Originally posted by ZahlanziHe's a comedian, not a news journalist.
he is one of the most objective, ethical journalist in the US. he informs the public, something recognized by numerous polls.
he isn't better than just fox (mostly everyone is better than fox). he is better than cnn and nbc as well.
Originally posted by normbenignjust from what i remember without looking, he mocked cnn for their coverage of the Malaysia missing plane
The you tube link has been pulled. Jon Stewart is admittedly a comedian, not a serious journalist, which isn't to say his "reports" don't contain truth. All news is a matter of perspective, including Fox. Hardly anything that has been written about Ferguson is lacking in perspective, and one has to separate fact from fiction and opinion, not an easy thi ...[text shortened]... tewart when he picks on Fox News, but ignore the occasions when he satirizes the other networks?
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziyeah he's real objective and ethical, no misrepresenting/exaggerating/misreporting/leaving out facts he doesn't like going on here:
he is one of the most objective, ethical journalist in the US. he informs the public, something recognized by numerous polls.
he isn't better than just fox (mostly everyone is better than fox). he is better than cnn and nbc as well.
Originally posted by FishHead111I get a number of impressions from this guy's shows but I do not get the impression I am watching a factual news report or anything other than a personal opinionated take on the political scene. It is political commentary. Is there a problem about people expressing opinions in the media without representing them as anything other than opinions?
yeah he's real objective and ethical, no misrepresenting/exaggerating/misreporting/leaving out facts he doesn't like going on here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKucHdvCRtg
Perhaps the problem is that they come so close to home and he asks such useful questions. Like how does Exxon get to avoid $9bn of liabilities for environmental damage, while the bought and paid for politician securing this boon for a vile multinational corporation even has the bare faced cheek to misuse the money they did pay (some $225m, vastly less than the proper liability) to cover his mismanaged budget and not a penny is going to clean up the environmental damage.
Originally posted by finneganYou're not an American, right? Where you live, why is it that you've heard of him? I'm asking, because I don't see why anyone outside the U.S. would care about a show that mainly opines on American issues.
I get a number of impressions from this guy's shows but I do not get the impression I am watching a factual news report or anything other than a personal opinionated take on the political scene. It is political commentary. Is there a problem about people expressing opinions in the media without representing them as anything other than opinions?
Perhap ...[text shortened]... y) to cover his mismanaged budget and not a penny is going to clean up the environmental damage.
Originally posted by FishHead111ad hominem.
He's almost doing a clown act in that video you are just being intentionally thick witted and contrary.
him presenting the facts in a comical manner has nothing to do with them being true or not.
how about you attack the information and not the man?
Originally posted by vivifyyou don't see why someone would care about what happens in the world one is living in?
You're not an American, right? Where you live, why is it that you've heard of him? I'm asking, because I don't see why anyone outside the U.S. would care about a show that mainly opines on American issues.
let's see how we can apply your reasoning to some other issues
i don't see how anyone living outside the middle east would care about what happens in siria, what Isis does, what the current political state of iraq is, the well being of women, homosexuals, jews, christians, the oppression of anyone having opposing ideas to the rulers in the region.
i don't see how anyone living outside africa would care about people starving/getting genocided there.
i could go on. but i won't. but i could.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziOK let's attack the "information".
ad hominem.
him presenting the facts in a comical manner has nothing to do with them being true or not.
how about you attack the information and not the man?
Stewart always prattled on repeatedly every chance he got "he shot an unarmed black teen!" and ignored the fact that Brown ATTACKED THE COP.
Jon Stewart don't even want to go there, it might justify what the cop had to do to save his life.
I could go on but I'm not wasting anymore time with you.
Originally posted by FishHead111"he shot an unarmed black teen!"
OK let's attack the "information".
Stewart always prattled on repeatedly every chance he got "he shot an unarmed black teen!" and ignored the fact that Brown ATTACKED THE COP.
Jon Stewart don't even want to go there, it might justify what the cop had to do to save his life.
I could go on but I'm not wasting anymore time with you.
which is still true. brown was a teen and brown was unarmed.
"ignored the fact that Brown ATTACKED THE COP. "
which wasn't proven at all at that time. he didn't say that brown DIDN'T attack the cop.
"Jon Stewart don't even want to go there, it might justify what the cop had to do to save his life. "
he repeated again and again that we don't know the exact circumstances of what happened.
what he is mocking is how the media was covering the incident. he is mocking how people like you DID say that brown definitely attacked the cop. he is mocking how some people were sure of what happened in a case with conflicting testimonies. the fact that later on your stance was confirmed by the DOG and that grand jury means jack.
5 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziFinnegan said he doesn't see the Daily Show as news. Stewart calls his own show a "fake news" show. So obviously, I'm not referring to information about what's happening in the world--which is also called, you know, news.
you don't see why someone would care about what happens in the world one is living in?
let's see how we can apply your reasoning to some other issues
i don't see how anyone living outside the middle east would care about what happens in siria, what Isis does, what the current political state of iraq is, the well being of women, homosexuals, jews, christ ...[text shortened]... re about people starving/getting genocided there.
i could go on. but i won't. but i could.
That said, asking Finnegan why he knows about a guy who makes jokes about (mainly) U.S. current events when he's from a different nation isn't unreasonable, is it? After all, how many comedy-based political commentators do YOU know of outside the U.S.?
Originally posted by vivifyI frankly don't see the difference.
Don't confuse "perspective" with context.
Because Fox has an unprecedented history of not only bias, but deliberately twisting truth to further their right-wing agenda. The fact that Fox is the largest single news channel in the U.S. makes their tactics dangerous; therefore, people will cite attacks against Fox much more often than other networks, because a network like Fox needs to be kept in check.
Fox News has never had an anchor, or news reader caught in deliberate lies such as those of the major networks, and its leaning right is not nearly as severe as the left leaning of MSNBC.
There is a likely reason why more people tune in and watch Fox News. It is more "Fair and Balanced" than any other cable or on air news source. I submit that Fox is satirized more than the others strictly on the basis that they present the conservative perspective along with the left's version. Before Fox News, nobody did that, and the news media was entirely biases to the left, both cable and broadcast.
The danger is not that Fox New be "kept in check", but that it be eliminated, as the only counter voice to the other networks, and broadcast news. People have lots of choices now to seek either context or perspective. More choose Fox News than all other cable news sources combined. Don't tell me that the consumer is just stupid.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignLet's start with an incredibly in-your-face lie from Sean Hannity
I frankly don't see the difference.
Fox News has never had an anchor, or news reader caught in deliberate lies such as those of the major networks
^
That alone is more than enough. But here's more from Bill O'Reilly:
Lies about JFK's assassin:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976495/CNN-publishes-audio-Bill-O-Reilly-proving-lied-Killing-Kennedy.html
Lies about war coverage:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/22/bill-oreilly-bombshell-6-colleagues-oreilly-lied-war-coverage.html
99 times O'Reilly was caught lying:
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/bill-oreilly-long-list-of-lies/
Had enough? Will you admit you were wrong?