[lpkmckenna]

The Daily Show is much funnier than traditional newscasts, but a new study from Indiana University says it has the same amount of meat on its bones when it comes to coverage of the news. The brand of news coverage Jon Stewart and the rest of The Daily Show's staff brings to the airwaves is just as substantive as traditional news programs like World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News, according to the study conducted by IU assistant professor of telecommunications Julia R. Fox and a couple of graduate students.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061004-7908.html

Uh, ok...

Using the entire half-hour programs as the basis of analysis yielded the same results: there was just as much substance to The Daily Show's coverage as there was on the network news. And The Daily Show was much funnier, with less of the hype—references to photo ops, political endorsements, and polls—that typically overshadows substantive coverage on network news, according to the study.

Can't disagree with that. Watching politicians cut ribbons and kiss babies is a waste of time.

Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."

In other words, the "real news" is no more substantive than the Daily Show. It's not that Jon Stewart is just as good, but rather that CNN, FOX, etc are just as bad. At least the Daily Show has humor.

For myself, I get most of my news from the web. I only watch news with family.

[forkies]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

In other words, the "real news" is no more substantive than the Daily Show. It's not that Jon Stewart is just as good, but rather that CNN, FOX, etc are just as bad. At least the Daily Show has humor.

i agree with you, The Daily Show is, i think, supposed to be a comedy show based on news. however, it's gotten to the point where other news channels suck so bad that they can't do their primary/sole objective of simply reporting news as well as The Daily Show. sad.

i watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report because they're funny & both comedians make the news funny & interesting. i also read news on various news sites.

[Millennium]

I'm inclined to agree with forkies. The fact that a comedy show that makes no claims to neutrality or responsibility (except with satiric intent) is still turning out as reliable as the mainstream media is a damning indictment of mainstream media, not praise for the Daily Show.

Seriously. TDS doesn't even try to do responsible reporting -that's not what it's about, after all- yet it still manages to do as good of a job as mainstream media without even trying. This is frickin sad.

On the other hand, I'll be very interested to see the reactions to this, from both TDS and the mainstream media.

[besson3c]

Yeah, while I was a student at Indiana U myself I was there for Fox's first sharing of her research findings.. She does make some compelling arguments.

[itai195]

Frankly TDS seems to give Iraq more coverage than my local news, quite sad.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yeah, while I was a student at Indiana U myself I was there for Fox's first sharing of her research findings.. She does make some compelling arguments.

When were you there? I was there in the late 1990s.

[Dakar]

The Daily Show isn't very broad in its coverage, but it has an odd kind of objectivity in that its humor often illustrates how the media choose to handle certain topics, therefore revealing the bias or ignorance.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakar

The Daily Show isn't very broad in its coverage, but it has an odd kind of objectivity in that its humor often illustrates how the media choose to handle certain topics, therefore revealing the bias or ignorance.

In a way, I think this is good. The Daily Show tends to focus on the most ridiculous things that our media and government do. They draw attention to the things that really should be paid attention to.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

In a way, I think this is good. The Daily Show tends to focus on the most ridiculous things that our media and government do. They draw attention to the things that really should be paid attention to.

Sorry, that's what I meant to infer from my post. I agree.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Sorry, that's what I meant to infer from my post. I agree.

Ah. I thought you were saying that they were generally good, but needed to cover a broader spectrum of events.

[Gossamer]

I watch Colbert whenever I can, I like him better than Stewart. Anyone want to guess when Rob Corddry gets his own show too?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell

When were you there? I was there in the late 1990s.

I arrived in 2000 or 2001...

[Uncle Skeleton]

The biggest caveat, and one I didn't see mentioned in the finding, is that the Daily Show doesn't actually investigate anything, they just watch the other news shows. If you think about it, the word "News" implies that it's...new. The "real" news shows necessarily give you the news "newer" than the Daily Show.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

The biggest caveat, and one I didn't see mentioned in the finding, is that the Daily Show doesn't actually investigate anything, they just watch the other news shows. If you think about it, the word "News" implies that it's...new. The "real" news shows necessarily give you the news "newer" than the Daily Show.

