Beta
×

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!

The Daily Show as Substantive as Broadcast News

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the can-I-be-on-the-show-now dept.

669

Walter C. writes "Anyone who watches the evening news with any regularity knows that it's not a bastion of substance. However, a new study conducted by researchers at Indiana University reports that The Daily Show has just as much substance to it as the broadcast news. 'The researchers looked at coverage of the 2004 Democratic and Republican national conventions and the first presidential debate of the fall campaign, all of which were covered by the mainstream broadcast news outlets and The Daily Show... 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.'"

cancel ×

669 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wouldn't it be better to say... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315265)

That the News has as little substance as The Daily Show?

Quite (-1, Troll)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315295)

Even to be compared to either of these is a gross insult!

Re:Wouldn't it be better to say... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315331)

That the real news is mainly fake too...

/. get off of the political circle jerking (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315271)

Post news, for nerds. Not political bullshit.

The Daily Show as Substantive as Broadcast News (1)

NotAcoolNAME (983869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315281)

The Daily Show as Substantive as Broadcast News

Fuck Yeah!

Well duh (5, Informative)

Ignorant Aardvark (632408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315289)

I've been watching TDS for news for awhile now. I can't stomach the other news shows ... they're so full of bullshit. Just yesterday Fox News repeatedly tried to claim that Mark Foley was a Democrat. No thanks, I think I'd rather watch funny satire than bald-faced lies and propaganda.

Re:Well duh (2, Insightful)

Jhon (241832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315369)

Yeah... and I'm sure it wasn't an accident that CNN stuck an X over Cheney... Bah. I once saw CNN mislabel Syria as Iraq on a map graphic once. I'm sure CNN wasn't trying to erase Syria... I'm sure CNN wasn't trying to erase Cheney. I'm also sure Fox wasn't trying to convince viewers Foley was a democrat...

Re:Well duh (1)

myth24601 (893486) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315769)

Yeah... and I'm sure it wasn't an accident that CNN stuck an X over Cheney... Bah. I once saw CNN mislabel Syria as Iraq on a map graphic once. I'm sure CNN wasn't trying to erase Syria... I'm sure CNN wasn't trying to erase Cheney. I'm also sure Fox wasn't trying to convince viewers Foley was a democrat...


Wow, somone used mod points to call this offtopic while letting all the Fox News bashing go? Seems this post made a valid counter point to the GP argument.

It would be a good idea for all news outlets to keep their labeling consistant. Every story about a political figure should mention party affiliation and Fox should acknowledge the mistake.

Re:Well duh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315385)

> Fox News repeatedly tried to claim that Mark Foley was a Democrat

As they should. As usual, Fox News gets the facts right unlike the ultra-liberal and hateful Democrat shill that hosts The Daily Show. I'm from Lake Worth where Mark Foley started his political career, and the man is a die-hard Democrat. Period. I helped with his campaign in 1990, and he switched parties so he would have a better chance of winning the primary. He was the first Republican backed candidate I ever voted for because he is a Democrat in real-life. You can look at his voting record over his career to see how much of a liberal he is. He is one of us. He isn't one of the Bush worshipers.

Re:Well duh (5, Insightful)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315411)

But why did they put "Mark Foley (D)" at the bottom of the screen? When Foley is a congressional Republican? Are you retarded or something?

Re:Well duh (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315553)

To date, they've still issued no apology or retraction. I take it this has been a rough week for Republicans: I was flipping channels earlier this evening and saw that O'Reilly was talking about Anna Nicole Smith rather than hmm...something else that might have happened in the news.

Re:Well duh (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315799)

I think there is another issue here. Fox is trying to smear the Dems by saying he's a Dem when the whole scandal really taints the Republican party because the Reps are the ones that tried to cover up his actions to be able to keep the house.

Entertainment = Retention (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315387)

While you might be able to make a case for any news show being 'full of bullshit,' it is my opinion that The Daily Show's viewers retain so much more information because it is entertaining. News? Entertaining? That's right.

How do I know what bills are being passed? How do I know who Zell Miller is? Well, if you ever saw the "Zell on Earth" episode from Indecision 2004, you'd never forget the man. If CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC, whoever else tried to cover that, I would have fallen asleep. Not only does it cover just as much material, but I retain far more of it.

News programs ARE entertainment. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315549)

They stopped being about "news" a long time ago.

