Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jon Stewart to Save the Gamers?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the politically-not-with-like-fireballs-and-stuff dept.

133

Joystiq's political column, courtesy of GamePolitics, talks this week about the bad rep games and gamers get in the popular press. They ask the question: 'Who will save the gamers?' Their answer: Daily Show host Jon Stewart. From the article: "Pennsylvania's Joe Pitts, mocked by Stewart for saying that violent games might affect ghetto children differently from affluent kids, actually protested -- after his opponent in a tough election campaign exploited The Daily Show fiasco for political gain. And that's precisely why Jon Stewart could be the savior of games. People tune in. For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch. Stewart, and colleague Stephen Colbert are seen as smart, funny, credible and relentlessly sticking it to the man. Elected officials, on the other hand, can't afford to come off as bumbling, low-tech and clueless. Naturally, Stewart helps them do so on a nightly basis."

cancel ×

133 comments

Answer: no (2, Insightful)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16168943)

And that's precisely why Jon Stewart could be the savior of games. People tune in. For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch.

This is what we on the Internets call "preaching to the choir."

Rob

Answer yes (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169073)

Sure, but maybe watching comedies for your information on world events isn't the best idea.

I like John Stewart, he's funny, but it isn't "The News"

Re:Answer yes (3, Interesting)

shawb (16347) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169289)

Comedy may not be the best medium for the news, it is a great way to present opinions/editorials. It allows you to present an opinion on a political topic without looking like a raving lunatic. Stewart and Limbaugh both fit into this category in my mind. For one to form an opinion on the topics it IS better to have researched through more traditional news channels, but for many people there simply isn't time to read about every topic. Stewart et al. allow people to be both entertained AND informed, if a topic raised by these pundits is particularilly interesting or important, then people can go out and find more information as needed. The issues they raise will in general be the most interesting to their audience, and a large subset of "interesting" is importance and relevance to society (although not all interesting news is important or relevant, and a lot of important/relevant news is interesting.)

While comedic or entertainment based Op/Ed is not the best format for a sole source of news, it can serve a purpose in getting people interested and involved with the topics of the time. With modern media and the glut of information available, it would be overly cumbersome for every individual to research each and every news source on all the topics available.

Opinion (1, Insightful)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169429)

A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite is worse than no opinion at all.
That's my opinion.

Re:Opinion (1)

Shipwack (684009) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169925)

Maybe so, but studies show that people who get their news from Jon Stewart are better informed than those who watch news shows on Fox...

Re:Opinion (1)

wernercd (837757) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171243)

'Studies show' without proof... do you have any snake oil for sale with those statistics?

Re:Opinion (2, Informative)

Paradoks (711398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171447)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003 [mediamatters.org] , which references an National Annenberg Election Survey [annenbergp...center.org] which found that, "Overall, Daily Show viewers scored the highest out of any group surveyed, with Daily Show viewers answering, on average, 60 percent of the questions correctly."

Is that enough of a defense of the grandparent post's weasel words?

Re:Opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16175007)

That doesn't necessary connect the Daily Show to the higher performance, as the person implied. For all we know the people who watch Daily Show could also watch CNN, and BBC resulting in better information. That would only hold true if you forced people to watch nothing other than the Daily Show and nothing other than Fox News Channel for a great sum of time and only quizzed them on events that occurred during that time frame.

Most likely since Daily Show is a 30 minute program as compared to Fox, odds are you would find the inverse true if a real study were conducted.

Re:Opinion (1)

Shipwack (684009) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171479)

You are correct insofar that I should have backed that assertion up with a reference. My apologies for being in too much in a hurry to post the link... a slight oversight,and I thank paradoks for posting the link below to cover my statement. As for snake oil, one of my friends would kill me for selling snake products, but I might be able to convince her to part with some venom or anti-venom if you prove to have a need or license...

Re:Opinion (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16172445)

Studies show you just got pwned, biznatch!

Re:Opinion (5, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169943)

"A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite....(t)hat's my opinion."
-nuggz on 09-23-06 concerning his opinion of people getting their news from the Daily Show.