Many news organizations don't investigate either, they just reprint stuff from the AP or Wire.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I watch Colbert whenever I can, I like him better than Stewart. Anyone want to guess when Rob Corddry gets his own show too?

Uh, never? I mean come...on...

[marden]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I watch Colbert whenever I can, I like him better than Stewart. Anyone want to guess when Rob Corddry gets his own show too?

The interesting thing about Colbert is that, whether intentionally or as part of his 'act' he has to come up with realistic points of view representing the right. In doing so he sometimes MAKES points for the right.

Other times he can even be seen as actually attacking left wing guests. He can use his fake position to skewer both sides. Or expose the truth.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/t...nt/index.jhtml

Check out the Amy Goodman interview. Pts. 1 & 2

[loki74]

I think that parody, by all means, is an effective method of making a point, or exposing ridiculous things. However, the content of such shows only covers what can be made fun of, more made into something funny. Hence, it does not provide a "full picture."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by loki74

I think that parody, by all means, is an effective method of making a point, or exposing ridiculous things. However, the content of such shows only covers what can be made fun of, more made into something funny. Hence, it does not provide a "full picture."

And TV news covers what will provide them the highest ratings and ad revenue...

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c

And TV news covers what will provide them the highest ratings and ad revenue...

And...?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden

And...?

There is rarely a full picture there either, it is generally sensational and lacking a certain depth of substantive content. In the case of Fox in particular, a lot of the "debate" is simply sexy knee jerk reactionary wanking, much like most of the conversation in this lounge.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itai195

Frankly TDS seems to give Iraq more coverage than my local news, quite sad.

Is your local Iraq?

Your local news should be covering local happenings.

Do you expect CNN to comment about your local city council meetings?

[marden]

[QUOTE=loki74]
I think that parody, by all means, is an effective method of making a point, or exposing ridiculous things. However, the content of such shows only covers what can be made fun of, more made into something funny. Hence, it does not provide a "full picture."

Originally Posted by besson3c

And TV news covers what will provide them the highest ratings and ad revenue...

Originally Posted by marden

And...?

Originally Posted by besson3c

There is rarely a full picture there either, it is generally sensational and lacking a certain depth of substantive content. In the case of Fox in particular, a lot of the "debate" is simply sexy knee jerk reactionary wanking, much like most of the conversation in this lounge.

Try this:

[marden]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Is your local Iraq?

Your local news should be covering local happenings.

Do you expect CNN to comment about your local city council meetings?

[besson3c]

Marden: yeah man! Great point... rolly eyes guy! Yeah, well said. You really put me in my place.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Marden: yeah man! Great point... rolly eyes guy! Yeah, well said. You really put me in my place.

You were trolling.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Marden: yeah man! Great point... rolly eyes guy! Yeah, well said. You really put me in my place.

You REALLY hate it when someone points out your flaws don't you?

We call that insecurity where I come from.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden

You were trolling.

Yes Marden, I was making a point about the quality of the "real" news in a thread about the real news... Pretty awesome trolling, huh?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Is your local Iraq?

Your local news should be covering local happenings.

Do you expect CNN to comment about your local city council meetings?

Disagree, especially when some local news broadcasts here are an hour long and they have no problem covering national or international news when they feel like it. They should at least have as much coverage as TDS devotes to it, 3-5 minutes? Heck we have a local channel devoted pretty much entirely to news and they rarely say anything about it.

I expect CNN to broadcast a lot of bickering pundits and little substantive news.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

The interesting thing about Colbert is that, whether intentionally or as part of his 'act' he has to come up with realistic points of view representing the right. In doing so he sometimes MAKES points for the right.

It's funny when people from the right don't quite catch his sarcasm.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itai195

Disagree, especially when some local news broadcasts here are an hour long and they have no problem covering national or international news when they feel like it. They should at least have as much coverage as TDS devotes to it, 3-5 minutes? Heck we have a local channel devoted pretty much entirely to news and they rarely say anything about it.

I expect CNN to broadcast a lot of bickering pundits and little substantive news.

Sucks to live where you live then.

My local news show covers local news and the national news shows covers national. I guess they don't say that California is the land of fruits and nuts for nothing.

