The Daily Show: Valid news source?
What happened to making polls? 
This was brought up in the RNC Catch-All thread before Certis locked it up but I think it's worth discussing more.
Q: Is The Daily Show considered a valid news source?
My answer is yes. Yes because it covers the things other media sources, namely television, will not cover in a way that cuts through all the useless news channel reporting. They have ten Emmy Awards which is not as important as both of their Peabody award. "Back in Black" with Lewis Black is another good example of how they cut to the issue in a humorous manner while still getting the point across. Some of the best interviews in the political world were done by Stewart on his show and the list is long. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Bolivian President Evo Morales, U.S. Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore and Second Lady of the United States Lynne Cheney, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader just to name a few from Wikipedia.
The Peabody Awards are generally regarded as the most prestigious awards honoring distinction and achievement in America within the fields of broadcast journalism, documentary film making, educational programming, children's programming, and entertainment.
Emphasis is mine. There is even a whole subsection about using The Daily Show as a news source.
Television ratings show that the program generally has 1.45 to 1.6 million viewers nightly, a high figure for cable television.[57] In demographic terms, the viewership is skewed to a relatively young audience compared to traditional news shows. A 2004 Nielsen Media Research study commissioned by Comedy Central put the median age at 35. During the 2004 U.S. presidential election, the show received more male viewers in the 18-34 year old age demographic than Nightline, Meet the Press, Hannity & Colmes and all of the evening news broadcasts.[58] Because of this, commentators such as Howard Dean posit that Stewart serves as a real source of news for young people, regardless of his intentions.[59] Nightline anchor Ted Koppel has said that "A lot of television viewers—more, quite frankly, than I'm comfortable with—get their news from the Comedy Channel on a program called The Daily Show."[60]The show's writers reject the idea that The Daily Show has become a source of news for young people. Stewart argues that Americans are living in an "age of information osmosis" in which it is close to impossible to gain one's news from any single source, and says that his show succeeds comedically because the viewers already have some knowledge about current events. "Our show would not be valuable to people who didn't understand the news because it wouldn't make sense." He argues. "We make assumptions about your level of knowledge that... if we were your only source of news, you would just watch our show and think, 'I don't know what's happening.'"[61]
In late 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey at the University of Pennsylvania ran a study of American television viewers and found that fans of The Daily Show had a more accurate idea of the facts behind the 2004 presidential election than most others, including those who primarily got their news through the national network evening newscasts and through reading newspapers.[62]. However, in a 2004 campaign survey conducted by the Pew Research Center those who cited comedy shows such as The Daily Show as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds while those who cited the Internet, National Public Radio, and news magazines were the most informed. Even when age and education were taken into account, the people who learned about the campaigns through the Internet were still found to be the most informed, while those who learned from comedy shows were the least informed.[63]
A more recent survey, released by the Pew Research Center on April 15, 2007, indicates that regular viewers of The Daily Show tend to be more knowledgeable about news than audiences of other news sources. Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored in the high knowledge range in comparison to 34% of network morning shows viewers who scored in the same range. The survey shows that changing news formats have not made much difference on how much the public knows about national and international affairs, but adds that there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know.[64] The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a content analysis report suggesting that The Daily Show comes close to providing the complete daily news.[65]
A 2006 study published by Indiana University tried to compare the substantive amount of information of The Daily Show against prime time network news broadcasts, and concluded that when it comes to substance, there is little difference between The Daily Show and other news outlets. The study contended that, since both programs are more focused on the nature of "infotainment" and ratings than on the dissemination of information, both are broadly "equal" in terms of the amount of substantial news coverage they offer.[66]
I will also say that I hold the Colbert Report in a lesser light when it comes to this with the exception to a few segments on his show. Namely the Better know a district/lobby, interviews, The Word, and Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger, and Alpha Dog of the week.
Thoughts?
I think it's more satire of the news, and opinion writing, as opposed to straight reporting. It's certainly more enjoyable than the news.
Xbox Live: psu13, PSN: psu_13
I'm gonna say no, it's not a valid news source. I'd say it is a great way to get people interested in the news, and watch it with a much more critical eye. But they play too fast and loose at times to be considered a reliable news source. There are times they are just right on, but there is plenty of times when they are manipulating stuff to in order to be funny.
On that note, I still find them to be much more honest than Rush Limbaugh ever is.
Xbox Live: JayhawkerGWJ
last.fm: JayhawkerGWJ
I much prefer the Daily Show to regular newscasts. My only complaint is that sometimes it's hard to tell when they make stuff up to be a punchline and when it's actually true. One could unintentionally become mis-informed if one doesn't catch the sarcasm.
gtnissanfan is on the front lines, building a Kritzcharge
Jayhawker and gtnissanfan have it right. The only thing I have to add is that because regular news has gone so far downhill, the Daily show actually appears to give better news.
