The Daily Show Like the O’Reilly Factor?

I was on yahoo a couple of days ago when I saw an article with the headline, Study of ‘Daily Show’: It’s a lot like O’Reilly. I was intrigued. After all, I watch the Daily Show and have seen O’Reilly and would not make many comparisons between the two. They are both hosted by men and feature current events and interviews. That is pretty much where the similarities end in my opinion. Beyond that though is the question of what people seem to expect from The Daily Show and from Jon Stewart. To me the Daily show has always been about satirizing the way news is distributed in the country and the people who make the news in the country. I read the study’s report, and brought it and its conclusions here to you.

The central debate about The Daily Show is exactly what it is.  The Project for Excellence in Journalism study was an attempt to place the show into a category either comedy or news. To reach their conclusions the PEJ studied the content of The Daily Show for 2007 and then compared its news agenda with that of the more traditional news media as well as examined the lineup of guests and segments. I think they should have gone back to more than one year to get the best possible picture but I think that a one-year examination is still relevant.

Is The Daily Show as news show? My answer is no. Is Jon Stewart a journalist? No. Jon Stewart is an entertainer and comedian. He specializes in political and current affairs jokes. The fact that he frequently asks tougher questions than many of the other interviewers on T.V. is a sad commentary on the rest of T.V. His job is not, imo, to do tough interviews it is his job to make us laugh. I happen to laugh when he embarrasses people like Jonah Goldberg or Chris Mathews. This is the conclusion that the PEJ comes to about what The Daily Show is:

In its subject matter, The Daily Show is indeed journalistic. Its topic agenda is highly focused on the public square, on issues of significance, particularly those focused around Washington. Its agenda is not dissimilar, indeed, from other cable talk shows. The language is even more blunt, and its point often more direct. The Daily Show is no doubt entertainment, but it is entertainment, measurably, with a substantive point. It is, in its own way, another kind of No Spin Zone.

I think this conclusion fails to directly answer their question about whether the show is news or not, is Stewart a journalist or not. The show can really only be considered journalism or news if you consider covering the news itself to be news and journalism. The show does not give a rundown of the top stories or give real analysis of the stories. As the study notes you must know the people and events to understand the jokes made. Stewart himself is on record describing his program as:

"a group of people that really feel that they want to write jokes about the absurdity that we see in government and the world and all that, and that's it."
Snip...
Stewart likened his show less to a product of journalism and more to an editorial cartoon that helps people to "digest" the day’s events. If it does anything, he said, it helps "provide one little bit of context, that's very specifically focused, and hopefully people can add to their entire puzzle that gives them a larger picture of what it is that they see."

The biggest miss that the study has is in its comparison to talk radio and talk T.V. The study uses the content and the basic analysis that occurs to lump The Daily Show in with O’Reilly, Hardball et cetera. The problem with this is that these other shows take themselves very seriously and are news makers in their own right in a way that The Daily show is not. If people in the rest of the media took what happens on The Daily Show as seriously as they do Hardball or Race for the Whitehouse than we might see better reporting.

Trying to place it along side those shows is like the failed idea of balance. It makes them equal. One of the important things about the Daily Show is how it differs from the other programs in terms of the blunt truth it gives through satire. The study does recognize this  about The Daily Show but I think does an inadequate job of relating it to the other aspects of the study as far as content and program style.

Some of the show’s sway as an information source could also come from language, and the sense that it is more candid, and thus somehow closer to one sense of accuracy than the more hidebound traditional media. "My students tell me they read the news for facts, but they watch Jon Stewart for the truth," Professor Steve Lacy of Michigan State University has observed. The Daily Show’s sophisticated and often journalistic use of video to puncture the spin of the political may also connect to a deeper function that journalists are expected to serve—speaking truth to power, or at least unveiling deviations from the truth.

It is the last sentence that I think is important. Absent from this discussion about The Daily Show in the study is that the rest of the media is not serving the truth in a real way. That is why the study also addresses whether there is a perceived bias in the show. The study wants to know why the Republicans and Conservatives who come on the show face a tougher time. The study chalks this up to one of two things

One explanation is that the show’s writers and producers and Stewart himself are simply liberal, and in the course of offering their comedy are also offering their own political views.

