AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
Doesn't matter what he considers his own show to be. It's the fact that his show is considered by people in general to have some manner of legitimacy in terms of journalism that is important.
Doesn't matter what he considers his own show to be. It's the fact that his show is considered by people in general to have some manner of legitimacy in terms of journalism that is important.
The NYT opinion page is clearly labeled as opinion (whereas 24-hour news networks there is a huge gray area). Also, the NYT opinion page isn't telling people what to do with their money.
And on CNBC, anchors identify themselves as anchors and commentators identify themselves as commentators. Shows like Cramer's are littered with disclaimers labeling them as possible bullshit.
And, before it comes up, I generally regard CNN/MSNBC/Fox as terrible places to get news, partially because of the blurry line between anchor and commentator.
I can't name a 24-hour news network that doesn't deserve to die.
You try and judge my comments, but consistently shove words into other poster's mouths with a shovel the size of New Hampshire.
I never said CNBC was alone in it. I said it was a stupid practice, and throwing up half-hearted critiques of people who wouldn't be there to begin with if not for you enabling them is hypocritical at best.
Raynaga on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Doesn't matter what he considers his own show to be. It's the fact that his show is considered by people in general to have some manner of legitimacy in terms of journalism that is important.
Who are these people in general?
Well given the fact that there are increasingly more clips of TDS/TCR appearing in media segments specifically when both shows criticize some aspect of politics; that the same clips appear on blogs for similar reasons (re: this whole MSNBC thing; we're talking about the credibility of MSNBC based upon the TDS' critique of it); that an entire show can be cancelled as a result of the host of TDS (and to an extent, since the interview did revolve around TDS vs. Crossfire quite a bit, is a reflection of the influence of his show as well as himself) providing compelling arguments to cause a corporation to alter their behaviour (re: shutting the show down).
I'm using 'people in general' more into a general perception evolving from the influence that these shows seem to be having on media/political institutions in the world as well as popular discourse. You could say that the perception of this influence is something which shouldn't be generated because they're just comedy shows, but the fact that it even exists in the first place to the point where it alters other actors behaviour shows that they have expanded from being simply comedy shows. The Simpsons was a comedy show, but I don't believe it (I could be wrong, I'm pulling this example out of my ass from a simple analogy) affected real-life institutions in a similar manner.
Doesn't matter what he considers his own show to be. It's the fact that his show is considered by people in general to have some manner of legitimacy in terms of journalism that is important.
Ok, so he doesn't consider himself or his show in that light, constantly says that he and his show aren't that in the public....what more do you want? He doesn't believe it, doesn't promote it, and yet is somehow guilty for it?
And this is all ceding the point that large amounts of people do to begin with, which is a pretty big point to cede.
EDIT: Satire instigating ACTUAL analysis of something isn't wrong, it means the satire is doing something right. And Crossfire isn't an example of TDS "getting a show canceled" its an example of a guy being asked on a show and then sharing his opinion when he appears. The fact that an incoming VP at CNN agreed with that opinion is, again, a testament to the man holding it and not his show or its status. Linking a guy stating his opinion on an opinion-based show to some kind of concerted effort on the part of TDS to get things canceled or become a serious news source is just short of insane. Did you even read the quote of the earlier post?
Now, I do not watch CNBC. But Stewart was cherry-picking, and I think it's irresponsible to dismiss an entire 24-hour network on the basis of 8 minutes of mostly out of context clips.
You know that TDS is a comedy show and not a real news program, right?
I'm curious as to how long this refrain can last for both TDS and TCR. In one respect, yes they're only comedy shows whose sole purposes are to provide entertainment.
However, over the past year or two (probably longer) they seem to be getting elevated amongst the general populace of something that's more than just comedy. At some point, whether or not the shows themselves choose to recognize such, there are questions of whether or not the shows have some responsibility to live up to their new categorizations in terms of accountability for their methods.
What I'm saying is that funny is more important than fact on that show. They've said themselves that it shouldn't be used as a primary news source.
Yes, they usually do try to be factually accurate, and they have risen above general comedy, but it is still a comedy program, and there aren't standards they have to comply with when it comes to accuracy. Opinion on something that considers itself a comedy show (the CNBC piece would be an opinion piece) is much more acceptable than opinion on something that considers itself a news network.