Re:Opinion (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171863)

WINNER IS YOU!

Re:Opinion (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 7 years ago | (#16172597)

" "A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite....(t)hat's my opinion."
-nuggz on 09-23-06 concerning his opinion of people getting their news from the Daily Show."

Is like a poorly informed opinion based on a Slashdot summary.
And Daily Show isn't the only place gamers get their news from, they get it from Slashdot too =p

Re:Opinion (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170029)

A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite is worse than no opinion at all.
That's my opinion.


. . . and a wonderful sound bite.

Re:Opinion (4, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171349)

A poorly informed opinion based on a soundbite is worse than no opinion at all.
That's my opinion.


You're wrong. Soundbytes, or their period equivalent, are the lifeblood of democracy. Remember "taxation without representation"? "divided we fall"? "Remember the Alamo"? "Hell no, we won't go"?

If your argument cannot be distilled into a five-word phrase, you don't really have an argument.

Soundbites (1)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16172717)

It's funny: Clinton's election campaign was one of the first in America to really recognize that idea (Clinton apparently believed in it quite strongly). And it obviously worked, given the way Clinton was able to do basically nothing and yet maintain non-stop popularity. And yet subsequent democratic party campaigns ditched the idea completely, while the GOP totally embraced it (where it once again works wonders, election after election). What do you call a group of people that fail to learn from their successes, and then fail to learn from their mistakes?

Re:Opinion (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16173047)

That's the most depressing truth I've read tonight.

Democracy (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16174401)

Scary idea that soundbites rule the world.
It might be true, but I don't think it's right.

Of course this is probaly the reason first world countries are in such a mess.

What? (1)

Tony (765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16174437)

If your argument cannot be distilled into a five-word phrase, you don't really have an argument.

That's 17 words. I'm thinking you don't have an argument.

Re:What? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16175347)

"Keep it simple, stupid" perhaps? That's the four word version of the OP's point right there.

Re:Opinion (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16174611)

Leaving you to form your own justification for the action, which is pretty damn dangerous considering the justifications many American's used for their government's action towards Iraq proving faulty in the following months.

Re:Answer yes (3, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169479)

The Daily Show consistently makes people aware of what is currently going on in the news. There's no less news than on the other news shows. There really isn't.

What there is less of is spin and propaganda from the talking heads. Where you'd get pro-Bush propaganda, you get some humour splashed in to break the tension so you don't explode when you see what's happening in the world.

No, it's not the best source of news. But it's the best news source in America.

Re:Answer yes (0)

LGagnon (762015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170473)

Maybe the best on American TV, but the independent news is still better than what you see on TV, and is thus better as far as news goes. (And no, that's not an insult to The Daily Show.)

Re:Answer yes (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170887)

No, it's not the best source of news. But it's the best news source in America.

It's _one of_ the best news sources in America, IMO. This [nakednews.com] , while NSFW, is also pretty nice, although not necessarily for their news coverage.

Re:Answer yes (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170909)

Less spin!? The entire foundation of the show is based on "spin"! It's a satire!

Most of the other news shows are not pro-Bush. They generally show a slant to the opposite side, although that could be due to a real political slant or a tendency to carry bad news. Most likely, it's both.

Re:Answer yes (1)

radixvir (659331) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171955)

Yes, it's satire but the humor they use makes its intent obvious (IMHO). And I would agree it actually has less spin than most programs. Remember a program's "spin" doesn't have to be over politics. Most of the 24-hour new networks spin events to make them seem more dangerous, exciting, or more newsworthy than the really are so they can boost their own ratings.

Re:Answer yes (1)

Mac Degger (576336) | more than 7 years ago | (#16172913)

I'm sorry, but WTF?

I don't live in the US, but even I can see that most news stations are firmly pro Bush. How else do you explain the free passes and non-quetsions that get askled of him. Compare the fallout the press gives based on importance of the subject matter: a blowjob and a war. If a false reason for war (and going all Stalin-esque with respect to secret police/torture/wiretapping) gets less attention than a blowjob, then you can pretty much say the press favours the latter side, dontchathink?

