That’s kind of the real issue here. Wallace admitted Fox News shows “the other side of the story” (meaning the conservative side).
That’s a little before my time and I’m guessing the Spanish-American war was before your time, too. I agree with you that when people complain about the lack of objectivity journalistm, they don’t realize it used to be worse - objectivity wasn’t even a concept. But I do think it’s true that for decades until relatively recently, news organizations did strive for objectivity. Now a lot of them have foregone that idea because there’s more money in telling people what they watn to hear. The problem with this is that it doesn’t inform the public and generally fails at the basic responsibilities and goals of journalism. Does great for selling ads, though.
Yes, it is. That doesn’t mean we should give and indulge it, though.
On the Wallace show Stewart said that he didn’t claim to be “only a comedian”, he said the claims “to be a comedian first”. He said his comedy is informed by his liberal views but that his goal on the show is to be funny, not to be liberal.
He said that Fox has the agenda of trying to be the balance to a perceived liberal bias.
He said the other media has a bias towards sensationalism, conflict and laziness that is informed by largely liberal views. Being liberal isn’t their goal, their goal is ratings.
Hard to know how to define objective. He’s truthful, and he doesn’t make up shit. Is that objective? I would say so. He loves facts, data, information. That’s objective, isn’t it? But he’s waaay over the top in his commentary and gets totally caught up in his own views of things. That’s not objective. So I’d say he’s objective when laying out the facts of the matter but very subjective when commenting on their meaning.
It’s not. It is, however, different from supposed journalists and news agencies. We’re not comparing Stewart to Brad Pitt harping about Cambodia, we’re wondering why a professional news agency like Fox is so in a lather about him.
People looking for journalistic integrity from the late George Carlin or South Park or the Simpsons or Penn & Teller are very misguided individuals. Even if they hit on points you agree with, their primary motivation is making people laugh, not presenting an accurate and complete look at the issues.
I don’t get it. Are you lumping in Fox’s journalists with the general pool of comedians and “celebrities” and holding them all to the same standard?
If someone wants to allow Stewart to promote himself in any arena, I think he should consider taking it. Fox is the one giving Stewart credibility by saying he’s worth debating on their news programs. As for the rally, I remember being amused at all the cable channels being breathless in their coverage leading up to it until it turned out to mainly be musical acts, self promotion from Stewart/Colbert, some comedy skits and a short bit at the end about responsibility in politics & reporting. Everyone was convinced it would be some huge, serious and politically charged event and it was… a comedy show.
This is very true. One would be foolish to base any political or policy decision based on a George Carlin routine. He was a funny guy, but he was not setting forth factual arguments.
South Park is nothing but over-the-top satire. Anyone taking cues from them to make decisions about real life is crazy.
Penn and Teller are good when they’re revealing the tricks that they personally know about, namely charlatanism. But when it comes to a policy argument – say, handicapped parking or gun control or drug laws – they’re really just offering their own opinions in a humorous manner.
He might. He didn’t start using Edward R. Murrow’s signoff by accident. I mean, if you’re correct, you’re by definition objective, right? All you have to do is convince yourself you’re definitely correct, and I’m pretty sure Olbermann can do that.
I vote Republican and I think Jon Stewart is funny most of the time. Of course, I may be biased because I have a low opinion of politicians in general and vote for Republicans because I think they will do less damage.
I also think the producers on his show do an excellent job. I remember one bit on the energy crises where they had clips from Presidents going back to Nixon on how we have to improve our energy supply . It was a great bit and it must have been a lot of work finding all the clips.
But the media did first–not just Fox, but the supposed “liberal” media. But if they were really that biased, they would’ve been predisposed to ignore or downplay the story or provide cover for him the way Fox often does with (R)'s. But they didn’t, which demonstrates that Stewart’s assertion that ratings & sensationalism trump ideology among Fox’s competitors is more true than conservatives would care to admit.