And I also expect CNN to "broadcast a lot of bickering pundits and little substantive news" as well. Look at it's founder.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by goMac

It's funny when people from the right don't quite catch his sarcasm.

The same is often said of rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

The same is often said of rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

Maybe you're right.

But the difference is Limbaugh is a conservative and I think he likes to use that excuse to get away with saying unsubstantiated things.

Colbert is always joking whether or not his point is ludicrous.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yes Marden, I was making a point about the quality of the "real" news in a thread about the real news... Pretty awesome trolling, huh?

You intentionally, and skillfully, presented a slightly exaggerated pov without expressing the obvious truths of the situation. I take it this was in hopes of achieving this.

A debate?

Ok.

The demands of network news are more important than you give credit for.

The news networks need to provide us the major events of the day that will affect us as individuals and as a nation. They need to give us warning of events that are developing and which may eventually be things we have to deal with. They have to do it in a way that makes sense to the viewers whoever they might be and they have to do it responsibly.

It's interesting that you will seldom see a major story or one of mid level importance on one network but not on the others. This is not due to collusion. It's because after years of experience they all understand what the job takes and what America expects. What differs is their perspective.

Originally Posted by besson3c
There is rarely a full picture there either, it is generally sensational and lacking a certain depth of substantive content. In the case of Fox in particular, a lot of the "debate" is simply sexy knee jerk reactionary wanking, much like most of the conversation in this lounge.

There is rarely a full picture because of the same reason we don't post full long ass articles here. Time & space considerations. It is sensational to a degree and this is based on the need to attract your attention. TDS does the same thing. Except you don't see them as being sensationalistic, even though they are. Where most people respond to violence and gore, you seem to respond to humor and so you tune into TDS.

The fact is that we get more facts and more objectivity on ANY of the network shows than on TDS. The MSM all have a much higher bar to jump 24/7/365, whereas (as others have pointed out) The Daily Show has to be funny and perpetuate the rebellious attitude toward authority. They use the news as a way to deliver humor and rebellion.

Fox News Channel presents a point of view IN POINTED CONTRAST to the pov of the other networks because the other network's assumptions are liberally biased and produce a nation heavily biased towards liberalism. Just think, before the advent of the FNC all we got was liberal news. To get around the liberal bias Ronald Reagan had his own syndicated radio commentaries and that helped expand upon his solid base of conservative support until the presidential campaigns started and we were able to get conspicuous coverage of both candidates and their points of view.

It didn't hurt that Carter had done as poorly as he had. This gave the country a reason to want to look for a change.

You don't appreciate the news that IS presented you.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

It's funny when people from the right don't quite catch his sarcasm.

It's trollish for someone to say things like that when they, themselves seldom introduce subjects of an intellectually stimulating nature.

If Stephen Colbert is the most clever act you've ever seen, you are culturally impoverished. If you think we right thinkers don't get his sarcasm you put your youthful naivete on display for the gentle amusement of all.

[besson3c]

The old "liberal biased news" argument bores me to tears.

I don't care what alleged bias network news channels might have (print and radio is a whole other line of argument, I'm leaving these out for now). The crux of the problem is lazy and substantive vs. quick and sensational. Because we get 5 second sound-bytes on network news channels and little rapid fire stories with fast paced and intense graphics interspersed throughout, it doesn't even matter what sort of bias the news may have, we simply aren't getting enough to really formulate an intelligent opinion.

Look at how news is presented on NPR (in general). Because the stories are drawn out and substantive in providing content and debate, the listener is able to process the information and make a judgment themselves. I believe that every narrative has a bias, because that's what a narrative by definition is, and all news stories include a narrative. NPR is no exception to this either, but when there is more information for the listener to process, they don't have to reach a conclusion and formulate an opinion simply based on the narrative, they have a far better chance of really digging into a problem and coming up with a reasonably well put together opinion this way.

The issue of whether network news channels are liberally biased is an interesting debate, but completely and entirely pointless. Even with a conservative bias, the viewer still doesn't have a fighting chance to really form a well reasoned opinion the way the stories are presented.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

Disagree, especially when some local news broadcasts here are an hour long and they have no problem covering national or international news when they feel like it. They should at least have as much coverage as TDS devotes to it, 3-5 minutes? Heck we have a local channel devoted pretty much entirely to news and they rarely say anything about it.