Now, they are ALL about "entertainment". Which is why CNN has "The Situation Room" and such.

The Daily Show SHOULD be operating with a handicap. They have to focus solely on the items that they can turn into a joke. That should not be easy. They should be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

But they have one advantage that the "news" shows do not. The Daily Show has SMART people working for it. They REMEMBER previous statements by politicians and they are not afraid to show how the politicians contradict themselves.

When was the last time you saw actual analysis and comparisons of a politician's statements on a regular news program. Yet they are a staple of The Daily Show. Because it is FUNNY when they catch a politician contradicting him/herself. And then The Daily Show will continue to hammer on the joke.

It should be stupid. It should be lame. But because the regular "news" shows have abandoned even the pretense of being about "news", The Daily Show wins by default.

The Daily Show mines recent events for jokes.
Regular news shows can't even mine recent events for news.

Re:News programs ARE entertainment. (2, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315585)

The Daily Show SHOULD be operating with a handicap. They have to focus solely on the items that they can turn into a joke.

With a nod to Mark Twain, I can think of 535 starting points that should provide rich sources for jokes.

Re:News programs ARE entertainment. (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315665)

My count is 537 (you forgot the Executive Branch).

Re:News programs ARE entertainment. (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315805)

Making fun of the Executive Branch is too easy - they are at least striving to run the country within the always conflicting parameters the "well trained fleas" have given them.

Re:News programs ARE entertainment. (1)

thephotoman (791574) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315907)

546, actually, if you include the Judicial branch (and can somehow make jokes on what little we know of the Supremes).

Now, I'm going to mod myself down (-1, Pedantic).

Re:News programs ARE entertainment. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315647)

Now, they are ALL about "entertainment".

True. This is why CBS hired Katie Couric as their evening news anchor. If they were a little smarter they would have hired Jon Stewart and Dennis Miller as coanchors.

On a side note, I think Colbert best summed up the reporting/entertainment quality of the morning news shows when they recently took one of his clips out of context [youtube.com] .

Re:News programs ARE entertainment. (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315779)

It should be stupid. It should be lame. But because the regular "news" shows have abandoned even the pretense of being about "news", The Daily Show wins by default.
What they've abandoned is a pretense at being Truthful.

Balanced & Objective != Truth

News programs nowadays keep trying to present "both" sides of an issue. Well... not everything has two sides.

There are facts. Not everyone's opinion or interpretation of those facts is equal to everyone else's.

The Daily Show is what would be considered advocacy journalism (as opposed to objective journalism). Advocacy journalism "is fact-based, but supports a specific point of view on one or more issues."

Re:Well duh (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315459)

Just like the main stream media was trying to portray Gary Condit as a conservative Republican [mediaresearch.org] ?

It even confused the folks at C-SPAN, as seen in this video [mediaresearch.org] . One would think that they would have been more informed.

This is from the New York Times [nytimes.com] web site (bold added):


National Briefing | West: California: Support For Condit Challenger

Sens Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein will support Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, one of several Democrats, in California primary for candidate to run against incumbent Republican Repr Gary Condit for House seat
January 26, 2002 News web site:


And I'm sure the space "shuttle traveling nearly 18 times the speed of light [wisc.edu] " banner on CNN back in 2003 was some part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and/or Liberal Media.

Considering your alternatives.. (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315531)

Considering that the alternative [wikipedia.org] consists of ad hominem attacks and bizarre rhetoric even most conservatives reject, and that the average age of that show is 71 [nytimes.com] , it's no wonder that you would like The Daily Show instead. I also like to be both informed and entertained, and The Daily Show does both perfectly.

Just as substantive?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315547)

I'd argue it's MORE substantive.

But the Daily Show should not be congratulated, because they did nothing to deserve it. It's Broadcast News that has gotten dramatically less substantive, eventually to a degree where they sink below a comedy show.

Seriously. Jon Stewart is not a genius. Everyone else is an idiot, and that makes him LOOK like a genius.

Re:Well duh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315711)

Cut them some slack. It's just that it's so hard to tell the difference between Democrats and child molesters.

Re:Well duh (1)

goltrpoat (944891) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315751)

As much as I like the Daily Show (for a number of reasons), as much as I dislike mainstream media (for a number of completely different reasons), et cetera et cetera, I have to wonder if this makes any sense. "Substance" is not a quantifiable concept, right. A better title for the article would be "an assistant professor with some grad students in tow finds the Daily Show to have more substance than the mainstream media" -- but I guess that makes for a far less interesting headline.