Doesn't matter what he considers his own show to be. It's the fact that his show is considered by people in general to have some manner of legitimacy in terms of journalism that is important.
That's the fault of people who are putting too much weight on the integrity of a comedy show.
If I have to constantly actively try to sift out the bullshit when watching a program, it isn't a very good program, and it would make more sense to just get a different source.
I can't name a 24-hour news network that doesn't deserve to die.
I never understood this particular grievance of Stewart's.
There are a lot of problems with cable news. Especially Fox, which is propaganda. Their talking heads are often stupid and don't provide a good diversity of opinions.
But the idea that a 24-hour news network is reflexively flawed? It's based on the premise that "there isn't enough news to fill 24 hours," which is nonsense. Even if that 24 hours is mostly spent digesting and analyzing a few stories, that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I really like the Daily Show, I really like Stewart, but on this subject he is painting with a broad brush.
Eh, I still think they're political and world commentary comedy shows and nothing more.
I think their "influence" is widely exaggerated and doesn't require any greater degree of responsibility. Lots of people like the shows and show clips of them is pretty much all I'm seeing here.
Man, John Stewart destroying CNBC's credibility as a financial news and opinion source was glorious.
My girlfriend, who literally watches CNBC all day for her job, is really really pissed off about that segment.
Stewart took a lot of stuff completely out of context and cherry-picked the stupidest stuff from CNBC to generalize about the legitimacy of the entire network.
For example, the woman interviewing Thain in the snow—her supposedly brown-nosing quote was very probably skeptical. Stewart's guest claims CNBC doesn't differentiate between anchors and commentators, which apparently is not true at all. The Ponzi scheme interview was played over and over again on CNBC immediately after they realized it was a Ponzi scheme.
Even Jim Cramer—who on the network is acknowledged as a kind of crackpot—actually did warn about the looming financial crisis in his famous "YOU HAVE NO IDEA" meltdown. And CNBC has plenty of rational and skeptical anchors who rebut the bogus bullshit spewed by people like Santelli and Cramer.
Now, I do not watch CNBC. But Stewart was cherry-picking, and I think it's irresponsible to dismiss an entire 24-hour network on the basis of 8 minutes of mostly out of context clips.
CNBC is a fucking joke, and everyone in new york finance already knows this. Tell her to not waste her time.
I can't name a 24-hour news network that doesn't deserve to die.
I never understood this particular grievance of Stewart's.
There are a lot of problems with cable news. Especially Fox, which is propaganda. Their talking heads are often stupid and don't provide a good diversity of opinions.
But the idea that a 24-hour news network is reflexively flawed? It's based on the premise that "there isn't enough news to fill 24 hours," which is nonsense. Even if that 24 hours is mostly spent digesting and analyzing a few stories, that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I really like the Daily Show, I really like Stewart, but on this subject he is painting with a broad brush.
If you look at that nature of politics in relation to the news cycle before 24 hour news existed, and after, you will see a substantial difference. And I would love to see an assertion that it was for the better.
I can't name a 24-hour news network that doesn't deserve to die.
I never understood this particular grievance of Stewart's.
There are a lot of problems with cable news. Especially Fox, which is propaganda. Their talking heads are often stupid and don't provide a good diversity of opinions.
But the idea that a 24-hour news network is reflexively flawed? It's based on the premise that "there isn't enough news to fill 24 hours," which is nonsense. Even if that 24 hours is mostly spent digesting and analyzing a few stories, that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I really like the Daily Show, I really like Stewart, but on this subject he is painting with a broad brush.
Oh you can do a 24 hour news channel right, as CNN International shows, but none of the ones around here are worth shit.
They spend all of that 24 hours analyzing five minutes worth of information that they think their viewers are interested in. There would be enough info if they were willing to do shows are many global issues that may not directly affect American, but they usually are too concerned with a girl trapped down a well or the summer of the shark to care.
If you look at that nature of politics in relation to the news cycle before 24 hour news existed, and after, you will see a substantial difference. And I would love to see an assertion that it was for the better.