Another possibility is that the agenda is fundamentally more anti-establishment than anti-Republican. The party that controls the White House has the preponderance of power, and thus gets the preponderance of the satirical skewer.

When asking a question why one side gets a tougher time than another the question about truth should come into play. The conservatives who come on the show are frequently exposed for their hypocrisy. People who write books or columns that are simply trash get called out on it. The quality of liberals who go on the show are very different than the conservatives. Is it fair to consider John Kerry and Bill Clinton in the same rank as Tony Snow, Scott McCkellan and John Bolton? No. John McCain is a conservative who appears frequently and has very favorable interviews despite my constant hopes to the contrary.

The study seems to come close to nailing what the Daily Show is repeatedly. Take this

The Daily Show aims at more than comedy. In its choice of topics, its use of news footage to deconstruct the manipulations by public figures and its tendency toward pointed satire over playing just for laughs, The Daily Show performs a function that is close to journalistic in nature—getting people to think critically about the public square. In that sense, it is a variation of the tradition of Russell Baker, Art Hoppe, Art Buchwald, H.L. Mencken and other satirists who once graced the pages of American newspapers.

Together with some of the other quotes I think that the study should have come to the conclusion that the daily show is simply not journalism in the traditional sense. Stewart is not a journalist. I think that they might have wanted to cover for the traditional media by lumping it in with other shows reducing its effectiveness in criticizing those shows. It also shows the limitations that the tm has when dealing with new media like blogs, they just don’t quite get it right.

When people do not quite understand something big they look for some way to apply past lessons to it. That has happened repeatedly in this race as people like Pat Buchanan have given analysis talking about races from 1968. There are some major differences in the electorate and in the way people campaign. The way people process information is different and using old models leads to misunderstandings.

Another aspect that comes from the study is the article that led me to the study. Talk about burying the lead. The article focuses almost entirely on the content covered by the show linking it to the O’Reilly factor. It stays with the theme that it is satire not pure news and has a balanced roster of guests. That is about it. Nothing about the truth aspect of the show or about anti-establishment aspect of the show. Had you not read the study you would never have found those important parts of the study.

Also absent is just how important the daily show is. The Daily Show has 1.8 million. Fox News’ primetime show Hannity & Colmes had an average audience of 1.9 million in the first quarter of 2008, and CNN’s highest rated show, Election Center captured an average of 1.2 million viewers. That might have been worth including to give some idea about the shows context to readers.

I encourage people to read both the article and the study as you may draw different conclusions than I did. Maybe you have a different idea about what constitutes journalism and that would lead to different conclusions as well.

Links to AP Story and the study

http://news.yahoo.com/...
http://www.journalism.org/...

•  Tip Holder

  by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:25:52 PM PDT

  •  It's Amazing How Much Trouble People Have

    identifying the object of a comedy show.

    Seinfeld after all was a show about rules, not about "nothing." And about shallow people who have no larger purpose beyond deciphering and manipulating the operative rules.

    by Gooserock on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:41:11 PM PDT

•  The only valid comparison of the Daily Show and

  the O'Reilly Factor is that both can be labeled as "fake news!"

  by xobehtedistuo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:30:58 PM PDT

  •  oh thats a good one. n/t

    by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:32:06 PM PDT

•  Three major differences:

  1. Jon Stewart has not called for a "special investigation" into the photos of teen star Miley Cyrus.

  2. Jon Stewart is funny on purpose.

  3. Jon Stewart is actually entertaining.

  by Cali Scribe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:31:06 PM PDT

  •  I second that

    How can anybody take O'lielly factor and TDS in the same breath??

    by soms on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:32:14 PM PDT

  •  and a few more.

    Jon Stewart doesn't take himself too seriously (he has a very self depreciating style)

    Jon Stewart doesn't demand other people take him seriously.

    Jon Stewart swears a LOT more on TV than O'Reilly (or really any news person)

    Jon Stewart doesn't claim to be fair or balanced.

    by DawnG on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM PDT

•  good diary -

  and it's scary that anyone would relate the two of them.  To me, the only connection would be that TDS is a show specializing in satire, while O'Reilly is just ripe for being satired (which, I guess, is the entire premise of The Colbert Report, come to think of it).

