I've grown tired of posting Daily Show clips in random threads, and I'm sure that other users have grown aggravated from it.

So I've decided to create a thread where Jon Stewart's credibility can be called into question, because I know there are users here who question his credibility.

Here's a jumping off point: Congress ensures that 9/11 first responders aren't terrorists before providing them financial assistance.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-26-2011/friends-without-benefits

4/27/2011 11:31:55 PM

still credible

(when hasn't he been?)

4/27/2011 11:41:43 PM

Jon Stewart has no credibility

...according to Jon Stewart

4/28/2011 8:58:29 AM

My only problem with Jon Stewart is that his smarmy, superficial take on politics has supplanted the Left's radical spirit.

4/28/2011 9:07:11 AM

^ he provides a reference point though for progressives to use to bring in fence-sitters or rightists who have seen the light.

4/28/2011 5:27:47 PM

1. can't we just call liberals "liberals", instead of "progressives"? "Goddamn leftists" would also be acceptable, but I know you guys probably won't go for that.

2. Jon Stewart has no credibility because he's a fucking comedian. He's not supposed to be credible. I'm not even sure what the debate or point of discussion is, here.

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ]

4/28/2011 5:49:21 PM

i get that dismissing him as a comedian is the easy thing to do when trying to make the world a simple place, but its disingenuous and ignores that he does a good job highlighting much of the hypocrisy the media misses.

4/28/2011 5:59:02 PM

No it doesn't. That's what many of the best comedians do.

4/28/2011 6:16:51 PM

he does fail to show the hypocrisy the media fails to show. good work!

4/28/2011 7:41:19 PM

^^^^ no. Conservatives spent decades demonizing the word liberal. Nobody wants it anymore. Progressive just sounds better anyway.

4/28/2011 7:45:50 PM

One discussion could entail Jon Stewart's stance on the above mentioned amendment versus the stance of Rep. Henry Waxman. Another discussion could pertain to Jon Stewart's comparison of the amendment to dumping 9/11 responders into a river to determine whether or not they're witches.

Quote :

"My only problem with Jon Stewart is that his smarmy, superficial take on politics has supplanted the Left's radical spirit."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-27-2011/exclusive---bernie-sanders-extended-interview-pt--2

Case in point?

4/28/2011 9:28:29 PM

What are you trying to get at, Pupils?

If you have a problem with this piece of the Daily Show's criticism, you should say so and explain why.

Also, this thread should be about the Daily Show, not Jon Stewart. He's a cool guy or whatever, but there are a bunch of people who contribute to that show.

4/28/2011 10:52:34 PM

Quote :

"can't we just call liberals "liberals", instead of "progressives"? "Goddamn leftists" would also be acceptable, but I know you guys probably won't go for that."

Because that's would be like saying all conservatives are republicans.

progressive > liberal > democrat

4/28/2011 11:18:16 PM

I agree that progressive is not the same thing as liberal.

I mean, those words have a bunch of different definitions on their own. And they're two different words with different origins and histories.

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ]

4/29/2011 1:10:27 AM

I don't really have any criticism of the originally posted clip. I think it's an intriguing clip, given that it could be argued that Jon Stewart was influential in the passage of the bill that was being amended.

Despite Jon Stewart's status as a comedian, he appears to be a popular figure with substantial influence and power. Didn't Timothy Geithner request a meeting with him when he was in Washington for the Rally to Restore Sanity? I can't even imagine what that was about.

4/29/2011 2:43:55 PM

stewart has been played out for a while now. colbert is better

4/29/2011 4:41:43 PM

Quote :

"2. Jon Stewart has no credibility because he's a fucking comedian. He's not supposed to be credible. I'm not even sure what the debate or point of discussion is, here."

this, he doesn't care if he's credible, only if he's funny, even if that results in being wildly inaccurate and intentionally obfuscating . . .

those that think otherwise are giving him too much weight / authority.