-goltrpoat

Remember the old slogan (5, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315293)

The Daily Show: Where more Americans get their news than probably should.

Re:Remember the old slogan (1)

Terminal Saint (668751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315781)

Sadly, I'ma have to go with "The Daily Show: Where more Americans should probably get their news."

Amen... (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315301)

I get all my news from The Daily Show (and now, Colbert).

I can't be more succinct.

Re:Amen... (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315403)

I get all my news from The Daily Show (and now, Colbert).

:o

Re:Amen... (1, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315417)

I bet it's relaxing to not have to think for yourself.

Re:Amen... (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315597)

My, what a vicious troll. OK, I'll bite - yes, it is relaxing to not have to sort out fact from bullshit on what is purported to be the "news".

With TDS, I don't have to ask myself "Is this a joke?" - because I know it all is.

It would seem that you've gone overboard on that being an asshat is a good idea.

Re:Amen... (1)

Faylone (880739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315841)

I hate to feed the troll, but he manages to point towards something important; you really should NOT be getting news from JUST one source, no matter what source that is. Yes, it requires work, but if you want to find out what's really going on, that's the price to pay.

Old news. (5, Informative)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315303)

There was a study that already showed The Daily Show's audience was better informed about the news than people who just watched the regular news.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.po litics/ [cnn.com]

The issue isn't that The Daily Show is so much better ... it's that network news sucks so bad.

Or as Mr. Stewart put it (paraphrased) "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls".

Network news doesn't suck. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315551)

Network news may not be the best source for factual information about current events. But then again, that's not really its purpose. The mainstream media is run by corporations for corporations. It's there to make them profit.

Some of that profit is derived from the advertising of products put out by other corporations. While such products may be actual goods or services, other times that product is a political message. That political message often turns around and helps the parent corporations of the major media outfits benefit in some way.

Take NBC. It's owned by General Electric. General Electric is well-known for their weapons manufacturing. So of course it is in their best interest to monger war on their news programs. Not only do they attract viewers who are hyped up on American nationalism, but they also support and promote the business of their parent company. And at this, they do a very good job.

Re:Old news. (3, Insightful)

crazygamer (952019) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315641)

If you'd read the article you linked to it talks about The Daily Show vs. The Tonight Show and The Late Show. I wouldn't call either of those network news.

How can you say that? (2, Funny)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315307)

CBS has that hard hitting bastion of reporting "Katie Couric".

How can you take Jon Stewart more seriously than perky Katie?

Puppets making prank calls.. (4, Funny)

sponga (739683) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315325)

are before the show for godsake!

Re:Puppets making prank calls.. (0, Offtopic)

sTalking_Goat (670565) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315683)

Crank Yankers was cancelled a while ago. If you [i]watched[/i] the Daily Show maybe you'd be more up to date on current events...

Re:Puppets making prank calls.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315807)

Um...

You're seriously not getting the reference?

The paraphrased quote is from when Jon Stewart b!tch slapped that weasel Tucker Carlson on Crossfire...

The other famous quote from that show.. "Stop, stop, hurting America."

FYI

Re:Puppets making prank calls.. (1)

SomeGuyTyping (751195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315903)

it's a quote from Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN's Crossfire (i think)

Re:Puppets making prank calls.. (1)

Kredal (566494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315913)

He was quoting Jon Stewart on Crossfire...

Re:Puppets making prank calls.. (1)

sponga (739683) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315915)

*Whoosh!!!* that was the sound of a past show flying right past your head.

I know there are a lot of new viewers with the Bush admin; but if you do not remember the famous call year or so ago where some politician/expert accused John Daily and the Daily Show of being factual news reliance such as CNN, FOX, MSNBC... and than John made the call of something similar to "theres a freakin puppet show before our show"

The Main Difference (1, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315337)

Is that the Daily show comes with a large dose of cynicism. [wikipedia.org]

Maybe they need to make a toned down Daily Show (that is still funny), but for the parents.

Infotainment that is +1 Insightful

Re:The Main Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315571)

I am so sick of people looking down on us cynics.

