Comedians have figured out the trick to covering Trump

YouTube

Video description:
"While major news networks have struggled to figure out the right way to cover the Trump administration, political satirists like Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers have demonstrated why comedy can be such a powerful antidote to bullexcrement"

Major news sites seem to be afraid to treat the obviously ludicrous crap that comes out of the Donald as what they are: pure nonsense. Rather than call him on it and mock him, they treat it seriously, trying to reason with him as if he is a regular politician playing by all the established rules.

He is not a regular politician. He is a monkey throwing crap at you and while you're busy examining it, he throws more crap until you're overwhelmed.

He accuses Obama of wiretapping him without proof and rather than mock him relentlessly for making such idiotic claims, mainstream media wonders if Obama could have done it and what were his motives and who else is involved and if it's right to waste taxpayer dollars to investigate this.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Major news sites seem to be afraid to treat the obviously ludicrous crap that comes out of the Donald as what they are: pure nonsense. Rather than call him on it and mock him, they treat it seriously, trying to reason with him as if he is a regular politician playing by all the established rules.

He is not a regular politician. He is a monkey throwing ...[text shortened]... otives and who else is involved and if it's right to waste taxpayer dollars to investigate this.

And Colbert, Maher, Oliver, the Daily show and Bee are not subtle about it either.

God, I love Trump.
He's created the greatest 4-year running gag ever.
And he doesn't even know it!!!

Damn.

YouTube

Seth Meyer's "A Closer Look" segments show how journalism should be done.
Not the circuses that are CNN "news" shows. There is a subject of public interest and information is presented on that subject. There are no paid stooges coming on and disrupting the information presented with ludicrous acrobatics on what "the other party" may have intended and many times not even that, just red herrings and strawmen.

When you are presenting the news you don't need to give "the other side" a platform where they have equal strength. You present facts. You offer interpretation and you support that interpretation. You stake your journalistic reputation on that. You let the facts speak for themselves and the public must make their own decisions.

CNN and others like them are cowards, plain and simple. Their anchors cannot be accused of bad journalism, they aren't doing anything wrong. They just offer platforms for all the loonies to shout at each other while they are doing minimal work. So what if their public is more confused after watching them than before? They got their ratings and ad revenue (which is made even more obvious when they interrupt a speaker in the middle of a point just to cut to commercials)


This is why someone who watched Jon Stewart (and now John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee, Trevor Noah or Seth Myers ) is more informed than anyone watching CNN, MSNBC or (ha!)Fox

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq6T1V5rYjI

Seth Meyer's "A Closer Look" segments show how journalism should be done.
Not the circuses that are CNN "news" shows. There is a subject of public interest and information is presented on that subject. There are no paid stooges coming on and disrupting the information presented with ludicrous acrobatics on wha ...[text shortened]... ha Bee, Trevor Noah or Seth Myers ) is more informed than anyone watching CNN, MSNBC or (ha!)Fox

I don't agree at all. Fox News does exactly what you're talking about, and they only present their side of the issues, "interpretation", and their version of "facts". The reason why "fake news" is so prevalent, is because news sources have lost their objectivity. News sources have lost how to present a full picture of a situation. Much of the blame is on Americans, who prefer to be entertained than educated; who prefer to have their beliefs reinforced rather than challenged.

Seth Meyers, John Stewart, etc.., aren't "journalists". They're pundits who present a point of view. Their purpose isn't to report news, but to set the record straight (as they see it). How often have you heard any of the people you mentioned criticize Obama for the drone strikes in Afghanistan? He is directly responsible for civilians and children dying, and responsible for those who lived spending every waking moment in terror. Yet, I've heard them spend more time on "pussy-grabbing" comments than those innocent people being murdered.

Samantha Bee, as much as I absolutely adore her, doesn't present "news". She (and the rest of her ilk) provides social commentary. It's needed, thought-provoking insightful commentary, but it's not news. If the current news outlets started doing what Sam Bee and Colbert do 24/7, there would be no news, only opinions, with the most skilled commentators (not most correct or reliable) win the ratings battles.

Journalism should always be objective, always showing what's at steak, and the consequences of any given action. This should be our main course, with Sam Bee and the like providing our much needed supplement. The problem, as we all know, is that the news isn't objective. But complaining about the little objectivity and fair reporting we do have does no good.

Originally posted by vivify
I don't agree at all. Fox News does exactly what you're talking about, and they only present their side of the issues, "interpretation", and their version of "facts". The reason why "fake news" is so prevalent, is because news sources have lost their objectivity. News sources have lost how to present a full picture of a situation. Much of the blame is on ...[text shortened]... ctive. But complaining about the little objectivity and fair reporting we do have does no good.

"I don't agree at all. Fox News does exactly what you're talking about, and they only
present their side of the issues, "interpretation", and their version of "facts""
that's only the first step. obviously there is more to journalism. fox news presents their version of the issues and are easily debunked with a moderate effort.


"Seth Meyers, John Stewart, etc.., aren't "journalists"."
no? they don't inform the public?

"They're pundits who present a point of view."
all journalists present a point of view. listing events without offering context is worthless.

"Their purpose isn't to report news, but to set the record straight (as they see it)"
why do you think these are exclusive

"How often have you heard any of the people you mentioned criticize Obama for the drone strikes in Afghanistan?"
constantly.

"Yet, I've heard them spend more time on "pussy-grabbing" comments than those innocent people being murdered. "
obama was getting out, trump and clinton were on their way in. that was the news of the day. what obama did was covered at its own time

"Samantha Bee, as much as I absolutely adore her, doesn't present "news"."
Journalism and news isn't the exact same thing. One can be an investigative journalist and not present news. Has anyone told you that there are thousands of rape kits across the US that collect dust because nobody would test them? For years? Samantha Bee did. Including the follow up that Georgia did manage to pass a law to demand these kits be tested (something i mentioned in a thread here that nobody cared about). That's journalism. What Don Lemon does is not.

"Journalism should always be objective, always showing what's at steak, and the consequences of any given action"
Journalism without a context is worthless. We are humans, we have opinions. Presenting something that puts X in an unfavorable light and saying it puts X in an unfavorable light is not subjective, is having an opinion and offering proof to support that opinion.
As an example, news that law X is being considered for vote is worthless. You need to be told why the law is good or bad. Who it affects. What the implications are. What is really said behind the legalese. News that Apple is releasing a new Iphone is again worthless. I need a tech guy to tell me what it does, how it is better/worse, if it is a good buy

Jon Stewart was the most trusted newscaster in the US. His audience was better informed than viewers of CNN, MSNBC, Fox. He wasn't objective. He didn't hide is disdain towards the targets of his satire. He did have integrity. He didn't let his subjectivity stop him from doing his job. He didn't lie. He didn't cover up facts. When he made mistakes, he admitted them.
Ultimately, he informed people. He made them better prepared to make decisions about who to vote for.

That's what is hard to understand. Objectivity in journalism is a myth. To be objective is to read mechanically from a list of events. That is useless. Journalists must uncover the truth, must offer opinions, must support their opinions. There is nuance to the truth.
To be objective for objectivity's sake is to be Don Lemon, a coward. He offers equal platform for Trumps loonies to come in and do backflips to defend the latest absurd thing he did or said. He just sits back and enjoys the ratings that come with the circus while the public is less and less informed.