posted
At what point does someone smearing an individual or group by mischaracterizing their position become "lies and disinformation?"
Edit: I really thought this was self-evident in the original context, but I guess not.
When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda. I felt the word "agenda" implied that he was willing to twist things to further his goal, whereas if I'd just said he "has an admitted bias" or something similar, that would be more of a neutral observation that he is not pretending to be nonpartisan.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda.
Ok! Let's say for now that this is how he operates. Given that premise, do you not like Breitbart for doing so in a completely blatant and callous fashion?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will never understand the double standard here of when it is and isn't okay to put words in other people's mouths. But, whatever.
Let me be more clear, then: you were criticizing Stewart and suggesting it was somehow unfair that he 'takes off and puts on the clown nose when convenient'. But the guy runs a comedy show on Comedy Central.
If professional politicians and professional news anchors cannot handle someone on that network, Dan_Frank? If you think there's something unfair about that? Then I submit that your real problem isn't actually that something Stewart is doing is unfair, and I stand by that.
quote:...(like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
Do you want to actually examine the Crossfire event? Sure, there was some snark. That's not all it was, though.
quote: But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Who considers him a journalist? Does he even credit himself a journalist? Does he insist he be considered a journalist? You're putting up a straw man here. Some of his points ought to be taken seriously, but just because he's a comic doesn't mean you just get to say, "Well, he's got a clown nose on, I don't have to listen."
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Who? Can you point to someone who does, and is also taken seriously? Please note that 'better than many hacks on mainstream media' =/ excellent journalist.
quote:Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Hey, words and mouths.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda.
Ok! Let's say for now that this is how he operates. Given that premise, do you not like Breitbart for doing so in a completely blatant and callous fashion?
I assume this is in reference the the Sherrod incident? It's questionable. I think that if Breitbart had the full video, and edited it down to paint Sherrod as a racist, then yeah, that's slimy and I would dislike him for that. Unequivocally. Does this surprise you? I personally don't think that she's as much of a reformed racist as you think she is, Samp, but that's irrelevant here. The original video lacks some context, and that type of selective editing is wrong.
I don't think any compelling evidence that this is actually what happened has been presented. Has it?
I've seen him say that he was given the video as he presented it. Furthermore, I've seen him say that the audience (full of NAACP members) reaction to Sherrod's tale of past racism is another notable issue, and one not altered by the full video; they didn't know what the punchline was going to be, and most of the audience seemed tickled that Sherrod had mistreated a white farmer who acted "superior" to her.
So, I currently think Breitbart is a pretty cool guy. And you think he's scum. Because you think he's twisting the facts to support his agenda, and I don't.
Which was sort of my point. Honestly, I believe very few people actually think "Yeah, this guy is twisting the facts to make his point, but I like his point, so he's alright."
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If professional politicians and professional news anchors cannot handle someone on that network, Dan_Frank? If you think there's something unfair about that? Then I submit that your real problem isn't actually that something Stewart is doing is unfair, and I stand by that.
I'm honestly not sure I'm parsing this correctly, so tell me if my answer is not really addressing your statement.
I don't really care if people can or can't "handle" Stewart. I don't have a problem with what he did to Sanchez. I don't have a specific problem with him going after conservative figures. My problem is the idea is mostly in regard to the times he has gone on lengthy lectures or debates with people—the crossfire incident of course, but he also went on O'Reilly and there are examples in heated interviews on his own show as well—where he flips back and forth between seriously confronting someone else and then deflecting responses because he's just a comedian.
This is not applicable to all of his show, the rest of which is just a politically biased comedy show that doesn't purport to be telling the truth (though on a tangential note, I wish less kids like Blayne put him on such a pedestal.) Like I said, I was only leaping off of what I felt was a grain of truth Sa'eed touched on. I don't even think applies with regards to the topic of this post (Sanchez.)
quote:
quote:...(like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
Do you want to actually examine the Crossfire event? Sure, there was some snark. That's not all it was, though.
But, that's my point. He was trying to be serious, but when people responded to that he fell back on "I'm just a comedian."
quote:
quote: But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Who considers him a journalist? Does he even credit himself a journalist? Does he insist he be considered a journalist? You're putting up a straw man here. Some of his points ought to be taken seriously, but just because he's a comic doesn't mean you just get to say, "Well, he's got a clown nose on, I don't have to listen."
I think journalist was probably the wrong word, you're right. But I do think that, at least some of the time, he wants to be taken seriously as a political commentator.
quote:
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Who? Can you point to someone who does, and is also taken seriously? Please note that 'better than many hacks on mainstream media' =/ excellent journalist.
Well, that's fair. If thinking he's better than most people on mainstream media doesn't actually equate to thinking he's a great [strike]journalist[/strike] political commentator, then I doubt I could point to anyone. That was really all I was driving at.
quote:
quote:Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Hey, words and mouths.
Yeah, for sure. Sorry about that.
PS: Rakeesh, would you mind just calling me Dan? I cringe every time I see that stupid underscore. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, that's my point. He was trying to be serious, but when people responded to that he fell back on "I'm just a comedian."
More accurately he said, "I run a comedy show, you are supposed to be a news program."
People give him the credibility of a newsman, which is why he was voted the most trusted man in America. But as long as he isn't putting on airs on his show and maintains that he is running a comedy show he does not really step into the news niche.
He makes salient points, and he also does all the things he complains that news companies do. But he does it for laughs. News organizations do it and cynically call it honest reporting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if he does the same thing, how does that make him the most trusted man? That's the sort of thing I don't get.
There's something to be said for self-reflection, of course, but if the thing you recognize in yourself is something you condemn others for doing... how are you better?
That's the thing... it's one thing to be a hack and to admit it and be funny. It's another thing to be a hack and admit it and be funny... except when you want to be taken seriously. That seems disingenuous to me.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I assume this is in reference the the Sherrod incident?
This is in reference to Breitbart. The guy who will openly claim that his goal is to take down the left by whatever means he has, then turns around and selects and keeps people like this to slander them.
quote:So, I currently think Breitbart is a pretty cool guy. And you think he's scum. Because you think he's twisting the facts to support his agenda, and I don't.
Which was sort of my point. Honestly, I believe very few people actually think "Yeah, this guy is twisting the facts to make his point, but I like his point, so he's alright."
The reason why I think breitbart is a serial misinformer is because there's a surplus of evidence that he is a serial misinformer. The only thing I see your point making is that you're favorably impressionable to his claims because he's conservative, and you would like to claim that I'm guilty of the same level of bias.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dan, if I'm reading you right, what's bothering you is the apparent sidestepping Stewart does between being a journalistic force and merely a comedian, as convenient, yes? Acts like a reporter when he wants to and hides behind the clown nose when called on it?
If so, I urge you to look up "satire." The Wikipedia definition will do: "Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon."
Is he hoping to cause change with his humor? Hell, yes. Judging from what I've seen, he wants journalism that actually reports facts and not hearsay, that investigates corruption instead of trumped up scandal, that serves the public good rather than terrifies or titillates its audience for ratings and higher ad rates.
Every one of the Rick Sanchez bits I listed above was TDS laughing at how CNN and its reporters chooses to report the news. And this is why people like The Daily Show and trust Stewart, because many of them are also fed up with media they can no longer trust to act like journalists.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
I think this is a good point, especially the bold section. Perhaps you're right.
I do think that I am less annoyed by Colbert because I feel like he gets his point across without getting sanctimonious.
Chris, you understand me correctly in your first paragraph, but as you go on I feel less like you do. As I said a second ago, I find Colbert less objectionable because he generally sticks to his shtick the whole time. I feel like Stewart sometimes wobbles between what I would consider satire, and simple lecturing. The former, though I don't always agree with it, is nevertheless funny and often insightful. It's the latter that annoys me, because of the clown nosing. Do you get what I mean? Been a long day packing boxes for our move, so I feel a little burnt out. This may be less legible than I think it is.
Samp: I feel like you basically sidestepped my question, sooo... I guess we're done for now? Edit: Samp, at the time of this writing, the link Media Matters provides to Big Government has nothing. I imagine I could probably find a cache to show he used to be there, but as of this moment I can't find any trace of Kevin Pezzi on BigGovernment.com. So... yeah. But I sort of doubt this will change your opinion much.
posted
From what I've seen, the clown nosing that John Stewart does comes about when he makes an (often valid) criticism of someone and they come back with "Well, what about you?"
And that's sort of the point of this. First, "Well, what about you?" is not a valid defense of something that you've done wrong. For some reason, we accept this excuse from the people like politicians and journalists who should be held to the highest standards when we would not accept it from our 10 year old children.
Second, people who have these responsibilities are asking, in response to them not living up to it, why the host of a comedy news show whose primary purpose is to make people laugh isn't living up to the much higher responsibilities that they have.
John Stewart should not be among the most trusted source of news. It should not be the case that people who watch the Daily Show are better informed that those who watch the "real" news networks. That this is the case is because of massive failures of those networks in living up to their responsibilities. But because they've left a wasteland of credibility and reliable information doesn't mean that when The Daily Show has as a secondary effect doing a better job in these areas, it elevates The Daily Show into a real news show.
---
I'll add a personal observation. Fox News is a terribly irresponsible news organization. They are constantly presenting examples of this.
When they do, and it gets brought up here or elsewhere, it seems like there are two linked responses.
