We're not going to get anywhere with dueling anecdotes. And you're referencing things I don't recall, and I've been watching TDS for years.
"But I guess that this is just how real journalism fades. Papers become bankrupt whilst people read online “news sources” such as Huffington Post or Alternet. News networks like CNN become Twitter Crazy and airs shows like The Daily Show."
Journalism is doing fine. You're just looking in the wrong places.
"Of interviews with politicians which they obtained under false pretences? The objective of the Daily Show is to make one ideological grouping laughable. It is inherently a political show that parades as a “quasi-news” show and uses the “comedy show” excuse so that they do not have to show any integrity (journalistic or otherwise)."
You are once again making bold and seemingly ideologically-driven claims that don't reflect my own observations. Can you cite something?
> Journalism is doing fine. You're just looking in the wrong places.
Nope. Journalism isn’t doing fine. The majority of papers that do good investigative journalism have serious financial problems.
> Can you cite something?
Here is a good example: Daily Show of 13 July 2010. A large part deals with racism in South Africa and race relations. The author paints a completely wrong picture (of an incredibly difficult and nuanced subject – which involves language and culture rights, economical aspects and poverty, land ownership, illegal immigration, and xenophobia, black economic empowerment, etc…). In that he made a 6 hour interview (under false pretences) with a person with a pretty nuanced view (he only aired snipped parts out of context – his whole interview style was baiting).
The whole fucking video pisses me off – it is such a complex subject which he is making light of (and painting a wrong picture). WTF? But yeah, let’s make fun of extremely complex and delicate subjects because our viewers will laugh!
> The whole fucking video pisses me off – it is such a complex subject which he is making light of (and painting a wrong picture). WTF? But yeah, let’s make fun of extremely complex and delicate subjects because our viewers will laugh!
That's called comedy.
Just like a caricature exaggerates features of a person to look funny, comedy often exaggerates or simplifies complex situations for laughs. (my god I can't believe I have to explain this, I'm suddenly teaching humor to Data from Star Trek).
Stewart knows his audience. They're the sort of people who go looking for longer clips of stuff like that, so he's less concerned with accuracy and more so with comic effect.
Those 20 somethings (myself included) I mentioned readily criticize him whenever he misquotes or misrepresents. But it's still funny.
"Nope. Journalism isn’t doing fine. The majority of papers that do good investigative journalism have serious financial problems."
I did say you were looking in the wrong places. You said you weren't in the US, so I wouldn't expect you to know about what local and regional papers do. Journalism does exist, but you have to go to the locals to find it. By narrowing their focus, they're able to limit the costs.
They have one beat, and it's usually in their own neighborhood.
"Here is a good example: Daily Show of 13 July 2010. A large part deals with racism in South Africa and race relations. The author paints a completely wrong picture (of an incredibly difficult and nuanced subject – which involves language and culture rights, economical aspects and poverty, land ownership, illegal immigration, and xenophobia, black economic empowerment, etc…)."
I can't find any reference to that day's episode or the clip you mention. Can you be more specific by providing a link?
> Journalism does exist, but you have to go to the locals to find it. By narrowing their focus, they're able to limit the costs.
There are many facets of journalism (including regional papers). Regional papers are surviving. But the fact of the matter is that all papers addressing national and international issues are fading and declining (almost as fast as my Karma today).
> I can't find any reference to that day's episode or the clip you mention. Can you be more specific by providing a link?
Everyone I know is fully aware of how some groups are treated in SA. I think this is the disconnect: You see TDS as a news source, and are worried that its viewers take it as news. But they don't.
We watch it to be entertained. We're already well-informed on what they're joking about.
> Everyone I know is fully aware of how some groups are treated in SA.
Nope. Most people will simply not get the nuances. I sincerely doubt (no offense) that you know anything about the situation (economic, cultural, etc...) of several groups.
By the way - getting the interview under false pretenses is still unethical.
But yeah, he is now branded as a racist.
> You see TDS as a news source, and are worried that its viewers take it as news.
TDS is an opinion former. What it does is presents a warped and highly subjective view of certain complex topics.
In any case, I guess that TDS is simply the result for a demand of such programs. Just like the dumbing down of CNN is because of demand factors.
People like their news like they like their fast food: Only the juicy bits and they don't care whether it is accurate or not.
Here's a citation: basically everything Stewart has said about beck is a flat out lie. Of course, Stewart is a socialist and to them, beck must be a theocrat and so they portray him as such, but realitybis, he believes in freedom of religion, not theocracy. He supports individual rights, unlike Jon stewart.
So Stewart makes stuff up about, selectively edits things out of contexts, and makes fun of him. The liberals who watch think it is real and beck gets less credibility among them, even though vie yet to meet one who could accurately describe becks actual positions.
I've watched his show and don't see any divergence between Jon's representations and Beck's general manner. Beck is a political comedian, and political comedians get fun poked at them by other political comedians.
Of course because your understanding of becks general manner comes from the daily show. That's the waht's brilliant about this form of political propaganda- it makes you think your engaging in critical thinking awhile spoon feeding falsehoods to you, to the point that you would sincerely judge the accuracy of the show solely on your understanding derived from the show! You think yore well informed, but you don't even realize how little you actually know.
I'm not saying you havent seen these same falsehoods from other propaganda outlets like huffington post, talking points memo, and daily kaos, etc.
If you knew anything about beck you'd know that his portrayal on the daily show is profoundly dishonest. This is how I can speak conclusively because it is not even a shade of grey.
Elsewhere you assert that you would hold stewart accountable, but here you don't even know enough about beck to know that you're being told lies.
The sad truth is, for so many 20 something, it is a news show and you don't even realize it.
Any time you start off a point by saying "Of course, Stewart is a socialist ....." and then go on to call blogs propaganda outlets, I 100% tune out your opinion. If you are trying to call out someone else as being uninformed, you probably should cut out the double speak before trying to make your point if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who is not indoctrinated into that school of thought.
Guess what, I think socialism is an interesting concept, not the boogeyman! And I have been a registered big L Libertarian from before Ron Paul and Glenn Beck were even known! I ran as a libertarian candidate once, and I still don't use socialist as a degrogatory adjective like you clearly have. Get a grip on reality.
That's sure a big rude assumption (that if you think Stewart is accurate, you must not know anything about Glenn Beck.) I watch Beck every once in a while and I thought Stewart's portrayal of him nailed it.
You should start citing specific things you take issue with.
Of course, i forgot that leftists are always informed about everything, perfectly objectively, and if you catch them in an error, they will simply lie.
Ok, you are all bigots, and you've been told to hate beck so there is no point in taking to you, you will just continue to tell lies.
"But I guess that this is just how real journalism fades. Papers become bankrupt whilst people read online “news sources” such as Huffington Post or Alternet. News networks like CNN become Twitter Crazy and airs shows like The Daily Show."
Journalism is doing fine. You're just looking in the wrong places.
"Of interviews with politicians which they obtained under false pretences? The objective of the Daily Show is to make one ideological grouping laughable. It is inherently a political show that parades as a “quasi-news” show and uses the “comedy show” excuse so that they do not have to show any integrity (journalistic or otherwise)."
You are once again making bold and seemingly ideologically-driven claims that don't reflect my own observations. Can you cite something?