Oh the Millennials Won't Like This One!

Hawk said:
It is what it is, I get that Stewart is perhaps the founding father of political new journalism, but I still reserve the right to backhand anybody who injects his perspective into big boy debate and expect for it to be treated as anything but comedic relief.
Click to expand...

I guess I sort of think the idea that there's such a binary as the "big boy debate" and "the other" is as self-serious and smarmy as Stewart ever is.
 
Krgrecw said:
I get that, but all media is biased.
Click to expand...

People like to listen to things they already agree with. The importance is to use critical thinking and judge for yourself. Most can't do this because they were never taught/developed this skill.
 
I don't watch Cable News anymore and haven't for many years.

I used to watch CNN, Larry King-Anderson Cooper combo used to be really good. Blitzer was ok during the day.

When it's election season (debates, primaries, etc) I usually watch MSNBC only to watch Morning Joe. I can't stand Scarborough sometimes but the show overall is enjoyable early in the morning. I used to watch Chris Matthews a bit, but since he left the 5 o clock time slot to move to 7 permanently I don't really watch anymore.

I get pretty much all my news from Reddit subreddits, or a few news sites I frequent. I don't have 100 subscriptions like Hawk, but I make do.
 
Heywood said:
I usually watch MSNBC only to watch Morning Joe. I can't stand Scarborough sometimes but the show overall is enjoyable early in the morning.
Click to expand...

I used to wait on him at a sushi restaurant in Pensacola; he didn't tip well, but in limited viewings of him on MSNBC, I think he's pretty amusing as a licensed cable-tv bloviator.
 
I don't watch fox much anymore, but I think the Brett Baeir show is great. Probably the best news show on cable tv. See, I agree with Hawk. I like Bill Maher a lot more than Stewart. Stewart seemed like a one trick pony to me. Make a shallow smart ass comment, if audience laughs then move on, if audience doesn't laugh then sit awkwardly for a few seconds until the sheep laugh. I usually watch Bill Maher when I get a chance to. I don't like watching the news, because when I'm at home my kids are usually there and it's mostly about death and violence.

Mostly get my news from the internet these days like most folk. Drudgereport, facebook is good to see what the general public is interested in. The thing about Drudge is that you click on the link and it's something like Salon, WSJ, NYT, HuffPo or politico and I usually wind up reading all the stories on those sites too.
 
Gary82 said:
Don't worry Bedell, when my generation takes over and runs the country, they'll **** it up just like your generation did. Then the up and comings kids will bitch about us and you can smile as you look down on us from heaven...if it existed.
Click to expand...

It's what each new generation of yutes is suppose to do. Right? Y'all are just really good at it. :-)
 
Hawk said:
I recently read that Obama summoned Stewart to the White House on several occasions that just happened to coincide with times when the administration was pushing key pieces of legislation. Of course, Stewart has openly mocked characterizations of the meetings as secret (language used by the NYT, among others) by employing his same old 'Because I'm a maniacal liberal!' routine, but I do think he likely believes his platform is more serious than he gets credit for because of quiet meetings at the White House and covers of Time magazine.

If Stewart really is the 'Cronkite of the millenials' I think that speaks to the lack of seriousness that many young Americans engage in the process and bother to evolve their understanding of issues/individuals beyond one-liner quips and craftily edited video clips. The 'snark filter' as the personality interviewed in the OP link aptly put it.

It is what it is, I get that Stewart is perhaps the founding father of political new journalism, but I still reserve the right to backhand anybody who injects his perspective into big boy debate and expect for it to be treated as anything but comedic relief.
Click to expand...

Yeah, his clown nose on - clown nose off schtick is pretty pathetic.
 
mossy said:
This lady is all over the place. Kinda makes my head spin.....

I like Stewart, and I'll admit I love that he picks on Fox, and Conservatives in general. Fox, and some of their viewers, take themselves so seriously that it's either nauseatingly embarrassing, or downright hilarious. (Germany gets more sun than the US? HAHAHAHAHAHA)

But I agree with Hawk, it would be pretty sad if he were seen as a Cronkite of sorts. The daily show might show an alternate viewpoint, but the presentation should be comedy first, politics second. Afterall, that's how Fox does it. >:)
Click to expand...

What's neat about her is that she has that affect - meaning she doesn't stay within the predictable and often lame lines that we expect. And so she comes across as being all over the place. The more I read her the more consistently hyper-Freudian she seems. Though I'm not a Freud fan, I like reading someone who has the ability to piss off folks in both of our typical camps. There's a chance that having voices like that out there can keep us honest.
 
jpx7 said:
I guess I sort of think the idea that there's such a binary as the "big boy debate" and "the other" is as self-serious and smarmy as Stewart ever is.
Click to expand...

I'm not being exclusionary, just trying to delineate.

If we're talking about John Boehner's weaknesses as Speaker I would personally feel more informed by having a broad fact-based understanding of why that might be the case rather than a troped menagerie of media which shows him crying or misspeaking as a method of explanation.
 
viewers of Stewart and Colbert were more in tune than any other other viewers out there:

A new study by the Pew Research Study shows that viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last:
pewtv.GIF
Click to expand...
 
goldfly said:
viewers of Stewart and Colbert were more in tune than any other other viewers out there:
Click to expand...

Isn't that poll a decade old? I see Scooter Libby's name mentioned as a 'knowledge item' -- and he hasn't been in the news since 2005.

I think the medium has changed immeasurably since then.
 
Hawk said:
Isn't that poll a decade old? I see Scooter Libby's name mentioned as a 'knowledge item' -- and he hasn't been in the news since 2005.

I think the medium has changed immeasurably since then.
Click to expand...

possibly but if there is a newer one that somehow showed those viewers becoming less informed for some reason

i would like to see it
 
goldfly said:
possibly but if there is a newer one that somehow showed those viewers becoming less informed for some reason

i would like to see it
Click to expand...

Not the point really. More people get their news from the Internet (and social media -- which isn't even listed in this survey) in 2015 than 2005. The poll would look completely different if it were somewhat recent. It's 10 years old.

More importantly, I don't consider knowing who Vladimir Putin is or knowing that a lot of people died in Iraq as being particularly informed, but if we want to set the bar low, I guess that's knowledgeable enough.
 
ok

but i would say not knowing those simple things speaks volumes of the other "sources of real news" but so be it
 
BedellBrave said:
It's what each new generation of yutes is suppose to do. Right? Y'all are just really good at it. :-)
Click to expand...

I don't think we're any better at it than previous generations: technological advances have simply amplified and more thoroughly distributed our voices.
 
Hawk said:
I'm not being exclusionary, just trying to delineate.

If we're talking about John Boehner's weaknesses as Speaker I would personally feel more informed by having a broad fact-based understanding of why that might be the case rather than a troped menagerie of media which shows him crying or misspeaking as a method of explanation.
Click to expand...

I think this problem speaks to the fact that your problem (at least politically) is more with the reception of Stewart—how (segments of) his audience digest and excrete telecasts of The Daily Show—than with Stewart himself and the content of The Daily Show.

I'm also pretty sure you haven't watched much of The Daily Show if you think its only comedic treatment of John Boehner (or any other governmental figure, for that matter) is comprised of "a troped menagerie of media which shows him crying or misspeaking as a method of explanation".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top