Right, politics was so pure and informed before the 90's.
remember: if they weren't talking about rush all day, theyd be talking about some girl who got killed in aruba or a fucking cat that got stuck in a tree.
I can't name a 24-hour news network that doesn't deserve to die.
I never understood this particular grievance of Stewart's.
There are a lot of problems with cable news. Especially Fox, which is propaganda. Their talking heads are often stupid and don't provide a good diversity of opinions.
But the idea that a 24-hour news network is reflexively flawed? It's based on the premise that "there isn't enough news to fill 24 hours," which is nonsense. Even if that 24 hours is mostly spent digesting and analyzing a few stories, that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I really like the Daily Show, I really like Stewart, but on this subject he is painting with a broad brush.
If 24 hour news networks even made an effort to cover worthwhile news for the entire day, people would give them a lot less flack. It's that they fill the schedule with bullshit and opinionated morons pretending to be newscasters, and then fail to actually do their jobs regarding most stories.
For when they actually talk about a worthwhile story; It's not just their job as journalists to tell people what a public figure said. That's what press releases are for. It's their job to tell us if what was said is factually accurate, or if it was bullshit. All the major 24 hour networks fail more often than not on that regard.
I can't name a 24-hour news network that doesn't deserve to die.
I never understood this particular grievance of Stewart's.
There are a lot of problems with cable news. Especially Fox, which is propaganda. Their talking heads are often stupid and don't provide a good diversity of opinions.
But the idea that a 24-hour news network is reflexively flawed? It's based on the premise that "there isn't enough news to fill 24 hours," which is nonsense. Even if that 24 hours is mostly spent digesting and analyzing a few stories, that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I really like the Daily Show, I really like Stewart, but on this subject he is painting with a broad brush.
I can't name a 24-hour news network that doesn't deserve to die.
You try and judge my comments, but consistently shove words into other poster's mouths with a shovel the size of New Hampshire.
I never said CNBC was alone in it. I said it was a stupid practice, and throwing up half-hearted critiques of people who wouldn't be there to begin with if not for you enabling them is hypocritical at best.
But the idea that a 24-hour news network is reflexively flawed? It's based on the premise that "there isn't enough news to fill 24 hours," which is nonsense. Even if that 24 hours is mostly spent digesting and analyzing a few stories, that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I really like the Daily Show, I really like Stewart, but on this subject he is painting with a broad brush.
The idea of 24-hour news is not, in itself, flawed. It's the fact that they have to cater to ratings and try to do as few stories as possible (why is there so little international news? Why do they HAVE to spend three hours just waiting for Michael Jackson to show up to court?). The problem is that the 24-hour news networks are, generally, a terrible source for news.
The large exception I would make is when there is actual breaking news (and not trumped up breaking news or 'this is 4 hours old but we are still calling it breaking news'. I'm looking at you, CNN).
If you look at that nature of politics in relation to the news cycle before 24 hour news existed, and after, you will see a substantial difference. And I would love to see an assertion that it was for the better.
Right, politics was so pure and informed before the 90's.
Jesus christ, the shovel is actually getting bigger.
Where does "substantive differences" equal "SO PURE AND INFORMED!!11!1"
Actually make an argument about what people are actually saying.
No, I saw it, and I thought my response to Couscous applied to what you said. Feel free to respond to it. Also feel free to drop the incredibly condescending AGGRO attitude as well; I don't really have the stomach for these internet pissing contests.
If you look at that nature of politics in relation to the news cycle before 24 hour news existed, and after, you will see a substantial difference. And I would love to see an assertion that it was for the better.
Right, politics was so pure and informed before the 90's.
Jesus christ, the shovel is actually getting bigger.
Where does "substantive differences" equal "SO PURE AND INFORMED!!11!1"
Actually make an argument about what people are actually saying.
So all you were arguing that 24-hour news has substantively changed the way politics plays out?
Okay, I certainly don't dispute that. As for whether it's for "the better," I made no such assertion, so I don't know why you brought it up if you don't think the opposite is true.
Qingu on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Eh, I still think they're political and world commentary comedy shows and nothing more.
I think their "influence" is widely exaggerated and doesn't require any greater degree of responsibility. Lots of people like the shows and show clips of them is pretty much all I'm seeing here.
