Instigator
Banned
Shogmaster said:
Yeah, talk about false advertizing. It even feels like Jon and the guest went out for a drink afterwards.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Dang, Jon was MEAN tonight...
- Thread starter Ford Prefect
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, talk about false advertizing. It even feels like Jon and the guest went out for a drink afterwards.
There is obviously some political leanings towards the left on the show, but this is a reflection of politics, not a reaction to it. Think about all the comedy back when Clinton was in office. Everything was about slamming Clinton, slamming the Democrats, etc. The same thing holds true now... Republicans have power, so people slam the republicans. The news focuses more on the bad things republicans do because the republicans are the ones that are always on TV, and the Daily Show (and other comedians) rip on Republicans because they're the most visible, which means more people will understand the jokes. For people who know politics, you can pick on everyone. But when you're trying to reach a fairly broad, uneducated audience (as most news stations/ comedians do) you're going to play on the most prominent thing.
Same thing happened back when Clinton was in power. Listen to some George Carlin from the mid-90's, when he just tears apart clinton. He does the same thing to Bush. It's not that his political ideologies have changed... it's just that there's a new face in front of everyone.
I really don't think the Daily Show bias is as bad as everyone sees it to be. It's more like 'anti-icon' bias. Does anyone here think they would have made fun of John Kerry any more or less than they do Bush had kerry won the election? Shit, I remember Stewart waving the flag when Charlie Gibson of all people was the first to really, truly cut into John Kerry on his inconsistant stances.
So yeah. Not so much bias, it's more like what Lewis Black said: "The only difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats have no ideas and republicans have bad ones."
Same thing happened back when Clinton was in power. Listen to some George Carlin from the mid-90's, when he just tears apart clinton. He does the same thing to Bush. It's not that his political ideologies have changed... it's just that there's a new face in front of everyone.
I really don't think the Daily Show bias is as bad as everyone sees it to be. It's more like 'anti-icon' bias. Does anyone here think they would have made fun of John Kerry any more or less than they do Bush had kerry won the election? Shit, I remember Stewart waving the flag when Charlie Gibson of all people was the first to really, truly cut into John Kerry on his inconsistant stances.
So yeah. Not so much bias, it's more like what Lewis Black said: "The only difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats have no ideas and republicans have bad ones."
Ninja Scooter
Member
Instigator said:
yeah. If anything he could have been a LOT meaner and more confrontational if he wouldn't have sidetracked the discussion so much with unneccesary jokes.
There is a big difference between saying someone looks funny or poking fun at a blowjob and saying their political ideas and party are a bastion of evil. One is SNL type stuff and the other is Limbaugh heavy political slant. Saying Kerry was dull does not exactly even out the other side.
boredJonathan
Member
etiolate said:
While I would agree that Limbaugh is pretty funny, as much as anyone as wrong on issues as he is with a large a soap box as he has is bound to be, there is an even bigger difference than SNL to Limbaugh when compairing Limbaugh to Stewart.
Limbaugh is an attack machine, and uses very little intentional humour to aid his cause. His show is all about ripping down the other party, or anyone who does not agree with him. Do you think for one second that the kind of debate that was had last night on the Daily Show would have been possible had Limbaugh been the host?
Beyond all of that, do you think that there is not a more honest discussion of the facts going on when watching the Daily Show as opposed to Limbaugh? Both are definately not the bastions of integrity by any stretch, but you most certainly get a better picture of the news wathing the Daily Show than listening to Limbaugh.
Also, when the hell did they ever say that the republicans are a party of evil? I doubt they did, and if you have taken that away from the criticism leveled at the Bush administration , then I think you need to take a step back and listen to what people are actually saying when they critique something and not just hear the tone of critique.
Well, I say the bias is a good thing. At least they're fairly honest about it. It diminishes their credibility, but it's not like credibility is something that show would ever strive for.
