oldsaw wrote: Instead, Stewlbert push an agenda while pandering to a demographic and get paid big bucks while doing it.
The same can be said for nearly all "news" shows about politics. At least Colbert and Stewart don't try to hide that they are entertainers. The others pretend to be more
Sonic wrote:oldsaw wrote: Instead, Stewlbert push an agenda while pandering to a demographic and get paid big bucks while doing it.The same can be said for nearly all "news" shows about politics. At least Colbert and Stewart don't try to hide that they are entertainers. The others pretend to be more
In my book, commentator = entertainer; makes no difference if it's politics, sports or interior design.
Who are these pretenders of which you speak?
oldsaw wrote: ...In my book, commentator = entertainer; makes no difference if it's politics, sports or interior design....
That's because you are an (at least) reasonably intelligent person...
oldsaw wrote: ...Who are these pretenders of which you speak?
(I thought I would add some more to this)
Obviously Saw is kind of throwing out some bait here (he already knows the answer), but here is my brief analysis (opinion):
Daily Show: Clearly mostly entertainment with some pretty obvious opinion thrown in.
Colbert Report: Almost all entertainment with some light (generally in a funny sarcastic way) opinion thrown in.
Real Time with Bill Mahr: Some funny with a lot of heavy handed, many times illogical, opinion thrown in.
Hannity / O'Rielly / Levin etc: Lots of very heavy handed opinion (some times with yelling), many time heavily lacking in logic or reasonable perspective. Very very little entertainment that I have seen. Not sure what is entertaining about these guys at all other then what I sometimes do (not sure if it reaches the level of entertainment) which is listen to identify some of the serious flaws that likely exist in their opinions (which are generally stated as facts).
Redeye: Haven't seen it, but I have heard good things. I believe this is a pure mockery / entertainment show. I do need to check this out. An example I have seen:
Sadly Fox apparently broadcasts the show at 3 am!! Well, that is what DVRs are for eh?
In reply to aircooled:
You've offered a great starter list, a/c. Every example you listed is little more than an "entertainer" and none (with the possible exception of Levin) can claim anything more than a comedic or journalistic background. I'm not aware of them pretending to be anything else than what they purvey on the air.
I'll suggest that those who are criticized for opinions stated as "facts" are no more guilty than those who don't. Is that because some "factual" opinions do/do not follow already assigned preconceptions? Don't let a funny punchline disguise the bigger picture.
And, yeah, Redeye is a mockery-themed show. It even features (OMG) panelists who disagree with the host - just like all those "other" shows. It's worth a peek or two.
oldsaw wrote: You've offered a great starter list, a/c. Every example you listed is little more than an "entertainer" and none (with the possible exception of Levin) can claim anything more than a comedic or journalistic background. I'm not aware of them pretending to be anything else than what they purvey on the air.
I agree with you that their qualification are "entertainer", but I absolutely do not agree that they don't pretend to be more. They may publicly state (I don't know) that they are simply "entertainers" but there actions on their shows clearly is more along the lines of "experts on the subject". The lack of "entertainment" in most of the shows seems to hold true to this.
While I agree with you that someone like Hannity for example really is no different then a stand up comic pontificating about some political topic (which is basically what Real Time is), I feel pretty strongly that his audience does not see it that way. And really, they are being short changed. At least a comic will make them laugh, Hannity only leaves them bitter and angry (most of the time).
Bill Mahr is an interesting subject in this case, he really does straddle the line. Although realistically, he does spend a lot of time on the non-funny side opinion side and isn't all that funny when he isn't. Kind of Hannity with a few jokes.
I'll suggest that those who are criticized for opinions stated as "facts" are no more guilty than those who don't.
I guess how I can see how a opinion stated as fact can be similar to an opinion, but that really is only result of ignorance (willful or otherwise) or laziness on the part of the speaker. I can have an opinion that the world is flat and state it as fact but that is because I either don't want to know, or don't know the facts surrounding the subject. Either way, not really a good thing especially if there are people who take direction from your statements.