Well, this would suggest news satire shows of this type have some effect on public opinion of the actual political process, leading to being more informative of the current system while also less engaged potentially.
And a Pew Study poll in 2004 showed that people aged 18-24 got their news more [edit: started getting more, stupid badly worded phrase] from TDS & similar comedy shows than from mainstream news outlets.
I don't think that's indicative their influence is terribly exaggerated. It may indicate that all political satire shows of this nature have this kind of effect on the public, but that would just move the question of responsibility from specifically TDS to all shows of this nature.
I never understood this particular grievance of Stewart's.
There are a lot of problems with cable news. Especially Fox, which is propaganda. Their talking heads are often stupid and don't provide a good diversity of opinions.
But the idea that a 24-hour news network is reflexively flawed? It's based on the premise that "there isn't enough news to fill 24 hours," which is nonsense. Even if that 24 hours is mostly spent digesting and analyzing a few stories, that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I really like the Daily Show, I really like Stewart, but on this subject he is painting with a broad brush.
Where did I say that the very idea of a 24-hour news channel is bad? I just said that I can't name a 24-hours news channel that doesn't deserve to die.
The idea of 24-hour news is not, in itself, flawed. It's the fact that they have to cater to ratings and try to do as few stories as possible (why is there so little international news? Why do they HAVE to spend three hours just waiting for Michael Jackson to show up to court?). The problem is that the 24-hour news networks are, generally, a terrible source for news.
The large exception I would make is when there is actual breaking news (and not trumped up breaking news or 'this is 4 hours old but we are still calling it breaking news'. I'm looking at you, CNN).
Absolutely. I agree with you. And I imagine this is mainly why people watch CNBC—because it is the fastest way to receive breaking news. I would obviously rather they fill the time in between breaking news segments with, shit, reading the text of the NYT would be better than constant analysis and redigestion.
My point here wasn't even to defend cable news. My point was simply that Stewart was being unfair, bordering on dishonest, and I don't think he deserves to be lionized for his CNBC segment.
If you look at that nature of politics in relation to the news cycle before 24 hour news existed, and after, you will see a substantial difference. And I would love to see an assertion that it was for the better.
Right, politics was so pure and informed before the 90's.
Jesus christ, the shovel is actually getting bigger.
Where does "substantive differences" equal "SO PURE AND INFORMED!!11!1"
Actually make an argument about what people are actually saying.
So all you were arguing that 24-hour news has substantively changed the way politics plays out?
Okay, I certainly don't dispute that. As for whether it's for "the better," I made no such assertion, so I don't know why you brought it up if you don't think the opposite is true.
You responded to his assertion that it had made it worse by insinuating through pure snark that such a thing is not the case.
so either way youre saying it stayed the same, got worse, or are just being an asshole.
Eh, I still think they're political and world commentary comedy shows and nothing more.
I think their "influence" is widely exaggerated and doesn't require any greater degree of responsibility. Lots of people like the shows and show clips of them is pretty much all I'm seeing here.
Well, this would suggest news satire shows of this type have some effect on public opinion of the actual political process, leading to being more informative of the current system while also less engaged potentially.
And a Pew Study poll in 2004 showed that people aged 18-24 got their news more from TDS & similar comedy shows than from mainstream news outlets.
I don't think that's indicative their influence is terribly exaggerated. It may indicate that all political satire shows of this nature have this kind of effect on the public, but that would just move the question of responsibility from specifically TDS to all shows of this nature.
That first link doesn't prove anything. It says that people who watch TDS are more cynical about politics and have more negative views of politicans.
Can you prove to me that the former causes the latter, and not just that cynical people are drawn to shows like that?
I mean I could say Fox News causes people to be conservative, because people definitely don't seek out shows that reaffirm their existing beliefs.
Edit: And the second link doesn't surprise me or prove anything at all. People age 18-24 are probably a lot less likely to get news form mainstream news outlets, and are more likely to watch comedy central.
No, I saw it, and I thought my response to Couscous applied to what you said. Feel free to respond to it. Also feel free to drop the incredibly condescending AGGRO attitude as well; I don't really have the stomach for these internet pissing contests.