  BTW, it's "ei" in O'Reilly.  Doesn't follow that darn "I before E" thing...

  by Dem in the heart of Texas on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:31:57 PM PDT

  •  thanks i changed the spelling

    and agree about that connection.

    by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:34:11 PM PDT

  •  It just proves Olbermann's

    contention that O'Reilly is a comedian (though not a successful comedian).

    by mkfarkus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:34:53 PM PDT

    •  less the comedian more the joke, imo

      by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:36:55 PM PDT

    •  I thought it was

      "THE comedian Rush Limbaugh" :)

      by Hedwig on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM PDT

  •  It would be more understandable...

    ...if they compared Stephen Colbert to O'Reilly.

    Seeing as how Colbert is a parody of O'Reilly.

    by DawnG on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:51:52 PM PDT

•  I think they miss the point

  It's not that the Daily Show is a news show or that it has journalistic content.  The real point is that the MSM has become more entertainment than news.  That I think is the reason the Daily Show appears journalistic by comparison to the cable new channels.

  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

  by mkfarkus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:33:25 PM PDT

•  It's a subtle but important difference

  The Daily Show is not a journalistic outlet as such, but a lot of what is said and done on that show has very real journalistic consequences (and, in a larger sense, consequences for how people think about current events).  

  But Jon is just a comedian.  That gives him a lot of leeway to do serious work without having to conform to the straight-laced norms of journalism.  It also means that he often oversimplifies complex issues and ignores issues that don't lend themselves to witty punchlines.  If Jon wants to turn his gig into a serious talking-heads program as he gets older, I would welcome that, because I think he's both serious and highly intelligent and he could make an enormous contribution as a serious journalist.

  This whole debate really does indict the serious journalists though.  How far have they fallen that a satire show has more serious discussions about current events than the front pages and hot mics of almost every "real" journalistic outlet out there?

  by socratic on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM PDT

  •  it was mentioned in the study

    When Americans last year were asked to name the journalist they most admired, showing up at No. 4 on the list was a comedian. Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central and former master of ceremonies at Academy Award shows, tied in the rankings with anchormen Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and cable host Anderson Cooper.

    Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, "Today’s Journalists Less Prominent," March 8, 2007. Available at: http://people-press.org/...

    by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:38:28 PM PDT

  •  I don't think that there are any "serious

    journalists" left in the MSM. The real journalists were extricated from the news process when they attempted to reveal the truth in the run up to the war. They have all systematically been replaced with pretty, nodding heads and petty punditry.

    by xobehtedistuo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:40:29 PM PDT

    •  Which is exactly why Jon Stewart

      has been drafted into the role of serious journalist, though he never intended to be anything but a comedian and the host of a comedy show...hopefully someday a real journalist will come along and relieve him...

      by Alice in Florida on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:56:20 PM PDT

      •  Here's to hoping that somewhere, in some

        university, someone is actually teaching "real" journalism. I need a bumper sticker that reads "I'm bringing Journalism back!"

        by xobehtedistuo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:07:14 PM PDT

        •  i think the future for real journalism is

          on the web. The Web is a big equalizer when it comes to quality. people who suck keep niche audiences but the good people can explode. If the web readership grows to rival that of hard copy news i think the quality will come back.

          by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:09:51 PM PDT

          •  Agreed.

            The problem with the web, aside from universal access,  is that it's scattered and one can spend literally hours trolling to find the "real news."  

            I believe the MSM has a responsibility to provide the truth in information and integrity in reporting that ensures the success of a democracy through an informed populace. The continued, and government condoned, corporatization of information only serves to widen the divide (10% vs 90%) and dumb down society in preparation for submission.

            by xobehtedistuo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:51 PM PDT

•  It's a Media Spoof Primarily

  Snarking on politics and current events directly is definitely secondary.

  The entire cast are playing journalists after all. They don't have any regulars playing politicians.

  COLBERT belongs pared with O'Reilly because he's a commentary show spoof. Mostly, an O'Reilly spoof.

  by Gooserock on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM PDT

  •  exactly though...

    ...they're PLAYING journalists, but they don't actually do it in a way to imply that they actually ARE journalists.

    It's like a pantomime.

    by DawnG on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:53:34 PM PDT

•  Sad that

  the state of Cable News programs has resulted in the comparison at all. That they consider Jon Stewart "journalistic" doesn't mean his show rises to the level of actual news, but that most of the other shows and 'pundits' have dropped to the level of satire.

  by Hedwig on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:41:13 PM PDT

  •  Want to see sad?