4/29/2011 6:37:26 PM

He does a good job playing either and/or both whenever he feels like it.

4/30/2011 5:28:06 AM

I like how he plays both sides of journalist and comedian in a single interview.

Stewart: hard hitting question
Guest: Angry and annoyed response
Stewart: Dismissive "Hey I'm just a comedian" reply

And I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely like it, because usually the ones he does that with deserve it IMO.

[Edited on May 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM. Reason : ]

5/1/2011 8:01:07 PM

He tosses up a lot of softballs to all kinds of people and he's a positive guy to have a conversation with but he goes after people who spout some bullshit. Like that Cramer guy.

5/2/2011 6:00:28 AM

Quote :

"he doesn't care if he's credible, only if he's funny, even if that results in being wildly inaccurate and intentionally obfuscating . . ."

You take out the funny part and you have fox news...

5/2/2011 9:12:56 AM

6/22/2011 2:04:55 PM

It's almost as people think he is too dumb to realize that his show has become more serious so he can plead ignorance when people take its entertainment for news.

6/22/2011 3:21:02 PM

His point about Fox News having their pants on fire was pretty weak and confusing. Now, I get the connection, but I still think he was stretching.

His point about Fox News viewers being misinformed was obviously important to the larger point that Fox News misinforms viewers. Now, he was proved wrong (and accepted it) on the point that their viewers are meaningfully less informed from polls that quantify this by completely factual and objective questions.

So he accepts defeat there, and then goes to point out the direct cases where Fox News says something false ("pants on fire"), of which none of them were ever corrected or whatever. But you didn't need Politifact to do this, he does this on the show all the time. He is constantly pointing out something that Fox News said that is stupidly wrong. What he did in the interview was to use that world view to make a new conclusion about the viewership of Fox News and he was wrong.

It's not that Fox News doesn't misinform viewers, but that point doesn't explain all of your other notions about them and their viewers. I admit, Fox News viewers are probably pretty racist compared to the rest of the nation, but I don't count on that being a verifiable result of the broadcasting that Fox News engages in, even if I did find a good correspondence. Fox News can very well just be saying what the idiots already wanted to hear, and not creating those thought patterns.

I'm not saying this is certain, but I am saying that Stewart was engaging in an over-extrapolation and backpedaling the claims to say "well Fox News says untrue things" seems just full problems. Fundamentally, I am and many others are concerned about a strong negative effect Fox News is having on the state of this nation. Mistaking cause and correlation is not something we want to do with that position.

6/22/2011 3:33:53 PM

The problem with Fox News isn't so much that they put out blatant untruths, though they certainly have in the past. The problem is what issues they tend to hone in on. The so-called 9/11 mosque "controversy" is a great example. It got way too much airtime when there were very important things going on in the world.

News outlets lose major credibility when they're so clearly colored by a political agenda. Fox News functions as a right-wing echo chamber. CNN and MSNBC are not much better, in that they are very pro-establishment, pro "American interests."

6/22/2011 3:38:33 PM

They are all "Pro-Ratings" and "Pro-stock dividends". Any other bias, towards establishment or specific political parties, is simply a means to achieve this.

6/22/2011 5:23:30 PM

1)

Quote :

"Jon Stewart has no credibility because he's a fucking comedian. He's not supposed to be credible."

2) i just thought the video was funny and posted in the first stewart thread i saw

6/22/2011 10:26:38 PM

It's worth noting that the Jon Stewart Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace was heavily edited.

Someone could assess Stewart's credibility differently after watching either of the two versions of the interview.

Here are both versions, for anyone interested enough to view them:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-on-fox-news-sunday-medias-bias-is-not-liberal-its-towards-sensationalism-and-laziness/

6/24/2011 2:01:23 AM

Since when did Jon Stewart have credibility? HE'S A GODDAMNED COMEDIAN, HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY FUCKING CREDIBILITY

[Edited on June 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2011 4:44:20 PM

and yet, he does

6/25/2011 4:46:40 PM

^ I'd like for you to explain why you think he does

6/25/2011 5:00:43 PM

Quote :

"i get that dismissing him as a comedian is the easy thing to do when trying to make the world a simple place, but its disingenuous and ignores that he does a good job highlighting much of the hypocrisy the media misses."