Put it like this: a fair, balanced and neutral press in a 'free' country should roast an elected official who condones torture and the wiretapping of it's citizens (or, come to that, the forcing thruogh of legislation without getting the people who vote on it to read said legislature). That didn't happen.

Re:Answer yes (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16174589)

Unfortunatly Jon Stewart's coverage of the Israel situation made me doubt that.

I think Jon Stewarts liberalism also leads him to be an apologist for Democrats, I totally agree with his liberalism but that doesn't mean that I don't see his liberal slant.

Jon Stewart has a brilliant show but his tight control over his corespondents leads to his being the only views expressed.

If there are any further situations surrounding Israel or the Democrats I think another news source would be called for.

Re:Answer yes (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#16175077)

Wow, you just put up a whole bunch of negative character attacks without a single bit of substantiation. How about that.

Do you work for CNN or something?

Re:Answer yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169341)

It isn't any less "news" than the trash we see on channels such as CNN and Fox. On the Daily Show they might make some humor out of it, but they still do their job very well: presenting important topics to the public.

Re:Answer yes (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169489)

No, they don't. They present whatever they deem funny, and make stupid, often misinformational, jokes about it. They're %80 Funny, 10% troll, 10% flamebait, and 0% informational.

Re:Answer yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169743)

...and 0% informational....

Whatever... Go back to watching your Fox news.

Re:Answer yes (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170857)

Are you under the impression that these shows are meant to be informational? Does their being on "Comedy Central" not give you a clue?

Re:Answer yes (2, Insightful)

Paradoks (711398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171487)

"0% informational" means that one would never learn anything useful from a program. Stating that the Daily Show is "0% informational" is about as fair as stating that Fox News is "100% right-wing slant".

Both are quite obviously untrue if someone bothers to watch either the Daily Show or Fox News. Stating either shows a lack of perspective.

Re:Answer yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16171713)

Are you under the impression that these shows are meant to be informational? Does their being on "Comedy Central" not give you a clue?
I'm not sure if you noticed but this whole post was submited with the idea that these shows are informational. Personally I would agree with you and the GP
[The Daily Show] present[s] whatever they deem funny, and make stupid, often misinformational, jokes about it. They're %80 Funny, 10% troll, 10% flamebait, and 0% informational.
well maybe not Zero percent, but to say that "The Daily Show" is as, if not more, informative as a traditional news show is like saying political satire comics are as, if not more informative as the front page articles.

Are the front page articles slanted? Yes. Are they fair and balanced? probably not. Do political satire comics have purpose? Yes, they're useful, they have purpose, but they're not actual articles.

Re:Answer yes (3, Insightful)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169437)

The Daily Show/ Colbert report is the news with humor on top.

CNN/Fox News/etc is the news with fear, manipulation, marketing, and a lot of general bullshit on top.

In the end you still get the same story, just different presentation. You also get a lot more news in 30 minutes of the dailyshow than you would 30 minutes of Fox News, where likely it would just be 30 minutes covering the same story.

Re:Answer yes (1)

Inverted Intellect (950622) | more than 7 years ago | (#16173637)

In the end you still get the same story, just different presentation. You also get a lot more news in 30 minutes of the dailyshow than you would 30 minutes of Fox News, where likely it would just be 30 minutes covering the same story.


It may well be that you get a larger number of news items in the dailyshow than in Fox News shows, but that doesn't automatically make it better. Indepth != larger number of news items.

Disclaimer: I haven't actually seen much of either the Daily Show or Fox News, I'm just critiquing your logic.

Re:Answer yes (4, Interesting)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169459)

John Stewart's show is easily as informative as most "real" news shows that people watch. Watch the local news down here in Atlanta some time then tell me Stewart's show isn't both more trustworthy and more to-the-point.