    Travel abroad and tune in to CNN International.  A truly pathetic 24 hours newscast.

    by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:43:23 PM PDT

    •  Interesting

      I haven't been overseas for awhile. A decade actually, but it was fairly good then. And I have seen comments here (a few) that have spoken highly of it compared to US-based news outlets. Learn something on DKos everyday.

      by Hedwig on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:46:01 PM PDT

      •  Right now

        I'm in China.  CNN can't blame this stuff on the Chinese control of the media either.  They rerun every program, TalkAsia was all about fashion.  Inside the Middle East was all about Israeli wine.  

        I know a lot is going on, and it would be impossible to cover it all, but there is no excuse for having reruns of news stories.  The only thing that I know from watching over the two weeks I've been here, is that Austria has some problems with incest.  

        Oh yeah, they show the weather every ten minutes:)

        by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:50:57 PM PDT

        •  Gotta love the Celsius!

          Well, it is pretty much what Headline News is during the day. And they're mainly catering to what? Tourists who only have 2.3 minutes to catch stuff. Business travelers who like it because it's the only show in English?

          Sad that it's fallen off.

          by Hedwig on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:00:42 PM PDT

          •  I die a little inside everyday

            If China wasn't such a great place to visit, with lots to see, I'd be dead.

            by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:02:47 PM PDT

    •  Really?

      Lord, I used to crave CNN International because I became addicted to it when I was living abroad.  It used to be vastly different from the US channel (much like US news magazines usually have fluff covers for the US editions and much more serious covers for international editions).  Shame if it's fallen off.

      by socratic on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:48:26 PM PDT

      •  You are, sadly. so very correct.

        I remember the covers from the Vietnam era. They were PG17 or R and the articles with the exception of Time showed serious hard-core reporting, but now most of the covers look as if they were created by Disney studios and the articles were reported by Mini Mouse. It gets a little better inside some of them, but there is still so much fluff that you'd think it was produced by Mattel or Hasbro or the Cabbage Patch Kids. They never met a serious subject or truth that they didn't want to avoid. They pander so much to the administration that real news becomes impossible. Of course that is not all of them, but it sure is a significant number. There's more honest and serious reporting on the web.

        by professorfate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:05:22 PM PDT

        •  I picked up a couple of magazines today

          They're not serious magazines by any stretch of the imagination.  Both were UK car magazines, one titled "Car" and, of course, "Top Gear".  The difference in the imagery on the covers compared to "Road & Track" and its ilk was staggering.  Even in an area as trivial as cars, we're slathering on primary colors and gaudy adolescent displays.  

          My sister and I were discussing the complete death of nuance and taste in the US today.  It really is staggering.  Even our money is ugly now.  :(

          by socratic on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:01 PM PDT

          •  Don't you know...

            nuance is "Elitist."

            by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:23:43 PM PDT

            •  Sounds French.

              by socratic on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:09 PM PDT

              •  so thats why i cant stand it

                ;)

                by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:26:20 PM PDT

                •  Me too

                  "Nuance" sounds suspiciously like "Reality" and I can't take anymore of that :)

                  by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:20 PM PDT

•  I think that even Jon Stewart

  would agree that the desire to place The Daily Show within the media is tragic. Does anyone remember him telling Chris Matthew's that his book "Life is a campaign" sounds like a recipe for sadness? His show, and others like it only show how abyssmal the MSM is.  

  Personally, I remember Stewart's passionate return to his show after 9/11, his opening monologue.  That moment will stay with me forever, as one of the only times when a tv personality showed genuine emotion.  For that, I will always support him and cherish the Daily Show.

  by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:41:22 PM PDT

  •  yes i saw that interview with Matthews

    it came up in the study as some of the serious journalistic things he has done.

    Sometimes, the criticism is downright blunt. During an October 2 guest appearance by MSNBC host Chris Matthews about his book "Life’s a Campaign," Matthews invited Stewart to Hardball.

    Stewart responds, "You know what? Can I say this? I don’t troll."

    An outraged Matthews responds, "You are unbelievable! You...This is a book interview from hell. This is the worst interview I’ve had in my life! ...You are the worst!"

