Jon Stewart's Daily Show Beats MSNBC in Viewer Trust

[Gaspar]

Interesting that a comedy show would be counted as a news resource, and that it would beat a legitimate news network in viewer trust.  Sad also that republicans and independents gravitate to Fox so deeply. They all have their purpose and cover very different news stories.

Fox makes everything sound like a liberal conspiracy, but covers major stories first.

CNN covers mostly international issues and tries not to get too deep.

Public Television covers human interest, and employs any reporter who uses that "I care too much" tone.

Daily Show is freekin hilarious, but is not news.

MSNBC is just fun to watch.  Lots of spittle. Everything is a racist, and motivated by hate.  Government is always the answer. MSNBC is smarter than everyone else in the room, so you can just go and suck it!

If you don't flip channels, I encourage you to start.  Watch how each covers the same story and watch how some refuse to cover news stories all together until it becomes impossible for them to ignore. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Interesting that a comedy show would be counted as a news resource, and that it would beat a legitimate news network in viewer trust.  Sad also that republicans and independents gravitate to Fox so deeply. They all have their purpose and cover very different news stories.

Public Television covers human interest, and employs any reporter who uses that "I care too much" tone.

Daily Show is freekin hilarious, but is not news.

If you don't flip channels, I encourage you to start.  Watch how each covers the same story and watch how some refuse to cover news stories all together until it becomes impossible for them to ignore. 

It actually IS a news show...very humorous news show, but still news.  Stewart provides the "fair and balance" part of Fox News.... even the main figures of Fox state they are primarily "entertainment", but people still take them seriously.  Go figure....

PBS really goes in-depth on a lot of stories that would otherwise get 15 seconds, or no time at all from ClownTown news.

I second the motion of flipping channels - I spend way too much time on Faux News channels, but how else can you see what the psycho-ward is up to.... outside lookin' in....
http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/S/Savoy_Brown/sbrown_look.html

[guido911]

This poll is obviously a joint Murdochian-Sorosian plot to undermine CNN.

[Gaspar]

It actually IS a news show...very humorous news show, but still news.  Stewart provides the "fair and balance" part of Fox News.... even the main figures of Fox state they are primarily "entertainment", but people still take them seriously.  Go figure....

PBS really goes in-depth on a lot of stories that would otherwise get 15 seconds, or no time at all from ClownTown news.

I second the motion of flipping channels - I spend way too much time on Faux News channels, but how else can you see what the psycho-ward is up to.... outside lookin' in....
http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/S/Savoy_Brown/sbrown_look.html

Not really.  Jon is most concerned with anything he can use for the purpose of ridicule.  His show is perfect for the crowd that wants to be entertained and is not concerned with details or a larger picture. He caters to the very narrow attention span viewer, someone looking for news with a punchline rather than news they can use to make decisions in their life.  He's not alone, there are other entertainers like Limbaugh, and Coulter that are in the same boat, but have never been labeled as "news," and don't pretend to be.

News is a valuable tool that people can use to make decisions related to comfort, safety, finances, and participation in the democratic process. It presents local, national and global issues so that individuals can make personal and political decisions in an informed manner.

Jon is great entertainment, but the problem is that too many (especially the young) have grown to rely on punch-line-news.  As a nation this creates a growing population of voters that base base their decisions on what is "cool" or perceived as "popular" rather than what is logical or reasonable. Common sense, logic, and personal responsibility have become boring.

[rebound]

Not really.  Jon is most concerned with anything he can use for the purpose of ridicule.  His show is perfect for the crowd that wants to be entertained and is not concerned with details or a larger picture. He caters to the very narrow attention span viewer, someone looking for news with a punchline rather than news they can use to make decisions in their life.  He's not alone, there are other entertainers like Limbaugh, and Coulter that are in the same boat, but have never been labeled as "news," and don't pretend to be.

News is a valuable tool that people can use to make decisions related to comfort, safety, finances, and participation in the democratic process. It presents local, national and global issues so that individuals can make personal and political decisions in an informed manner.