I'll grant you that there are much more respectable news outlets than "The Daily Show". However, in practice, given the alternatives of getting the news from ABC, NBC, or FOX, I'd rather people watch the "The Daily Show" instead. Personally, I've more or less given up on the televised media in the US. There is just too much money in it, and too much of an incentive to filter the information for the sake of ratings and public tastes. I get most of my news from "The Economist". Wading through it once a week is more work than watching NBC, but at least it won't fill my head with crap.

Re:Answer yes (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16173053)

I get most of my news from "The Economist"

Oooh, Look At Me, I Read The Economist! [theonion.com]

Re:Answer yes (1)

misterye (260449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169465)

For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch.

Where exactly does the author get his "facts" on this one? Sounds like some internet echo chamber nonsense to me. Everyone knows that the 16-34 demographic all watch 60 minutes and McLehrer's News Hour religiously.

Seriously though, I always cringe when I see stuff like that printed without some sort of source to back it up.

Re:Answer yes (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169467)

I agree. It's a very funny show, but it should never be treated as informational.

Re:Answer yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169821)

Dude, have you even watched the Daily Show? It is very informational.

Re:Answer yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169927)

Video news releases (VNRs, often referred to as fake TV news) are video clips that are indistinguishable from traditional news clips and are sometimes screened unedited by television stations without the identification of the original producers or sponsors, who are commonly corporations, government agencies, or non-governmental organizations.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Video_n ews_releases [sourcewatch.org]

~~~~~
Shortly before last year's Super Bowl, local news stations across the country aired a story by Mike Morris describing plans for a new White House ad campaign on the dangers of drug abuse.

What viewers did not know was that Morris is not a journalist and his ''report" was produced by the government, actions which constituted illegal ''covert propaganda," according to an investigation by the Government Accountability Office.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/01 /07/bush_team_scolded_for_disguised_tv_report/ [boston.com]

~~~~~
The "real" news show aren't doing a very good job of being informational, either.

Re:Answer yes (1)

Lectrik (180902) | more than 7 years ago | (#16173377)

The Daily Show is "The News"...

In much the same sense that The Weekly World News is "The News"

Re:Answer: no (4, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169287)

For many younger viewers, it's the only news program they watch.

Yes, it is the only "news" program I watch, however, I also read the newspaper and listen to National Public Radio daily. The rest of the news programs are generally filled with a bunch of sensationalist bullshit that I don't care about. Just because I don't watch the 5:00 news doesn't mean I'm less informed, and I'd have to say that most of the Daily Show watchers are also fairly well informed, otherwise they wouldn't understand the majority of the jokes.

Re:Answer: no (1, Insightful)

c_forq (924234) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170037)

I used to do that, but now I dropped NPR. I stick to The Daily Show, a local newspaper, and the internet now. I began to feel the spin on NPR and see the effect it was having on me, and decided I didn't like that. While I still give NPR credit for (in my experience) never engaging in sensationalism and hyperbole I feel it is loaded with spin.

Re:Answer: no (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 7 years ago | (#16173573)

never engaging in sensationalism and hyperbole

I can only assume you weren't listening to NPR a decade ago, during the OJ & Clenis hysterias that they whole-heartedly took part in.

Re:Answer: no (1)

jma05 (897351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16173603)

> I'd have to say that most of the Daily Show watchers are also fairly well informed, otherwise they wouldn't understand the majority of the jokes.

Actually Daily Show viewers are the most informed in this study.

'Daily Show' viewers ace political quiz
Survey reveals late-night TV viewers better informed
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.po litics/ [cnn.com]

John's take on this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pTIpqAV82ng [youtube.com]

Re:Answer: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169295)

This is what we on the Internets call "preaching to the choir."

And it's not just that they're 'the choir'. They also don't vote.

Re:Answer: no (2, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170149)

>This is what we on the Internets call "preaching to the choir."

Right. Here's how the evening 'news' breaks down. its like 22 minutes sans commercials. Its streetcrime and weather mostly. Whatever hotbutton political nonsense is going on with no real facts or commentary, just a watered down AP article with some local biases added. On occasion there's soft-news garbage like "IS THE DRY CLEANERS RIPPING YOU OFF" and "TERRORISTS IN THE KITCHEN WHAT YOU CAN DO AGAINST ROTTING MEATS." No international news unless theres a huge disaster somewhere.