I'd say if you're engaging in political debate on, say, the jobs with gamers website, you'd be better off watching the Daily show clips to find where they got their sources (watch the dates of the broadcast clips they show, then go look up the transcripts/videos yourself), and link or quote those sources directly. It may take more time and google-fu, but if you're looking to be extra credible, it's worth the time.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
I don't trust any one news source. I start out with Google News, and then chase anything I want to know about to multiple sources (and no, that doesn't mean four newspaper's API feeds - I mean really different).
But I would definately start from there. It's got at least as much going for it as any of the political blogs, IMHO.
Duoae wrote:
Valid? Well, if Fox News can count as valid, I don't see why the Daily Show can't. It's main problem is that it's news segment is fairly brief and can often present only a limited perspective - I see it more as "supplementary reading" - I definitely wouldn't rely on it for my only source of news.
Where the Daily Show really shines is in offering a critique of stupid things people say and calling them on it. When they aired the segment pointing out the hypocrisy of various republican personalities in their reaction to Palin playing the gender card vs. Clinton playing the gender card, it was pure genius - and I'm terribly disappointed that no one else does the same thing. That being said, I still think they can be pretty one-sided in these kinds of critiques.
Morrolan wrote:
XBLA / Steam: Dysplastic
The Daily Show's use as news is largely in showing who's a lying sack / amazingly stupid at the moment. Most of the other happenings just aren't likely to be all that funny and therefore won't be covered. The interviews are also good on occasion when they get someone who is serious and (more importantly) is willing to be serious or at least genuine there (ie not Brian Williams).
I discovered Fareed Zakaria from the Daily Show. He's one voice I really trust.
Xbox Live: JayhawkerGWJ
last.fm: JayhawkerGWJ
I see the Daily Show as more of a way to check the pulse of where interesting news can be found. More often than not, I'll see something on the Daily Show, then do some research myself to get more of the details surrounding their snippet.
GWJ Alliance on Blackhand
Lunazul - Rouge & GWJ Paparazzo
Lunarel - Druid
Funkenpants wrote:
Nope. They're all too willing to change some small bit of info for a better punchline. And really, they only cover stuff that can be made funny (or is just so stupid they don't even need to try).
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
I don't think it's a good primary news source, but it's one of the best supplementals. You find out what the politicians say from, say, NPR or MSNBC or whatever you happen to use, and then Stewart does the journalistic work to show you where they're contradicting themselves.
Mainstream news gives you assertions; Stewart gives you critical thinking. And he does this by accident. He's just trying to be funny.
I think that's a fairly broad title and depending on your perspective and angle you can make the argument.
Is the Daily Show a valid source of 'news' at exposing how other networks 'news' has turned into 24hr nonstop must report something talkathons of nonsense. Then yes. Also if you can keep the clear difference between the facts and punchline they are informing you of recent events.
There's no sports or weather segment on the Daily Show though so I wouldn't consider it a complete news show then ;P
If you take this definition for example.
Even weekend update on SNL could be considered news negative the obvious fake punchline.
Also to put this in perspective I never go out of my way to watch the Daily Show but if I'm flipping I'll stop as I know its good for a laugh and unless being a dated re-run that laugh will relate to something current. As for Colbert I just don't find the character funny and it lacks the same amount of news in comparison. Also the guest segments are not even comparable as Stewart lets his guests have their say and adds in the punchlines or gets serious if need be where Colbert just stays in complete ridiculous character berating his guests.
edit: If anything the Daily Show hasn't filled my void for news but instead has filled my void for some intelligent comedy of topics that are more high brow then whats on Leno and Letterman. I can honestly say I cant remember the last time I watched either because I don't care who's f*cking who in Hollywood or who has a drug problem or whatever gossip dominates those shows jokes/guests.
Another thing the Daily Show is very good at, is pointing out the hypocrisies of newscasters. They don't just lampoon politicians, they skewer the media as well.
It probably is more than the old show Not Necessarily the News, but at least the Daily Show has a host who is likable and watchable, unlike some other so-called political shows I've seen -I'm talking to you, Bill Maher. Then again, somebody has to counter-balance El Rushbo, the self-important dildo.
MaxShrek .. Do it first, do it yourself, and keep on doing it.
Horror Vacui
The one thing the Daily Show does better than any real news agency is putting up comparison videos showing how politicians have changed their stories. I don't know why this technique has to be limited to a cable news comedy program and isn't used by real news outlets.
Also, they mock the TV media and point out how many newscasters are just vapid hairdos. Got to like that.