I expect CNN to broadcast a lot of bickering pundits and little substantive news.

The networks have the budgets to support in depth news reporting and coverage and analysis. The locals don't. The nets originate the news coverage. The locals pick and choose from content made available by others (networks or news services like Bloomberg, Reuters, AP and others) and they shape their local coverage based on the reportage they subscribe to.

The major networks and news sources can attract the best news talent because of the prestige, the benefits, the assignments and the salaries the networks provide.

The daily show is NOT a news show. It is a comedy show which uses news as a vehicle for their comedy. It is Jay Leno's and Dave Letterman's monologue jazzed up and expanded to a half hour.

Not many people would watch ALL news and ONLY news 24/7/365 and that's why there is a CNN Headline News, for people who want the facts and only the facts (and their ad rates would probably be different than the rates charged for advertising on their regular CNN channel). For those who want more details and in depth analysis they tune to the one which has what you say is bickering pundits and little substantive news. (That's a very telling remark, btw.)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

It's trollish for someone to say things like that when they, themselves seldom introduce subjects of an intellectually stimulating nature.

If Stephen Colbert is the most clever act you've ever seen, you are culturally impoverished. If you think we right thinkers don't get his sarcasm you put your youthful naivete on display for the gentle amusement of all.

Oh, no where did I say he was the most clever act I've ever seen. I'm not sure where you picked that up from.

He builds all his points on the most flakey of evidence. That's the point of his jokes. He makes conservative points on the most ridiculous evidence. If his points are sometimes "proving conservatives right", I'm not sure you're quite understanding his show. However much you agree with his "points", he builds them on flawed foundations, and in the process, makes fun of the right.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Maybe you're right.

But the difference is Limbaugh is a conservative and I think he likes to use that excuse to get away with saying unsubstantiated things.

Colbert is always joking whether or not his point is ludicrous.

I disagree. And that is part of the excellence of his show. He is not ALWAYS joking. But he can always SAY he is joking. And many people will SWEAR he is always joking.

If he is as smart as I believe he is, he'll never come completely clean on this.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Oh, no where did I say he was the most clever act I've ever seen. I'm not sure where you picked that up from.

He builds all his points on the most flakey of evidence. That's the point of his jokes. He makes conservative points on the most ridiculous evidence. If his points are sometimes "proving conservatives right", I'm not sure you're quite understanding his show. However much you agree with his "points", he builds them on flawed foundations, and in the process, makes fun of the right.

Maybe you are right.

[Dakar]

Watch Colbert's interview on 60 minutes. It'll tell you what you need to know.

(My favorite part -- that he'd be happy to start believing what he says, because then he'd could make his material more believable!)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden

I disagree. And that is part of the excellence of his show. He is not ALWAYS joking. But he can always SAY he is joking. And many people will SWEAR he is always joking.

If he is as smart as I believe he is, he'll never come completely clean on this.

You need to watch his speech at the White House press dinner thing. He is no Republican and does not base his shtick around making sincere conservative arguments.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The old "liberal biased news" argument bores me to tears.

I don't care what alleged bias network news channels might have (print and radio is a whole other line of argument, I'm leaving these out for now). The crux of the problem is lazy and substantive vs. quick and sensational. Because we get 5 second sound-bytes on network news channels and little rapid fire stories with fast paced and intense graphics interspersed throughout, it doesn't even matter what sort of bias the news may have, we simply aren't getting enough to really formulate an intelligent opinion.

Look at how news is presented on NPR (in general). Because the stories are drawn out and substantive in providing content and debate, the listener is able to process the information and make a judgment themselves. I believe that every narrative has a bias, because that's what a narrative by definition is, and all news stories include a narrative. NPR is no exception to this either, but when there is more information for the listener to process, they don't have to reach a conclusion and formulate an opinion simply based on the narrative, they have a far better chance of really digging into a problem and coming up with a reasonably well put together opinion this way.