Re:The Main Difference (3, Insightful)

schwaang (667808) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315651)

Is that the Daily show comes with a large dose of cynicism.


One could argue that the real difference is that broadcast news is cynical and doesn't know it.

Why? Because while I find the cynicism of Stewart and especially Colbert to be quite corrosive, it's seeing bullsh*t delivered with a straight face on the network news that makes me really cynical. Having Stewart call them on it reminds me that sanity is not completely lost.

Re:The Main Difference (3, Funny)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315817)

Why [wikipedia.org] do [wikipedia.org] you [wikipedia.org] have [wikipedia.org] a [wikipedia.org] link [wikipedia.org] to [wikipedia.org] cynicism [wikipedia.org] ? Do [wikipedia.org] you [wikipedia.org] think [wikipedia.org] other [wikipedia.org] people [wikipedia.org] don't [wikipedia.org] know [wikipedia.org] that [wikipedia.org] word. [wikipedia.org]

What is this? (1)

sabit666 (457634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315339)

Digg? Next we would see headlines on Colbert Report Youtube videos.

What about this article? (1, Interesting)

lottameez (816335) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315343)

Of course I didn't RTFM, but it seems that researchers independently deciding that The Daily Show had more substance than MSM news orgs is hardly surprising or particularly illuminating. It seems like they (like most of us), probably just like the show better.

IMO, Jay Leno's monologue is an equally good news source.

Weak, ver weak. But typical. (2, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315375)

Saying that the Daily Show is as substantive as broadcast news based solely on reporting during the political conventions (two events) is a stretch, and hardly supports extrapolating the idea to a general statement about The Daily Show verses real news. This is very weak, and very typical of Slashdot "editing".

Re:Weak, ver weak. But typical. (4, Informative)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315441)

This is very weak, and very typical of Slashdot "editing".

For once this doesn't really have anything to do with Slashdot editing. The linked to article makes the same extrapolation. The actual title of the study is apparently No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. I dont see any links to it, but it sounds like it supports that case for at least that specific story. Generalizing the specifics of a story for the purposes of headlines is pretty common amongst news sources.

Re:Weak, ver weak. But typical. (1)

pestario (781793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315897)

Not to mention /. allows a maximum of 50 characters for the headline.

RTFA (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315511)

The research wasn't "based solely on reporting during the political conventions". From TFA: "Individual broadcasts of the nightly news and corresponding episodes of The Daily Show were analyzed by the researchers". They also looked at coverage of first presidential debate of the fall campaign. TFA was not by Slashdot, it was by Ars Technica.

Not very strange (2, Interesting)

Tony (765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315517)

This supports other studies that have been done, too. The Daily Show audiences tend to be better informed than folks who subsist solely on conventional news sources. This might have to do with the audience, or it might have to do with The Daily Show; in any case, Jon Stewart is doing a fuck-all great job.

By the time he's done, I feel I've received a less-biased, more-balanced view of the real news than an hour's worth of stupid-ass fake news given us by the mainstream channels.

But maybe that's just me.

Re:Weak, ver weak. But typical. (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315575)

+5, Confused

If you read the article, it's saying that the news offers as much substance as The Daily Show, not that either does a good job of being a news show. Basically, it's calling the state of US news shitty.

The Real Point... (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315383)

As mentioned in the article is this: "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive." Translation: it's not that the Daily Show is remarkably good as a news source (relative to what you'd expect), it's that the major news networks are remarkably *bad*.

I think . . . (1)

Tony (765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315445)

I think that's the point. Jon Stewart has come on record *many* times bringing regular news services to task, rather than admitting he's particularly good. Part of the mission of The Daily Show is, I think, to bring to light what good reporting *should* do on a regular basis, in a very funny, palatable manner.

Too bad the main news sources haven't taken the hint.

Re:I think . . . (0)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315525)

Don't fool yourself. The *whole* purpose of The Daily Show is to draw viewers for the advertisements that run between 'segments.'

It's tee vee, ya know. . .

Fake news (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315419)

When comparing The Daily Show fake news with real news, I'm not quite sure which one is the fake.

Accountable Recordkeeping (5, Interesting)

kingbilly (993754) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315423)

You'll also notice that the daily show is one of the only "news" outlets that will show a video clip of a public figure saying one thing in 2004, then a new video with them saying something that completely goes against their first comment on the matter in 2004. None of the big news outlets dare show such a stunt because that would make public figures accountable. Of course the daily show usually has Jon Stewert making a funny face and then goes to the next topic, but at least they aren't afraid to make someone eat their own words.