Watch the daily show, at least they go past the talking points.

Watching tv for news is like riding a horse to work. With all the news sites and a even the old trusty newspaper you get a lot more information per minute than the 'evening news.' Its no surprise that younger people are tuning in mostly for entertainment. Hell, I know a guy who watches parts of the O'Reilly factor because it just cracks him up.

News (1)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16172709)

Since when is the Daily Show news? I was under the impression that it was a comedy program. Given that they make up a great deal of stuff, they report on less actual news than the 5-page free paper that I pick up every day (just for the crossword), and don't report on ANYTHING unless they can derive a good laugh from it, I'd say that anyone trying to claim the Daily Show is a news program is off their rocker. It's a parody of news programs, not a news program itself.

Generally, the only people that actually think of the Daily Show as "news" are either

A) Stupid (that would be the "younger" viewers mentioned above), or

B) So deeply neoconservative that they've lost all connection with reality (the kind of people silly enough to ask Stephen Colbert to speak at a Whitehouse dinner and then act surprised when he mocks the president to his face).

Actually, aren't the guys at CNN under the impression that the Daily Show is a competing news program? How can people miss the joke so completely and totally? I mean, come on.

Forget Stewart, I want Hodgman's opinion (3, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#16168961)

After all, he is the resident expert [comedycentral.com] on such matters.

Re:Forget Stewart, I want Hodgman's opinion (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169307)

I get the feeling Hodgman's opinion will have something to do with bums.

It's comedy, not news (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16168965)

The daily show is on *Comedy Central*. Apparently that isn't a strong enough hint, so Jon Stewart regularly denies that the Daily Show is a news format. If young people still consider it news, then things are in really bad shape.

Re:It's comedy, not news (3, Insightful)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169071)

If young people still consider it news, then things are in really bad shape.

Considering a great deal of America's news output... yes, things certainly are.

Re:It's comedy, not news (1)

gosand (234100) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169273)

Considering a great deal of America's news output... yes, things certainly are.

What I like, and what I think can be considered a vague benefit, is that it is news related comedy. I mean, there are hints of information in it. It's better than just watching MTV, E!, or NASCAR.

I will routinely hear stories on NPR on the way to work, and then wonder what The Daily Show or Colbert Report will do with it. I think the writers of those shows, and the way the hosts deliver it, are fantastic.

Re:It's comedy, not news (2, Insightful)

Ptraci (584179) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169211)

The sad thing is, Most shows that claim to be news shows aren't anymore. It's all horrific accidents and sensational crimes locally and fear and scandal mongering nationally, with very little international coverage outside of the daily bombing death toll in Baghdad. TV is way behind the internet for news these days, and it has always been way behind the newspapers.

Re:It's comedy, not news (5, Insightful)

NoodleSlayer (603762) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169299)

However unlike most "news" programs, which contain less and less real news each year, The Daily Show isn't afraid to air clips of politicians at their most embarassing, which for some of the congress critters like Alaskan Senator and General Dickhead Ted Stevens, is practically every single time they open their mouths.

They also aren't afraid to put clips of what politicians are saying now and what they said two years ago contradicting themselves, unlike most "news" programs.

So despite being a comedy show, The Daily Show has much more power to keep politicians on their toes then regular news programs because they don't have the taboos of regular news programs.

I watch three TV Shows for my "television news," The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Any time I watch any other "news" program I find myself staring in disbelief at how far they have fallen.

Re:It's comedy, not news (1)

leland242 (736905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16175067)

"They also aren't afraid to put clips of what politicians are saying now and what they said two years ago contradicting themselves, unlike most "news" programs.

So despite being a comedy show, The Daily Show has much more power to keep politicians on their toes then regular news programs because they don't have the taboos of regular news programs."

You know, it's amazing the "real" news programs don't embrace this format. Why wouldn't older / traditional viewers of network evening news be interested in seeing clips of politician X saying one thing and then either doing or saying the exact opposite? You would think at least one news agency would try it. It's not like they could lose more viewers...