There's only one person who is taking comment A and then pulls three other points from his ass and appends them, turning comment A into comment B.
"CNBC is pretty hypocritical for putting those guys on a platform, then saying they shouldn't have one because they're crazy. They're the ones who built the thing!"
"Name one network that doesn't!"
"Uh...I didn't say they were the only people guilty of it, they were the particular topic at hand in the discussion. Don't put words in my mouth."
"Why is 24 hours a bad development?"
"If you look at the way the news cycles worked before their advent, you will see substantive difference that, I feel, would be difficult to defend as positive."
"Right, because the politics in the past were so pure and informed!"
"Uh...again, that's not what I said. Are you READING these things before you respond to them?"
If you don't want people getting irritated at you, try responding to what they actually say rather than jumping three points forward.
My point here wasn't even to defend cable news. My point was simply that Stewart was being unfair, bordering on dishonest, and I don't think he deserves to be lionized for his CNBC segment.
CNBC really sucks, and they clearly had no idea what the fuck they were talking about, over and over again.
Care to dispute that?
geckahn on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Eh, I still think they're political and world commentary comedy shows and nothing more.
I think their "influence" is widely exaggerated and doesn't require any greater degree of responsibility. Lots of people like the shows and show clips of them is pretty much all I'm seeing here.
Well, this would suggest news satire shows of this type have some effect on public opinion of the actual political process, leading to being more informative of the current system while also less engaged potentially.
And a Pew Study poll in 2004 showed that people aged 18-24 got their news more from TDS & similar comedy shows than from mainstream news outlets.
I don't think that's indicative their influence is terribly exaggerated. It may indicate that all political satire shows of this nature have this kind of effect on the public, but that would just move the question of responsibility from specifically TDS to all shows of this nature.
That first link doesn't prove anything. It says that people who watch TDS are more cynical about politics and have more negative views of politicans.
Can you prove to me that the former causes the latter, and not just that cynical people are drawn to shows like that?
I mean I could say Fox News causes people to be conservative, because people definitely don't seek out shows that reaffirm their existing beliefs.
Edit: And the second link doesn't surprise me or prove anything at all. People age 18-24 are probably a lot less likely to get news form mainstream news outlets, and are more likely to watch comedy central.
From the same source since I'm just reading it in more detail now:
As Table 3 shows, evaluations for Bush and Kerry are negatively associated
with exposure to The Daily Show. This association is not significant for
Bush and only marginally significant for Kerry (p < .10). However, when the
two indices are combined to create a comprehensive measure of overall candidate
evaluation, exposure to The Daily Show has a significant negative
effect (p < .05), even when controlling for party identification, party intensity,
9 and race.10 Exposure to the CBS Evening News clip, on the other hand,
did not significantly influence evaluations of either candidate. On the basis of
these findings, we can accept our hypothesis that exposure to The Daily Show
lowers overall candidate evaluations (Hypothesis 1).
They control for party identification, intensity, and race.
So your evidence that it is treated as actual news is that people who had seen it had a lower opinion of Bush when compared to Kerry than those who hadn't seen the show?
That doesn't seem very logical at all.
EDIT: Reading it again, it seems its actually saying that opinions of both candidates were lowered. So, watching a show that lampoons candidates by highlighting and mocking self-effacing actions lowered people's opinion of them by exposing them to those acts.
Again, how does this make them actual news? If anything you are proving that they're an excellent source for satirical presentation, and that satire can have an affect on people's opinion. Which is kinda well known already.
Eh, I still think they're political and world commentary comedy shows and nothing more.
I think their "influence" is widely exaggerated and doesn't require any greater degree of responsibility. Lots of people like the shows and show clips of them is pretty much all I'm seeing here.
Well, this would suggest news satire shows of this type have some effect on public opinion of the actual political process, leading to being more informative of the current system while also less engaged potentially.
And a Pew Study poll in 2004 showed that people aged 18-24 got their news more from TDS & similar comedy shows than from mainstream news outlets.
I don't think that's indicative their influence is terribly exaggerated. It may indicate that all political satire shows of this nature have this kind of effect on the public, but that would just move the question of responsibility from specifically TDS to all shows of this nature.
