« Colbert Report - Week in Review | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Wednesday »

"i" on News

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
"i" on News
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorEconomic Crisis



As much as I know that Public options are not really viable until The republican party is replaces by some reasonable conservatives rather then complete corporate whores, but none the less, I think the only real solution to our media problem is a non-profit publicly funded national journalism entity. With that we could let the cable news channels spout empty opinion all day and not have to worry that they will contribute to the downfall of all mankind.

Corporate Sponsors much?

I don't mean to be so flippant. Those are close options but PBS just does an hour news show that really is 50% opinion/commentary. NPR is only maybe 50% news. Both are reliant on corporate sponsorship which leads to some both sources banging the war drum like the profit media.
I would have 50 state offices of journalism governed by boards pulled from schools of journalism. Have 24 hour network that covers hard news all day. State "papers" that have associated websites and some radio reports too. No sponsorships, no Jon and Kate plus 8. Serious journalism.

Have 24 hour network that covers hard news all day.

How about they put out as many hours per day as there is hard news? That makes sense especially over the Internet, and on TV they can just replay recordings of stuff that has already been reported, adding breaking news into the mix as it appears.

One problem with the for-profit networks is their need to keep someone's mouth flapping 24/7... after a few hours (or minutes) of the hard stuff, the logical business choice is to start spewing inanity into the face of the public.

all day and yet they never seem to get to the actual news.

I don't know how much of the day the news actually fills. It's never been attempted.

Good point.

until The republican party is replaces by some reasonable conservatives

While we're at it, let's replace the Democratic party with some reasonable liberals!

Then we can replace frowns with smiles and darkness with sunshine!

Seriously though, things don't work like that.

an interesting move that may not be best

Sorry, I don't understand your comment, Norm.

Maybe you want me to elaborate:

If people don't want "unreasonable" conservatives in the Republican party and almost-as-unreasonable liberals in the Democratic party, they will already be working on the problem. If they do want unreasonable representatives, that is the problem those of us who don't should be working on.

Collectively, people get the government they deserve. (Thanks a lot, assholes!)

My real intent was to say we need conservatives, not necessarily "reasonable" ones. Ones that argue consistently for smaller government, a strong defense, and a minimal foreign intervention. Instead we have a sack of inconsistent assholes that disagree with their past statements as often as they do their opposition. Leaving the democrats making both arguments on almost every issue.

Here is an easy solution: turn off the TV. I can’t remember ever looking to television as a source of my news…ever. I thought everyone these days was supposed to be so busy. How do they have time to watch all of the stupid opinion shows? They just seem to keep sprouting up like small pox sores. People need to find some other hobby besides politics. The country would be a lot better off if people switched from Rachel Maddow and Rush to the Food Network.

Because people want to influence the world. They care about issues such as the death penalty and civil rights. If you don't care, fine, but then why even bother responding to these comments? Why aren't you watching the Food Network instead of reading this post and the corresponding comments?

Because I read the news. Get it? About 99% of what is on TV "news" isn't even news, it's opinion. Spend a half an hour reading a good newspaper or magazine and you'll be better informed than someone who sits in front of every stupid opinion show on MSNBC. We have turned important issues into cheap entertainment.

I have to watch the Food Netword now.

I don't need a lecture from you. I read all kinds of things. I also watch the TV news sometimes. It's all about keeping up with what is going on in the world and understanding people included those who are polar opposites.

Yep, I might read the New York Review of Books or Harpers or watch Maddow's show or speak to brilliant people. I learn something from the various different sources.

I’m glad that you don’t need a lecture from me because I’m not giving one, not today at least. I made a blanket statement basically agreeing with Stewart about the moronic nature of so much of what passes for news on television. I’m afraid most viewers can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion—not that there is much in the way of facts.

Just a few points:

The purpose of TV is to get you to watch more TV. It's not to deliver news, or inform the public, or even to sell the corporate products. It's to keep eyeballs on the screen.

All 'news' sources are sponsored. All have bias, all have do deal with issues of how to be independent or true to the story.

Cable news is junk food. It's designed to be easily consumed and habbit forming. It is not designed for depth. It's designed for short attention spans. The question isn't why is it so bad, it's why is it so successful. Just like junk food, the answer lies in how people organize their daily life and the value choices they make. I don't blame McDonald's for making crappy food. I blame myself for eating it.

