Decision 2016

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I do not like Daily Show and the "political comedy" genre it spawned very much. They all seem very one-sided and hide behind "it's just a comedy!" when their views are actually challenged (they're right, most of the time, but they do a bad job being right). For being a comedy, there are not many jokes

Then don't watch it. Though I suppose I often agree with him, John Oliver is a little shrill for me. So I don't watch it. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was great; I haven't watched it even one time with Trevor Noah. I don't know how you could fill those shoes. As for its appropriateness, it is satire. I believe that satire is an excellent response to fearmongering and exaggeration, which, essentially, it was.

As far as it being "one-sided," if Fox News personalities didn't like being mocked for exaggeration and fearmongering, they should have quit exaggerating and fearmongering. His lens turned elsewhere often enough, though I don't blame him or his writers for taking advantage of the low-hanging fruit.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I do not like Daily Show and the "political comedy" genre it spawned very much. They all seem very one-sided and hide behind "it's just a comedy!" when their views are actually challenged (they're right, most of the time, but they do a bad job being right). For being a comedy, there are not many jokes

I love satire, and find that in general those type of shows are just very good at it. I enjoy the genre a lot but can understand those who do not.

I'm not sure I actually get some of your criticism though, but ah well. I particularly never do understand those who won't accept their defense of the fact that they are simply a comedy/entertainment show. They don't actually have a duty to be factual or journalistic. I'm glad that they generally do a good job of being honest and fact checking and what not, but they certain do not have a duty to be so. Perhaps I'm mistreading your criticism here though, but in general I have always found some of the criticisms lobed at the Daily Show and Last Week Tonight to be a bit odd.

As for Dad Scaper, there is no way to fill Stewart's shoes, and Noah in no way did. He's a different comedian doing somewhat similar format, but the show is fairly different. I still enjoy it, but it's not as good and my biggest criticism would have to be that Noah is nowhere near as clever or witty as Stewart was. But how could anyone be? Ah how I'll miss you Stewart. Particularly the gift that Trump would have been.

Finally, I do agree that in particular these satire shows pick the lowest hanging fruit which currently are the conservatives and fox news in particular. But they have at various points done plenty of good segments against liberals and mainstream media when they get things wrong too. I personally wouldn't even use the word bias--I think there really is clearly one party that has more to satirize right now in American politics. I don't think the Daily Show in particular ever unfairly favored the Democrats/liberals--they pulled their punches and satire where they could, and the clearest targets for that satire were/are most often the conservatives.

[Swamper]

Originally Posted by Ranior

I love satire, and find that in general those type of shows are just very good at it. I enjoy the genre a lot but can understand those who do not.

I'm not sure I actually get some of your criticism though, but ah well. I particularly never do understand those who won't accept their defense of the fact that they are simply a comedy/entertainment show. They don't actually have a duty to be factual or journalistic. I'm glad that they generally do a good job of being honest and fact checking and what not, but they certain do not have a duty to be so. Perhaps I'm mistreading your criticism here though, but in general I have always found some of the criticisms lobed at the Daily Show and Last Week Tonight to be a bit odd.

I somewhat disagree. If they're going to present themselves as being "correct" then I think they have a responsibility to make sure they're being truthful and fact checking things. Like it or not, these shows have morphed into more news than comedy, and that's how a lot of people perceive them. They're almost like a spoken op-ed piece. There's some responsibility there to make sure everything they're presenting is factual.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by Swamper

I somewhat disagree. If they're going to present themselves as being "correct" then I think they have a responsibility to make sure they're being truthful and fact checking things. Like it or not, these shows have morphed into more news than comedy, and that's how a lot of people perceive them. They're almost like a spoken op-ed piece. There's some responsibility there to make sure everything they're presenting is factual.

A lot of people would agree with you Swamper. I will continue to not on this issue though.

Just because a lot of people perceive them to essentially be a news source, they do not have a responsibility to be so. That's a perception problem on the people's end, not the show's problem to ensure accuracy and journalistic efforts and what not.

It's a nice feature that stuff like Last Week Tonight and the Daily Show actually do engage in plenty of research for their comedy peices and do get so much accurate and almost are like news in some ways. But it's most certainly not their responsibility to do so. It's the new's job to do so, and if they really want to news stations can and sometimes do comment on pieces that are done by these comedy shows. But it's not the entertainment show's job to do anything other than entertain.

[Dad_Scaper]

They tend to be fact-intensive, as Ranior said. Some people object to them on the ground that they don't needle the left as much as they do the right, but it's satire. Satire works at its best when it's mocking exaggeration and fearmongering and ridiculous posturing, and there has been, for years, far more of that on Fox then on other news program channels.