That first link doesn't prove anything. It says that people who watch TDS are more cynical about politics and have more negative views of politicans.
Can you prove to me that the former causes the latter, and not just that cynical people are drawn to shows like that?
I mean I could say Fox News causes people to be conservative, because people definitely don't seek out shows that reaffirm their existing beliefs.
Edit: And the second link doesn't surprise me or prove anything at all. People age 18-24 are probably a lot less likely to get news form mainstream news outlets, and are more likely to watch comedy central.
From the same source since I'm just reading it in more detail now:
As Table 3 shows, evaluations for Bush and Kerry are negatively associated
with exposure to The Daily Show. This association is not significant for
Bush and only marginally significant for Kerry (p < .10). However, when the
two indices are combined to create a comprehensive measure of overall candidate
evaluation, exposure to The Daily Show has a significant negative
effect (p < .05), even when controlling for party identification, party intensity,
9 and race.10 Exposure to the CBS Evening News clip, on the other hand,
did not significantly influence evaluations of either candidate. On the basis of
these findings, we can accept our hypothesis that exposure to The Daily Show
lowers overall candidate evaluations (Hypothesis 1).
All they said they accounted for was "party identification, party intensity, and race."
Nowhere does it say they accounted for an already cynical disposition towards politics.
Seriously, those kind of stupid fucking surveys prove not a goddamn thing.
That's a bit of a daft hypothesis. The daily show is a satire comedy program. Highlighting mistakes the candidates made is more or less what they do. They don't report on neutral policy stuff because it isn't stuff that you can really make fun of; so what's the point in comparing them to a news network like CBS? One show cherry-picks low-hanging political fruit and makes fun of news networks for focusing on trifles; the other is a news network made specifically to inform citizens.
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
Re: Nocturne
I should have read the next few pages, apologies on replying while reading. They control for cynicism in the next table PDF is here, page 351.
To test the effects of The Daily Show exposure on cynicism toward the
electoral system and the news media, we regressed three separate survey
items against the same predictors used in Table 3. These results are reported
in Table 4. Because the dependent variables in these models are ordinal measures,
the analysis was conducted using ordered probit. The first column of
Table 4 demonstrates the effect of the predictors on the participants’ faith inthe electoral system. Participants were asked to agree or disagree with
the statement “I have faith in the U.S. electoral system” (1 = strongly disagree,
3 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = strongly agree). This variable was
used as a measure of cynicism toward the electoral process (Hypothesis 3),
because the absence of trust is central to cynicism (Cappella & Jamieson,
1997, p. 141), and less faith is an indicator of diminished trust. The ordered
probit estimates show that participants exposed to The Daily Show condition
were significantly less likely to agree with the statement. When holding all
other variables in the model constant, exposure to The Daily Show caused a
23% increase in the probability that a participant would disagree that he or
she has faith in the electoral system. This finding confirms our third hypothesis.
No such significant relationship existed for those who watched election
coverage on CBS Evening News.
Our fourth hypothesis states that exposure to The Daily Show will increase
cynicism toward the news media.We used two indicators to measure
this concept (see columns 2 and 3 in Table 4). The first variable is trust in the
news media. Participants were asked to agree or disagree with the statement
“I trust the news media to cover political events fairly and accurately” (1 =
strongly disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The
second variable is a rating score of the news media’s overall performance in
covering politics. The survey item asked, “Overall, how would you rate the
performance of the media in covering politics in America?” (1 = poor, 2 =
only fair, 3 = good, 4 = excellent). The results for both variables illustrate that
The Daily Show has a negative influence on trust and overall ratings of the
news media. Trust in the mediawas especially influenced by exposure to The
Daily Show. Holding all other variables in the model constant, those who did
not see the Stewart clip had a .48 probability of disagreeing with the statement
that they trust the media. Those who saw the Stewart clip, on the other
hand, had a .59 probability of disagreeing, a substantial effect indeed. Taken
as a whole, these findings confirm our fourth hypothesis. Exposure to The
Daily Show does indeed seem to generate increased cynicism toward the
news media. Again, this relationship did not exist among participants exposed
to CBS Evening News.
I guess I'm still having trouble with how a show who's stated goal is to make politicians and media look foolish for comedic gain making people view the targets who were made to look foolish less favorably leads to them being a news source.
