Daily Show viewers are smarter, more educated than O'Reilly's

[pseudobrit]

Title says it all:
link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040927/ap_en_tv/tv_stewart_o_reilly_2)

[slughead]

The article says daily show viewers are more likely to have completed 4 years of college. It also says that Daily Show viewers are more likely than the average American to be able to answer political questions.

It does not say anything about them being "smarter" than O'Reilly viewers.

I would wager that there are more educated people watching O'Reilly than Daily Show (as O'Reilly has a MUCH larger audience). Maybe not as a percentage, however the Daily Show audience is much less diverse than O'Reilly.

I also know for a fact that most people who watch the daily show get most of their news from there. I've talked to a couple people who only get their news from that show, and they're really rather uninformed and, of course, wildly liberal.

Moreover, John Stewart isn't funny anymore. Ever since he quit smoking he's been using the same shtick (I'm not saying the two are linked).

"*** Maybe, but ***, ehhh... Not so much."
*insert an unclever statement said in a silly voice here*

OK, you think you're adam sandler, we get it. I also don't like how MTV in general (who, by the way, own comedy central) are pushing Kerry as much as possible (http://drudgereport.com/kerrymtv.htm).

Can't I sit down and watch TV without hearing republicrats talk about vietnam and how they're going to destroy the country?

[katchow]

OK, you think you're adam sandler, we get it.

you gotta be kidding. you're comparing jon stewart to the lowest-common denominator crap that adam sandler does? i just don't see any resemblance...i see more of woody allen in john stewart than i do adam sandler.

[slughead]

you gotta be kidding. you're comparing jon stewart to the lowest-common denominator crap that adam sandler does? i just don't see any resemblance...i see more of woody allen in john stewart than i do adam sandler.

The sandler thing works well, because he had some good stuff (I liked happy gilmore, for instance).

But then it just becomes a marketing behemoth and the tried-and-true comedy is the only thing that's left.

Stewart: Silly voices, insert a jab against bush in every paragraph and hilarity ensues!
Sandler: Silly voices, has anger problems and hilarity ensues!

Woody Allen, however, is smarter than both these idiots combined. He comes up with excellent scripts and occasionally stops with the "oh I'm a short jewish guy so I'm insecure" bit (which is really the only thing john stewart and allen have in common--the jewish angst thing).

I can't believe you'd compare a genius like woody allen to Dingus Q. Loser John Stewart.

[Rower_CPU]

Were you reading the same article as everyone else, slughead?
Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.
...
Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't.

As for the jabs against Bush - you must not be a regular watcher. Kerry gets taken to task pretty often, too.

[Taft]

I also know for a fact that most people who watch the daily show get most of their news from there. I've talked to a couple people who only get their news from that show, and they're really rather uninformed and, of course, wildly liberal.

And I'm sure you can back that up with some statistics, right? :rolleyes:

I also don't like how MTV in general (who, by the way, own comedy central) are pushing Kerry as much as possible (http://drudgereport.com/kerrymtv.htm).

Grrrrrrr... More unsubstantiated crap about the supposed bias in our media.

You know Drudge is just a step above tabloid, don't you? Good. Then maybe, when you see a story on Drudge in the future, you could go to another news source to get a more *ahem* balanced view.

For instance, CNN's reporting on the MTV awards: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/candidates.daughters/

In this little gem you would have seen that BOTH Kerry's daughters and Bush's daughters appeared at the MTV Video Music Awards (Bush's daughters were pre-taped--likely for security reasons). Reading further, you would have found that both pairs were booed loudly by the audience. From Drudge (http://drudgereport.com/kerrymtv.htm), you wouldn't even have known that the Bush girls appeared on the show or that they were booed.

Maybe the supposed bias on MTV is more an issue of your perception? Just a thought to consider.

Taft

[katchow]

i would certainly not put stewart on the same plane as allen...but he does the jewish bits sometimes that remind me of woody.

i just think sandler's comedy is of a much lower brow and lacks any subtlety...i think stewart does have more to offer than silly voices. I think he is very quick witted especially when he is interviewing someone.

Maybe we're both biased...or we just disagree..no biggie.

[Taft]

Were you reading the same article as everyone else, slughead?


As for the jabs against Bush - you must not be a regular watcher. Kerry gets taken to task pretty often, too.

Actually, I agree with slughead on this one. He said:

The article says daily show viewers are more likely to have completed 4 years of college. It also says that Daily Show viewers are more likely than the average American to be able to answer political questions.

It does not say anything about them being "smarter" than O'Reilly viewers.

From the article, I got that they were saying that Daily Show viewers were more educated than O'Reilly viewers. Then, later in the article, they said that Daily Show viewers could answers more political questions correctly than non-Daily Show viewers (NOT O'Reilly viewers). They never made a comparison of the levels of intelligence of the two groups.

Though I will say that Comedy Central was likely implying that a higher level of education means a higher level of intelligence. Not everyone would agree, though...

Taft

[AndiePandie]

I guess I don't see the problem with being "wildly liberal". I loved the article. I watch The Daily Show, er, daily and I really enjoy it. I think Stewart is pretty quick with the jokes and like Rower_CPU stated, the shows does jabs at both candidates. Also all guests are treated with respect on the show regardless of what party they represent. I have seen other talk shows where the guest was treated like trash just because of their affiliate and it just made the host look like an idiot.

[Josh]

Moreover, John Stewart isn't funny anymore. Ever since he quit smoking he's been using the same shtick (I'm not saying the two are linked).

"*** Maybe, but ***, ehhh... Not so much."
*insert an unclever statement said in a silly voice here*




I agree. I still think the Daily Show is funny....but the whole "ehhh...not so much" thing gets annoying.

You can expect it at least twice in every episode, and considering the frequency of episodes, it gets old quite fast.

Funny jokes are great, but when different funny jokes with the same punchline appear at a high frequency....ehhh...not so much.

[Rower_CPU]

Actually, I agree with slughead on this one. He said:

The article says daily show viewers are more likely to have completed 4 years of college. It also says that Daily Show viewers are more likely than the average American to be able to answer political questions.

It does not say anything about them being "smarter" than O'Reilly viewers.

From the article, I got that they were saying that Daily Show viewers were more educated than O'Reilly viewers. Then, later in the article, they said that Daily Show viewers could answers more political questions correctly than non-Daily Show viewers (NOT O'Reilly viewers). They never made a comparison of the levels of intelligence of the two groups.

Though I will say that Comedy Central was likely implying that a higher level of education means a higher level of intelligence. Not everyone would agree, though...

Taft

Fair enough - though it's tough to argue that a lower level of education means a higher level of intelligence.

I was also pointing out his anecdotal comment about the "uninformed" Daily Show viewers he's met versus what the study showed, which you've already addressed.

[katchow]

i watch jon stewart. i'm smart. i draw my own conclusions. jes' kiddin :)


how long must i be a newb?

[Taft]

Funny jokes are great, but when different funny jokes with the same punchline appear at a high frequency....ehhh...not so much.

LOL. Yeah, Stewart definitely has a standard bad of tricks he goes to often. But I still think he's funny as heck.

And really, if you think about Letterman, O'Brian, etc. they ALL have standard tricks they pull out almost every show. Letterman throws the cards and makes weird little noises while pulling at his collar, O'Brian plants people in the audience in ridiculous costumes, etc. I don't watch Leno, but I bet he's got a few, too.

They all vary their shtick show to show, but they all have their old standards as well. I guess if you are presenting new material every weeknight, it's bound to happen.

Taft

[Rower_CPU]

i watch jon stewart. i'm smart. i draw my own conclusions. jes' kiddin :)


how long must i be a newb?

