Pretty much this. A LOT happens in ten years. Seriously. 2005? We didn’t even have TWITTER in 2005. 
Regardless, the measles piece was on point and funny.
thanks aceplace57
What exactly ARE you saying? Because when Stewart speaks “truth to power” the usual reaction I see is “Man, if The Daily Show can friggin’ make these points and ask these questions, why can’t the REAL media manage it?!”
Which would pretty much be the essence of acknowledging that Stewart has a comedy fake news program.
I don’t believe you speak for “all of us”. just sayin’
Correction -
Jon Stewart is a comedian who hosts a fake news show on a comedy network.
Sometimes comedy is an effective way to broach a serious topic. Jon reaches a lot of people that might not watch cnn regularly.
The measles outbreak is a warning of much worse to come if attitudes don’t change about inoculation.
I had childhood measles and chicken pox. I paid the price by getting shingles when I was 45. It got into my left eye and cost me some vision. I still have to take prednisolone drops to keep my eye from flaring up again.
Hopefully this new generation will never experience chicken pox or shingles.
Jon has mentioned at least once that he must be correct 100% of the time whereas Fox needs to be correct just once. :smack:
The Anti-vaxxers seem criminal to me, I guess it is not the same as shouting fire in a theater but it sure seems pretty damn close to me.
A close friend of mine lives there. She hates it, too.
Even Stewart says that his show is comedy and satire. It’s Stewart’s fans who believe that The Daily Show is a news program.
Stewart has gained acclaim as an acerbic, satirical critic of personality-driven media shows, in particular those of the U.S. media networks such as CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC.[7] Critics say Stewart benefits from a double standard: he critiques other news shows from the safe, removed position of his “fake news” desk.[8][9] Stewart agrees, saying that neither his show nor his channel purports to be anything other than satire and comedy. In spite of its self-professed entertainment mandate, The Daily Show has been nominated for news and journalism awards.
I live in Marin, and it’s a perfectly lovely place.
Except for the people.
I hope that didn’t read that she hates Marin County. She does not. She hates the whole anti-vaccinating thing that seems pervasive. I like Marin County and love visiting her. Her town, San Anselmo, is very nice.
No they don’t.
Yeah, it’s pretty much only Fox News who can’t figure that out.
Jesus. So fucking what? It’s not a network news program but news is the object of their comedy and satire. Why is it hard to differentiate here? But of course, it’s not actually remotely hard to differentiate. You think you are scoring some debate points. Trust me, you are swaying no one.
I love the show. It’s both funny as hell and I pretty much always agree with the views presented.
But I agree with you. Actually I disagree: I don’t think it’s a little disingenous, I think the way Jon pulls out this “we’re just a comedy show” thing is monumentally disingenuous.
The show presents facts and makes very clear which facts are a joke and which are intended to have veracity. It presents opinions which are clearly intended to make sense.
I don’t believe for one second that those behind the show don’t intend what it presents to be influential: it’s quite clearly intended to both (a) tell you things which it wants you to believe are true and (b) express opinions that certain things are good or bad (or somewhere between). It’s: not mere zanyness ala Monty Python.
The mere fact that the show presents facts and opinions in a way that is funny is no reason whatsoever for it to be held to a standard any lower than other shows that do the same without making jokes. Jon should just drop the pretense, in my view.
As he has implied many times, he wouldn’t have to do this if the real news shows did their job. Who did a better job about educating us on campaign finance laws? The news programs, left or right? Or Colbert, who showed how absurd the laws are by starting a SuperPAC. Legally and with expert advice.
What Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are doing is having all of the influence with none of the responsibility.
I don’t think it’s really an issue of substantive responsibility. None of the “serious” commercial news channels take any real responsibility either. They just say and do whatever the hell will get them ratings and/or suits the politics of their owners. The Daily Show actually has no more or less responsibility. It just irritates me that someone who is as much an honest straight shooter as Jon Stewart is keeps using such a bullshit line.
There’s so much sarcasm in this thread I can’t tell who is on which side.
I absolutely believe that those behind the show do intend what they present to be influential.
I also believe they intend to achieve this influence through satire …y’know, just like every satirist has ever intended in the history of satire. The whole intent to influence is pretty much the entire point of satire, the property of satire that distinguishes it from other forms of comedy.
How is the influential effect of the material proof that it is disingenuous to call it satire? The influential effect of the material is proof that it is satire.