At most it says that a television show can influence public opinion. Well, yes. And I think ducks can fly.
I must be having a brain fizzle and missing something here
Posts
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
They still built it for them.
Who are these people in general?
You try and judge my comments, but consistently shove words into other poster's mouths with a shovel the size of New Hampshire.
I never said CNBC was alone in it. I said it was a stupid practice, and throwing up half-hearted critiques of people who wouldn't be there to begin with if not for you enabling them is hypocritical at best.
Well given the fact that there are increasingly more clips of TDS/TCR appearing in media segments specifically when both shows criticize some aspect of politics; that the same clips appear on blogs for similar reasons (re: this whole MSNBC thing; we're talking about the credibility of MSNBC based upon the TDS' critique of it); that an entire show can be cancelled as a result of the host of TDS (and to an extent, since the interview did revolve around TDS vs. Crossfire quite a bit, is a reflection of the influence of his show as well as himself) providing compelling arguments to cause a corporation to alter their behaviour (re: shutting the show down).
I'm using 'people in general' more into a general perception evolving from the influence that these shows seem to be having on media/political institutions in the world as well as popular discourse. You could say that the perception of this influence is something which shouldn't be generated because they're just comedy shows, but the fact that it even exists in the first place to the point where it alters other actors behaviour shows that they have expanded from being simply comedy shows. The Simpsons was a comedy show, but I don't believe it (I could be wrong, I'm pulling this example out of my ass from a simple analogy) affected real-life institutions in a similar manner.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Ok, so he doesn't consider himself or his show in that light, constantly says that he and his show aren't that in the public....what more do you want? He doesn't believe it, doesn't promote it, and yet is somehow guilty for it?
And this is all ceding the point that large amounts of people do to begin with, which is a pretty big point to cede.
EDIT: Satire instigating ACTUAL analysis of something isn't wrong, it means the satire is doing something right. And Crossfire isn't an example of TDS "getting a show canceled" its an example of a guy being asked on a show and then sharing his opinion when he appears. The fact that an incoming VP at CNN agreed with that opinion is, again, a testament to the man holding it and not his show or its status. Linking a guy stating his opinion on an opinion-based show to some kind of concerted effort on the part of TDS to get things canceled or become a serious news source is just short of insane. Did you even read the quote of the earlier post?
What I'm saying is that funny is more important than fact on that show. They've said themselves that it shouldn't be used as a primary news source.
Yes, they usually do try to be factually accurate, and they have risen above general comedy, but it is still a comedy program, and there aren't standards they have to comply with when it comes to accuracy. Opinion on something that considers itself a comedy show (the CNBC piece would be an opinion piece) is much more acceptable than opinion on something that considers itself a news network.
That's the fault of people who are putting too much weight on the integrity of a comedy show.
That must make watching Heroes hard.
There are a lot of problems with cable news. Especially Fox, which is propaganda. Their talking heads are often stupid and don't provide a good diversity of opinions.
But the idea that a 24-hour news network is reflexively flawed? It's based on the premise that "there isn't enough news to fill 24 hours," which is nonsense. Even if that 24 hours is mostly spent digesting and analyzing a few stories, that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. I really like the Daily Show, I really like Stewart, but on this subject he is painting with a broad brush.
I think their "influence" is widely exaggerated and doesn't require any greater degree of responsibility. Lots of people like the shows and show clips of them is pretty much all I'm seeing here.
CNBC is a fucking joke, and everyone in new york finance already knows this. Tell her to not waste her time.
If you look at that nature of politics in relation to the news cycle before 24 hour news existed, and after, you will see a substantial difference. And I would love to see an assertion that it was for the better.
Oh you can do a 24 hour news channel right, as CNN International shows, but none of the ones around here are worth shit.
If 24 hour news networks even made an effort to cover worthwhile news for the entire day, people would give them a lot less flack. It's that they fill the schedule with bullshit and opinionated morons pretending to be newscasters, and then fail to actually do their jobs regarding most stories.
For when they actually talk about a worthwhile story; It's not just their job as journalists to tell people what a public figure said. That's what press releases are for. It's their job to tell us if what was said is factually accurate, or if it was bullshit. All the major 24 hour networks fail more often than not on that regard.