I think it's quite ridiculous though, how most network and cable news shows are so afraid to poke holes in a particular side of an argument. Everyone's so hung up on presenting both sides as equal, that even when there're complete nutjobs on one side of an issue, it still gets the same treatment. What I like about the Daily Show is that it pokes holes in any side of an issue if it doesn't make sense.
Really, if it weren't for the Daily Show, I'd surely be insane by now.
I think it's quite ridiculous though, how most network and cable news shows are so afraid to poke holes in a particular side of an argument. Everyone's so hung up on presenting both sides as equal, that even when there're complete nutjobs on one side of an issue, it still gets the same treatment. What I like about the Daily Show is that it pokes holes in any side of an issue if it doesn't make sense.
Really, if it weren't for the Daily Show, I'd surely be insane by now.
Forgotten_Taco
Member
whytemyke said:
I'm willing to bet if Bush had come on Jon wouldn't have been any harder on him. I'll put a ten-er on it, in fact.
Synth_floyd
Banned
During the 2004 election he made jokes about both candidates but the Bush jokes were along the lines of "this guy is an idiot, and a bad president, etc." while the Kerry jokes were "come on you boring, stiff, uncharismatic dolt. beat Bush!" He was obviously pro-Kerry he was just making fun of the fact that Kerry was a shitty candidate.
Seriously. Why does there have to be an "evening out" of the sides? What if the truth was that one candidate was dim, opportunistic, religous zealot who represented dangerous ideas and the other one was just kind of lame? Should we then look at the other candidate and make up more shortcomings? Should we ignore the shortcomings of the first just because the second has fewer?etiolate said:
FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK, there is not always a balance. There are not always two sides. Sometimes(often, really) life is not "fair and balanced". We can wish for it in one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills up first. Or we can break our stupid conditioning to this enfeebling notion and see the truth.
Ninja Scooter
Member
a guy just killed a 3 year old in Florida for being a homosexual and Anna Nicole Smith and Ludacris are the ones destroying America. Yeah.
Alcibiades
Member
I used to love the Daily Show and it's random stupidity (asking Al Sharpton if he's a Repbublicn at their convention as he's walking away)...
but over the last 1 1/2 - 2 years it's become so political I can't laugh anymore...
I used to laugh at the poking at both parties, even though you could tell he was a liberal by his comments during interview segments, it didn't really affect the comedy...
now though, it's funny if you're a Democrat or Liberal and you can cheer along, but I don't see the comedy in it as much...
it's still funny, and even when he's making fun of the war or Republicans it's funny sometimes, but when it feels like the show is being particulary vicious to one side it's loses something...
but over the last 1 1/2 - 2 years it's become so political I can't laugh anymore...
I used to laugh at the poking at both parties, even though you could tell he was a liberal by his comments during interview segments, it didn't really affect the comedy...
now though, it's funny if you're a Democrat or Liberal and you can cheer along, but I don't see the comedy in it as much...
it's still funny, and even when he's making fun of the war or Republicans it's funny sometimes, but when it feels like the show is being particulary vicious to one side it's loses something...
So, I saw that interview with Goldberg tonight, and really...I'm at a loss for words. I love how up-to-date these conservatives are with popular culture, for one thing. "Gangster Rap" is still the go-to scapegoat, even when its cultural relevance has been dwindling for about 10 years now.
I downloaded a small "Behind the scenes" bit of the Daily Show a little while ago, and Jon was saying that the show used to be MUCH more vicious. He shut down the whole thing for one day because they had written a remark about a recently deceased celebs drug problem or something.
And why are the Paris Hilton parents there and not Paris Hilton?
And why are the Paris Hilton parents there and not Paris Hilton?
Catapult Beetle
Member
I would guess the reasoning is that Paris Hilton's parents are the ones responsible for her.
Matthew Lesko is on the list? That guy in the Riddler suit from that commercial about getting the government to pay for stuff?
Matthew Lesko is on the list? That guy in the Riddler suit from that commercial about getting the government to pay for stuff?
