guuuh.... i think i know why they call it "the half wit news hour". i think i just lost 10-20 IQ points watching that.

Out of curiosity, I watched the whole thing. Absolutely terrible.

Slate had a good article about it: http://www.slate.com/id/2159920?nav=tap3/

Slim: it's actually called "the half hour news hour", to be fair

You know, we've had a show in Canada called "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" for quite a long time now. Sadly, the similar titles don't add up to similar wit.

I watch Fox News every now and then, for the trainwreck aspect of it all... But this stuff was just painful. I can't believe they've become so frustrated with the Daily Show that they'd try something like this out... Amazing.

i remembered reading they had "the half hour news hour" as a temporary, placeholder name. when i read "the half wit news hour" i figured that's the name they settled on. the name "the half hour news hour" is just unfunny enough to suit this perfectly.

It'd be one thing if it was funny, but... sorry Fox.

they have, because talent, free communication (the internet) celebrity are the x factors that they can't in all their scheming account for and control any more than could success in Iraq. It s the exact same reason R.L. Hubbard was so focus on celebrity when he started his cult of $cionecolgy, he knew that celebrity (or in this case pop culture) was to mass more attractive than facts and politics.

Fellow Progresives, embrace this!!!! They cannot stand on thier own comedy, it is way too lame.

Watch this show, get its ratings up, and then let it burn as the advertisers realize the people who watch it watch only because its like watching a car wreck. Destroy these penisless cowards for the boys and girls they are.

Power of the goddamned purse.

On the strength of this witty commentary I am now convinced that global warming is rubbish. Those polar bears and icebergs are just liberal activists.

...don't just see that as a lousy joke, some people will hold that opinon, I know some of them!

They forgot the best punch line a comedian could ever come up with, "Fair and Balanced here on Fox", they would have killed with that, it gets me everytime.

Former stand-up Jon Rogers has a nice take on the show: Kung Fu Monkey

It's as if aliens tried to decipher humor from radiated cable television waves and then constructed a "comedy" show with a poor translation algorithm. It is un-joke. You could put it in a chamber with a knock-knock joke and use the resultant explosion to power a starship.

This is really interesting - you sit there watching it, seeing all these half-ass comedy concepts being applied turning into half-assed non-funny punchlines and you about it all you have this thought in your head: "This is just not right".

They had a nice concept for this one, I'd give them that, but it hasn't even got a shred of the self-mockery that is so funny about liberal comedy like Stewarts.

With all due respect, I really wish people would stop saying TDS is "liberal" comedy (and I'm not just referring to your post, skOre, I see it everywhere). Jon Stewart and any number of other TDS writers might indeed be personally politically liberal--who truly knows--but the show's humor is centrist, and that's one of the reasons it works so well. They're detached enough from any partisan attachment that they can hit their targets on either side of the aisle.

I agree with the above post. The daily show pokes fun of everybody, it's not their fault that the republicans just happen to provide more material for them to work with.

Oh man, 30 seconds and I'm starting to get sympathy flop sweat. That said, it might be tuned perfectly to the Fox audience level of comedy sophistication and be a huge success.

Fellow Progresives, embrace this!!!! They cannot stand on thier own comedy, it is way too lame.

Is 'Stone' a troll? He sounds like he's trying to sound like a 'dumb Liberal' with the hysteria and the spelling errors. No offence intended if he's not..

I didn't laugh. But this was actually their first try at a real punch line. You could call it comedy, if you were gracious. Way to go, half wits.

"...brainchild of Joel Surnow, co-creator of 24"

"24" is hilarious (at least if you watch it while reading the Dave Barry blog). So it is puzzling that Surnow can't repeat the magic...

You can read more about this ultra right wing kook in The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070219fafactmayer

There's an interesting bit in the video report where a general from Westpoint pleads with Surnow to show the downside of torture because "24" is damaging his ability to train his troops properly.

Sorry about the mangled URL in my last post.