It's not Jon Stewart's fault that Fox is more ridiculous - worthy of ridicule - than CNN, though in his career he went after CNN many, many times. Indeed, maybe his most famous single piece, and I think philosophically his most important piece, was aimed squarely at CNN (and on one of their shows):

CNN

The issue he takes with CNN in this piece, and it's totally worth a watch, is that there is no real reason for us to take sides. At least, not in the way that we do now. As media sellers and as media consumers, we as a nation are far too concerned about "liberals" vs. "conservatives" and scorekeeping, as if we are in some kind of a conflict without any obvious reason to be so. Far better would be simply expressing and consuming the news, and let people draw their own conclusions, without spoonfeeding needless conflict. He really had it in for fearmongers and those profiting off of exaggeration and artificial conflict among Americans. And that was principally, though not only, Fox.

On a related note, ask yourself if you are a liberal or a conservative. Do you have a quick answer? Is it that simple? I suspect not. Consider that most of us have that much in common. "Liberals" do not have a "war on Christmas"; "conservatives" do not want the return of Jim Crow laws. If we would stop acting like everyone around us was in a uniform, there might be less rhetorical shooting.

In a hypothetical world in which we didn't dwell on what sets people apart, or what we think sets people apart, we could stop getting so worked up about media. But until people start breathing normally again - understanding that there is not an actual culture war, nobody is coming for your guns, etc. - there will continue to be hyperventilation, and a market for fake news stories, and incessant and universal accusations of hypocrisy.

I found myself watching videos of Fred Rogers last night and I realized there is room for us to emulate him more than we do. I feel like he was a peacemaker. Just honor what's good in your friends and neighbors, and in strangers, too. Just because others are fighting doesn't mean you have to fight, too.

Spoiler Alert!

here

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to what's going on. It just means we should treat each other kindly. And I write that here as much as a reminder for myself as for anyone else, because heaven knows I am not Mr. Rogers.

Here endeth my rambling.

[Ixe]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

But until people start breathing normally again -

Wait, there was a time before when people were breathing normally?

Things objectively have become more politically polarized lately, although it's still not the worst this country has ever been (we were at our most polarized during the time preceding, and I suppose including, the Civil War). I think this is something to be addressed but we need to mindful how deep these problems go.

[Dad_Scaper]

Saying things have become "more politically polarized" is true, though it's also true to say that *both* parties are more conservative now than they were in the '80s and '90s. Consider that Trump's selection for the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, was denied a federal judgeship in the 1980s because of his personal history of racist (or racism-charged) comments. And it was the Republicans who rejected him, and it was a Republican President who signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Democratic Party has come to the right as well, but not as far. Sanders was a bit of throwback that way.

Anyway. I agree that the people are more politically polarized, in that there are fewer (I suspect) truly undecided people when the time comes to cast a ballot. But I do not believe that the *positions of the politicians* are equally polarized, if by that you mean that each party has pushed to a place more extreme that it was in recent memory.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Dysole

Not just whether it's fake or not, but I'll occasionally click on the stuff to be like "Oh hey look at all these liberal/conservate buzzwords. Is this article supposed to make me mad/feel good assuming I'm its intended audience? Yep. Thought so."

~Dysole, who absolutely HATES any headline that states someone else "DESTROYED" (or similar adjective) someone else

I'm the same way. Every once in a while I see something that looks blatantly one side or the other, and I'll take a peek at it and kind of laugh at how slanted it is.

And the trend of "person X destroyed person Y" has to go. It's becoming a bad cliche, and it is usually something that would more accurately be titled "person X has a few good points about person Y's position".

[Hahma]

I'm starting to ignore stories on the Internet that aren't from a source I'm familiar with. I have no intention of helping some click bait asshole make a dime off my curiosity.

[keglo]

Originally Posted by Hahma

I'm starting to ignore stories on the Internet that aren't from a source I'm familiar with. I have no intention of helping some click bait asshole make a dime off my curiosity.

Same. And all the crap people post on Facebook. If it's "news" related, I just assume that it bs. If it's something I care about I'll do my best to fact check it. It is getting harder and harder to get to the truth.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by keglo

Same. And all the crap people post on Facebook. If it's "news" related, I just assume that it bs. If it's something I care about I'll do my best to fact check it. It is getting harder and harder to get to the truth.

Yeah, it's become a lucrative business for people to either make up fake news, or share it on social media. All the websites care about are "views" or "hits", and the more there are, the more some people make.

People may not like traditional news sources, but anymore, they are the only ones whose job and responsibilities are to do the research and present he facts. Now sometimes they may still get something wrong here or there or may be slightly more biased one way or the other, but every other source can simply say thatit's not their job to research what they write. Or wI'll just claim that they are expressing their opinion.

Problem is, too many people believe what they see on the Internet from these digital "news" sites or blogs or whatever. Too many people blindly follow people on twitter, Facebook, snap chat or other sources and hang on every word that their "hero/champion" says. Facts become irrelevant.

The only thing I follow is Beasts of War on YouTube. They are an Irish group of guys that demo, have unboxings and full game play throughs of tabletop miniatures game. Other than that, I personally don't give a crap about what celebrities and the like have to say.

[Dad_Scaper]

I don't reject "all the crap" I see on Facebook. But before I think something is credible, I look carefully at sources and think critically. The manufacturers of fake news have said they target conservatives, so I encourage those of us who might identify that way to be especially careful.