Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Jon Stewart Decade

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: The Jon Stewart Decade

#71

Post by mkr-hn »

elblanco wrote: post #67
w00pla2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he's just regurgitating conspiracy theories that float around in right-wing circles as Firstly, I am not "right wing". I am libertarian and socially liberal. > as a way to explain their often public embarrassments. This is exactly the idiocy that I was talking about. Note that you put everyone in an "us" and "them" basket. I do not care what the content of the program is, as long as it is objective. Unfortunately m…

This is probably my last response to you and I'm trying to say this without coming across as mean. First off, there are no serious claims anywhere that TDS misrepresents itself when filming interviews. People here have asked for citations of your claim several times and you've failed to respond. Please stop regurgitating nonsense. This isn't the place for it. While I enjoy your willingness to engage on some level, an…

I wish they showed that logo in the US. I laughed at the last part.

Re: The Jon Stewart Decade

#72

Post by greyfade »

lzw wrote: post #60
elblanco wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't feed the troll. This guy is clearly stuck in 1950's McCarthy-land and thinks Godwin's law is a guidebook, not a admonishment of sloppy thinking. You'll only be debating your grandfather here.

Godwins law doesn't exist. If you bothered to know what You were talking a out you'd know Godwin never made any such law. It is an excuse for holocaust deniers to refuse to admit that the Nazi party was real and did exist and therefore the causes and situations relevant to their existence are worth considering. Notice also, I did not make any comparison to hitler, i asked how he thought the German people let Nazis co…

Wow. You don't actually know what Godwin's Law is?

To paraphrase:

> As the length of a discussion grows, the probability of there being a comparison with Hitler, or the Nazi party will approach one.

It's an admonishment against exactly what you're doing. As someone's argument is shown to be weak, they inevitably invoke Naziism, not only inappropriately, but in a way that casts light to the weakness of their argument. ... Which is what you're doing.

Re: The Jon Stewart Decade

#73

Post by elblanco »

lzw wrote: post #29
mkr-hn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not going to get anywhere with dueling anecdotes. And you're referencing things I don't recall, and I've been watching TDS for years. "But I guess that this is just how real journalism fades. Papers become bankrupt whilst people read online “news sources” such as Huffington Post or Alternet. News networks like CNN become Twitter Crazy and airs shows like The Daily Show." Journalism is doing fine. You're just lo…

Here's a citation: basically everything Stewart has said about beck is a flat out lie. Of course, Stewart is a socialist and to them, beck must be a theocrat and so they portray him as such, but realitybis, he believes in freedom of religion, not theocracy. He supports individual rights, unlike Jon stewart. So Stewart makes stuff up about, selectively edits things out of contexts, and makes fun of him. The liberals w…

I don't think you understand what "citation" means.

Re: The Jon Stewart Decade

#74

Post by DanielBMarkham »

vaksel wrote: post #36
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to a study, Daily Show viewers are more informed about current events than those that watch FOX, CNN, etc. Would love to see a source for that statement. If true, it's very interesting.

here you go(2nd graph): http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-curre...

Thanks! Cool stuff!

Looking at the numbers, though, I'm not sure it says what you think it says. My impression is that it says that people who are interested in politics -- political humor from Jon, major newspaper websites, O'Reilly Factor watchers -- know more than folks who just passively consume news every now and then (Fox News Channel). That's the way the data looks to me, anyway.

Re: The Jon Stewart Decade

#75

Post by chc »

DannoHung wrote: post #63
chime wrote: post #13

> Oh, Stewart & Co. enjoy a lowbrow laugh as much as the folks over at South Park; heck, next week they’re publishing a book that includes some excellent masturbation jokes. But Stewart and The Daily Show became America’s sharpest political satirists by aiming at least a little bit higher. Oddly coincidental that if Matt Stone & Trey Parker of South Park fame read this, their response would be "Thanks for the kick in…

It would be a blatant lie to say that South Park doesn't use gross out humor as one of it's primary tools. Scott Tenorman Must Die is still their best episode ever.

As the article noted, both South Park and The Daily Show use gross-out humor. But the article implies that South Park stops there while The Daily Show does grand political satire, when (as the GP notes) South Park's satire is on roughly the same level. Family Guy would have been a better comparison.

Re: The Jon Stewart Decade

#76

Post by vaksel »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #74
vaksel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here you go(2nd graph): http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-curre...

Thanks! Cool stuff! Looking at the numbers, though, I'm not sure it says what you think it says. My impression is that it says that people who are interested in politics -- political humor from Jon, major newspaper websites, O'Reilly Factor watchers -- know more than folks who just passively consume news every now and then (Fox News Channel). That's the way the data looks to me, anyway.

yes but out of those who actively consume this sort of news, Daily Show has higher numbers.

Re: The Jon Stewart Decade

#77

Post by redrobot5050 »

w00pla2 wrote: post #56
elblanco wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother engaging him anymore, he's just regurgitating conspiracy theories that float around in right-wing circles as a way to explain their often public embarrassments.

> he's just regurgitating conspiracy theories that float around in right-wing circles as Firstly, I am not "right wing". I am libertarian and socially liberal. > as a way to explain their often public embarrassments. This is exactly the idiocy that I was talking about. Note that you put everyone in an "us" and "them" basket. I do not care what the content of the program is, as long as it is objective. Unfortunately m…

>I do not care what the content of the program is, as long as it is objective.

Then WHY do you even own a TV?

The Daily Show is a mock-comedy news program. It's objective is to be funny. That you don't get the joke and complain about how "serious" people take it, well, that only underscores that they've hit their objective right on the nose.

You might want to shop around for a startup who can give you a sense of humor.

Re: The Jon Stewart Decade

#78

Post by DanielBMarkham »

vaksel wrote: post #76
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! Cool stuff! Looking at the numbers, though, I'm not sure it says what you think it says. My impression is that it says that people who are interested in politics -- political humor from Jon, major newspaper websites, O'Reilly Factor watchers -- know more than folks who just passively consume news every now and then (Fox News Channel). That's the way the data looks to me, anyway.

yes but out of those who actively consume this sort of news, Daily Show has higher numbers.

I need to go back and study it some more, because from the abstract at the bottom, titled "Knowledge Levels by News Source", The Daily Show/Colbert Report looks like it's tied or bested in almost every category by folks who read newspaper websites. In fact, if you call the margin of error around 4%, there's really not much difference in the top several items. And I can't believe something like this would be accurate down to 1 or 2 percentage points or less.
Post reply on HN