First of all, words can't even describe how much of a douche you sound like with "dismissing him as a comedian is the easy thing to do when trying to make the world a simple place." Get over yourself.

Second of all, finding hypocrisy in the news by no means gives Jon Stewart credibility. If he does happen to do that it is merely a byproduct of the main function of making a comedic show, and not the end in and of itself.

6/25/2011 5:13:20 PM

Jon Stewart is one smart cookie. I just watched the full interview. Notes:

It is obvious that fox news is flustered by him. Otherwise he wouldn't be talked about or interviewed on their network. Also, they give him credibility whenever they try to disprove his motivations (otherwise, why feel the need to disprove him?)

Second it is clear that he lied when he answered the question about being a political player. We all know that he is and will continue to be a GROWING political player (addressing the youth demographic).

Fox seems to have a few problems now that they view Stewart as a political competitor and I feel like it is very hypocritical of them to do so. While they push a political agenda under the guise of being a news network Stewart is reaching a huge demographic by doing the same thing--pushing his political agenda under the guise of being a comedian. He's just better at being a comedian than fox news is at being a news network. Stewart connects to his audience using wit, self-deprecation, and narcicissm, all traits of the younger generation. Fox connects with its audience through fear, discomfort, and pressure, which of course has proven to be the most effective way to pull the strings of aging white folks in the face of a changing America. What Fox doesnt like, is that someone else is now playing their game and they are unable to call them out on it.

Jon Stewart has credibility but he would never admit it, otherwise his ruse would be over. It's clear to anyone what he is doing and he's doing a great job at it.

I just layed out more truth than this entire thread combined.

[Edited on June 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM. Reason : media rox]

6/25/2011 7:27:57 PM

^Feel free to post here more. Your insight is appreciated.

6/26/2011 1:31:48 AM

Quote :

"We all know that he is and will continue to be a GROWING political player "

He could have pushed a stronger message at his rally. I mean I don't even remember him encouraging the people there and watching at home to go out and vote, even with it being so near an election time period... let alone encouraging voting for a specific party. Obviously he has political leanings, but he could certainly wield a little more political power if that is what he wished. Unlike fox which just directly donates to the GOP and hires/gives exposure to anyone who wants to run for pres on the GOP side of things.

6/26/2011 3:17:28 AM

Quote :

"Second of all, finding hypocrisy in the news by no means gives Jon Stewart credibility. If he does happen to do that it is merely a byproduct of the main function of making a comedic show, and not the end in and of itself."

ding ding ding! Look, the core of the issue is accountability in reporting... but there remain plenty of problems with the current way this is being framed by this cross-network pollination of pundits. I'll write more in a bit about this.

Quote :

"While they (Fox News) push a political agenda under the guise of being a news network Stewart is reaching a huge demographic by doing the same thing--pushing his political agenda under the guise of being a comedian. He's just better at being a comedian than fox news is at being a news network."

Although I don't agree with most of what the pro-Stewart people are saying here, this part was well argued. The overall point about identity is that neither of them should be telling their viewers what to think, and should at most give some peripheral political editorial content.

That out of the way, they're both entertainment so play ball. Nothing wrong with them battling with clips from each other if that's what the viewers want.

Quote :

"He could have pushed a stronger message at his rally."

Oh for crying out loud yes! Lord, I know people who went and I feel sorry for them. It was basically entertainment content. The political statement made by the rally and the attendance was no where near enough to justify the effort for all those people to show up in DC.