No, Ray, I am not a troll and I am liberal. I was also drunk, hence the spelling.

But I stand by the statement. If Fox NEWS wants to lower themselves further than they already have by running comedy, I think we should support that. I think over the past few years there's been a pretty strong realization that Fox News is about as lightweight as they come. If they want to change from a station espousing right wing propaganda disguised as news, why not let them let us take them less seriously.

They will always be a theat, as long as they are on the air, but I think the best move we can make as a group is to watch the show regularly for like a month. Then, just stop watching.

It won't be hard for us to do, the ratings will plummit, and even if they have a few million people who still watch it it will be viewed as a failure by the news and entertainment establishment.

Furthermore, it would seem as if Fox News is helping to legitimize TDS and Colbert YET AGAIN.

Plus, imagine how Colbert will eviserate this clown when he gets him on. That will be a sweet show.

Canada's "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" is probably stupider than this Fox News rubbish. If I had to choose between either of them I'd pick suicide.

But as to this show I'm in accord with whomever said we should embrace this above, although I just skimmed the comments and might be in discord with them. I think we ought to embrace the idea of god-fearing; bigoted; Christian Conservative "silent majority"; cholesterol-savvy; football, country music and NASCAR loving; soccer-mom (/banging); suburban or rural Americans glued to this show, as it only serves to make them more ridiculous.

In an age in great need of holocausts of stupid people who are your enemies, the consolation prize should be that your enemies merely make themself more pathetic. We already have brilliant shows like 24, JAG, American Idol, Survivor, Desperate Housewives and the entire channel of ABC to pick out the cultural retards, now we have this show to pick out the comedically inept. What's better is that we get the politically mindfucked as well. There's nothing ambiguous about a 300lb dipshit in a brown two piece and cowboy hat driving a 1980's Ford F-150 who says "man I love that Half Hour News Hour, I watch it before I eat a 24-piece grab bag from KFC and lose my overtime pay from the Jesus Rock studio down at the dog races".

File this clip under, "Sure X is a problem, but liberals are blowing it way out of proportion. That's the real problem--overreacting!" For X, substitute people without health care, torture, global warming, the budget deficit, criminality in the Bush administration, the Patriot Act, etc.

I'm sure that this comedy show doesn't sound funny to me partly because it makes no sense to me, but they will never hold a candle to Colbert until they can come up with a parody of conservatives that is as funny as David Cross's liberal parody.

And let's get another thing straight here, being very generalized: political parody and comedy is indeed easier for liberals than it is for conservatives because many liberals are anti-establishment, anti-status quo, and they have a lot of material to work with in conservatives being flagrantly ignorant of irony.

However, liberal shit stinks too. Just look around here and other left-leaning blogs, you'll see plenty of liberal dumbasses, and the naivity of progressive dogma. You don't have to be a McCarthyite to see American lefties who are indeed "blame America first", who assume the opposite of everything Conservatives believe is true, who would rather side with a third world dictator than our own government, who are so ignorant of foreign cultures that they assume they can empathize with them at the expense of their own culture. There are actually left-wing Americans who hate our form of government, our way of life and what most of us stand for. There are left-leaning Americans who support totalitarianism. There are actually environmental and anarchist radicals who support violence. They're an extreme minority but a sobering reminder where unchecked idealism leads.

Do you honestly think these shitforbrains are really beyond parody? Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are equal opportunity offenders, they just make it pretty clear that conservatives are more ripe for parody, because, let's face it, being a mainstream American conservative is not being in sync with reason, or any means of good taste, much less reality.

I realize this is being posted for the “know thine enemy” doctrine, but what a completely tedious 28 seconds (that’s all I could watch).

This whole contrarian right-wing business of pooh-poohing global warming is really incredible. You know why I think that global warming is an issue we should be considering? Because a consensus of the world’s scientists tells me that we should. It’s kind of like why I don’t smoke cigarettes. If I didn’t learn from what smart people have studied I’d be dumber than a studio audience member of this piece a shit show.