If you keep posting in this forum...a while (posts in here don't count towards your total). ;)

[slughead]

And I'm sure you can back that up with some statistics, right? :rolleyes:

I don't remember the study exactly, but Jon Stewart reported on it (back when he was funny :D).



You know Drudge is just a step above tabloid, don't you? Good. Then maybe, when you see a story on Drudge in the future, you could go to another news source to get a more *ahem* balanced view.

I think drudge is balanced, however you're right: he's also a tabloid.

It's all about sensationalism, that's why I usually just read the stories offered by reputable sources. It's great for getting big news stories first, and generally speaking it covers more of the things I'm interested in than televised news (with the exception of business shows).

For instance, CNN's reporting on the MTV awards: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/candidates.daughters/

In this little gem you would have seen that BOTH Kerry's daughters and Bush's daughters appeared at the MTV Video Music Awards (Bush's daughters were pre-taped--likely for security reasons). Reading further, you would have found that both pairs were booed loudly by the audience. From Drudge (http://drudgereport.com/kerrymtv.htm), you wouldn't even have known that the Bush girls appeared on the show or that they were booed.

Good call, I was not aware of that.

However, I think the point of the story was that the Kerry Girls were embarrassed on stage. Though I will concede that the article should not have said that MTV was liberal strictly based on that information.

IIRC the 2000 rock the vote party was CANCELED because Bush won

MTV is also a contributor to a few Left-wing PACs and/or 527s (looking them up now)

[edit, excuse me, it's viacom (MTV's owner) that's donating:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B02&Cycle=2004 ]

[Taft]

IIRC the 2000 rock the vote party was CANCELED because Bush won.

Yikes! If that's true, it is pretty bad form. If your goal is to get people to vote for the good of the system, politics should be left out of it. I always thought that was what Rock the Vote was all about.

That's really too bad. Got a link on that one?

Taft

[slughead]

Yikes! If that's true, it is pretty bad form. If your goal is to get people to vote for the good of the system, politics should be left out of it. I always thought that was what Rock the Vote was all about.

That's really too bad. Got a link on that one?

Taft

[edit: I couldn't find a link, sorry. I remember hearing it on Fox, it had something to do with none of the artists showing up.]

[pseudobrit]

The article says daily show viewers are more likely to have completed 4 years of college. It also says that Daily Show viewers are more likely than the average American to be able to answer political questions.

It does not say anything about them being "smarter" than O'Reilly viewers.

That was me editorialising with the title of the thread.

I would wager that there are more educated people watching O'Reilly than Daily Show (as O'Reilly has a MUCH larger audience). Maybe not as a percentage, however the Daily Show audience is much less diverse than O'Reilly.

And I can guarantee that there are more educated people reading The People's Daily than watching O'Reilly and Stewart combined. So what?

I also know for a fact that most people who watch the daily show get most of their news from there. I've talked to a couple people...

Some facts ya got there, bud. I know for a fact that most people who voted for Bush are stupid redneck alcoholics, 'cause I've talked to a couple of 'em at a bar.

I also don't like how MTV in general (who, by the way, own comedy central)

More solid facts from you.

Can't I sit down and watch TV without hearing republicrats talk about vietnam and how they're going to destroy the country?

Try watching a movie instead. Or hockey. There's typically very little talk of Vietnam during hockey games.

[slughead]

Fair enough - though it's tough to argue that a lower level of education means a higher level of intelligence.

I'd maintain that there is no relationship between intelligence and education.

There is more to intelligence than memorization of facts. You have to know how to interoperate and use them, and how to order them in some meaningful way.

I've known PhDs who have virtually zero comprehension skills. I think many people have. The dumbest ones are usually the ones who insist on being called "Dr." for their Ph.D. in political floral arrangements or some stupid thing.

[slughead]

And I can guarantee that there are more educated people reading The People's Daily than watching O'Reilly and Stewart combined. So what?