There would probably be some pretty interesting politics if the normal press wasn't so damn chickenshit.

Re:It's comedy, not news (1)

Erectile Dysfunction (994340) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169473)

The Daily Show is predominately political satire. It does not present information in a professional manner, however it is informative and through humor conveys political information. This stands in contrast to the "news" programs available on television which are predominately talk shows pretending to be news programs, and which The Daily Show happily jabs at regularly for the inanity of their contents. That is unless you stick to BBC World News on BBCA, but that doesn't help much for domestic matters. Television is a pretty bad medium for news. The Internet is by far the best source of news for the best price.

It's not the news; it's about the news (2, Interesting)

carpeweb (949895) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169921)

For me, it's not primarily political satire. It's satire about the news, a lot of which is news about politics. Yes, sometimes it's about the subjects of the news, but the very best of the Daily Show for me is the stuff they do that lampoons the news biz itself, not the news, per se. Maybe this distinction is just in my brain, because none of the other posters seem to see it, either.

--

Senior Slashdot Zeitgeist Correspondent

Re:It's comedy, not news (2, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 7 years ago | (#16173351)

The daily show is on *Comedy Central*.

Actually, over here it's on CNN. And weekly, so the name "Daily Show" doesn't make much sense. I wish it was daily. And at a more reasonable hour.

This will only work if gamers get out and vote (4, Insightful)

gorehog (534288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16168983)

Not much else to say really. If gamers go out and vote, and have a measurable effect, then yes, Stewart, Colbert, et al could be their spokespeople. Pot smokers too. Until they start voting no one will care what their spokespeople say.

But it's voting in rigged or dishonest elections. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169063)

But consider the past two American presidential elections. They have allegedly been so flawed and manipulated that it's doubtful that an increase in voting from video gamers, or any other group, would have any beneficial effect whatsoever. And it's even possible that such an unexpected influx of voters may wreak havoc with the manipulated vote tallying algorithms.

Re:But it's voting in rigged or dishonest election (1)

gorehog (534288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169515)

Well, if the elections are rigged enough then we will see things happen like in Mexico and Thailand. Fact is that a corrupt minority cannot rule over and angry majority.

Re:But it's voting in rigged or dishonest election (1)

ohmypolarbear (774072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169759)

Fact is that a corrupt minority cannot rule over and angry majority.
Yes, they can, but only if the angry don't realize they're a majority. I won't attempt to separate cause and effect here, but this definitely appears to be an important part of the strategy of America's current ruling party.

Re:But it's voting in rigged or dishonest election (1)

carpeweb (949895) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169863)

a corrupt minority cannot rule over and angry majority

Well, maybe not with free elections, but tell that to the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq ...

Re:But it's voting in rigged or dishonest election (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170105)

But consider the past two American presidential elections. They have allegedly been so flawed and manipulated that it's doubtful that an increase in voting from video gamers, or any other group, would have any beneficial effect whatsoever.

When the electorate is evenly split you get a tally that approaches the statistical margin of error in the count.

Scream fraud all you want. But nothing good can come from seeing your own candidate limping uselessly into the presidency. The victim of a recount that ended in his favor. But left the House and Senate unchanged.

Re:But it's voting in rigged or dishonest election (1)

entrigant (233266) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170645)

I'm calling Bullshit here. I would MUCH rather have opposing parties in the executive and legislative branches. Especially if the alternative is control of both branches by the religious right. In that situation it would be better to have gridlock than what we have now.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169205)

It doesn't matter if they vote. What real difference does it make if Jackass 1 or Jackass 2 gets elected? We need candidates that the gamers and pot smokers actually want to get elected. Maybe we should get them to RUN instead, and voting will soon follow.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

gorehog (534288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169563)

If you really believe that Al Gore would have led the US into a protracted series of wars in the Middle East, If you think Gore would have pulled out of the Kyoto accords, tried to change social security, would have given tax breaks where none were needed OR wanted, would have spent the budget surplus propping up failing airlines, then yes, you're right.