Bright side: Things are getting better. Information is being less centralized. Quality sources are becoming more widely available.

Down side: Dducation is not keeping up. Critical thinking skills needed to determin quality news reporting is not being taught in schools.

Answer: As almost always, society changes with raising the next generations. Teaching what makes good citizens, as well as what info is needed to be a good citizen is nessecary to force demand for quality news reporting.

*quick post from the jobsite... please forgive... well anything.

There are a few real problems out there that aren't solving themselves.

First, is that most investigative reporters draw an income from a paper, which means most won't draw an income for long.

Second, most Americans don't have time to research the news on a daily basis and need a dependable news source on TV or internet that summarizes.

Third, the news outlets compete with different marketing strategies rather then with the truth so essentially we just watch spin all day. Daily show is really the only popular media outlet that does a good job of pointing out the absurdity, and they don't report on what the real story is.

This is precisely the kind of clip some TDS fan would show me to supposedly 'prove' that Jon Stewart sticks it to 'em all, regardless of affiliation. But in reality it's very transparent, and just another proof of his bias.

He starts off with an easy one - making fun of Hannity, whom nobody takes seriously. Then he slyly segues into an insinuation that any common-conversation lead-in such as "I think" or "In my mind" or "It seems to me" is somehow wrong. Why is it wrong? Because people on Fox News are saying it, that's why! And Fox News dares to criticize the President!

About half of the piece is Fox News bashing. Then he quickly cuts to MSNBC and shows a bunch of people talking about Limbaugh, and makes fun of CNN begging viewers to talk to them.

But the difference is, Fox were criticizing the hilariously inept and factually flawed Cairo speech. They were criticizing Obama. MSNBC was just shown being 'cutely' focused on 'the wrong issue', and CNN was 'cutely' shown to be desperate for attention.

But Jon Stewart isn't biased. Pshaw!

That aside, certainly it's sad that media arms flaunt their bias and beg for ratings. But as opposed to a state-run media (which wouldn't honestly be much different as the mainstream media is pretty much Pravda at this point), I think the only thing keeping news at least partially honest is the fact that they have to compete for ratings.

Which is why I say God bless Fox News. Even though they have some crazy people on the network and they have all the same failings of any other news-for-profit show, if we didn't have the small number of Conservative-oriented networks running, nobody would be criticizing this President. It would be all liberals, all the time, pushing liberal dogma and agenda on everyone. The fact that people here seem to think that the BBC and NPR are 'unbiased' really proves that point.

Fox were criticizing the hilariously inept and factually flawed Cairo speech.

What factual flaws did Fox point out? Where exactly are they pointing out ineptitude in any detail? All I saw from them was ad hominem, straw men, baseless "opinions"... you know, the usual substance-free rhetoric they put out.

That isn't to say there aren't lots of things to criticize Obama for; while he's a super genius compared to his predecessor, that's still not saying much, so mistakes still get made.

However Obama's Cairo speech highlights the most important difference between him and the previous President: Obama isn't telling the rest of the world "my way, or the highway". He is actually trying to send a message of peace and progress, mutual respect and tolerance. But Fox frothily attacks this one hopeful thing just the same as everything else they blindly lash out against.

Fox News is consistently ridiculous and completely out of touch with reality, and that's why Jon Stewart makes so much fun of it.

I would certainly concede there is an argument that the speech was strategically flawed(only time will tell), what do you think the factual flaws were?

Also, I don't see Fox criticizing anything Obama actually said. They edit it down and then imply that he is blaming America for who knows what and that he is a Muslim and say that he is a socialist.

None of that has anything to do with any facts.

teal bacon jell: roach jail hinge foreman jig jive

letter graph

Devil tone tic?

Incite old vet.

hilariously inept and factually flawed Cairo speech

This statement may indeed be true if you consider the point of view of a religious conservative in America. Fortunately for our country, Obama didn’t give this speech to charm the Jesus freaks and Fox News crowd. It was an incredibly skillful talk that raised America’s standing in the opinion of many nations. After only being in office a few shorts months Obama has gone a long way in restoring America’s good name overseas. Of course the conservative have always said that they don’t care what the rest of the world thinks of us; a prudent stance from a group that was constantly pissing off huge swaths of the earth’s inhabitants.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives