Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by pseudobrit, Sep 27, 2004.
Title says it all:
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.
Can't I sit down and watch TV without hearing republicrats talk about vietnam and how they're going to destroy the country?
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.
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.
And I'm sure you can back that up with some statistics, right?
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, 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.
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.
Actually, I agree with slughead on this one. He said:
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...
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.
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.
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.
i watch jon stewart. i'm smart. i draw my own conclusions. jes' kiddin
how long must i be a newb?
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.
If you keep posting in this forum...a while (posts in here don't count towards your total).
I don't remember the study exactly, but Jon Stewart reported on it (back when he was funny ).
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).
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:
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?
[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.]
That was me editorialising with the title of the thread.
And I can guarantee that there are more educated people reading The People's Daily than watching O'Reilly and Stewart combined. So what?
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.
More solid facts from you.
Try watching a movie instead. Or hockey. There's typically very little talk of Vietnam during hockey games.
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.
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.
Actually Jon Stewart himself quoted the study, as well as CNN.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is exactly why I mentioned Gardner (more about him) 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.
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.