1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jon Stewart on the mainstream media

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by dkphxf, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. Kato

    Kato Well-Known Member

    I think a big change for him was the Kerry interview. He got ripped for tossing softballs. Then he went on "Crossfire" where he got grilled about it but turned the tables saying why are you ripping me when you've done such a lousy job with political coverage? That pretty much was the end of "Crossfire" (it was cancelled just months later, I believe), and, I think, from that point on, really started growing as an interviewer.
     
  2. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    One shifting point was the all-out blitz on the dipshit stock pundit.
     
  3. J-School Blue

    J-School Blue Member

    You can definitely see how their tolerance/enjoyment of each other have grown over the years. They've gotten to the point where they play off each other very well. While I don't love O'Reilly generally, I think he basically gets that he's an entertainer rather than a journalist (I don't think all his viewers get it, but he does), and Stewart now gets that he gets that.
     
  4. GoochMan

    GoochMan Active Member

    He is right about the mainstream media. It's a joke, but not liberal in an activist sense.
    CNN gutted their staff 5-6 years ago and it's just painful to watch them now. Lazy, uninformed journalism.
     
  5. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    I hate when people say young people "get their news" from The Daily Show. Fact is you kinda have to pay attention to the real news to get Stewart's satire.
     
  6. CarltonBanks

    CarltonBanks New Member

    I don't think Fox is "activist" either. That's the point I am trying to make, that Fox News is not an activist entity for the Republican Party.
     
  7. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Nahhhhh.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  8. GoochMan

    GoochMan Active Member

    Carlton, I don't believe that Fox is an activist entity for the Republican Party. What I do think they are is an activist entity for conservatism, and that in itself is not good...not that conservatism--or any other ideology-- doesn't deserve a voice per se, but a news organization has no business looking to be that voice. When a news organization does that, it becomes more propaganda and less news.

    I don't think any of the other networks have that kind of purposeful ideological viewpoint. I think they are all chasing salacious, incendiary stories that they think will draw viewers and get ratings. It's shallow, lazy, brainless crap...but it's not ideological. (With the notable exception of MSNBC, which has certainly made the conscious decision to emulate Fox News from the left.)
     
  9. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    It's a point you're free to make, but it's wrong.

    Fox News and CNN are not opposite sides of the same coin, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
     
  10. westcoastvol

    westcoastvol Active Member

    I'm sorry, but when the Republican National Convention is produced by Fox News/Roger Ailes, that equals being in bed with them.
     
  11. dkphxf

    dkphxf Member

    And my critique on Jon Stewart's comments: He's spot on. The 24/7 newscycle, which includes cable news stations but isn't limited to them, is built for major events like 9/11. It's not built for the "normal" days that we have.

    For example, beat writers at major colleges are expected to produce multiple stories a day, even if there's nothing to report. That's when you get the "Coach pleased with star quarterback's effort" and the like. There's gotta be something to fill the gap and, more likely than not, it's going to be garbage.

    The media try to "spruce up" stories, like Anthony Weiner's, well, weiner. Does that deserve the play (in the media sense, not the co-ed sense) it received? Of course not, especially when there are three "wars" being fought, a $14 trillion debt, a collapsing economy and a few other things going on. But we care much more about the latest weiner and Sarah Palin's emails. Newsmakers don't believe people's attention can be held with stories of more significance.

    Perhaps we should treat them to stories of much significance with better angles. So the jobless rate is peaking. Why not show the unemployment office workers swamped with work and unable to see his family? Lazy reporting. And a desire to get back to filling the 24/7 newscycle with more garbage.

    As I've argued here before, the internet was one of the best inventions for print journalism, except editors don't really know how to use it. "Here's this new media, let's fill it with everything we can." Why not use that to provide more context for readers via the remainder of the story that doesn't get cut because of space reasons; photo galleries, rather than the one or two that make the print edition; and taking advantage of video and audio that TV/radio stations have as an advantage over us?

    Nope, here's some more about Anthony Weiner.
     
  12. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I consider myself to be a moderate conservative and I don't see fair and balanced on any of the news shows. CNN has a considerable liberal lean. MSNBC is just as extreme one way as Fox is the other.

    I don't watch Fox for Fair and Balanced. I watch it because it's the conservative take on the news. I think people who watch MSNBC are doing the same thing.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page