Is that because some "factual" opinions do/do not follow already assigned preconceptions? Don't let a funny punchline disguise the bigger picture.
Do you consider Logic an "assigned preconception"? Just because a stated fact does not conform with a common conception does not make it wrong it any way. When a stated fact ignores laws of logic and or completely ignores issue of the argument (this seems to be the most common), that is what I have the biggest issues with. Presenting those "facts" in a forum which is clearly meant to show them a authoritative makes it that much worse.
At least Stewart and Colbert make no bones about being in it for the laughs. Making points at the same time is gravy, such as Stewart was dead on the money about Romney's hypocrisy. I have also seen him skewer Obama's out of control spending. Colbert will do the same to both sides, his 'persona' is just different.
And yeah right now the Republicans are handing them better ammo.
I'm thoroughly disgusted with both sides.
Red Eye is probably the best "news" show out there, if for no other reason than you might see Oderus Urungus from GWAR sitting between S E Cupp and Ann Coulter.. the show leans heavily right, but they are about the most casual and twisted news show out there..
and i firmly believe that Sean Hannity and Jon Stewart need to do a show together.. put it on HBO right after Real Time and it would be a monster hit.
The most obvious thing about Stewart and Colbert is that they're on the Comedy Channel at night. That's a stark contrast to shows on Fox News, which portrays itself as, well, a news channel. You can hear Jon Stewart's comments on this in his Crossfire appearance, round about 5 minutes in.
Colbert in particular is a great satirist, I don't think the yelling people on Fox are. Colbert is playing the classic role of the fool.
On one episode of the daily show, John Stewart was being taken to task by one of the legitimate newscasters.
Stewart summed up his show very well by saying "The show that follows mine is puppets making prank phone calls."
Shawn
Keith wrote: The most obvious thing about Stewart and Colbert is that they're on the Comedy Channel at night. That's a stark contrast to shows on Fox News, which portrays itself as, well, a news channel. You can hear Jon Stewart's comments on this in his Crossfire appearance, round about 5 minutes in. Colbert in particular is a great satirist, I don't think the yelling people on Fox are. Colbert is playing the classic role of the fool.
if by "fool" you mean "over the top portrayal of a stereotypical right wing tv talking head" then, yeah, that sounds about right.
novaderrik wrote: if by "fool" you mean "over the top portrayal of a stereotypical right wing tv talking head" then, yeah, that sounds about right.
So... the free market needs to come up with comedian fools who parody left-wing talking heads.
They're comedians and satirists. They don't pretend that they're not or get marketed as though they're serious pundits.
That's exactly right.
But again it's unfortunate that they get the message across of how things work in this country better than the 'legitimate newscasters'. I swear the 'real news' shows resemble 'Network' more and more every day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ELleCQvew
Keith wrote: The most obvious thing about Stewart and Colbert is that they're on the Comedy Channel at night. That's a stark contrast to shows on Fox News, which portrays itself as, well, a news channel. You can hear Jon Stewart's comments on this in his Crossfire appearance, round about 5 minutes in. Colbert in particular is a great satirist, I don't think the yelling people on Fox are. Colbert is playing the classic role of the fool.
I LOVE it when Jon appears on "real news shows," and typically walks all over them. 
Oh and for the record, and it might be that nobody cares, but Maher drives me insane.
He wishes he was Colbert or Stewart, but instead just comes off as a ranting and raving Marxist blowbag. I made the mistake of watching his show during the whole ObamaCare parade and it was hard to resist throwing something through my TV. BEYOND ignorant.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:Keith wrote: The most obvious thing about Stewart and Colbert is that they're on the Comedy Channel at night. That's a stark contrast to shows on Fox News, which portrays itself as, well, a news channel. You can hear Jon Stewart's comments on this in his Crossfire appearance, round about 5 minutes in. Colbert in particular is a great satirist, I don't think the yelling people on Fox are. Colbert is playing the classic role of the fool.I LOVE it when Jon appears on "real news shows," and typically walks all over them.
