull ignorance are hardly indications of anything besides abdication of responsibility.

If you make an informed decision that I disagree with, you still have my respect. But advocating claiming a higher ground for basing your decisions without due diligence makes you sound like an idiot.
Sarkhaan
09-10-2006, 06:48
1. You rarely watch the show
2. He's made fun of everyone from every political party
3. His viewers re found to be more intelligent and informed that those that say watch the "O'reilly factor."
4. You "rarely watch the show."
5. You're a frothing asshat
6. Get a sense of humor you miserable shit
7. Maybe if there weren't so many opportunities to make fun of Republicans right now he wouldn't be able to. I mean , Christa almighty, he doesn't make the shit up. These things really happen and he just makes it a little more tolerable by getting us to laugh at it.
8. God damn you're a miserable troll.

Thank You
be careful with the flames....
MeansToAnEnd
09-10-2006, 13:40
By "miserable" we mean "Hes not even very good at it".

You can't even debate; you're just throwing insults without substantiating your points through argument. If you claim to have any "idea of how the world works," you should be prepared to defend your views. You have not done so.

So you are saying that the Democrats will ALWAYS look competent next to the Republicans? yeah, I can (almost) buy that.

No, I'm saying that Democrats are never going to regain power. Close, though. :)
Bottle
09-10-2006, 13:53
That's right. Indiana University recently did a study that will be published next summer in the Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media




Perhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources. I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.

The article (http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html)
I trust the Daily Show for more accurate information than any other news program currently on television. Why? Because they are open and honest about the fact that they editorialize and mock. They don't pretend to be "fair and balanced" while being clearly unfair and biased.

Plus, these days you gotta laugh or else you're gonna cry.
Daemonocracy
09-10-2006, 13:58
Frankly, simply putting your faith in someone instead of asking questions and making an informed decision is hardly indicitive of courage. Willful blindness and/or pridefull ignorance are hardly indications of anything besides abdication of responsibility.

If you make an informed decision that I disagree with, you still have my respect. But advocating claiming a higher ground for basing your decisions without due diligence makes you sound like an idiot.

You don't always have all the information and sometimes, make that many times, in real life and in politics people just go with their "guts". It is not as easy as just going to a library for some research to make sure you have all the info.

and the word Cynical involves scornful distrust and jaded negativity. I am not talking about simply asking questions, Cynicism goes far beyond that.
R0cka
09-10-2006, 14:18
Perhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources. I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.



It's really fucking awful is what it is.

Just when you think it can't get worse than the Op-Ed style garbage being crammed down our throats by the mainstream media, it does.
Daemonocracy
09-10-2006, 14:51
did the Daily "Jon Stewart" Show even cover the incident at Columbia University withthe minutement?

I watch the show alot less than a couple years ago when i was in college, and most of the orginal cast was still intact. But the show is increasingly one sided these days, I am curious of what Jon Stewart had to say, if anything. whole basket of jokes available on the irony of people silencing a speech, in the name of free speech. or did Stewart not bite on this one?
Rhaomi
09-10-2006, 15:43
did the Daily "Jon Stewart" Show even cover the incident at Columbia University withthe minutement?

I watch the show alot less than a couple years ago when i was in college, and most of the orginal cast was still intact. But the show is increasingly one sided these days, I am curious of what Jon Stewart had to say, if anything. whole basket of jokes available on the irony of people silencing a speech, in the name of free speech. or did Stewart not bite on this one?

It happened over the weekend, didn't it? TDS is Monday-Friday. Anyway, I'm sure they'll be preoccupied with the North Korean nuclear test when they come back on today.
Daemonocracy
09-10-2006, 15:57
It happened over the weekend, didn't it? TDS is Monday-Friday. Anyway, I'm sure they'll be preoccupied with the North Korean nuclear test when they come back on today.

was it a confirmed nuclear test? if so, i certainly will not be in the mood for any comedy on the issue. Japan, Soth Korea and Taiwan will almost definitely pursue nuclear weapons of their own which will completely set China off. A destabilizing Asia will cause India to revamp their nuclear arsenal which will in turn result in Pakistan following suit. All of this will prove a distraction from Iran's nuclear pursuit who would not hesitate to share any nuclear information with Syria and even jihadists.

oh hell. I should have invested in that Bunker i saw at Home Depot.
R0cka
09-10-2006, 16:16
did the Daily "Jon Stewart" Show even cover the incident at Columbia University withthe minutement?



Cover? Stewart isn't a reporter, he's a comedian.