If you think Gore would have pushed the Patriot Act then you are right.

But if you believe all that then you are sadly misinformed and need to educate yourself. Democracy does not bear ignorance well.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169951)

I'm not saying there's never any difference between the candidates. I'm just saying that in most cases when both the candidates are bad and it's simply a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils, people aren't exactly that motivated to get out and vote. The solution isn't accepting the mediocre (or downright terrible) candidates, it's actually getting some good ones.

Democracy should be about real choice, not just picking from one really fucked up guy and another one that seems kind of alright in comparaison. That's all I'm saying. I can't see anything but benefit from getting more people running. Sure, getting more people to vote it good too, but surly we can do better than the majority of the candidates that we have.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170957)

I for one don't want gamers and pot smokers running the nation I live in. Is that unreasonable? I have a feeling it applies to 99% of the U.S., and probably the world.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16172411)

Thanks because your a n00b!! stupid n00b!

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (2, Funny)

leland242 (736905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16175133)

Yeah, I mean someone that plays video games must be really stupid...and must have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And those pot smokers, good god - choosing to use an illegal drug that has virtually no negative effects and is safer than alcohol - man, you have to keep those guys at bay. I mean, imagine someone like, oh, I dunno, Carl Sagen running the show. What a *dummy*!

And imagine if you had a pot smoking gamer - holy shit, it would be the end of civilization.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169731)

Not much else to say really.

It's kinda hard to vote for the right thing when all available choices are in synch with the same bullshit.
Most people don't have a good politician to vote for.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170053)

>This will only work if gamers get out and vote

Right... So i can vote for either Christian Moralist on either the GOP or the Democratic ticket. Yeah, that's the ticket!

There are no real defenders of speech in the US outside of the ACLU and they dont seem interested in video games, they cant do everything you know. Its a powerless position and the best strategy is keep the pressure up on the censors until whenever. This is an issue the political parties pretty much agree on and just giving the knee-jerk "go vote" criticism is just that: unthinking knees jerking. If anything (and I dont recommend this but understand it) its a very good reason to not vote and protest the broken process.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170361)

You could vote for a third party, like I do. Contrary to popular opinion, it's not a wasted vote.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

gorehog (534288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170967)

Agree! Vote for a third party!

Although, if not for Nader maybe Gore coulda won...

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170977)

It's rather interesting how the ACLU alters the Bill of Rights to serve their agenda. They seem to have switched out the part about the right to bear arms with something entitling minorities to discriminatory treatment (affirmative action).

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171493)

The ACLU has done the absolute best job at protection of the first amendment. How many times has the Second actually protected the First? *crickets chirping*

Bill O'Reily for Pot Smokers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16170545)

After the No Spin Zone had a serious slam at Daily Show, Comedy Central did some demographic polling and it turns out that by viewership, Bill is speaking for fewer people, and more pot smokers, than Jon Stewart.

Please get your facts in a line.

Re:This will only work if gamers get out and vote (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171817)

Yeah, if gamers are a majority. If not, then democracy will continue to favor the majority point of view, just like it does with pot. Pot smokers vote, they simply get outvoted by squares, and the square majority wins. Do you think gamers are a majority?

youtube video of the episode in question (4, Informative)

Anakron (899671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16168989)

Re:youtube video of the episode in question (2, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169977)

"Seriously the house of representatives is full of insane jackasses"

And this is why we trust John Stewart.

Problem: He ain't a politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169011)

The problem is that Jon Stewart isn't a politician. He's just a witty guy who makes smart jibes from the sidelines.

If gamers really want to make a difference, they have to be nice to politicians to gain their trust and support. I don't think Stewart will be any help there.

Re:Problem: He ain't a politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169089)

If gamers really want to make a difference, they have to be nice

Hey, you're right! I was $250000 nice to my local politician and he agreed to not let anyone else who wasn't as nice as I was tell him that videogames make people kill other people.