Yes, it is. That doesn’t mean we should give and indulge it, though.
[/QUOTE]
But that goes back to my point where the news leaning to my side is “reasonable”, and the opposing viewpoints is “damn lies”. Lots of people don’t realise that they are indulging in it. I don’t know why most people [subconsiously] avoid having their beliefs challenged. They seek the echo chamber, and think they are “moving towards” or getting the truth.
Yes, there is a segment of the pop that actively [consiously] chooses the echo chamber. But I don’t think we can really do anything about them.
What Stewart and Wallace seem to be more concerned with are the viewers (of the other side) who don’t realise that they have biases being catered to. The subconsious echo chamber seekers.
When asked point blank (twice) about “liberal bias” in various specific main stream news orgs, Stewart’s reply was, essentially, a qualified “no”.
He qualifies the difference as being between “activist” bias, and non-activist (and I don’t remember if he defines activist in that interview). It’s 13 minutes long on the Youtube link. Which, I think, points out again of how perception and personal bias leads one to “weight” these subjective views on bias. (I don’t believe Stewart is a “conscious echo chamber” seeker or dealer of news.)
I notice you did not include The Daily Show in that. Was that deliberate bias?
I am saying that some celebrities like comedians, actors, and musicians do indeed try to influence society (to the extent that they are able) in the real world with their work and public appearances. (And I support 100% their freedom to do so.) And their appearances make a difference, or people wouldn’t hire so-and-so to be a spokesman for the Humane Society, or whatever.
If they wish to affect real word change, why shouldn’t they be held to a different standard? They claim to be speaking to The Truth, but because they are not employed by a news organisation, they get a pass?
Example: Big Tobacco gets hammered because the warnings printed on their product are not detering smokers enough. Phillip Morris is not holding itself up to be anything other than a buisness to make money, just like Stewart is saying that comedians are just buisness folk. Truth in advertising is a good thing, to be sure. It seems we do not expect that from comedians, or actors.
Or, to be more clear, I’m not “lowering” the standards on FNC’s journalists to the comedians level. I’m raising (my own) expectations on Stewart.
Again, we can dig down into the weeds about how and why we “weight” different stories on specific topics. But I think that is a little counterproductive.
You shouldn’t be able to say that the New York Times bashing on Wiener is proof of their objectivity any more than I can say that FNC’s relative “restraint” on Weiner is proof of their objectivity.
All I promote is honest critical thinking skills, and honest introspection by all viewers of all these programs. And i don’t trust any politician further than I can throw them.
When I see “I just have to see what FNC (or the Republicans) is/are saying about a topic, and I’ll know that the opposite is true” is pretty sloppy thinking.
Don’t remember anyone using the word “objectivity”–certainly not me. But it does demonstrate that Fox’s assertion of overwhelming liberal bias in the MSM is more wishful thinking than actual reality.
You’re pulling one single topic (Weiner) and saying that it is proof of they’re lack of bias. You said that if they were “really” biased, they would have done “x”.
I say that’s a wrong conclusion, because you are extrapolating from a single data point. I reject the premise that a liberally biased org is required to present specifically the Weiner “scandal” in this way. (“No true scotsman”?)
But Stewart doesn’t claim to be speaking The Truth. He’s poking fun as the news media in general and often Fox in particular because they (A) are a major aspect of the news media* and (B) seem to make it easy for him.
*I’m amused by how some people can boast about Fox or Limbaugh having such a large audience that dwarfs their competition in one breath and then complain about the “mainstream media” in their next breath.
I agree with you that when people complain about the lack of objectivity journalistm, they don’t realize it used to be worse - objectivity wasn’t even a concept. But I do think it’s true that for decades until relatively recently, news organizations did strive for objectivity. Now a lot of them have foregone that idea because there’s more money in telling people what they watn to hear. The problem with this is that it doesn’t inform the public and generally fails at the basic responsibilities and goals of journalism. Does great for selling ads, though.
