| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| William Jefferson Airplane | ||||
| ||||
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
About Me
Associates
Allies
- John Cole's Balloon Juice*
- The Phil Nugent Experience
- Andrew Sullivan*
- Political Animal | Steve Benen
- Matt Taibbi
- Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! Go!
- Talking Points Memo | Josh Marshall
- Obsidian Wings
- Gun Toting Liberal
- Shakesville
- Daniel Larison
- Daily Kos
- Mark Kleiman
- Digby
- Glenn Greenwald
- The Rude Pundit
- The Agitator | Radley Balko
- Crooks & Liars
- Kevin Drum *updated*
- The Talent Show
- Kung Fu Monkey
- BlondeSense
- Keith Olbermann
Athletics
And the rest...
- Sweet Juniper!
- blurbomat | Jon Armstrong
- dooce | Heather Armstrong
- LENS | NYTimes Photo Blog
- Stuff White People Like
- Boing Boing
- Kottke.org
- Jalopnik
- I Watch Stuff | Movies, etc.
- The Superficial
- AlternaDad | Neal Pollack
- Offsprung
- GeekDad
- The Comics Curmudgeon
- Superdickery.com
- Seanbaby
- Cap'n Design
- An "Onion" Classic
- Stuff White People Like
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from Mr Furious 53. Make your own badge here.
Archive
-
▼
2009
(212)
-
▼
August
(14)
- Rep. Henry Waxman Fan Club
- George W. Bush Fan Club
- "Pinch-hitting for Jon Stewart..."
- Recommended Reading
- Fed Up
- Edward M. Kennedy, 1932-2009
- Profiles in Courage... a.k.a, I Now Have a Book to...
- Crash
- Total Screw-Up
- Cronkite's Heir
- New Music: My Old, Familiar Friend
- What He Said...
- Reading Assignment
- Baseball Update
-
▼
August
(14)
Adding It Up
17 comments:
Cronkite's Heir?!?! I hope you are being funny. Stewart was a great check on Bush, but he is turning into a shill for Obama. Balko says it much better than I could.
A shill for Obama, steve? Or simply calling out Fox News for more of their fucking lies and bullshit. He was a great check on Bush, but he's an equally great check against an admittedly-biased news channel. If that makes him an Obama shill then I guess one of us doesn't understand what a shill is.
At any rate, nice work from the writers at TDS. It all comes together in the last 15 seconds.
"...but he is turning into a shill for Obama."
Wouldn't that mean Fox was a shill for Bush?
Nothing wrong with calling out FN, but I just don't see him being the same critic for Obama as he was for Bush. Did you read the article? I watched the clips and tend to agree with Balko in this case.
Smitty, a definition of a shill--The term is applied metaphorically to journalists or commentators who have vested interests in or associations with parties in a controversial issue. Usually this takes the form of a show or network pretending to be offering news when in fact they are simply repeating talking points offered by a political party.
If he doesn't apply the same level of scrutiny and criticism to this administration, then I am not interested in watching him. He will keep the party loyalists and people that aren't interested in challenging their beliefs.
Wouldn't that mean Fox was a shill for Bush?
Some of the people on Fox were/are. How come any mention of media bias by men results in some comment about Fox? I don't think I have ever quoted a Fox article. Also, any bias on their part doesn't excuse the years of left-wing bias on most of the other main stream media sources.
Oops, the link in my first post is the wrong one. This is the right one.
Balko says repeatedly that he doesn't watch anymore, so I'll only take his criticism for what it's worth—not much.
No question Stewart is partisan. So what? The GOP is serving up plenty of material even without Bush. HE spends much of the rest of the time mockig the rest of the media. And as for Obama, Stewart is often critical—and this is key—ON ACTUAL ISSUES THAT WARRANT IT. In those cases Stewart is usually dead serious (in a funny way) but tends to focus on the policy rather than making fun of Obama.
Is Stewart Crokite? Of course not. And no one believes he is. But I think it's actually true that he is telling the truth more than the rest of the media combined.
FOX News? Fucking fiction network / GOP ad shop.
The rest of the MSM? Serve up nightly helpings of he said / he said, with no real attempt to report which one is actually correct.
"the years of left-wing bias on most of the other main stream media sources."
Oh, Jesus Christ, what a complete load of bullshit.
the years of left-wing bias on most of the other main stream media sources
WHERE??? WHEN???