You guys are right - instead of calling Stewart liberal, I should have called him secular.

I want them to actually show an audience- like Colbert, or Stewart...

LAUGH TRACK!!!!!! and the extended round of (fake) applause at the end was too FUC*ING much!!!!! wow. amazed.

The "six degrees of global warming" (just that phrase, and concept) I thought was at least half-way decent -- only thing is, I've heard it a million times before.

But the rest, my god is that utter shit.

AHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAHH..ahahahhahaha..ahah.....huhhuwaawwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa cries

....pukes

commits suicide

Norm, please avenge my death.

So they did this because the Daily Show/Colbert are 'liberal'..... why did they need a whole new show?

All they have to do, they being Republicans and conservatives, to see the Democrats get some of the schtick from Stewart is shut up.

i'll give you a challenge, come up with something funny

"You guys, you're boring me to death" is right!

If they could get the writers of "Studio 60" in on this, it would really be not funny squared.

It's pretty simple really, people find humor in truth. There's little truth on Fox News, so why would there be much humor?

"With all due respect, I really wish people would stop saying TDS is 'liberal' comedy. Jon Stewart and any number of other TDS writers might indeed be personally politically liberal--who truly knows--but the show's humor is centrist, and that's one of the reasons it works so well."

With all due respect, I really wish people would stop mindlessly using the word "centrist." It implies that progressive liberalism and right-wing fascism are equally legitimate political philosophies. They're not.

Anyone remember "Hee Haw"?

This sounds like an updated version for the internet age.

kali yuga--

Please understand MY meaning :-p. What I was talking about was the difference between comedy with a partisan agenda--which is rarely funny, as evidenced by FOX--and comedy which sees all absurdities as ripe for humor. Ergo, progressive liberalism and right wing-wing fascism may not be "equally legimate" political philosophies, but they're equally ripe for satire.

Altho, progressive liberalism is really NOT the true opposite of right-wing fascism, now, is it?

pat writes:"Altho, progressive liberalism is really NOT the true opposite of right-wing fascism, now, is it?"

now THIS is a topic worthy of discussion. somehow i guess it isn't going to happen...please, prove me wrong.

JB: So, what's your take on it?

"With all due respect, I really wish people would stop mindlessly using the word "centrist." It implies that progressive liberalism and right-wing fascism are equally legitimate political philosophies. They're not."

See, here's one of the left wingers ripe for parody I was speaking of earlier. Notice their gratuitous and hyperbolic use of "fascism". Hilarious.

jesus h. christ.

they need to ditch the laugh track. i was trying to objectively listen to material, and the laugh track just annoyed the shit out of me.

i didn't think it was humanly possible, but fox has just created a sketch comedy show less funny, and more childish than mad tv.

"See, here's one of the left wingers ripe for parody I was speaking of earlier. Notice their gratuitous and hyperbolic use of "fascism". Hilarious."

Yep, thanks. And BTW, I didn't mean to imply that "progressive liberalism" is not opposed to "right-wing fascism"--just that if you're going to label one end of the spectrum "fascist," you oughta use a term equally hyperbolic for the left.

“just that if you're going to label one end of the spectrum ‘fascist,’ you oughta use a term equally hyperbolic for the left.”

Wrong. Because “centrist” in the American lexicon doesn’t mean the point between the most extreme capitalism and the most extreme communism, or between the most extreme totalitarianism and the most extreme anarchism. “Centrism” in America means the point between the two political extremes that are acceptable (i.e. electable). Now think about what those two extremes are, think about what the two opposing political parties represent. Both are essentially pro-corporation, pro-war, and anti-civil liberty in nature, and so “centrism” must exist within that realm. There is no far left in this country, but there very definitely is a “far right” as is evidenced by Bush and the Neanderthal Republicans in Congress, and in case you haven’t noticed, they’ve been running things for quite a while now. So what is a centrist in that environment? Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq slaughter and for the Patriot Act? John Edwards, who voted for the Iraq slaughter and for the Patriot Act? Barack Obama, whose first vote in the Senate was to approve Condi Rice and who voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and who doesn’t even bother to mention civil liberties on the issues page of his website because he’s too busy talking about his bullshit faith? “Centrism” in this country means moderate corporatism, and that’s not a good thing.