Re:Accountable Recordkeeping (2)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315497)

None of the big news outlets dare show such a stunt because that would make public figures accountable.
Actually, I think the reason the big news outlets don't do this is because they would lose access to the public figures, who would cut them off. And then TDS's ability to show these clips would disappear as well, since many of the clips *come from* the big news outlets. Sadly, it seems either we accept the soft-and-chewy reporting of the big news outlets as it is, or we get nothing, as the pols will simply stop talking to the media.

Re:Accountable Recordkeeping (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315671)

Actually, I think the reason the big news outlets don't do this is because they would lose access to the public figures, who would cut them off.
How do you propose that they succeed at that? Seems to me like the news media does a pretty good job at getting access to the kind of information it needs even when the bigshots HAVE cut themselves off. I think there's actually more incentive for people to blab when the person is "cut off", the news media suddenly becomes willing to pay for the information rather than take spoon-fed BS and feed it straight back to the public.

Re:Accountable Recordkeeping (5, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315729)

If the pols stop talking to the media, they won't get their face in the public. If they don't get that exposure, who will vote for them?

The politicians need the media a lot more than the media needs the politicians.

Re:Accountable Recordkeeping (1)

Jeff Fohl (597433) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315885)

Sadly, this seems to be the case. Dan Rather spoke about this in an interview [zdnet.com] recently.

A quote:

Rather pointed to the pre-Irag war coverage as an example of where the press has fallen down. "It's not very good, bordering on abysmal," he said, including himself in the assessment. Reporters didn't ask enough questions. Access journalism ruled the day. Reporters who asked tough questions were cut off from access to key administration officials, making it difficult to compete professionally with those who tried not to ruffle feathers. "Don't underestimate the pressure to get access and the corrosive effect it has on reporters," Rather said.

The press today is "a wee bit less timid today, perhaps because the President's approval ratings are down, but "American journalism is in desparate need of a spine transplant," he said.

Re:Accountable Recordkeeping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315863)

show a video clip of a public figure saying one thing in 2004, then a new video with them saying something that completely goes against their first comment ... None of the big news outlets dare show such a stunt...

The one-sided shows are much more apt to do this kind of thing. Limbaugh used to do it all the time.

absolutely misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315461)

daily show is not a news program... you can definitely get more information/news from your evening news than daily show....

all this study shows is that if...IF daily shows covers an event exhaustively, then it is as informative (or maybe more) than your average news coverage. nothing more nothing less.

there is no mention of any selection criteria as to what should be covered and whats not...

it is entertaining (and a very good one at that ) , but not nearly as informative as your average news program.

Colbert and Stewart for 2008 (4, Funny)

1155 (538047) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315477)

The other candidates wouldn't matter, Colbert and Stewart would win by a landslide. I'd actually register to vote them into office.

Re:Colbert and Stewart for 2008 (1)

humble.fool (961528) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315697)

Someone tell me this isn't what "Man of the Year" is about.

The article doesn't say the Daily Show is good. (4, Insightful)

Freedryk (117435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315493)

Note that the article make clear they aren't saying the Daily Show's reporting is good--just that it is equally good as serious news shows. What they are saying is, American TV news is a joke.

Re:The article doesn't say the Daily Show is good. (1)

PhakeDC (932887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315677)

Precisely! And some Yanks are beginning to realise it thankfully.

Re:The article doesn't say the Daily Show is good. (1)

Oronar (942125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315765)

"American TV news is a joke." Literally. =D

Re:The article doesn't say the Daily Show is good. (1)

Oronar (942125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315827)

I wanted to add more, hit submit too early. =/ "American TV news is a joke." Literally. =D It's rather sad because the Daily Show and the Colbert report provide more information in their half hour runs then any major news network does in over an hour, or however long it runs. They're mostly full of crap that isn't really news anyway. I don't care about X celebrity and their recent parking violation, sighting, photo op, movie, ect. ect. I'd rather know about how the fuck a bill was passed that gives Bush MORE power to piss all over the Bill of Rights. Now, I admit I don't watch major news networks regularly. But I haven't seen one mention of it anywhere except the Daily Show and various internet news sites.

News don't pay the bills (1)

robbiedo (553308) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315541)

Nework news died because they aren't required to provide the public service any more as part their licensing requirements. Why would we expect a for-profit corporation to waste shareholder value on an unprofitable segment such as a real news division. Most news divisions, if not all, have been folded into the entertainment divisions of their respective companies. Consequently, why would we expect network news to be any more informative than the Daily News?

Take it from a foreigner (0, Flamebait)

PhakeDC (932887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315569)

Your media stinks! And everyone else knows it. CBS or even ABC and CNN (bar CNN Int'l) are no match for the BBC, Euronews or even the propagandic Aljazeera for that matter. It's void of journalistic integrity. Just this evening I was watching CBS news, and it occurred to me you Yanks have little idea of anything going on outside your borders. So much censorship and lobbying you have in your media it's sickening (alright, so all media are biased, but you go over the top). News programmes with the emotional music or that crap really grate on my nerves. They can't even preview a book without blatantly advertising for it, like tonight's CBS news show (can't bloody bother to remember the title of the book this time). Bah!

The Daily Show on the other hand, it's a breath of fresh air.. Shame they charge insane rates for American cable channels. Then again, maybe not =P

Re:Take it from a foreigner (1)

PhakeDC (932887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315629)

Just to add.. Borat was correct in choosing that stereotype from Kazakhstan, since I've seen one or two TV reports about his new film, and not a word about the poor human rights record in that country. Why? I reckon it's bloody obvious.

Take it from an American (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315693)

We already know. Seriously. The reason everyone I know gets their news from the Internet isn't because it's more convenient, it's because it's more likely to be meaningful.

The BBC isn't all that, either, you know. It's leaps and bounds better than anything in the States, but it's got a very discernable conservative bias, and it's too damn polite to ever dig very deep. And CNN International? Why are you giving them a pass? It's the same shit with a broader focus, does that make it better?

The problem is English. Ever since the last bastion of balanced journalism in the US collapsed (NPR in the late nineties), I've been searching for a good English-language news source. I can't find one. I can find plenty of partisan hack jobs with an agenda, from Al Jazeera to CNN, and try to filter through the vapidity and outright bullshit, but frankly I could make up the news and I'd have a good chance of having more insight into current events than any of them.

So if you know a really good foreign news source with an English version online, I'm all ears. Americans are STARVED for decent news.

Re:Take it from an American (2, Interesting)

Arivia (783328) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315767)

The CBC? They're very good, but I've grown up with them.

Re:Take it from an American (4, Interesting)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315813)

The BBC's politeness is due to them refraining from using biassed language ("bombers" versus "terrorists", etc.). They do do some very deep investigations - I don't know if they make it to the US (BBC News 24 is just one tiny facet of the reporting).

Trying to find one news source to get your news is a bad idea - more than one source is essential, just to make sure you're getting as much information as possible.

My AP World History teacher recommended it (2, Interesting)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315581)

My AP World History teacher last year recommended it over regular news. This was no ordinary teacher, he got a 100% passage rate on an extremely difficult test for his class.

Re:My AP World History teacher recommended it (1)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315627)

Isn't that kind of like saying that when Saddam tallied up his last election results he got 100% of the vote?

Re:My AP World History teacher recommended it (1)

hobbesmaster (592205) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315809)

I was assuming that the parent was refering to the AP World History exam, not one the teacher wrote...

Nice, measurable qualities (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315601)

And The Daily Show was much funnier...

Plenty of people would disagree there.

Re:Nice, measurable qualities (1)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315833)

"Plenty of people would disagree there."

Terrorists, for example.

(Sorry, I've been getting all my news from Colbert and Stewart lately.)

The What? (2, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315609)

I have the good fortune to not have the foggiest notion as to what the Daily Show is.

I believe I have heard of the Evening News, though. It stars Walter Cronkite, right?

Re:The What? (1)

PhakeDC (932887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315663)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show [wikipedia.org] Faaar from it =P (though I don't know who's that person you're talking about either)

Re:The What? (1)

Dorceon (928997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315763)

As Bender said of Walter Cronkite('s head in a jar), "He's too trustworthy! What's his angle?" And now you know.

He said it himself. (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315617)

John Stewart said this when he was on CNN's Crossfire a few years back. Great stuff. Really informative, too.