The set sucks...There is very little continuity to the set...Behind Jon, you've got 3 giant monitors and between them there is brick-textured column, a blue flat with some arbitrary texture and a whole lot of black everywhere else. To round out this "empty" set, you've got an overhead circle which seems to have no purpose other than to shoot with jib cameras...lame. The lighting director was also forced to to put a texture onto that circle to try and make it interesting...mission failed although its NOT his fault as that set lacks all kinds of coherency.
Lastly, because of this floating circle, the lighting director is forced to illuminate Jon and his guests with "lekos" (miniature spotlights) to get under the floating set. Thats fine, except everytime Jon or his guests move a foot in either direction, they either fall into shadows. And the thing that ties this mess all together is...a boring, gray desk.
Whoever signed off on that set should have his ass beat because the old set was worlds better and change wasn't necessary.
Lastly, because of this floating circle, the lighting director is forced to illuminate Jon and his guests with "lekos" (miniature spotlights) to get under the floating set. Thats fine, except everytime Jon or his guests move a foot in either direction, they either fall into shadows. And the thing that ties this mess all together is...a boring, gray desk.
Whoever signed off on that set should have his ass beat because the old set was worlds better and change wasn't necessary.
Alcibiades
Member
I agree the attack on popular culture comes from a lot of misunderstanding and just being old and not up-to-date...kablooey said:
As a conservative, attacks like that bother me because it makes them seem out of touch...
Synth_floyd
Banned
Yeah that is a pretty asinine list, though it's not too much worse than "Lies and the lying liers who tell them" and other such books on the left. They're all worthless trash.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Come clean now, this is the real "100 Greatest Americans" list Matt Lauer didn't want us to see, isn't it?Mandark said:
Mandark said:
you fail
The forum just makes itself look guilty when it gets it's panties in a bunch over saying TDS has a bias or slant. Yeah, so what if it has a bias? That's fine, everything has a bias and I just filter through all the viewpoints. I only mind when the show gets a bit overfocused on one thing.
I swear to god he must hate calypso music, there is no reasoning behind hating Harry Belafonte.
Well read the book rather than judge out of ignorance, but for one thing Belafonte made some pretty harsh and unuseful comments re: Colin Powell in the runup to the Iraq war...etiolate said:
talking head
Member
the new set is quite horrible. when i first switched it on, with the crappy set, different lighting, audience sounding louder, i thought the daily show was live and in a different city for the week, like some talk shows usually do. but then i found out that this was still in new york, and their permanent set. 
boredJonathan
Member
APF said:
While I would agree that is a pretty harsh and useless comment, how the does that one comment earn him a spot on the top 100? To refrence Jon Stewart's point about the people in Hollywood not having power versus the people in DC. You would think he would have had no trouble picking people from DC, the people with power, instead of having to resort to Harry Belafonte, or Barbra Streisand.
Instigator
Banned
Bernard Goldberg's list of 100 people screwing up America said:
Aside from being a sanctimonuous bore with dellusions of his own importance, what's wrong with Carter?
Massachussets? That has to do with gay marriage, right?
I assume it has to do with his law career, not his political ambitions.
Still, Edwards is the very worst lawyer of them all?
Is it his anger during the primaries?
Or his leadership of the Democratic party?
Who?
They're merely pushers giving people the crap they want.
I would like to have that one explained? How can someone at PBS be that destructive?
Just the answer to angry, conservative talk radio. I'm surprised he's supposed to have that much of an impact. Ratings disagree.
She makes interviews with celebrities and hosts (does she still?) the View... I don't see the problem.
Does Oliver Stone still have clout? Does he do more than failed blockbuster movies nowadays?
I know about his past, but what is he up to lately?
Pointless entries. I see plenty of those celebrities in the top 100 already.
Many of the names in that list I don't even recognize...
I dono, that's why I said to read the book!Red Mercury said:
Mhh. I don't think Jon's point was all that strong. Goldberg's list has political folks in it, it has public figures from all sorts of places; they're probably used to discuss archetypes and overall cultural issues. The Daily Show doesn't need to have segments on vaginal cream or the hurricane coverage, yet it does...Red Mercury said:
:lolRaoul Duke said:
Why was Maury Povich on that list? And I mean, Jimmy Carter? What does he even do that affects the US anymore? Last I heard of him, he was going to Cuba and trying to get them to drop the Castro familia. oh well.
And the reason he didn't go after Colin Powel is probably because he, you know, respected him. He probably wouldn't go after Rudy Giuliani, either, or John McCain, or Arlen Specter, or Bush 41.
And the point seems to have been missed with what I said earlier: there's always anti-leadership bias. It draws ratings and popularity, because it unifies everyone underneath that person. A whole lot more people currently can relate to how much it sucks to have a loved one or friend with their life in danger in Iraq than can relate to how much the No Child Left Behind act is helping them. Just like under Clinton... a lot more people could relate to the dishonesty he portrayed to the American public than could relate to his attempts at the Middle East Peace plan. Or Bush.... what was Bush 41's catcall? The LA Riots kept him from winning after he OBLITERATED a country in a war AND showed restraint and allowed international assistance to take over.
All these things are examples of how regardless of who a leader is, people come together over their dislike for leadership rather than their like FOR leadership. same with news. What's going to get higher ratings-- telling about how the President lied to the public, or talking about how well he's doing his job?
boredJonathan
Member
APF said:
I think the record clearly shows that the Daily Show is not aiming to be taken seriously, or to be some kind of social commentary. It is meant to be funny, the fact that they can do it while telling the truth is all the better. If they were trying to be a serious news outlet, they would not be on Comedy Central, they would not be airing vaginal cream segements, nor would they have a live audience.
While I think the show could very easily drop these aspects and become one of the best news comentary shows out there, but since that is not what they are aiming for I think they do need to have segements on hurricane coverage and Michael Jackson. The fact that these are in the shows repetoire defines what it is.
The fact that this book pretends to be a serious discussion of the 100 Worst Americans, yet includes actors and musicians defines the fact that it shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
Funny stuff is often funny because it speaks to a truth of some sort. While you may not see them as doing "social commentary," they certainly do political and media commentary. One need not be deadly serious while making points about the way things are, or when agreeing or disagreeing with a social, political, factual, etc point. Lots of comedians do social/political commentary, it's an entire genre of which The Daily Show is a major part.Red Mercury said:
From what I can tell, it's supposed to be a light/humorous take, lampooning while criticizing, etc... I don't think it's about "Worst Americans," just "100 People Who Are Screwing up America." The title itself suggests its tone.Red Mercury said:
Watched the interview. Meh, nothing major. That guy was spewing bs, and got called on it. I'm tired of these hacks spewing nonsense about culture and morality while ignoring a government that strips away funding from public services and programs that directly assist/aide people, and put it into a military machine that has killed more civilians in revenge of 9/11, than the terrorists did. And driven us into debt doing so. Not to mention covering up and stalling federal inquiries into the validity of the war. But hey, someone says "fuck" let's get our panties in a twist. 
Jon shoulda just bitchslapped the dude, copped a squat on his book and gone to commercial. That guy knew he was stepping into the hornet's nest anyway. He's trying to plug his book, so he should expect to be called on the bullshit. Jon would be doing his audience a disservice if he didn't take this guy to task. It's not like he's pitching this book to sadsack conservatives. If a liberal went out and bought this book under false pretenses, they'd lose faith in Jon and TDS, so this interview was legit IMO. PEACE.
Jon shoulda just bitchslapped the dude, copped a squat on his book and gone to commercial. That guy knew he was stepping into the hornet's nest anyway. He's trying to plug his book, so he should expect to be called on the bullshit. Jon would be doing his audience a disservice if he didn't take this guy to task. It's not like he's pitching this book to sadsack conservatives. If a liberal went out and bought this book under false pretenses, they'd lose faith in Jon and TDS, so this interview was legit IMO. PEACE.- Status
Similar threads
- Poll