The issue of whether network news channels are liberally biased is an interesting debate, but completely and entirely pointless. Even with a conservative bias, the viewer still doesn't have a fighting chance to really form a well reasoned opinion the way the stories are presented.

It's not even a debate. It's a fact. Look it up. It is generally acknowledged by most in the know. I'll agree that it is pointless to debate, though. If conservative and liberal oriented news media weren't effective in helping shape opinion they wouldn't be discussed at all. It just wouldn't be an issue. But it is an issue and so it is much discussed.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You need to watch his speech at the White House press dinner thing. He is no Republican and does not base his shtick around making sincere conservative arguments.

Geez. I believe I can tell when some of you light up by the way you post.

Ok. Maybe you are right.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Watch Colbert's interview on 60 minutes. It'll tell you what you need to know.

(My favorite part -- that he'd be happy to start believing what he says, because then he'd could make his material more believable!)

I watch his show. I saw the complete 60 Minutes piece. Twice. I saw the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner where he performed.

I get it.

But if it makes you happy...

Maybe you are right.

[Dakar]

Don't give me the if it makes you happy crap.

It makes you happy to believe he might be sincere.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Don't give me the if it makes you happy crap.

It makes you happy to believe he might be sincere.

You can't appreciate the opportunity he has to both exercise his sarcasm but ALSO veer from the liberal line on occasion? You think he is a monolithic liberal who always toes the liberal line?

No. No intelligent person ever is ALWAYS loyal to the party line. But when you are a person who is an icon or a cheerleader or who depends on a zealous mob of fanatics (anyone we know???) who would quickly drop their allegiance if he veered from leading the stereotypical liberal throng, you can't risk interjecting your personal feelings.

You serve up a product. You are a mercenary who generally or largely agrees with the line. But only when you have a controlling interest in the network do you have the freedom (or luxury) of voicing your personal opinions when they don't agree with the line. But even then you'd have stockholders to deal with.

Colbert is mostly in agreement with the line. When he isn't, he has the unique opportunity to give voice to his true feelings that might get someone else fired.

Believe it or not.

I don't care.

But then again, maybe you are right.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

You can't appreciate the opportunity he has to both exercise his sarcasm but ALSO veer from the liberal line on occasion? You think he is a monolithic liberal who always toes the liberal line?

No. No intelligent person ever is ALWAYS loyal to the party line. But when you are a person who is an icon or a cheerleader or who depends on a zealous mob of fanatics (anyone we know???) who would quickly drop their allegiance if he veered from leading the stereotypical liberal throng, you can't risk interjecting your personal feelings.

You serve up a product. You are a mercenary who generally or largely agrees with the line. But only when you have a controlling interest in the network do you have the freedom (or luxury) of voicing your personal opinions when they don't agree with the line. But even then you'd have stockholders to deal with.

Colbert is mostly in agreement with the line. When he isn't, he has the unique opportunity to give voice to his true feelings that might get someone else fired.

Believe it or not.

I don't care.

But then again, maybe you are right.

All this crap you posted isn't my point.

My point is don't try and belittle us as having an emotional vestment in Colbert's liberalness when you have no reason to believe otherwise than your own feelings.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

All this crap you posted isn't my point.

My point is don't try and belittle us as having an emotional vestment in Colbert's liberalness when you have no reason to believe otherwise than your own feelings.

I won't belittle you for that. I'll belittle your preference for obvious, admitted liars and prevaricators over sincere people who want to save your lives. And while I find it pitiable that some of you can't tell the difference, I'm laughing at those who LIKE the entertaining liars and choose them and reject the sincere guys.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden

It's not even a debate. It's a fact. Look it up. It is generally acknowledged by most in the know. I'll agree that it is pointless to debate, though. If conservative and liberal oriented news media weren't effective in helping shape opinion they wouldn't be discussed at all. It just wouldn't be an issue. But it is an issue and so it is much discussed.

Then the solution isn't to put the narrative under a microscope, but to push for journalistic integrity and thoroughness.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Then the solution isn't to put the narrative under a microscope, but to push for journalistic integrity and thoroughness.

This push was going on before we became aware of news. But our mutual endorsement of this issue is now part of the record.