    Chris Matthews is saying someone is bad at interviewing. think on that.

    by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:45:39 PM PDT

    •  Dayum

      Some here were upset with Stewart last week for giving a softball interview to McSame. Since I didn't see it I have no reference, but I have seen them have heated arguments before when he had come on the show before.

      The two that got me recently were his interview with Howard Dean where Jon kept rambling on about the nature of the Democratic primary rules. Once, ok. Twice, fine. But he just kept on it. Dean was cool about it, but it went on to long.

      This was coupled with the previous night's guest, Newt Gingrich where Newtie kept throwing out non-issue talking point names (Ayers, etc...) at the end of the interview and Stewart didn't tell him to shut the hell up just because Newt's a moron. Would've liked to see Stewart respond with facts but I don't expect that from the vacuous talking heads that interview people on Cable News (guest comes on and the teleprompter reader has no response to them outright lying) so I guess I shouldn't expect it of Stewart either.

      by Hedwig on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:58:18 PM PDT

      •  Try to go to a taping sometime...

        It's free, the staff is fairly nice, if somewhat stern.  Plus, you'll see that they only tape for about 45 minutes, so there's not a lot of time to get downright confrontational.  

        Would the Daily Show be better or worse if it were an hour long?

        by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:05:29 PM PDT

        •  Worse...

          I really like the first 6-7 minutes. Then they have the hit and miss segments with their 'journalists' pretending to be out in the field. And, unless it's someone I really want to see I rarely watch the interview segments.

          Think of Jay Leno or David Letterman having to write 40-42 minutes of monologue per day. Tough enough for any of them to write a good solid 7-8 minutes.

          by Hedwig on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:09:30 PM PDT

          •  Sad and true

            by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM PDT

•  O'Reilly and Stewart?

  The Daily Show actually knows what the facts are and while they exaggerate them and examine them from an unusual point of view, they don't flat out seriously distort them. A significant number of times O'Reilly either doesn't know what the facts are or he is deliberately distorting them. For me the O'Reilly's show becomes humorous because it is so absurd. It is a parody of itself, but it just doesn't know it. For a show that falls between the two, watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He also spends some time correcting O'Reilly's more egregious errors. He does it in a humorous but more serious way that The Daily Show.

  by professorfate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:51:14 PM PDT

  •  The only problem with Olbermann

    is that he's on MSNBC.  He should shop around and see if Comedy Central, or someone, will give him a show.

    by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:54:21 PM PDT

    •  i keep hoping he moves to regular nbc

      and then takes over the world of news.

      by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:56:53 PM PDT

      •  Careful what you wish for...

        The conservatives' left-wing media bashing will go through the roof the moment Olbermann gets angry on camera.  

        by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:00:56 PM PDT

      •  I'm torn

        I'd like more people to hear Keith, but I wouldn't want him to have to change his style. If  NBC will let him keep some of the snark and the occasional double entendre, I'm all for it.

        by nicolemm on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM PDT

    •  He still speaks his mind and is very entertaining

      He does do real news too. Yes MSNBC is a pariah, you get the good stuff where you can. After all Family Guy and American Dad are on Fox. Figure that one out.

      by professorfate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:08:48 PM PDT

      •  He used to do real news.

        Now his program is a half hour of political pandering, followed by fluff, maybe a news story, but most likely, more campaign crap.

        by xobehtedistuo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:12:53 PM PDT

        •  he was caught up in the tit for tat

          that went on just like the rest of us were. I look back on some of it and just wonder why i cared. it seemed like every day something new and stupid was said by someone somewhere. i think wright kinda killed a great deal of that for a while.

          by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:36 PM PDT

      •  That's so that Fox can give us all the finger

        The Simpsons have made fun of Fox for years.  I admit I still swallow the pill when it comes to cartoons.  

        by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:19:23 PM PDT

        •  I'll take that finger and

          raise another to them. Fox may suck, but it's worth it for a good chuckle. Oh hell, just about all of the networks are shills for the corporations of which they are a part. Face it, there's not one of the majors who does not pander to the current powers. They are part of huge media conglomerates and we will all continue to suffer from it. Okay, now I'm getting pissed off again thinking about how much they really suck.  

          by professorfate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:18 PM PDT

          •  Please remain calm...