I assure you that with millions of people watching O'Reilly and Stewart every night, the viewership, is way more than that paper's readership. Given that, it'd take a study to assure that the percentages of educated people of the people's daily were so high that the gross amount of educated people was higher than the gross amount of educated O'Reilly viewers.

People hate to read in this country, even the "educated" types.

Some facts ya got there, bud. I know for a fact that most people who voted for Bush are stupid redneck alcoholics, 'cause I've talked to a couple of 'em at a bar.

Actually Jon Stewart himself quoted the study, as well as CNN.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/01/entertainment/main603270.shtml

More solid facts from you.

http://www.comedycentral.com/help/faq.jhtml#whoowns
Who owns Comedy Central?
COMEDY CENTRAL is owned by Comedy Partners, a wholly-owned division of MTV Networks.

<3.

Try watching a movie instead. Or hockey. There's typically very little talk of Vietnam during hockey games.

The Daily Show is supposed to be for entertainment, I'm saying that hearing party-line politics is not entertaining for me. I could give a crap what Jon Stewart's political beliefs are, I just want to hear some funny jokes, not "And Bush lied" said in 90000 different ways. If you listen, the audience rarely laughs that those jokes, it's mostly just cheering... I liked it when it wasn't a political rally.

[Rower_CPU]

I'd maintain that there is no relationship between intelligence and education.

There is more to intelligence than memorization of facts. You have to know how to interoperate and use them, and how to order them in some meaningful way.

I've known PhDs who have virtually zero comprehension skills. I think many people have. The dumbest ones are usually the ones who insist on being called "Dr." for their Ph.D. in political floral arrangements or some stupid thing.

Believe me, I understand that education and intelligence don't always go hand in hand - I work/study on the campus of the largest CSU. I've seen plenty of "dumb" PHDs. College does go beyond (at least in grad school) the memorization of facts and puts students squarely in the realm of synthesizing/applying concepts/theories, etc. But, I'm not talking Gardner's multiple intelligences in my argument.

How can you verify that the uneducated have any intelligence whatsoever? What do you point to as evidence of their intelligence? With the educated you have at least one metric to look at and compare.

[slughead]

How can you verify that the uneducated have any intelligence whatsoever? What do you point to as evidence of their intelligence? With the educated you have at least one metric to look at and compare.

It also depends on how you define intelligence. There are some definitions which are never tested by educational institutions.

Some measure intelligence in terms of education (IMO the worst way), others measure in terms of IQ. It all depends.

Believe me, as an A student and as a former D student, I assure you, grades have nothing to do with intelligence.

[mactastic]

The Daily Show is supposed to be for entertainment, I'm saying that hearing party-line politics is not entertaining for me. I could give a crap what Jon Stewart's political beliefs are, I just want to hear some funny jokes, not "And Bush lied" said in 90000 different ways. If you listen, the audience rarely laughs that those jokes, it's mostly just cheering... I liked it when it wasn't a political rally.

Rush Limbaugh's show is classified as entertainment as well. Should he be forced to stay away from party-line politics since I don't enjoy listening to them?

I mean, when I listen to AM radio, the last thing I want to hear is 'and John Kerry is a traitor' in 90000 different ways. ;)

[Rower_CPU]

It also depends on how you define intelligence. There are some definitions which are never tested by educational institutions.

Some measure intelligence in terms of education (IMO the worst way), others measure in terms of IQ. It all depends.

Believe me, as an A student and as a former D student, I assure you, grades have nothing to do with intelligence.

This is exactly why I mentioned Gardner (more about him (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm)) and why that's not my point.

So, answer the question - looking at a given population and using their demographic data, how can you prove someone without an education is more intelligent than someone who is?

Measuring against education at least proves that the person is capable of jumping through the hoops required to earn a degree - one kind of intelligence.

[slughead]

Rush Limbaugh's show is classified as entertainment as well. Should he be forced to stay away from party-line politics since I don't enjoy listening to them?

He shouldn't be forced to, but I don't listen to him anyway. The Daily Show was originally designed to make fun of news shows, now it's designed to report the news with commentary (and, theoretically, humor) mixed in.

Maybe all television is supposed to be entertainment, including news. In that case, I'd maintain that The Daily Show just isn't funny.

[IJ Reilly]

I was staying at a nice B&B in Northern California last week and I suppose the last people to previously occupied our room must have been good Republicans, because when I turned on the TV, there was Bill O'Reilly, with lip curled and veins popping as usual, ranting on and on about how Air America is a "pathetic failure." So I'm thinking as I read this thread... forget intelligence -- how can anyone who watches this fecal matter be taken seriously?

[slughead]

Measuring against education at least proves that the person is capable of jumping through the hoops required to earn a degree - one kind of intelligence.

I think I said that in my post (I don't know what I was saying now)... I also said I'm not a big fan of that measurement.

I don't like the measurements where everyone can win :).

[slughead]

how can anyone who watches this fecal matter be taken seriously?

What if they're a microbiologist?

[Rower_CPU]

I think I said that in my post (I don't know what I was saying now)... I also said I'm not a big fan of that measurement.

I don't like the measurements where everyone can win :).

Now we're getting somewhere...;)

You think education isn't a valid measurement because "everyone can win"? Isn't assuming everyone is the same intelligence, regardless of education, a measurement where everyone wins? :p

[slughead]

You think education isn't a valid measurement because "everyone can win"? Isn't assuming everyone is the same intelligence, regardless of education, a measurement where everyone wins? :p

Touche... sort of

I was saying that since everyone CAN be educated, not everyone can be intelligent, by many other definitions.

[Rower_CPU]

Touche... sort of

I was saying that since everyone CAN be educated, not everyone can be intelligent, by many other definitions.

Sure, I agree that the possibility exists for everyone to be educated, but not everyone follows it through to the same extent - the amount of education someone is able to achieve can be seen as an indicator of intelligence (if we set aside financial barriers). Getting back to the study, how are researchers supposed to assess intelligence at all using demographic info. Again, I assert that looking at educational history is a pretty simple, reliable metric.

[slughead]

Getting back to the study, how are researchers supposed to assess intelligence at all using demographic info.

It's not possible to do it in a non-arbitrary way, and thank God it isn't: can you imagine if voting rights were only given to the "competent"? Who determines competency?

Standardized tests were first calibrated so that foreigners and blacks would get the lowest scores.

There'd be a picture of a guy in a bowling alley, for instance, and you were supposed to draw what was missing from the picture (the guy had his arm drawn back but there was no ball in his hand).

Education is certainly the easiest way of getting a measure of some sort of intelligence, however it can hardly be considered accurate due to the arbitrary nature of intelligence. In science, I believe that's called precision without accuracy.

[Rower_CPU]

Well, since voting is a right, not contingent on intelligence, it's a moot point.

I think we've circled back to the point more or less - the study shows that on at least one convenient metric, the Daily Show viewers are more intelligent than O'Reilly's.

As for the standardized tests being rigged, I'd be interested in more info on that - I've heard of cultural standardization efforts to address these kinds of deficiencies, but not any intentional attempts to disadvantage certain groups.

[slughead]

As for the standardized tests being rigged, I'd be interested in more info on that - I've heard of cultural standardization efforts to address these kinds of deficiencies, but not any intentional attempts to disadvantage certain groups.

Well actually it wasn't intentional, they just really thought black people were stupid, so they calibrated the tests as such.

The scoring system was quite ingenious, but it relied on the results being scored around an arbitrary axis, which, unfortunately, is indeterminable.

I'm not sure how they do it now, but I still hear people complaining about them.

[mactastic]

He shouldn't be forced to, but I don't listen to him anyway. The Daily Show was originally designed to make fun of news shows, now it's designed to report the news with commentary (and, theoretically, humor) mixed in.

Maybe all television is supposed to be entertainment, including news. In that case, I'd maintain that The Daily Show just isn't funny.

Well then just stop watching rather than telling us what we should or shouldn't see. You are a libertarian after all, right?

[slughead]

Well then just stop watching rather than telling us what we should or shouldn't see. You are a libertarian after all, right?

As you said, I'm a libertarian: the real party of free speech. :D

[Rower_CPU]

Well actually it wasn't intentional, they just really thought black people were stupid, so they calibrated the tests as such.

The scoring system was quite ingenious, but it relied on the results being scored around an arbitrary axis, which, unfortunately, is indeterminable.

I'm not sure how they do it now, but I still hear people complaining about them.

Sorry, should have been more clear - by "more info" I mean a link to a study, publication, etc. Thanks :)

[slughead]

Sorry, should have been more clear - by "more info" I mean a link to a study, publication, etc. Thanks :)

I read it in a book, oddly enough. It was for my [friend's] African American studies class.

[Rower_CPU]

I read it in a book, oddly enough. It was for my [friend's] African American studies class.

Title? Author? Anything...?

[slughead]

Title? Author? Anything...?

I don't see how this is valid for the argument, but I e-mailed my friend to get a copy of his (my) report (plus bibliography)

[Krizoitz]

As you said, I'm a libertarian: the real party of free speech. :D

Don't you mean the party who wants to return us to a two class society where only those who have money can afford even the most basic of services? Or the party who thinks that they should have no responsibility to pay taxes because they obviously didn't benefit from the rest of society (such as things like a national infrastructure). Or the one who mistakenly believes that an unregulated market will lead us to utopia rather than a situation in which we devolve into a modern day feudal system?

[slughead]

Don't you mean the party who wants to return us to a two class society where only those who have money can afford even the most basic of services? Or the party who thinks that they should have no responsibility to pay taxes because they obviously didn't benefit from the rest of society (such as things like a national infrastructure). Or the one who mistakenly believes that an unregulated market will lead us to utopia rather than a situation in which we devolve into a modern day feudal system?

No I mean a party that recognizes the need for a diverse labor market where services are cheaper because they're not heavily regulated by the government, and people can afford them more because they're not so heavily taxed. I also mean the party that has diverse views on taxation, but uniformly agree that they are too high, and that it's the state's and not the federal Gov't's job to provide services should they want them. I'm also talking about the party that believes in a FREE market, not the current OLIGARCHY that we have now, with regulation via the COURTS and not the SEC... you know, like how the founding fathers set it up to work?

And how is today's system not a feudal system? With CEOs IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY and ruling over hundreds to hundreds of thousands of laborers.

[blackfox]

Fantasy Land has a free economy it would seem, and their two main exports seem to be bullsh** and irony.

[IJ Reilly]

Taxes are too high -- now, that's a real brainstorm. Anyhow, I was going to argue some of these points, but instead I'll take some comfort from the fact that you apparently are one of those rare libertarians that distrusts big corporations as much as big government.

[pseudobrit]

I assure you that with millions of people watching O'Reilly and Stewart every night, the viewership, is way more than that paper's readership.

Really? 1,200 million people and you don't think there are more in raw numbers who read it? Okay...

People hate to read in this country, even the "educated" types.

I'll say that not enough people read, however, I won't throw out blanket accusations about what people "hate" without facts to back it up.

I for one live to read. I'm a compulsive reader.

Actually Jon Stewart himself quoted the study, as well as CNN.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/01/entertainment/main603270.shtml

from your "study":

Random conversations with nine people, aged 19 to 26, waiting to see a taping of "The Daily Show" last week revealed two who admitted they learned much about the news from the program.

A poll released earlier this year by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 21 percent of people aged 18 to 29 cited "The Daily Show" and "Saturday Night Live" as a place where they regularly learned presidential campaign news.

By contrast, 23 percent of the young people mentioned ABC, CBS or NBC's nightly news broadcasts as a source.

I fail to see how any of this proves your point that:

I also know for a fact that most people who watch the daily show get most of their news from there.


http://www.comedycentral.com/help/faq.jhtml#whoowns

And on that point I stand corrected. Viacom did buy them, but then placed them under the MTV division.

[katchow]

also mean the party that has diverse views on taxation, but uniformly agree that they are too high, and that it's the state's and not the federal Gov't's job to provide services should they want them.

i don't profess to be very familiar w/ the platform but...

for instance, would Florida provide its own Hurricane relief? Are there exceptions?

[slughead]

i don't profess to be very familiar w/ the platform but...

for instance, would Florida provide its own Hurricane relief? Are there exceptions?

Not entirely; others would help... voluntarily.

I'm sure some emergencies would warrant federal aid, but it's hard to say if Florida would count.

Also, multiple states might want to set up a fund for emergencies, kind of like a huge insurance pool. States like Arizona which have few if any natural disasters would probably opt out.

[pseudobrit]

Also, multiple states might want to set up a fund for emergencies...

You might call such a union... a confederation of states? No, doesn't quite have that ring to it... maybe -- I know! A United States... ...of America! That's it, it sounds perfect.

[slughead]

You might call such a union... a confederation of states? No, doesn't quite have that ring to it... maybe -- I know! A United States... ...of America! That's it, it sounds perfect.

It's more like federalism, being as it's voluntary.

I don't remember a state initiative to bail out the airlines :P

You want federal disaster relief? Fine, but realize giving the government that kind of power also means spending 10 fold that amount on pork and corporate welfare.

Florida would have way more than the billions in rebuilding subsidies if the government hadn't spent hundreds of times that amount on things like giving Enron a tax refund or bailing out the airlines.

So you may have your federal tokenism and Bush photo ops as he writes a big check giving the Floridians back the money the IRS plundered from them.

I for one am not going to be fooled, the numbers speak for themselves.

[solvs]

Well ON TOPIC:

I for one like the Daily Show, and I'm pretty well read. I like how he makes fun of both sides. Did you watch him during the Clinton years? Much better with him than Kilborn. The self-deprecation shtick is what makes him seem humble without trying to be faux. I try watching O'Reily, but he claims to be fair and balanced and is anything but. Why else would Bush have gone on his show?

Stewart tries to be for the sake of the arguement, but he lets his opinions in as anyone is. He makes it clear that he doesn't trust anyone. He lets people with dissenting opinions voice how they feel, and holds back against blasting their rhetoric, but he lets them know how people feel about what they say. On either side. He could have been a little rougher with Kerry, but he also could have been rougher with Ralph Reed.

Why is it that people who are staunch conservatives are accepted as "middle of the road"... but people who question Bush are automatically pegged as liberals (which has suddenly become a dirty word)? Even if they criticized Clinton for the same stupid mistakes.

[mactastic]

You want federal disaster relief? Fine, but realize giving the government that kind of power also means spending 10 fold that amount on pork and corporate welfare.

Any proof of this? Links? Or is this '10 fold' number something you know through close observation?

Florida would have way more than the billions in rebuilding subsidies if the government hadn't spent hundreds of times that amount on things like giving Enron a tax refund or bailing out the airlines.

So you may have your federal tokenism and Bush photo ops as he writes a big check giving the Floridians back the money the IRS plundered from them.

So people at the federal level are corruptable, but people at the state level aren't? Libertarians sure have some funny ways of justifying things. :p

I for one am not going to be fooled, the numbers speak for themselves.

What numbers? The only numbers I see you throwing out are totally unsubstantiated. Please provide some numbers if you want to make these kinds of claims. I, for one, am not going to be fooled.

[solvs]

Anybody watch the Daily Show after the debate?

I love Jon Stewart (platonically, I swear). He hit the nail right on the head. I just wish he wouldn't back off like that sometimes in the pursuit of balance. He had Gulianni dead-to-rights and could have just slammed him, even more so, but let him spout his rhetoric with an obviously fake smile. Only touching on the inaccuracies of his pro-Bush spiel, before making a lame joke about his TV being bad.

Can't wait for the next debates. Kerry has my vote now for sure, and not just because he's not Bush for once. Even Fox News gave it to Kerry.

Wonder how O'Reily will try to spin it in the "no-spin-zone". :rolleyes:

[Taft]

Anybody watch the Daily Show after the debate?

I love Jon Stewart (platonically, I swear). He hit the nail right on the head. I just wish he wouldn't back off like that sometimes in the pursuit of balance. He had Gulianni dead-to-rights and could have just slammed him, even more so, but let him spout his rhetoric with an obviously fake smile. Only touching on the inaccuracies of his pro-Bush spiel, before making a lame joke about his TV being bad.

Can't wait for the next debates. Kerry has my vote now for sure, and not just because he's not Bush for once. Even Fox News gave it to Kerry.

Wonder how O'Reily will try to spin it in the "no-spin-zone". :rolleyes:

I actually thought Stewart handled the Gulianni interview well. Gulianni obviously was well versed in the Bush talking points and hammered the "flip-flop" routine hard. But I liked what Stewart did. It would have been easy to just nail Gulianni on his obvious bias and his refusal to give Kerry ANY credit in clarifying his position during the debate.

But I believe that would have been bad journalism. Instead, he presented a rather balanced view of what Kerry was saying. He wasn't saying Kerry was right, but he repeated the essence of what Kerry had said, which clearly refuted Gulianni's claims. So, to me, he was effective in putting Gulianni in his place (to an intelligent viewer) and he was able to stay objective. Good journalism, if you ask me.

As an aside, I think that is what NPR does so well in interviews. Especially Terry Gross. She is very good at giving relatively hard interviews without completely turning off her guests. She presents them with the facts and asks difficult questions but without bias and without pissing off her guest. You get a lot more information out of people when you aren't blatantly against them or on the attack. Gross knows this and plays it well. (Except for the nasty interviews with O'Reilly or Simmons. Nobody's perfect, I guess.)

Taft

[solvs]

But I liked what Stewart did.
I did too. Like I said, I realize he holds back to try to be non-partisan and give others a fair chance to get their opinions out. I respect that. But you could also tell he wanted to rip into him and stop the rhetoric, but went with the bad joke. I get why he did it, guess I can't fault him for it. The implied sarcasm is always funny.

Still, wouldn't you just have loved to see him tear into Gulianni? That would have been great. Didn't say he should, just said I wished he would. ;)

[Taft]

Still, wouldn't you just have loved to see him tear into Gulianni? That would have been great. Didn't say he should, just said I wished he would. ;)

Well, yeah, I guess I would have liked it. Then again, I was sitting at home yelling at Gulianni through my TV screen, so I might not be an impartial observer.
:)

Taft

[Thomas Veil]

I think this whole thread ignores the fact that Gilligan's Island viewers are smarter than O'Reilly's... :D

[Thomas Veil]

Just got through watching Deborah Norville's show on MSNBC, and she had four of the Daily Show writers and Stephen Colbert and Samantha Bee on. She asked them about that poll, and the writers, to a man, sounded rather appalled at the idea that anyone could seriously take The Daily Show as their main source of news. Colbert doubted the Pew poll, noting that in order to "get" the jokes on The Daily Show, viewers had to come to the show already knowing something about the news stories.

[solvs]

Colbert doubted the Pew poll, noting that in order to "get" the jokes on The Daily Show, viewers had to come to the show already knowing something about the news stories.
Exactly. We hear it spun on other places, then made fun of on places like the Daily Show or late night talk shows. Although it is pretty informative to those who don't know anything.