Since you seemed to have missed it.
The idea of 24-hour news is not, in itself, flawed. It's the fact that they have to cater to ratings and try to do as few stories as possible (why is there so little international news? Why do they HAVE to spend three hours just waiting for Michael Jackson to show up to court?). The problem is that the 24-hour news networks are, generally, a terrible source for news.
The large exception I would make is when there is actual breaking news (and not trumped up breaking news or 'this is 4 hours old but we are still calling it breaking news'. I'm looking at you, CNN).
Jesus christ, the shovel is actually getting bigger.
Where does "substantive differences" equal "SO PURE AND INFORMED!!11!1"
Actually make an argument about what people are actually saying.
Okay, I certainly don't dispute that. As for whether it's for "the better," I made no such assertion, so I don't know why you brought it up if you don't think the opposite is true.
Well, this would suggest news satire shows of this type have some effect on public opinion of the actual political process, leading to being more informative of the current system while also less engaged potentially.
And a Pew Study poll in 2004 showed that people aged 18-24 got their news more [edit: started getting more, stupid badly worded phrase] from TDS & similar comedy shows than from mainstream news outlets.
I don't think that's indicative their influence is terribly exaggerated. It may indicate that all political satire shows of this nature have this kind of effect on the public, but that would just move the question of responsibility from specifically TDS to all shows of this nature.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
My point here wasn't even to defend cable news. My point was simply that Stewart was being unfair, bordering on dishonest, and I don't think he deserves to be lionized for his CNBC segment.
You responded to his assertion that it had made it worse by insinuating through pure snark that such a thing is not the case.
so either way youre saying it stayed the same, got worse, or are just being an asshole.
That first link doesn't prove anything. It says that people who watch TDS are more cynical about politics and have more negative views of politicans.
Can you prove to me that the former causes the latter, and not just that cynical people are drawn to shows like that?
I mean I could say Fox News causes people to be conservative, because people definitely don't seek out shows that reaffirm their existing beliefs.
Edit: And the second link doesn't surprise me or prove anything at all. People age 18-24 are probably a lot less likely to get news form mainstream news outlets, and are more likely to watch comedy central.
There's only one person who is taking comment A and then pulls three other points from his ass and appends them, turning comment A into comment B.
"CNBC is pretty hypocritical for putting those guys on a platform, then saying they shouldn't have one because they're crazy. They're the ones who built the thing!"
"Name one network that doesn't!"
"Uh...I didn't say they were the only people guilty of it, they were the particular topic at hand in the discussion. Don't put words in my mouth."
"Why is 24 hours a bad development?"
"If you look at the way the news cycles worked before their advent, you will see substantive difference that, I feel, would be difficult to defend as positive."
"Right, because the politics in the past were so pure and informed!"
"Uh...again, that's not what I said. Are you READING these things before you respond to them?"
If you don't want people getting irritated at you, try responding to what they actually say rather than jumping three points forward.
CNBC really sucks, and they clearly had no idea what the fuck they were talking about, over and over again.
Care to dispute that?
From the same source since I'm just reading it in more detail now:
They control for party identification, intensity, and race.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
That doesn't seem very logical at all.
EDIT: Reading it again, it seems its actually saying that opinions of both candidates were lowered. So, watching a show that lampoons candidates by highlighting and mocking self-effacing actions lowered people's opinion of them by exposing them to those acts.
Again, how does this make them actual news? If anything you are proving that they're an excellent source for satirical presentation, and that satire can have an affect on people's opinion. Which is kinda well known already.
All they said they accounted for was "party identification, party intensity, and race."
Nowhere does it say they accounted for an already cynical disposition towards politics.
Seriously, those kind of stupid fucking surveys prove not a goddamn thing.
I should have read the next few pages, apologies on replying while reading. They control for cynicism in the next table PDF is here, page 351.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
At most it says that a television show can influence public opinion. Well, yes. And I think ducks can fly.
I must be having a brain fizzle and missing something here
They did not account for cynicism. They showed a correlation, and then stated that the correlation proved their hypothesis.
It's utter garbage.