            You are not alone.

            by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:36 PM PDT

  •  i thought that Olbermann

    would have been a far better comparison to BillO. I think that they went for the biggest initial contrast to get readers. i though that having that comparison at all made the study less powerful.

    by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:55:36 PM PDT

•  I look forward to the day

  when the Daily Show can once again take its rightful place as a comedic fake news show rather than a show that repeatedly wins journalism awards because there are no real journalists on TV to give the awards to.

  by Alice in Florida on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:52:57 PM PDT

  •  I heard Stephen Colbert won a REAL peabody...

    ...is that right?

    dang, that is through the looking glass right there.

    by DawnG on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:55:51 PM PDT

    •  Yes, he did win a Peabody

      by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:13 PM PDT

      •  and then did a cross promotion with Doritos

        http://images.google.com/...

        by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:37:41 PM PDT

        •  I believe in shameless promotion when...

          it's delivered with Colbert's enduring smile.  If I lived in SC, I would have supported his campaign too.  

          by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:52:18 PM PDT

•  Reilly is an ass...

  ...enough said.

  But I can't watch Stewart anymore. He has this angry edge now that just takes the comedy out of it. I don't like my entertainment mixed with my politics, at least not when it is so one-sided.

  Colbert is easier to take because the subterfuge of being a conservative evens it out a bit.

  Getting passionate about politics is death to a comic, in my opinion (or at least in my interest in watching them)

  by Sandy Richards on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:56:13 PM PDT

  •  I totally disagree.

    I can see that you have a definite desire to separate the two but I love them together and there is a long history of the two being together - Mort Saul from the old days to Lewis Black today. In fact you could go back to Samuel Clemens too. It's been a tradition for a long time.

    by professorfate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:39 PM PDT

    •  No, politics is fair game...

      ...even excellent game for comedians, but when it is done with an agenda, either way, it makes me pull back.

      Like, Saturday Night did the Obama debate thing, which was hilarious, but then they did some Hillary bashing, like the 3:00 am stuff.

      If it is sort of mixed in with news of the day, that's fine, but Stewart makes comedy just mean.

      and, personally, I could care less about his opinion, so I don't want to hear it over and over again in an entertainment venue.

      by Sandy Richards on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM PDT

    •  Did you see Mort Sahl

      on Countdown Friday? He's still got "it", that's for damn sure. Wish he'd come out here and do his show -- I'd pay good money for that.

      by Cali Scribe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:16:05 AM PDT

•  Daily Show is two programs....

  there is the intro and the satiric routine after the first break.  These are primarily comedy, where Stewart rides on the anti Bush, anti war theme of his audience.

  Not really journalism, but ridiculing people such as "Cheney" as the devil incarnate.  And he signals that he is over the top, and enjoying the exaggeration. And the routines range from brilliant to mundane.  It's not easy to crank out satire.

  The second part is the interviews, usually with people who have book to sell.  Here he is a journalist, with  humor being secondary to cogent questioning at various levels.  Obviously, he doesn't study, or even read, every book that is discussed.

  But he has a pretty good general idea.  And he can be cutting.  I remember his interview with a young Psych professor who teaches the most popular course at harvard, Positive Psychology.  Steward was a psych major, and I'm sure he took it seriously.

  He asked some challenging questions to the professor, but he was deeply cynical, and like me, disturbed by the anti-intellectualism of his approach.  And I remember his final words, "Good luck with your book. I can't believe you can get away with it."

  Nothing light weight about that interview.  

  by arodb on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:57:57 PM PDT

  •  that happens when he gets a trash book

    i think because people tend to believe books that he takes the the ones where the book is awful or misleading seriously. The Jonah Goldberg interview was my fav. he just embarrasses him because the entire premise of the book is wrong and the evidence is all wrong. However since everyone else on tv will eventually write a book they go easy on bad books. Books are how anyone can make money if you are even moderately famous so some bad ones get out there.

    by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:02:36 PM PDT

•  Stewart said it best

  When he was on Crossfire a few years ago he ripped into the whole right vs. left premise of most cable news shows.  When he was criticized for the tone of his "news" show, his response was, basically - "We're not a news show, we;'re comedy.  We're sandwiched between South Park and Jackass, for God's sake!"

  'nuff said.

  by ImaJoeBob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:02:56 PM PDT

  •  Yeah I remember that

    That's when Crossfire, after jumping the shark years earlier, fell into the shark cage.

    The show was cancelled less than a month later.