So CNN does an (arguable) better job of reporting on a bit of news without all the FOX opinionating-as-reporting schtick...and that makes CNN "left-biased?"
When did actual reporting on an issue mean that a reporter is biased to the left? Isn't that just...reporting???
Is this a discussion where the distinction between a liberal bias in thinking and a left-wing political bias needs to be distinguished? Cronkite was widely quoted as saying that newsmen need to be more liberal in thought because they need to be more open to new and/or controversial ideas than most people to do a good job of investigating and reporting on events. But he was, if I recall correctly, careful to distinguish that from political leanings, which are not necessarily correlated with their way of thinking.
Oh, Jesus Christ, what a complete load of bullshit.
Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing towards the discussion.
As for left leaning bias, it depends on the issue and the perspective. To someone that is "left", there probably wouldn't appear to be any left bias. Things would seem just right. Unlike some connservatives, I don't think the bias is a huge problem, nor is it always apparent. In many cases, it has more to do with story selection and a failure to get the "other side" of an issue.
I also think it depends on certain issues. Lets say gun control, since that is something that I actually am fairly well informed about. The MSM (including Fox) has completely given up any pretext of just reporting on this issue and mostly supports gun control. They do this by presenting false information, using incorrect terms, leaving out information that is favorable to the gun rights side, and picking morons to present the pro-gun side. Economist John Lott wrote a book called The Bias Against Guns where he carefully documents this. Informative, but pretty dry reading.
How many of you actually watch Fox, besides excerpts? The news portions aren't all that bad. The editorial stuff is very biased, depending on who they are talking to. People like Hannity are super-biased, and IMO, not all that interesting to watch.
When did actual reporting on an issue mean that a reporter is biased to the left? Isn't that just...reporting???
It depends on how it is done. If a person reports on something and makes no attempt to get the "other side" or question that information that is being presented, then it is lazy reporting, IMO.
Jay, I think you make a good distinction.
I never said that there was anything wrong with Stewart being biased, but he loses my interest if he is just going to be all rah rah rah Obama. I took one of those political spectrum tests the other day and I leaned heavily towards the Libertarian side on one axis and slightly to the liberal side on the other. This results in me being annoyed by almost any editorial style news show.
Olbermann can be really good sometimes, but he is typically annoying. Hannity and O'Reilly are mostly unwatchable. About the only TV show that doesn't annoy me is NewsHour, since they try to look at a story with some level of depth and provide experts from both sides.
then it is lazy reporting, IMO
NOW you've hit it steve. It's not about bias. It's about lazy fucking reporting. MSM hacks want to report from their laptops and not do the homework it takes to do a real story. But when some media hack actually puts a story together, it isn't bias. We just don't recognize good reporting.
The other thins you can do with your 2nd amendment example is replace "gun rights" with "health care" and you get "bias."
Not bias. Just lazy.
The MSM (including Fox) has completely given up any pretext of just reporting on this issue and mostly supports hating health care reform. They do this by presenting false information, using incorrect terms, leaving out information that is favorable to the pro health care reform side, and picking morons to present the pro-health care reform side
Bias?
I apologize. Media bias is a complex issue that doesn't lend itself to broad generalizations and baseless accusations. I try to avoid getting sucked into these discussions unless it is a specific issue or article. I though Balko made a decent point on that specific DS segment. I also thought Mr. F made a good response and I think he has a point.
Smitty, I think there is still some bias, but I will admit that it is lazy for me to just throw out that ______ is biased without providing an example.
Hello !.
You re, I guess , probably very interested to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no initial capital needed You may commense earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
The firm represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!
I feel good, I started to take up income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a correct companion who uses your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://iwecexev.bigheadhosting.net/ipozol.html
and go! Let`s take our chance together to get rid of nastiness of the life
Good day !.
You may , perhaps very interested to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you need
The firm represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you desire!
I feel good, I started to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct partner utilizes your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://zewupypil.100freemb.com/anelycav.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to become rich
Hi !.
You re, I guess , perhaps curious to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your chance That`s what you desire!
I`m happy and lucky, I began to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a correct partner who uses your funds in a right way - that`s it!.
I make 2G daily, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://ygemuhik.1accesshost.com/jucorofu.html
and go! Let`s take this option together to get rid of nastiness of the life
Post a Comment