Jon is great entertainment, but the problem is that too many (especially the young) have grown to rely on punch-line-news.  As a nation this creates a growing population of voters that base base their decisions on what is "cool" or perceived as "popular" rather than what is logical or reasonable. Common sense, logic, and personal responsibility have become boring.

I agree with your general point in that Stewart (along with Limbaugh, Coulter, and I'll add O'Reilly and and the multitude of other talking heads), is not true news.  But I have a couple of counter-points to offer up. 

First, regarding news as a tool.  I'd suggest that the vast majority of the populace doesn't have the time, inclination or background knowledge required to devote the necessary resources to perform their own analysis.  This is true for a lot of our lives, in that rather than actually get the raw data we rely on the opinions of others (friends, associates, "experts", and in this case, comedians and pundits) to help form our opinions on things.  And to be fair, in politics its mostly opinion anyway as there is no absolutely correct answer.

Second,  your assertion related to "punch line news", is biased.  Again, the basic premise is probably correct in that the majority does in-fact rely on opinion-makers rather than doing their own research.  But the implication in your statement is that the young (and therefore implied more-liberal, especially as the topic is related to Jon Stewart watchers) are more inclined this way, and that (IMHO) is a fallacy.  The legion of right-wing radio listeners and Fox "News" watchers is a notoriously older crowd and most definitely get their news primarily from those inherently biased sources, and those sources (especially right-wing talk radio) are decades old.

It's fair to decry the dumbing-down of the average American, but let's not place blame on any particular segment, as evidence suggests that it's an across-the-board phenomenon.

[Gaspar]

It's fair to decry the dumbing-down of the average American, but let's not place blame on any particular segment, as evidence suggests that it's an across-the-board phenomenon.

You are right.  That was unfair, and bias on my part.  I have recently met quite a few young people that don't fall into that mold. Classic Liberalism has become popular again among a growing number of the young, and this is a good thing.

[swake]

As a nation this creates a growing population of voters that base base their decisions on what is "cool" or perceived as "popular" rather than what is logical or reasonable. Common sense, logic, and personal responsibility have become boring.

The irony is strong with this one.

[patric]

watch how some refuse to cover news stories all together until it becomes impossible for them to ignore. 

Perhaps no better example of that:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/i58xmo/worst-responders

[heironymouspasparagus]

Perhaps no better example of that:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/i58xmo/worst-responders

Lost a lot of good cash that day.... FauxNews biggest concern...

[Gaspar]

Perhaps no better example of that:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/i58xmo/worst-responders

That bill passed a couple of weeks later after the liberal grandstanding was done.  The original bill created an almost $8 billion dollar slush fund and was celebrated by attorneys representing groups of victims.  Unfortunately it did not protect the victims from the attorneys, nor did it offer any reasonable limitations or controls. Of course liberals didn't care because the money was going to come from those evil companies who take jobs away.

The following changes were made and the bill was passed:

A hard cap for attorneys' fees at 10 percent of the total award and the appointment of a Special Master to reduce attorneys fees he believes are excessive.

In the deal, costs are reduced to $4.2 billion in the 10-year window and eliminated outside the 10-year window.  Of that amount, $1.5 billion will go to health benefits, while $2.7 billion will go to compensation.

Permanently Close the Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) after 5 years.  The original bill kept the VCF open through 2031, making it extremely susceptible to waste, fraud and abuse and incurring significant long-term costs.  The fund is now open only through 2016 and has language to expressly say that it is permanently closed at after 5 years.

Limitation on Infrastructure Costs.   Explicitly excludes construction and capital projects from health care spending in the bill. The original bill offered no structure for fund spending and there was already indication that monies would be diverted towards the construction of administrative infrastructure.

The Senators all agreed to get in writing from the Special Master that he will include workers compensation benefits in collateral sources of benefits that he must offset from potential compensation awards. In other words, no double dipping.