First, there's the absurdly childish and personally irresponsible "Well, CNN and MSNBC are bad too." And second, there's the noting that Fox News is by far the most popular of the cable news channels.
Think about that. Can you see why that actually speaks very badly about a large number of "conservatives"?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Squicky, I see what you're saying. That's an interesting perspective.
Re: Fox News...
I think I'm positively disposed towards Fox News, but with one significant caveat. I don't actually have cable television. I don't watch the channel with anything approaching regularity. I only occasionally watch clips from shows posted online (the same is true for my Daily Show exposure, except that I also sometimes watch it if I'm at a friend-with-cable's house, since it's the news show of choice for many of my friends.)
Anyway, since my primary exposure to Fox is when someone posts a clip from it, there's really no way for me to know if those clips are representative of the standard level of quality. So, I don't really have any desire to argue that Fox is or is not a great news station, unless you really, really want to. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
I think this is a good point, especially the bold section. Perhaps you're right.
I do think that I am less annoyed by Colbert because I feel like he gets his point across without getting sanctimonious.
Chris, you understand me correctly in your first paragraph, but as you go on I feel less like you do. As I said a second ago, I find Colbert less objectionable because he generally sticks to his shtick the whole time. I feel like Stewart sometimes wobbles between what I would consider satire, and simple lecturing. The former, though I don't always agree with it, is nevertheless funny and often insightful. It's the latter that annoys me, because of the clown nosing. Do you get what I mean? Been a long day packing boxes for our move, so I feel a little burnt out. This may be less legible than I think it is.
Samp: I feel like you basically sidestepped my question, sooo... I guess we're done for now? Edit: Samp, at the time of this writing, the link Media Matters provides to Big Government has nothing. I imagine I could probably find a cache to show he used to be there, but as of this moment I can't find any trace of Kevin Pezzi on BigGovernment.com. So... yeah. But I sort of doubt this will change your opinion much.
Never seen Colbert when he does "The Word" segments do you.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Substantive. Thank you.
What else do you want from you guessing that 'we're done here?' I wasn't, personally, but I can't stop you from deciding you're done.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: If you want to keep going, we can, but I have to say it's a little bit frustrating when you, as far as I can tell, ignore most of what I say to you. The only significant time we discussed Breitbart previously was re: Sherrod, but apparently that's not what you want to discuss. Okay.
So you suggest that because Breitbart hired, and kept on staff, some guy who seems like a narcissistic douchebag, that proves he isn't credible. Except he apparently didn't keep the guy on staff, because he's not currently on their list of contributors. So... I'm really not sure what your point is, now.
If you'd like to keep discussing it, okay, go for it.
Blayne: like Fox and the Daily Show, mostly I watch clips of Colbert online. However, my recollection of the Word is that it's a parody of sanctimonious lecturing, done in character (I thought it was directly riffing off of something O'Reilly does. Was I wrong on that?), so that's not quite what I'm talking about re: Stewart. But perhaps I'm misremembering. Does Colbert break character during the Word segments and rail against conservatives?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You do realize that is what satire is right? Lecturing and being critical via wit and sardonic praise?
He's praising the right/conservatives incharacter but in such a way that his sarcasm is unmistakably condemnation for their position/actions.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Blayne, I understand what Colbert does and it has nothing to do with what I'm complaining about re: Stewart.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You have this false comparison happening where your complaining about Stewart but praising Colbert when they're saying essentially the same thing but in different ways.
IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize that I'm not complaining about Stewart with regards to the majority of his show, right?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is that sometimes Stewart seems to break character and let his personal frustration come out, rather than couching it in satire.
Colbert rarely breaks character.
He's done so twice, that I can recall. Once, when Stephen Colbert refused to interview the Gorillaz and instead sent out Steve Colbert to do it.
And at the end of Colbert's Congressional testimony, when asked why he chose to speak up on the issue: "I like talking about people who don’t have any power. and this seems like one of the least powerful people in the united states are migrant workers who come and do our work, but don’t have any rights as a result, and yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave, and that’s an interesting contradiction to me and, you know what so ever you do for the least of my brothers and these seem like the least of our brothers right now, a lot of people are least of the brothers right now because the economy is so hard and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them, but migrant workers suffer and have no rights."
Thing is, Stewart isn't playing a character, and the times he's really gone after other news media without joking was when he wasn't behind the Daily Show desk. When he was invited onto Crossfire, apparently they expected him to be a funny bit they could move past and instead he told them, earnestly, exactly what he thought of the show and its habit of preferring noise over substance. But when I watch the bit, I really get the sense that he was hoping to convince them to change their ways and become a force for good journalism. Reportedly he stayed for hours afterward in the Crossfire offices, talking to them. The decision to close the show down was the networks; they could just as easily have retooled it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
