Replacing Jon Stewart

[meridannight]

PS. am i the only one who thinks that guy is hot as fuck? totally doable.

[Rareboy]

You're missing the point ... people don't see it as satire, they see it as news.

Oddly enough Fox News viewers are more informed -- read the recent PolitiFact article regarding Mr. Leibowitz -- I'm not allowed to post the link.

Politifact??????? RUSrs?

Look. FOX viewers see FOX as news too....but at least most of the Daily Show viewers can actually make the intellectual distinction between fact and opinion.

[East]

You're missing the point ... people don't see it as satire, they see it as news.

Oddly enough Fox News viewers are more informed -- read the recent PolitiFact article regarding Mr. Leibowitz -- I'm not allowed to post the link.

Well...it is sad that political satire is more informative than most of the news today...whose fault is that? Most news sources offer fluff to distract you and/or disinformation to deceive you...and Fox is at the forefront of disinformation.....

In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

It wasn't just Fox....

There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP

[Lexington]

You miss a very vital point, though, East. Yes, news outlets provide fluff to distract and misinformation to deceive. But they don't do this for nefarious means, because the organization or owners have an agenda to push. They distract and misinform because that's what we want.

Fox News' brilliance wasn't in overcoming decades of liberal bias to reveal the truth. It was to offer a version of "the truth" that was far more palatable to an under-represented segment of the population. It was like a football game being called by the home announcers, where every home touchdown is proof of that team's dominance, and every visitor score either a lucky break or an obvious cheat. The announcers can't change the score, but they can make the audience feel better about their team. They'll never lose due to being an inferior team - it'll always be the refs in on the take. And as long as they never break character - Obama is still a Communist Muslim born in Kenya - people will keep tuning in. This is why Fox remains the highest rated news channel by a sizeable margin.

It took other channels years to pick up the lesson - give the people what they want, and they'll stick around - and they learned it in other ways. CNN's website used to be mostly hard news. Then, they started adding a couple of fluff bit headlines or op/ed pieces to the list. "Britney Spears' new look" or "Opinion: recriminalize potatoes" or whatever. Guess what? These fluff pieces got more clicks than any of the news headlines. Some of them got more clicks than the other headlines combined. And remember: at this point, CNN was considered a news site. People went there expecting to see news articles. And what did they click on? "Britney Spears' new look". Now, the website is about five news haedlines, and five hundred clickbait pieces.

These days, people bemoan the state of news organizations, and I commiserate. But the reason they suck is because we've made them suck. We've voted for what we want with our eyes and our mouse clicks, and the results of that voting is what you see before you. Yeah, Bravo used to show opera and now (well, until recently) showed us "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo". But we all know which program had the most eyes on it.

Lex

[East]

You miss a very vital point, though, East. Yes, news outlets provide fluff to distract and misinformation to deceive. But they don't do this for nefarious means, because the organization or owners have an agenda to push. They distract and misinform because that's what we want.

Fox News' brilliance wasn't in overcoming decades of liberal bias to reveal the truth. It was to offer a version of "the truth" that was far more palatable to an under-represented segment of the population. It was like a football game being called by the home announcers, where every home touchdown is proof of that team's dominance, and every visitor score either a lucky break or an obvious cheat. The announcers can't change the score, but they can make the audience feel better about their team. They'll never lose due to being an inferior team - it'll always be the refs in on the take. And as long as they never break character - Obama is still a Communist Muslim born in Kenya - people will keep tuning in. This is why Fox remains the highest rated news channel by a sizeable margin.

It took other channels years to pick up the lesson - give the people what they want, and they'll stick around - and they learned it in other ways. CNN's website used to be mostly hard news. Then, they started adding a couple of fluff bit headlines or op/ed pieces to the list. "Britney Spears' new look" or "Opinion: recriminalize potatoes" or whatever. Guess what? These fluff pieces got more clicks than any of the news headlines. Some of them got more clicks than the other headlines combined. And remember: at this point, CNN was considered a news site. People went there expecting to see news articles. And what did they click on? "Britney Spears' new look". Now, the website is about five news haedlines, and five hundred clickbait pieces.

These days, people bemoan the state of news organizations, and I commiserate. But the reason they suck is because we've made them suck. We've voted for what we want with our eyes and our mouse clicks, and the results of that voting is what you see before you. Yeah, Bravo used to show opera and now (well, until recently) showed us "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo". But we all know which program had the most eyes on it.

Lex

Definitely...we get the news we ask for....

I do think that there are other agendas though money and ratings are the #1 agenda across the board...

I can say with my head held high that I used my voice when it mattered ...and I actually got results. I wrote and called all of the stations to voice my complaints...took on a Police Department by myself...went after the Fire Chief in San Jose for homophobia...I do think every voice makes a difference. I am old now though and I will die soon enough so it is up to the younger people on the planet to use their voice because it is their world to shape....and they will get what they ask for as well...and silence is DEFINITELY A REQUEST!

Funny about CNN and Britney Spears...

Britney Spears was my tipping point...I swore off news specifically because of her. I fucking hate that bitch and I don't know a single song she has ever sung...and it IS her...she hired the publicist that kept her in the "news"....

I wrote (snail mail)..emailed..and phoned...all of the news stations I watched relentlessly when they started including Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in the "news"....

...anyway..l.it is a long story but one time when I was at the gym watching TV Anderson Cooper apologized ahead of time for running a Britney Spears story and I cracked up because I thought he either read my letter(s)...or HOPED that a lot of other people wrote them too....

I had turned them off already anyway after they became the 24/7 missing young thin white woman network...I don't do any cable or network news except for the BBC sometimes.

[Lexington]

Britney Spears was my tipping point...I swore off news specifically because of her. I fucking hate that bitch and I don't know a single song she has ever sung...and it IS her...she hired the publicist that kept her in the "news"....

I was fascinated by her. Not by her as a person, and not by her music, and not even her exploits. Just her as something of an "event". I had to separate the woman (Brit) from the product (SPEARS), because I finally came to the conclusion that SPEARS was a 24/7 advertisement for SPEARS. Everything Brit did in public was simply an advertisement for SPEARS. And it wasn't even an advertisement for her music or her concerts - even those were advertisements for SPEARS. I kept wondering what the payoff was going to be. Well, now she's perfunctorily marching out on stage to lip-synch for an hour at $150 a ticket, so I guess that answers that.

I had turned them off already anyway after they became the 24/7 missing young thin white woman network...I don't do any cable or network news except for the BBC sometimes.

Funny - I was going to mention that in my previous post, but it was already more than a little lengthy. WWP (White Women in Peril) became such a trope there for a while. That seems to have eased off - not sure if it's because we have fewer WWPs or we just grew weary of it.

Lex

[East]

LOLOL...I almost fell for it...but I still have my battle scars from right wing idealogues and shills so I will just get back to the topic and say...

DAMN...I will miss Jon Stewart...