---------
In general, I like the overall trend that there is a feeling that some shows are now looking at the news shows and trying to "call out" what they get wrong. Journalism and news is this nation has (and always has had) an abysmal level of accountability for what they say. This, coupled with the pull toward sensationalism, lead to a case of life-imitating-art-imitating-life that is damaging to the uninformed public attitudes.

That said, it's not news that news got something wrong. We shouldn't be spending the time people are expecting to be using to get "informed" telling the story of how others got facts wrong. That's simply not important and there are too many other things that are important to inform viewers about. The Daily Show isn't news, but it's being watched as such and that's at least somewhat of a problem.

The other problem is that the revolution in accountability isn't that at all. Organizations with status only respond to others that also have status when a point is made. True accountability should be when some amount of your viewers are actually making effort to follow and check facts, feeding that back to the content producers. We are a loooong way away from that, aside from marginalized mediums like blogs.

6/26/2011 10:12:55 PM

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 2:01 AM. Reason : n/m]

6/27/2011 2:01:07 AM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-27-2011/oh--for-fox-sake

6/28/2011 4:21:03 PM

Glenn Beck and his family were harassed today. As much as I dislike Glenn Beck, I don't think I'd harass him while he and his family are at a movie.

6/28/2011 4:24:51 PM

havent you guys heard?

the man is a RACIST

6/28/2011 11:33:30 PM

Things are heating up in comedian/political activist land. Stephen Colbert just got approved for his super PAC. Fox is really gonna kick themselves for letting this one slide under the radar, while focusing solely on Stewart. If it doesnt encounter critical dismantling soon (which it probably will, just sayin) we may see a different approach to corporate fundraising next election. electioneering 2.0 if you will.

If Colbert can somehow champion his super PAC as a way for the united citizens of middle america to challenge corporate fundraising and it doesnt fall to shambles then I'll be impressed.

6/30/2011 4:50:45 PM

I think Colbert will destroy the Super PAC concept, and I think that's his goal.

Quote :

"If Colbert can somehow champion his super PAC as a way for the united citizens of middle america to challenge corporate fundraising and it doesnt fall to shambles then I'll be impressed."

Well yes and no. The super PAC is ideal for him to abuse, I think he'll be able to temporarily use our legal channels as a way to get souped-up advertizing revenue. Once he does that we'll say goodbye to super PACs.

But that's not challenging the status-quo. This mechanism (super PAC) is new. So it's not a monumental victory and it also won't change anything fundamental about campaign finance.

6/30/2011 7:41:16 PM

for my boo

2/14/2012 12:19:25 AM

(thanks boo. you're the best, around. nothing's gonna ever keep you down)

anyway

lots of credibility points awarded for his take on this whole contraception "controversy"

2/14/2012 12:25:22 AM

Jon Stewarts #1 goal is ad revenue based on views of his show and # of viewers of the advertisements. Just like all the media, the point of his work is to have faithful customers of his product and most if not all will stoop to levels worse than TMZ to get their ad revenue to pay for the companies that host them.

Or you can pretend to "see the light" like moron suggests and faithfully watch him like he's the modern Martin Luther King of the "Progressive Movement". lol

2/14/2012 10:22:26 AM

capitalist media is capitalist, thanks for the update

2/14/2012 11:44:15 AM

no man, you have it mixed up. the liberal media is compassionate communist

it's only the right media that's the evil free capitalist investors

2/14/2012 11:49:17 AM

pack bryan doesn't know what "communism" means

pack bryan doesn't know what "liberal" means

the only question is whether or not pack bryan will take this realization and do something about it, or not

2/15/2012 7:58:29 AM

Woah, someone said my name... sweet...

2/15/2012 11:35:16 PM

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/catholic-league-promises-to-mobilize-religious-g

Quote :

"A segment of The Daily Show skewering the media fervor over the 'war on women' that recommended that women use 'vagina mangers' to protect themselves has come under fire from the Catholic League, who have promised to boycott the show."

[Edited on April 19, 2012 at 2:32 AM. Reason : ]

4/19/2012 2:32:30 AM