Yes, when Stewart appears on a "real" show he can score some big points.
That doesn't excuse his own bias and that he displays it (on his own show) while hiding behind the cloak of comedy. Yes, he is funny and he's uses a more subtle tactic in propogating a message, but that doesn't make him any less guilty than those he criticizes.
People who consume "regular" talk news/commentary normally do so to reinforce their own opinions. Stewlbert attract viewers who want comedy interfaced with news - news presented in ways that also reinforce their own opinions. Except for the laughs there is little difference between the sources.
YMMV..............
I entirely see your point, but I still say it is a matter of extremity. Someone like Hannity or Mahr is FAR more heavy handed then someone like Stewart (who is more then Colbert).
The thing I really like about Stelbert is how they will do there best to ridicule someone who is doing or has done something stupid or hypocritical. And not by just stating that they are being stupid or hypocritical (like they might on other shows) but by illustrating it in example many times using the people involved (interviews etc). Can be some very good stuff sometimes.
I, like you, can see past the slanted commentary. I suspect there are those who can't (or don't want to), but I still say it is at an entirely different level then the mainstream political commentaries. (see what I did there )
aircooled wrote: I, like you, can see past the slanted commentary. I suspect there are those who can't (or don't want to), but I still say it is at an entirely different level then the mainstream political commentaries. (see what I did there
Hey, we agree! I just can't give the comedy crowd a pass because the bias is pernicious instead of the hammer-against-the-head approach.
Neither is good.
oldsaw wrote: That doesn't excuse his own bias and that he displays it (on his own show) while hiding behind the cloak of comedy. Yes, he is funny and he's uses a more subtle tactic in propogating a message, but that doesn't make him any less guilty than those he criticizes.
Why does his bias need to be excused? He is pretty honest about it and does not seem to feel a need to convert other people to his ideology. Heck, the biggest ideology he's tried to espouse and gather people together for is to chill the berkeley out, not buy into the fear-mongering (of both political sides), get over their differences, and deal with politics in a sane manner.
novaderrik wrote:Keith wrote: The most obvious thing about Stewart and Colbert is that they're on the Comedy Channel at night. That's a stark contrast to shows on Fox News, which portrays itself as, well, a news channel. You can hear Jon Stewart's comments on this in his Crossfire appearance, round about 5 minutes in. Colbert in particular is a great satirist, I don't think the yelling people on Fox are. Colbert is playing the classic role of the fool.if by "fool" you mean "over the top portrayal of a stereotypical right wing tv talking head" then, yeah, that sounds about right.
I mean fool in the Shakespearean fashion.
oldsaw wrote: ...but that doesn't make him any less guilty than those he criticizes....
Guilty of what exactly? He isn't running for an office. He isn't working in a capacity purporting to be an unbiased news agency. The fact that he lampoons a certain demographic more heavily than others is not a conflict of interest.
The fact that his presentation is smarter, funnier and more effective than all the windbags he is poking fun at isn't his problem.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Stewart targets the opinion-show hosts of those "unbiased news agencies". Those windbag hosts publically state their own agendas on their shows. Stewart can cherry-pick instances where the news divisions may have shown a bias; he!!, anyone with a brain can do that.
Stewart then uses a news-format to skewer and satirize his targets with his own brand of biases. One can use the old "what's good for the goose" argument but I see more than a bit of hypocrisy in that approach.
As always, YMMV.
oldsaw wrote: One can use the old "what's good for the goose" argument but I see more than a bit of hypocrisy in that approach.
Maybe some of those other guys should try to be funny on purpose rather than letting someone else point out their comedy "genius".
Seriously, it is a pretty funny tv show. Way more so than Hardball or Bill O'reeely. Maybe they just need better writers.
You'll need to log in to post.