And by the way, yes, the right in this country is fundamentally fascist in nature, as anyone who understands the term realizes by this point. http://fog-of-war.net/fourteen-characteristics-of-fascism/

kali yuga you're a slave to other people's identification of "centrism". It's just a word, there is no "centrist party" and there is no "centrist doctrine". Drawing it as what media experts infer it to be, that is to say: an ellipsis between Democrat and Republican which results in a maximization of vote-gaining efficiency, is disingenuous to the idea of moderation. Moderation between Hitler and Stalin is an oxymoron, because neither exercise moderation and would cease to exist in their forms if they did.

Moderation between Republican and Democrat is another oxymoron because they're two political parties that exercise power, being a "moderate" between them simply would be playing one off the other in respective power relations like the 'Gang of 14', or 'Triangulation' done by Clinton. Although these had mostly beneficial and just results, their negatives were resounding. "Operating by polls", triangulation became shallow populism, and "working across the isle" turns into a cheap ruse to deceive the other party while "Republicans/Democrats in Name Only" are swallowed alive by the base of their party in the name of bipolarity (Lieberman, Hegel and Snow).

Your use of Umberto Eco's 14 characteristics of fascism is more shallow sourcing of a greater intellect hugely out of context applied to your political foes, and therefore is only worthy of our scorn. Sensationalism fades, and so will your assertion that conservatism in America is synonymous with fascism. It might appear so to one whose understanding of geopolitics has been tilted off balance by Marxocentrism.

"Sensationalism fades, and so will your assertion that conservatism in America is synonymous with fascism."

And yet in three paragraphs of incoherent rambling you fail to point out a single difference between the two.

That was absolutely horrid.

"“Centrism” in this country means moderate corporatism, and that’s not a good thing."

Well, that's not the context in which I was using it, nor the POV I was trying to attribute to TDS.

And if you want to hijack my meaning to prove your points, be my guest. Just keep in mind that your intellectual condescension is no less remarkable than that of the government "fascists" you're condemning.

"And if you want to hijack my meaning to prove your points, be my guest.”

I didn’t hijack anything. You made an assertion about the terminology people should be using. I took exception. Stewart’s humor is “liberal” in much the same way that Voltaire’s humor was “liberal.” It skewers a corrupt power structure and is a mechanism whereby injustice can be exposed. The popularity of the Daily Show should be seen as an opportunity to reclaim the definition of the concept of “liberalism,” and thus it should be identified as “liberal” at every turn. Liberalism isn’t partisanship. If anything, it’s true centrism in that it combines a belief in individual liberty with a commitment to justice when it comes to use of governmental power. If progressives willingly abandon the word, they are agreeing to operate within the frame created by the right-wing power/media structure. That, I believe, is a mistake.

Finally. If this had been your initial response to what I said, word for word, I wouldn't have balked at your point. You certainly went the long way around, however.

And hey, I won't use the word "centrist" ever f---ing again, if my life depends upon it. :-)

That is just pitiful. I mean, set aside that it isn't even intelligent humor...it's just plain not funny...

Some real hilarity (second half):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C03ruhhLx1s

how could anyone find this funny?

"And yet in three paragraphs of incoherent rambling you fail to point out a single difference between the two."

Your reading comprehension has nothing to do with others' coherency. I shouldn't have to spend any time convincing you that fascism isn't conservatism. That you even make that assertion just serves to humour the rest of us normals who know how to type "www.wikipedia.com" into our address bar.

"If progressives willingly abandon the word, they are agreeing to operate within the frame created by the right-wing power/media structure."