The Daily Show isn't a news program it's a comedy show.
Khadgar
09-10-2006, 16:42
Because if you make a habit outof being cynical and exposing yourself to too much cynicism, you run the risk of becoming jaded. Sometimes daring to be optimistic or put your faith in someone/something is just as courageous as asking questions.

a combination of cynicism and optimism/trust is best for society. imo.

What's wrong with being jaded?
Sarkhaan
09-10-2006, 17:10
Plus, these days you gotta laugh or else you're gonna cry.
Quoted for extreme truth.
It's really fucking awful is what it is.

Just when you think it can't get worse than the Op-Ed style garbage being crammed down our throats by the mainstream media, it does.

The viewers know that it is op-ed. So I ask, what is so bad about it? The stories themselves are presented very clearly and fairly, and the editorial part is very clear.
R0cka
09-10-2006, 18:01
The viewers know that it is op-ed. So I ask, what is so bad about it? The stories themselves are presented very clearly and fairly, and the editorial part is very clear.

They're not "stories" they're "comedy bits".

It's not an "editorial" it's a "monologue".

It's not a news show, it's a comedy show.

There's nothing bad about the daily show, except that they let Craig Kilborn take "5 questions" with him when he left.
Rhaomi
09-10-2006, 18:18
They're not "stories" they're "comedy bits".

It's not an "editorial" it's a "monologue".

It's not a news show, it's a comedy show.

There's nothing bad about the daily show, except that they let Craig Kilborn take "5 questions" with him when he left.

You know, just because he salts the opening segment with humor doesn't mean it's not news. He reports the facts clearly and accurately -- more clearly and accurately, I should say, than most other news broadcasters. And it must have an effect too, since Daily Show viewers are more informed of current events than the average network news viewer or newspaper reader. So either Jon Stewart's doing a great job, or the news networks are doing a terrible one.

(And considering how easily Stewart lambasts the media's vapid talking heads on a regular basis, I'd have to say both are true.)
UpwardThrust
09-10-2006, 18:21
You know, just because he salts the opening segment with humor doesn't mean it's not news. He reports the facts clearly and accurately -- more clearly and accurately, I should say, than most other news broadcasters. And it must have an effect too, since Daily Show viewers are more informed of current events than the average network news viewer or newspaper reader. So either Jon Stewart's doing a great job, or the news networks are doing a terrible one.

(And considering how easily Stewart lambasts the media's vapid talking heads on a regular basis, I'd have to say both are true.)

While I agree with you I wanted to point out that corrilation does not prove causation

Maybe more informed people WATCH the daily show rather then the daily show CAUSING informed people
Rhaomi
09-10-2006, 18:23
While I agree with you I wanted to point out that corrilation does not prove causation

Maybe more informed people WATCH the daily show rather then the daily show CAUSING informed people

Makes me wonder why most informed, intelligent people would choose TDS over regular network news... ;)
IDF
09-10-2006, 19:19
That's right. Indiana University recently did a study that will be published next summer in the Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media




Perhaps it isn't so horrible that an increasing number of college students are turning to The Daily Show as one of their primary news sources. I'd rather have humor and news than hype and news.

The article (http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html)
As a proud Purdue student, I must debunk this thread as total bullshit on the grounds that this is based off of something that came out of IU.
Khadgar
09-10-2006, 19:22
As a proud Purdue student, I must debunk this thread as total bullshit on the grounds that this is based off of something that came out of IU.

Perdue? Ya mean the chicken company?


:fluffle: I kid I kid! Mostly.
Sarkhaan
09-10-2006, 21:36
They're not "stories" they're "comedy bits".Actually, had you read the article in the OP (or the thread title), you would realize that the daily show has the same amount of actual news as network news. They are legit news stories, interspersed with comedy.

It's not an "editorial" it's a "monologue".And the difference is?

It's not a news show, it's a comedy show.No one is arguing otherwise. However, they have displayed that there is an equal amount of news as network news.

There's nothing bad about the daily show, except that they let Craig Kilborn take "5 questions" with him when he left.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with you I wanted to point out that corrilation does not prove causation

Maybe more informed people WATCH the daily show rather then the daily show CAUSING informed people
true...but then, it still says something about the Daily Show
As a proud Purdue student, I must debunk this thread as total bullshit on the grounds that this is based off of something that came out of IU.
*sticks out tongue*
Minaris
09-10-2006, 21:56
No, I'm saying that Democrats are never going to regain power. Close, though. :)

I say that my idea was correct, but... *grumbles* To each his own... *is angry*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Show+ Colbert Report are 73h r0x0r5!