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM PDT

    •  Stewart also said...

      to Begala and Carlson, "You're hurting America."  So true.

      by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:48 PM PDT

•  The O'Really Factor?

  I wondered if someone besides me said "what?" to this report. Thanks.

  by maggiejean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:05:22 PM PDT

  •  I said "what?"

    But it was to O'Reilly being associated with any form of real, accurate news.

    by professorfate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:21:23 PM PDT

•  The Daily Show as journalism?

  I remember a few years ago when Stewart was being interviewed and being asked if he considers himself a journalist, and Stewart exasperatedly replied "I follow a bunch of puppets that make crank calls."

  by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:28:00 PM PDT

  •  the tm has to try and

    make put him into that category or else they look awful by comparison. They want people to think of him as a stealth journalist just one of them. most people seem to recognize that this is not true and continue to ask why comedians are better than journalists at doing the journalists job.

    by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:32:08 PM PDT

  •  I don't remember The Daily Show following

    Larry King.

    Oh, you mean "Crank Yankers"?  Now that's context.

    by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:33:12 PM PDT

•  I have a father-in-law who lives and breathes

  Bill O'Reilly like he is the only source of oxygen left on planet Earth. He sends daily emails about the content of the show, about how correct he is in all his commentary, and then asks if we've seen the most recent episode.

  He's recently discovered the beauty and eloquence of one Glenn Beck.

  He only accepts what he has seen on these two shows as "evidence," or "truth." Sometimes, though, he'll throw in a little Savage or Hannity for spice.

  This, for me, is the difference between the Comedy Central shows and the Fox shows. Fox viewers can't handle ambiguity. They have well-cultivated mental set, false consensus, and confirmation biases. Stewart and Colbert viewers are comfortable with ambiguity (satire depends on it, after all), are better equipped to see an issue from multiple perspectives, and are less willing to simplify complex problems in order to ease their own cognitive burden(s).

  Or something like that.

  by elropsych on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:05 PM PDT

  •  They obviously can't handle truth either. :)-

    by xobehtedistuo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:18 PM PDT

  •  Ambiguity is elitist

    Only us "liberals" would dare question what we see and hear.  Besides, you have to go to college to even get a taste of "ambiguity" and even then you can discard it as "liberal academia".

    by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:37:15 PM PDT

    •  i hate that phrase

      it basically says, every one go to college but disregard what you learn there.

      by Liberal Youth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:38 PM PDT

      •  Do you know anyone like that?

        I do.  

        by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM PDT

    •  My dad left college because there was ambiguity

      I never left and now I teach there. The more ambiguous the I  can create the atmosphere the better the students are for it.

      by professorfate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:24 PM PDT

      •  Indeed,

        I'll take my life with a slice of "ambiguity."  It's like a spicy meatball.

        My dad is a lawyer and it has taken him years of W. to realize that things are never what they seem.  You CAN teach an old dog new tricks.

        by Transient Smitty on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:06 PM PDT

        •  It's like a spicy meatball.

          I love that, very clever.

          by professorfate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:59:24 PM PDT

          •  Father-in-law's latest argument was that

            we all need to vote McCain because both Democrats advocate an excessive gas-profits tax oil companies, and that this is a direct affront to all hard working Americans. Especially those in the middle class.

            His evidence was that oil profits are in line (7.3% last year, 8.4% this year) with all other industries in America, and what would be next? An excessive pharmaceutical tax? An excessive groceries tax? It would never end I tell ya!

            Have fun with that one.

            Meatballs, indeed.

            by elropsych on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:28 PM PDT

•  I think the Headline was misleading.

  I just read the study and found no claim that TDS was anything at all like Hardball or O’Reilly, except to say that they offer alternative media for the politically minded.

  The study agrees with you that TDS is "NOT a news show," (caps theirs) It goes on to describe TDS (without trying to define it) as a being most like a talk show that focuses on political material. While it notes that Stewart is harder on conservatives than on liberals, I don't fault it for not pointing out that Jon should be harder on them because they're dicks. It's an academic paper.

  The AP article, particularly the headline, was inaccurate reporting. But give credit where credit's due. The study is a nice little paper. You don't have to read between the lines to see they had a good time researching it. And they got some press, even if the press was mis-representative.

  by ZAP210 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:29 PM PDT