Furor over Stewart-Colbert rally

My point isn't that a sports reporter is dressed up as a Hog, it was that a political reporter would be dressed up as a Hog and sitting in the stands, or the publisher sitting in a luxury box.

It implies favoritism for the home team, even if it is someone who is not directly involved in covering the team (although the publisher could be, depending on the paper).

To me, politics is the same way. If you don't want your non-political reporting employees to be involved in politics, then the same should be expected for everything else. Obviously, that's not totally possible. but what's good for one group should be good for another.

Another example I'll give: Charities. One of my former papers was very involved with a prominent charity. Stories were written about their annual drive each year (the paper's sponsorship was mentioned), and employees were nagged into contributing (I refused). To me, it was unhealthy for the paper to have that relationship with the charity, because it could call into question the issue of bias. They weren't giving the same amount of coverage to other charities, just the one they were teaming up with each week.

I'd be fine with a policy that members of a beat cannot be involved. Otherwise, every other employee can do what they want.

 

Stewart is a liberal. Dennis Miller is a conservative. I'm guessing both of them can make all of us laugh our asses off.

 

This just in, the Washington Post says writers can go to the rally, but if they laugh, they're fired.

 

Comedy, at least the funny kind, is fundamentally anarchic, since its root is human folly and frailties, which are nonpartisan and universal.
This is simply news organizations being the pompous asses they've always been. Like any newspaper I've ever heard of, the Post has so many business-related conflicts of interest they can't count them all. This is how management compensates for the knowledge it's compromised on very fundamental levels.

 

The Fuhrer is attending? I knew it!

 

We're on a slippery slope here. Where does it end?
Does that mean I can't go to a Bruce Springsteen concert because he's played benefits for Democrats?
If my paper has done any coverage on Haiti, does that mean I can't go see Arcade Fire because the band supports medical and reconstructive efforts in Haiti?
Does that mean I can't go see Jon Voight's next movie because he's a conservative activist?
We're talking about corporations nosing into what we do when we're off the clock. We can't allow this to happen.

 

Piotr, I think it's even cuter when people act as if Stewart is out there advancing the liberal agenda. Stewart doesn't deny that he has liberal views, but 75 percent of what he does is mock the absurdity of the political process. The people who say "All he does is mock conservatives" are typically the people who don't actually watch the show regularly. I hope you're not one of those people.

There is only one political commenter/comedian out there regular pointing out the shameless cowardice of of the Democratic Party, and he hosts the Daily Show.

 

One of the only times I've ever had a problem with Jon Stewart was before the 2004 election when he said something to John Kerrey like, "Please go out there and win," and Stewart himself said, I think in one of the Rolling Stone pieces that it was something he wishes he had only said off-camera.

I think he skews liberal, but goes after both sides and that's good enough for me, not that anyone is asking for my approval.

 

I actually do appreciate your input. I've always wondered how he is perceived by conservatives. Obviously, his first priority is humor. I think he goes a little far with the attack sometimes. But I enjoy that his arguments have some merit to them and seem to come from his own thoughts on a subject (or at least the thoughts of his writers). In other words, he doesn't always tow the party line.

 

Hopefully that assumption is that during my free time (as long as its legal) I'm free to do as I wish.

 

Not sure I've heard anyone making that claim. At least not in a mighty long time. Even Stewart acknowledges his leftward leanings.

 

We're defining "furor" pretty broadly here.