Steward/Colbert 2008! w007!!!!!!
Silliopolous
09-10-2006, 22:02
While I agree with you I wanted to point out that corrilation does not prove causation

Maybe more informed people WATCH the daily show rather then the daily show CAUSING informed people

I'd almost state that as being a foregone conclusion. If you weren't interested in politics nor informed on current events, frankly you probably wouldn't find it all that funny.
Rhaomi
09-10-2006, 22:17
I'd almost state that as being a foregone conclusion. If you weren't interested in politics nor informed on current events, frankly you probably wouldn't find it all that funny.
I wouldn't say that. I'm fairly interested in politics (why else would I be on NS?), but I've learned a lot from the Daily Show -- especially the smaller, more embarrassing political stories that rarely get reported in the regular news media. I'm talking about things like Ted Stevens' rants and problems with the war in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that they back up all their statements with video clips of the subjects in question.
Silliopolous
09-10-2006, 22:20
I wouldn't say that. I'm fairly interested in politics (why else would I be on NS?), but I've learned a lot from the Daily Show -- especially the smaller, more embarrassing political stories that rarely get reported in the regular news media. I'm talking about things like Ted Stevens' rants and problems with the war in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that they back up all their statements with video clips of the subjects in question.

Actually, You seem to be agreeing with me to some extent. You watch the daily show because you already have an interest in politics. Yes, you get some new information there, but I'm not sure that you would be watching it if you weren't already interested.
Cyrian space
09-10-2006, 22:43
Actually, You seem to be agreeing with me to some extent. You watch the daily show because you already have an interest in politics. Yes, you get some new information there, but I'm not sure that you would be watching it if you weren't already interested.

You also have to take into account, first off, Jon Stewart's pure charisma, second, the fact that in any of the issues they talk about, it typically does not take a great deal of political know how to get the joke, and third, the number of segments that are only periphreally political (see "Pole Smoking.")
King Arthur the Great
09-10-2006, 23:14
I have to say that TDS is more valuable than CNN if only for the fact that Jon doesn't bother with patronizing himself. But while his jokes are jokes, his stories are stories, and though done in a satirical way, I respect him for reporting in a way that the public will enjoy. For another John, I point ye all to johnathon Swift, and his satirical piece about solving the "Papist" problem in Ireland, thereby revealing just how important action was combat the Famine.
R0cka
10-10-2006, 14:58
Actually, had you read the article in the OP (or the thread title), you would realize that the daily show has the same amount of actual news as network news.

No, that's not what the article said.

The Article said the Daily show has the same amount of "substantive" 2004 electoral coverage when compared to the networks over a 10 day period, by segment, and measured second by second.

Which is absurd, especially in light of the fact that the experiment was performed by one assistant professor and two students, substantive is subjective, and you can't even read the study until next summer.

And the difference is?

Between a monologue and an editorial? Besides the team of joke writers, not much.

No one is arguing otherwise. However, they have displayed that there is an equal amount of news as network news.

To whom?

While I think the Daily show is great, it's just not news. If you're learning anything "substantive" from it you need to watch and read more real news.
New Domici
10-10-2006, 17:43
You know, just because he salts the opening segment with humor doesn't mean it's not news. He reports the facts clearly and accurately -- more clearly and accurately, I should say, than most other news broadcasters. And it must have an effect too, since Daily Show viewers are more informed of current events than the average network news viewer or newspaper reader. So either Jon Stewart's doing a great job, or the news networks are doing a terrible one.

(And considering how easily Stewart lambasts the media's vapid talking heads on a regular basis, I'd have to say both are true.)

When the Daily Show won an award for "excellence in journalism" he pointed out, on air, "you guys know we're a fake news show, right? This either says something really horrible about the other guys' news coverage, or something really bad about our comedy. And you know what? I like to think it's a little bit of both."
King Arthur the Great
10-10-2006, 17:58
While I think the Daily show is great, it's just not news. If you're learning anything "substantive" from it you need to watch and read more real news.

Small problem with that. Most news shows are forums for biased, self-serving figure heads (I'm looking at you, Nancy Grace) that don't give a damn about actual information. TDS presents things in a clearer light than all the news channels (MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, FOXNews, etc.) put together. Maybe Comedy Central is on to something, but I simply think that it is, indeed, both the fact that everybody else sucks, and TDS rocks.