Liberals themselves don't want to blend progressivism with (neo)liberalism. Social engineering, mercantilist infringement and state welfare dependency systems that progressivism hints at are horrendous societal decadance to liberals. Progressives can't rape the meaning of liberalism, they should be happy that we don't call them Social Democrats or Mensheviks.

"I shouldn't have to spend any time convincing you that fascism isn't conservatism."

Of course not. You inserted yourself into this debate, but you certainly shouldn't be expected to support your assertions with any actual evidence.

"Liberals themselves don't want to blend progressivism with (neo)liberalism. Social engineering, mercantilist infringement and state welfare dependency systems that progressivism hints at are horrendous societal decadance to liberals. Progressives can't rape the meaning of liberalism, they should be happy that we don't call them Social Democrats or Mensheviks."

Looks like someone's been hitting the Wikipedia again. Don't hurt yourself over there . . .

I actually found this clip mildly humerous. Certainly much more than any of the other clips. Still not great, but at least they have one actor who has a pulse. The global warming guy is the only one so far who has not come across as a robot.

It's so much funnier when John Stewart rips the dems, which he does do, just not much point in doing it a great deal until recently when they gained power again.

"Of course not. You inserted yourself into this debate, but you certainly shouldn't be expected to support your assertions with any actual evidence."

That wasn't a debate, that was me mocking your political ideas as trite. The debate was those other paragraphs that you couldn't comprehend.

"Looks like someone's been hitting the Wikipedia again. Don't hurt yourself over there . . ."

You could afford some of their flawed elementary insight yourself, afterall you're the hyperbolic sensationalist equating conservatives with fascists, a laughable form of reverse Ann Coulterism.

Join the debate any time you like, and come back with those facts that I have no obligation for you to have acquired a priori. In fact, with an inflammatory assertion like fascists are conservatives I really think the burden is on YOU to bring your doctored half truths to the table. So, pony up, Alger Hiss.

"In fact, with an inflammatory assertion like fascists are conservatives I really think the burden is on YOU to bring your doctored half truths to the table. So, pony up, Alger Hiss."

If the possibility existed that, after hours of holding your hand and pointing out the obvious similarities between right-wing extremism as it exists in this country and right-wing extremism as it has existed in every other fascist country in history, we would be in a place even one inch removed from where we are right now, I would gladly spend the rest of the day doing it.

As it is, I directed you to the 14 defining characteristics of fascism. The parallels are there to the point of being blatantly obvious, whether you mockingly dismiss them or not.

You didn't say right-wing extremism, you said "right". And you have tried to inhereit Locke and Mill as if they had zero effect on American conservatism, for which you give a bogus detour geneaology straight to Il Duce. Then you try to toss shadows our way by insinuating that 'centrism' in its popular media parlance (and we all know we should learn politics from CNN) doesn't cut it and is a minor gradation away from Il Duce, forget everyone inbetween the two.

I really shouldn't try to reach any common ground with you because you're resigned to extremist passion and incendiary hoo hah that's productive for nobody, but I understand very well the concept that moderation between good and evil is evil. Anybody who's read Martin Luther King Jr.'s quotes on the topic can understand that. There is no middle ground when one side is unjust. But American style Conservatism constitutes very nearly 100+ million people. They all have plenty of faults, but fascism and submissiveness to the banality of evil is not something you can indict the entire movement and ideology for. Growth out of something doesn't constitute complicity either, so we can't blame actual fascist-like movements in American conservatism for the movement entire, any more than we can blame Islam entire for 9/11.

This hour has 22 minutes is a fantastic show. some of the humour might be too canadian for an American audience but I think overall it would be well received in the states. Unless they watch the talking to Americans segment...

"But American style Conservatism constitutes very nearly 100+ million people. They all have plenty of faults, but fascism and submissiveness to the banality of evil is not something you can indict the entire movement and ideology for. Growth out of something doesn't constitute complicity either, so we can't blame actual fascist-like movements in American conservatism for the movement entire . . ."

The bottom line is that conservatism unchecked always leads to the same place. Whether one accepts my assertion (that conservatism is fundamentally fascist in nature) or your assertion (that conservatism is simply the root out of which fascism grows) doesn't really matter, other than that you for some reason believe that your reading excuses the root from its complicity in the creation of the tree.

Then who can we blame for your extremism? You certainly dovetailed out of a certain predisposition, which one was it and why did you leave reason behind? What should we do to preclude fascists from emerging out of conservatism and you from wherever you came from?

"Then who can we blame for your extremism? You certainly dovetailed out of a certain predisposition, which one was it and why did you leave reason behind? What should we do to preclude fascists from emerging out of conservatism and you from wherever you came from?"

The answers to all your questions can no doubt be found at Wikipedia . . .

As the Japanese say, "..."

Norm, I really like your site, which is why I keep coming here. And I admire the amount of work you put into it. It's truly impressive. But please, I get it. I understand. I understand your message that the right does not know comedy. We all get that. Please spare us from any more of this.

The reason right wingnut humor and "funny" commnentary doesn't work or comes off cruel is that there is truth in humor - and if you're not dealing in truth you're not going to be funny.

pat, in reference to your question:"JB: So, what's your take on it?"-my take on it quickly became irrelevant at this thread, i'm VERY happy to say. while i guess i know as much about american politics as "the next guy", i can't hold a candle to you guys. assuming that the heavy hitters here are americans, such passion and eloquence are not only inspiring and educational for me ( this is one of those scenes where i can learn a whole lot more by just keeping quiet and staying out of it) but actually, if you'll pardon my cheese, make me proud to be an american, and gives me hope for the future of political culture in america.

really, really well done, folks, and i daresay considerably more educational (for me, at least) than a trip to wikipedia. you also make me proud (i'm dripping nacho sauce and melted cheddar here) to be a 1gmoover.

"The answers to all your questions can no doubt be found at Wikipedia . . ."

I accept your surrender.

Jonathan:

Whoa. Seriously? I only wonder--with a straight face--because as far as I'm concerned, I didn't say anything of much value, so I assume you're not referring to me, unless there's sarcasm in there.

The comment that stopped me in my tracks was kali yoga's: "Stewart’s humor is “liberal” in much the same way that Voltaire’s humor was “liberal.” It skewers a corrupt power structure and is a mechanism whereby injustice can be exposed. The popularity of the Daily Show should be seen as an opportunity to reclaim the definition of the concept of “liberalism,” and thus it should be identified as “liberal” at every turn. Liberalism isn’t partisanship. If anything, it’s true centrism in that it combines a belief in individual liberty with a commitment to justice when it comes to use of governmental power." Regardless of whether one agrees entirely with that, I thought it was incredibly eloquent.

Otherwise, as you said, I was content to sit back and watch the rest of the ideas fly by, because I certainly couldn't keep up, either. But I enjoyed the ride. :-\

"I actually found this clip mildly humerous. [...]"

I thought it was just fibulous.

no, pat, no sarcasm. even i can't be that viscious for that long.

i also thought that was a great statement of kali yugas. its virtues are not only its eloquence, but in its daring, and in the comparison of tds to voltaire itself. i'm not saying this, and many other points here, isn't highly arguable- but look how well argued! such class!

and i personally have no problem identifying tds as "liberal". the show, in fact, does have its problems skewering the "left" (you! with the tomato! thats right, put it down. slowly.), as evidenced by the flaccid interviews with kerry and nader. and "liberal" is just fine with me. i'll take voltaire for 200, jack.

and don't sell yourself short. you got in some good ones too.

"and 'liberal' is just fine with me. i'll take voltaire for 200, jack."

You know what? After all is said and done, me too. :-D

OLbermann has a nice comeback for Fox's Comedy Hour

FOX Noise: The 24 Hour Comedy Hour

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/22/fox-noise-the-24-hour-comedy-hour/