I've got to agree. People don't understand politics because they watch The Daily Show, they watch The Daily Show because they understand politics.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Speaking of skewering media types, I just recently re-watched Jon Stewart's 2004 appearance on Crossfire. It still amazes me how badly he humiliated that show, and Tucker Carlson in particular. I mean, that show never recovered after that.
/Well Played, sir!
Psychotic Foreign Teenage Chicks are so hot. - Legion
I find it ironic anytime a healthy vaccinated person bitches about science...on the internet. - MaverickDago
Exactly. This is exactly what I do.
Letters to the Internet
The Daily Show is a nice news companion show, but I wouldn't rely upon it as a genuine news source. Sometimes it may put something out there I haven't heard about yet and then I'll research it, but usually it's just great about showing footage that I'm not seeing on mainstream news sources.
Most of my news is from the internet anymore: a mixture of AP, international/independent, and corpnews.
When you've got the AP reporting a publicity stunt like this as real news, it's hard to tell the difference between a fake news show and real news:
KFC shoring up security for secret recipe
Does the media bother to question anything they're told by someone in authority any more? Don't get me wrong. I admire KFC's marketing angle here. But must the media take it so seriously? They invite ridicule (at least from the cynical people like me).
It's not news... but it is certainly Journalism.
Control Point: A Team Fortress 2 Podcast
WARP: A Warhammer Online Podcast
http://www.deadworkers.com/network
I don't watch the Daily Show, but the few sketches from it that people here have posted reveal, at least to me, a willingness to go where most news programs won't: calling bs where bs lies.
When I see Palin spout off all kinds of crap like how she is some sort of pork-killing reformer, it is nice to see SOMEONE call bs on it. The regular news shows seem to fall over themselves to say hedgy crap like "it's complicated" instead of saying "she's a lying bag of monkey spunk".
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Apparently if you criticize her, you're sexist.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
There have been a couple of articles that call her on it, but I see your point. The violation of truth is so strong on the "I killed the bridge to nowhere" and "I've been against earmarks" claims that it's almost like the McCain campaign is daring someone to call her a liar. They know the media just won't do it.
Yes, I'd consider TDS as valid as any of the other stations and magazines. Of course, it only has a limited scope and shouldn't be the only show to be consumed, but the tidbits they're reporting on, satire or not, usually are substantial.
Slightly related question: Is anyone else having trouble watching the full shows on their website lately? (Same for Colbert.) The full episodes simply won't load anymore for me. Unlike the small videos on the frontpage, which still work. Temporary outage - or are the morons blocking people from Europe now?
Well if I have to chose, I guess I'll be sexist.
I'd rather be called a misogynist than an idiot.
Letters to the Internet
blocking I think. BBC blocks random stuff I try to load up (depends who owns the rights) and I cant watch anything from the links that get posted here from TDS as I would have to go to the Canadian rights holder website. Its actually a real pain in the ass that they don't help redirect you as its one thing to see a link and want to click it to being told there's something funny somewhere and if you want to watch it you will have to go to your countries version of the website and find it yourself. Yes I'm lazy.
The Daily Show is a news supplement. Once you've watched the news, it's best to check The Daily Show to see the most important lies/corrections/flubs. But it could be damaging if you aren't following the actual news as they will stretch the truth to reach a punchline.
I do believe that Stewart's interviews are top-notch though as he does hold the guest accountable for their answers instead of just reading down a list of questions and ignoring the responses.
XBL: elliottxW
MMO Aliases: Jozak or Ezzamar
I think of the Daily Show as a commentary program. I don't get my news from it but I certainly do enjoy what I see.
"If Blizzard announces a subscription fee for Diablo III we will have to build a second Internet to make room for all the complaining." - muttonchop
I don't think you can begin to call TDS a news program. They have no journalists, no investigative end, no unique coverage, no press credentials, no ethical standard. Now, certainly we can argue how many real news outlets meet these criteria, but I think it's clear that without the actual news outlets there would be no TDS; they are dependent, not independent. That's no criticism, and I think Jon Stewart has said before that if you're counting on Comedy Central for your news reporting, then you're pretty much hosed. He probably said it better and funnier.
They are a source of criticism, not a source for original information. They are no more a news outlet than Ebert and Roper are movie makers or we are game developers. That said, I find the service they provide indespensible and long overdue. I think what gives them credibility is that their analysis, while aimed at making with the funny, is also incredibly insightful and often well researched. They also facilitate a surprisingly healthy debate in the interview segments, and have made remarkable success out of moving away from "interview the latest starlet" model of entertainment to "interview that really smart guy who wrote a cool book" model.
They are parody and satire, and we really need to not be surprised that parody and satire are continuing a centuries old tradition of being some of the most relevant speech in all of civilization. TDS is the Jonathan Swift of the 21st century.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis