Ok, so the Weiner episode is not evidence of a lack of bias. What would be the evidence of the existence of liberal bias?
I respectfully disagree. (If FNC dropped that tag line, would you start cutting FNC more slack? I doubt it. 
)
TDS is using humor to point out some flaw in a story presented by a news organisation.
This assumes or implies that TDS knows, and that it’s audience knows, what the “real” truth is, or the jokes would fall flat (or go “whoosh”), right?
(I’m not counting the skits more reliant on physical comedy, like some politician with a bad hair day.)
I have no problem with Stewart showcasing the logical flaws in reportage or editorials as presented by any news org. But to then say that he should not be held to high standards because he’s just a comedian seems to me to be a little bit of a dodge (An unconcious one.), or at least a red herring.
FNC does editorial stuff with the “panel of experts”, like Krauthammer or Juan Williams. IMO, Stewart is also engaging in political/editorial commentary, using humor.
Compare The Daily Show to something like “The Soup”, which doesn’t poke fun at politics or the news, just goofy TV. Are you saying that they both have the same “value” to society?
I see a difference between the two. And I’m sorry that I’m having a hard time “verbalising” why that is. 
Wrong: Weiner is only one data point. Collect more. More data points may show trends (bias).
O’reilly gave Obama a thumbs up for having the stones to order a hit on ObL in Pakistani territory. But that one data point does not mean FNC is liberally biased.
A lot of The Daily Show is devoted to things like irrelevant stories and stupid questions from journalists. In those instances it’s not that they get the facts wrong, it’s that they devote their resources to stories with little news value or ask dumb or fluffy questions instead of trying to get the truth out of people who make the news. And of course, there’s the old staple of bashing journalists who spend their time talking about political strategy instead of evaluating the truth of what politicians are saying.
“You’re on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making prank phone calls! What is wrong with you?”
And this is Stewart lampooning the mainstream “liberal” outlet of CNN. He could read Fox headlines straight sans commentary and make comedy of it.
Stranger
mlees,
So everyone who has a political opinion and a show has equal responsibility to contribute unbiased views? I have no problem with editorials on news networks, but FOX is both simultaneously. And it isn’t even the bias, but the disingenuous nature of the show that bothers me. It’s not as if they’re reporting facts and then state their opinion, it’s that they create facts out of whole cloth to support their opinion.
At no point does that show undergo a moment of reflection, nor does it ever ask it of it’s audience.
Actually, the whole conversation is kinda surreal, since the two men seem to accept that not only is the “Daily Show” the “main stream media”, but that FOX isn’t. Fox of course, is the most watched cable news channel, has local news affiliates in almost every US market and its parent corp owns one of the largest publishing companies, the US’s largest newspaper, one of the big movie studios, one of the major TV networks, etc, etc. Its kind of hard to come up with a definition of “mainstream media” that a) doesn’t include Fox news, and b) does include the Daily Show.
So Jerry Seinfeld should be held to the same standards as a packaging engineer when he asks what the deal is with those little bags of airplane peanuts?
I think his voices / impersonations are excellent. Showcased in yesterdays show.
Bush wasn’t so spot on, but it turned into its own thing.
With the little troll laugh.
No, I think I would hesitate to stomp on free speech rights. Or, in another way, I wouldn’t force Stewart to be unbiased.
Who gets to choose where bias lies? Who watches the watchers?
Again, however, my point isn’t that FNC is not biased, or who is more biased than whom.
My point (way back earlier in the thread) was that Wallace and Stewart were too busy trying to get the “other side” to admit bias, and it seemed to me that they were arguing over something inherently subjective.
Ok, so, FNC has no credibilty with you. I’m not going to try and talk you out of that. You have the freedom to choose your news, and I’m not interested in trying to prove FNC is unbiased, since I don’t believe that anyway.
I am only saying that I think the disconnect between Wallace and Stewart was based on the inherent biases we all carry with us, and how we perceive them in others.
I don’t think that’s entirely accurate for every moment of every show.
Devils Advocat: Beck would bust out the chalkboards and try to connect the dots in these huge networks on informal conspirators trying to “fundamentally change America”. He played video clips of various people saying stuff in their own words to try to prove their ideological leanings. I think he thought the audience was smart enough to follow along, and agree that the dots were connecting.
I personally think he tried too hard trying to make sense out of an inherently disorganised, choatic, and non-static world (for the same reasons that conspiracy theories remain popular pasttimes), and I think he was wrong on a lot of conclusions. 
“If it bleeds, it leads” has long been a staple of news reporting, especially on TV where they have a limited time to spend on a story. FNC has been effective marketing itself.
To more directly address that last point about reflection, the viewers inherent bias also shapes that. As I said before in this thread, a viewer will not look as critically at a topic that already “fits” their world view or beliefs.
Time for my patented flawed analogies:
President Obama has spoken of his Christian faith, and how he believed it shaped him, has he not?
Yet if it was reported by Anderson Cooper that Mr. Obama secretly told him that he no longer holds those views, and only has to pay lip service to placate the electorate, how many viewers would actually investigate these claims themselves? How many would take Mr. Coopers word as fact? I have seen these sentimates expressed here on the Dope.
On the other hand, if FNC reported the same, I think it would be attacked (by Dopers) as trying to paint Obama as “not a true Christian, and not one of us”, while regular FNC viewers would say “heh, I knew it!”.
So, same story provokes different reactions in people, depending on the source of the story.
I really don’t mind bias in news and think it’s next to impossible to have complete objectivity and expect to get ratings. My problem is when self styled news agencies provide flat out propaganda and inaccuracies as fact, such as Hannity and Glenn Beck (neither of whom are or have ever been journalists) do on pretty much every broadcast. I dislike it when Michael Moore does it as well, but he’s a documentary filmmaker who doesn’t claim to be objective or to be affiliated with a news station, while Fox is in business to do this.
I also hate kayfabe outrage, such as that over the rapper/poet invited to the White House. TOTAL non newsworthy story and Stewart skewered the bejeezus out of them by showing how entertainers who have been praised and interviewed by and quoted as authorities on Fox News who’d said things many times worse.
:rolleyes:
Jerry is showing bias. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he’s expressing an opinion.
It’s your choice if you want to hold airline snacks up to the same level of importance as bias in journalism. My bias leads me to say “no” to that.
mlees, Stewart’s comedy comes from hypocrisy. Showing a clip of a conservative stating his position isn’t funny. The shows formula is; show a recent clip of a politician or pundit saying something, then show another past clip of the politician or pundit contradicting what he’s said lately. That’s not subjective at all.
I have no problem with listening to a conservative point of view, I actually need it for reflection or at least understanding. But if you think FOX is just a conservative equivalent to other network media and I cannot see that because of my own bias…I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
And he has done the same for liberals as well. Most recently he defended Anthony Weiner who in addition to being a liberal is a friend and former roommate of Stewart’s, but cut him absolutely no slack when it was revealed Weiner was a lying sack of hubris and horniness.
Compare this to Fox’s court jester Dennis Miller who won’t go after Palin or Bachmann or any other conservative even when they’re begging for it. When Palin was giving her unique spin on U.S. history and calling the question “what’d you take away from the tour of Boston?” a “Gotcha!” question Miller was asked about it on O’Reilly and turned it into “Why are the liberals picking on her and saying nothing about Weiner?”, which was not only partisan hackery but totally inaccurate: Weiner was the lead on ever damned news show on every channel with news shows and being lampooned on every show with a monologue.
Of course he is. So is Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or George Carlin. This is different from presenting it to you as The Truth.
No, the question is: Do you hold making fun of airline snacks to the same level of importance as making fun of bias in journalism?
Speaking personally, in neither event do I worry myself with ensuring that the comedian holds the same professional standards as the topic of his lampoons. Your mileage may vary.
[QUOTE=Jophiel]
No, the question is: Do you hold making fun of airline snacks to the same level of importance as making fun of bias in journalism?
[/quote]
No, what I was disagreeing with was John Stewart saying, in his opinion, that there was no active bias in the networks competing with FNC.
Colbert is much more of a lampoonist as he does make stuff up out of whole cloth, while playing the arch conservative character on Colbert Report. For some reason, I am not considering holding Colbert to rigid standards. Hmmm.
Maybe because it’s not as obvious to me that Stewart is engaging in satire (or whatever) as Colbert is, but more editorial in nature.
I’ll have to think about that. Thanks!
Ok. Was John Kerry (in the 2004 election) held to the same standards as, say, McCain (2008), on the Daily Show, in regards to their flip flops?
If not, is that bias?
Ok. No hard feelings, I hope.
nm
If you leave out MSNBC, which is positioning itself as a lefty alternative to Fox, there is no active political bias. Fox News likes to say otherwise because it rationalizes their own overt agenda.