Require claims-level data reporting to provide accountability and opportunity for oversight, as well as GAO reports to determine less expensive mechanisms to provide nationwide care, pharmaceutical access, and health information technology promotion. The original bill purposefully had no reporting component.

You may read the bill here: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/847?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Zadroga%22%5D%7D

Originally it was a typical emotionally fueled Democrat bill, and Jon (as well as most other networks) employed the puppy-eyes, and provided very superficial coverage for the purpose of demonizing the other side.  In the end, the bill was an excellent example of what happens when both sides work together.  The emotives and the reasonable were able to hash out a bill that provided the necessary support and did so in a responsible manner.

Fox was guilty of ignoring the issue and treating it as a circus, and at the same time creating their own circuses, and Jon was guilty of pleading for the government to throw money at a problem with total disregard.  Behind the scenes, congress worked out a way to overcome the issue responsibly.

Even if legislation gives to deserving groups, and takes from deserving groups to do so, it can still be bad legislation.

[patric]

That bill passed a couple of weeks later after the liberal grandstanding was done.  The original bill created an almost $8 billion dollar slush fund and was celebrated by attorneys representing groups of victims.  Unfortunately it did not protect the victims from the attorneys, nor did it offer any reasonable limitations or controls. Of course liberals didn't care because the money was going to come from those evil companies who take jobs away.

That doesnt explain why the major news outlets were ignoring it.

[Gaspar]

Varying priorities.

[Gaspar]

You know, I think we may have reached that point where much of the media can't ignore the consistent foreign policy failures any more.  All of the major networks are covering Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and his march to Bagdad to recreate the islamic state. Mosl, and Tikrit have now fallen.  Our equipment, weapons and vehicles now belong to the ISIS, and Susan Rice has already indicated that we may be taking part in airstrikes. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I can't believe that all of the networks are covering this as their primary front page story.  Even MSNBC posted a link to the president's remarks on it about it (a couple of links down after "Republican Civil War on Hold," and "GOP's Immigration Reform Nightmare"). 

I wonder if the recent national criticism of MSNBC has had a significant impact on their decision making?  If Jon Stewart hits this story hard tonight, perhaps MSNBC will opt to cover more than just the presidents remarks on the situation?

[rebound]

You know, I think we may have reached that point where much of the media can't ignore the consistent foreign policy failures any more.  All of the major networks are covering Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and his march to Bagdad to recreate the islamic state. Mosl, and Tikrit have now fallen.  Our equipment, weapons and vehicles now belong to the ISIS, and Susan Rice has already indicated that we may be taking part in airstrikes. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

So holding aside the rhetoric,  are you for or against the US joining in the air strikes?   The Iraq war and subsequent occupation have been an unnecessary and unwarranted cluster-frack since it's inception under a different president.  We took out a stable (if despotic) ruler, and had no plans as to what exactly to do next.  It would seem that we are now progressing along the prudent path,  get our troops off the ground and return the military to Iraq and the ISIS forces, and give them air support when/if needed.  What would be another preferred action?  Because I'm fairly certain that the American people are already tired of Roman-style occupation operations.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

You know, I think we may have reached that point where much of the media can't ignore the consistent foreign policy failures any more.  All of the major networks are covering Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and his march to Bagdad to recreate the islamic state. Mosl, and Tikrit have now fallen.  Our equipment, weapons and vehicles now belong to the ISIS, and Susan Rice has already indicated that we may be taking part in airstrikes. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I can't believe that all of the networks are covering this as their primary front page story.  Even MSNBC posted a link to the president's remarks on it about it (a couple of links down after "Republican Civil War on Hold," and "GOP's Immigration Reform Nightmare"). 

I wonder if the recent national criticism of MSNBC has had a significant impact on their decision making?  If Jon Stewart hits this story hard tonight, perhaps MSNBC will opt to cover more than just the presidents remarks on the situation?

What I have been saying would happen since 2003.



Somehow, "I told you so" just doesn't quite say it....