Might Work (2, Informative)

Inhibit (105449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169029)

It all depends on what the issue being addressed is. If the problem's simply one of all the game playing public not seeing the threat that these politicians pose, and the comedy news shows expose them to it, then it could really help spread the message that they're under attack.

Advertisements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16169105)

I think the Vice City advertisement under the article blurb is quite fitting.

Don't know about you, but (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169343)

after getting to the "comments" page, I'm greeted with an ad for "Vice City Stories"

Maybe Slashdot can save the games too; one advertisement at a time!

Re:Don't know about you, but (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170375)

after getting to the "comments" page, I'm greeted with an ad for "Vice City Stories"

If you want to "save the gamers," why not begin with the games themselves?

You model a game on Miami's gangster culture.

But your development team is in northern Scotland, far removed from the racial and ethnic tensions within the city itself. You market the game at $50 a pop to suburban white males and wonder why that doesn't win you many friends.

You are an adolescent nimcompoop who thinks that Columbine would make a fun RPG... The uncomfortable truth is that there are perfectly intelligible reasons why certain games make headlines.

Yeah because it worked so well against Bush (1)

CPE1704TKS (995414) | more than 7 years ago | (#16169637)

I love Jon Stewart and I love the Daily Show. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. For 4 years, Jon Stewart was lambasting George Bush, ridiculing his policies, and Bush won with a greater margin of victory in 2004 than in 2000.

Yes, most young people watch the Daily Show, but it doesn't translate very well in the polls. Say what you want, but the theory was that most younger people would vote Democrat, and that the entertainers had the ear of the young people, and true, the last election had a record number of young people voting. But in the end, Bush still won, so all this hollering and clammering that celebrities do didn't add up to a pile of beans.

Re:Yeah because it worked so well against Bush (1)

IntergalacticWalrus (720648) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170757)

Your statement makes very little sense. People who vote for Bush don't watch the Daily Show, or at least not many of them. You're talking as if the entire fucking country was watching Jon Stewart every weekday evening.

Re:Yeah because it worked so well against Bush (1)

ohmypolarbear (774072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16172165)

People who vote for Bush don't watch the Daily Show, or at least not many of them. You're talking as if the entire fucking country was watching Jon Stewart every weekday evening.
Funny you should say that -
My brother and I discovered, on a recent visit to see our grandparents (both lifelong Southern Republicans), that Jon Stewart and especially Stephen Colbert were just about the only TV that our grandmother watches (religiously - she rarely misses an episode). It's great watching her make my grandfather give up the stock ticker on MSNBC for an hour... although usually he's headed to bed by then (8pm).

My moment of zen!! (1)

KatchooNJ (173554) | more than 7 years ago | (#16170423)

Yay! John Stewart to the rescue! I will now sit back and enjoy my moment of zen. :)

Credible? (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171185)

Stewart, and colleague Stephen Colbert are seen as smart, funny, credible and relentlessly sticking it to the man.
These guys are comedians and entertainers. That isn't to say that they don't cover the news, but their real job is to entertain - not necessarily inform. They do twist words, take things out of context, and leave out large parts of stories. I do watch them, I think that both are hillarious, but credible? Sorry. If I want the real news with in depth information I'll go somewhere else.

Re:Credible? (1)

Ryunosuke (576755) | more than 7 years ago | (#16171949)

you may be right, but people ARE seeing him and his as being credible. for a lot of people, as mentioned, the daily show is the ONLY news they watch. So while your opinion about yourself may be right, you're not looking at it objectively. There are a few people who do in fact see The Daily Show as fact, as news, and as the truth. Live with it.

Re:Credible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16174801)

When The Daily Show takes something out of context it is paifully obvious and meant to be humurous. For most "real" news shows, things taken out of context try to turn 4 seconds of sound bite into an hour(or more) of news on then pretense of being informative.

2008 (2, Funny)

johnsmith_12345 (921258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16172929)

Stewart-Colbert for President 2008

The moderation on this thread is poor... (1, Informative)

leland242 (736905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16175223)

There are many valid and interesting posts (on topic) modded down to 0 or -1.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...