Flawed Study (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315633)

Ok, this study is flawed. they are comparing coverage of a political even to. The Daly Show is a left wing propaganda outfit and as such will have a good deal of coverage of political events, however main stream news also give time to many other events. The Daily Show ignores any event that they can not easily use to support democrats or spread FUD but the president with.

So completely ignoring the bias of this show it has a much narrower focus, and any study that simply take one item that the show is focused on and comparing it to a very general news cast is not a fair comparison.

Re:Flawed Study (1)

Validus (66121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315661)

Very good point...

Re:Flawed Study (1)

finkployd (12902) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315847)

The Daily Show ignores any event that they can not easily use to support democrats or spread FUD but the president with.

The problem is (and this is coming from someone who is probably more to the right on many issues than most /.ers), there are not many events these days that cannot be easily used to support Democrats and make Bush look bad. They do not have to really reach much to find their stuff. Clinton's antics ushered in the rise of talk radio, Bush's antics are ushering in the rise of the Daily Show.

Finkployd

Lose the SEAT OF HEAT (1)

SafariShane (560870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315637)

Anyone ever notice how any segment that starts with the words, "Tom Cruise", is never finished? Last one I saw was RC's final ep. It's almost like they try and focus on actual newsworthy items, only pausing long enough to mock msm for not doing so.

The writers on the show are fan effing tastic, but come on... SEAT OF HEAT?!?

Asking a question that will be difficult for the heated seater to answer can be funny, but it would be funnier with the old air of spontenaity... spontanaity... spontaneity... just effing ask the question. It won't be as sucky when it bombs (and it will). Jon, stop apologizing for asking the SoH question... it's like you know it blows but still think it's worth it to add a sponser. It aint, the money you gain will be lost by the lessened viewship. And if you tank, nobody will stick around for Colbert, and then he might kill you.

Re:Lose the SEAT OF HEAT (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315715)

It frames a question seperate from the actual interview. Jon apologises because it's putting the guest in a difficult position. Like when he asked Pervez Musharraf who would win in an election between GWB and OBL in Pakistan. Asking that in the main interview would be a ridiculous notion. It's a device, and it definitely serves a purpose. And it's just one question :)

Re:Lose the SEAT OF HEAT (1)

SafariShane (560870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315909)

It also reminds me of when craigers used to ask those 5 questions in a row... are we going backwards here?

The most important news show... (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315643)

EVER!

And I believe it.

Deep Truth (5, Insightful)

Gorimek (61128) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315685)

A journalist can tell you facts.

A comedian can tell you truths.

Stewart's grown boring... (0, Troll)

whoop (194) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315725)

Anymore, I find myself dozing off during the Stewart rants on the same old things, Bush/Republicans are evil, blah blah blah, let's make the 10,000th Cheney heart attack/shoot you in the face joke, blah blah blah. It's just the same sort of left-wing propaganda as ABC/NBC/CBS. It certainly isn't independent. His jokes grow stale after watching for a couple weeks.

The only part I look forward to are the other correspondant pieces. They can find some wacky citizen and let them make fools of themselves. Now that's good television.

The Colbert Report far outshines Stewart's show in funniness. A couple weeks ago Toby Kieth told how Willy Nelson's bus is full of pot. A few days later, he is stopped by police and busted with 1.5 pounds of it. Or just last night's show, a teddy bear killed thousands of trout at a hatchery. You won't get this sort of news anywhere else. How many bridges, sports team mascots, or bald eagles are named after Jon Stewart, Katie Couric, and the gang?

This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16315737)

It's hardly news that network "news" broadcasts are just watered down, censored entertainment.

For a long time, US TV had just 1 real news show, and that was on PBS. Jon Stewart (weakly, perhaps accidentally) makes it 2.

Someone had to spend real money doing a real analysis to figure this out? They must be as bright
as the audience..

Replace FOX with the Daily Show (1)

AugustZephyr (989775) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315819)

Jon Stewart (or Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report for that matter) often offers much better and unbiased coverage of world events then FOX's "Fair and Balanced" news.

Umm, this show has Crowd Cheering (1)

fyrie (604735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16315873)

Ever notice that? It's funny how the crowd tends to cheer more at the barbs against the right. BILL O'REILLY. GET A LIVE INSTUDIO AUDIENCE TO CHEER YOU! It would be so mint!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>