Jon Stewart Lies About Fox News Viewers

[Verv]

^ He claims no news content, his viewers and some respected guests on the show think otherwise.

Some people think Stewart provides a good retrospective news content, others do not. Not all Stewart's supporters share both views, but he takes the latter. Although I will admit his unique position has led some of his fans to be hypocritical in this sense, it's unfair to paint all of us with that brush.

And FYI, Stewart apologized for a perceived technicality. People still contend that he made no misstatement, and politifact issued a clarification because of the letters and feedback they had received. It all lies in the wording of the phrase.

(P.S. I don't get all my news from Jon, but it often does a better job than the cable news stations, if a bit limited in length)

Jon Stewart is important.

He represents a generally leftist perspective and he does it well; he does inform guests and what have you.

However, the Right currently does not have a character like this, and we are hurting a little bit because of it. I would gladly like to fill such shoes but one of the issues that we have with the right wing is that a lot of our comedy would immediately be very hurtful.

People do not like hearing others make fun and stereotype single moms, impoverished people, homosexual activists, vegetarians, etc. because often times this would involve stereotyping protected groups within society.

The only people you can really make fun of and not worry about: Caucasians, caucasian males, Christians, Jews and to some extent Asians. Everything else is sort of a faux pas if it involves stereotyping people.

So, we would be generally incapable of executing such a show...

(That is just some analysis).

He commonly makes the claim (rightly so) that the problem with journalism isn't bias per se but rather sensationalism and conflict. The fact is, only a comedian like Jon Stewart could attract viewers in a capitalist society in such large quantities with "the news", simply given that he makes his living (hilariously so) off of putting hypocritical, flip-flopping, or downright ridiculous statements against reality, and thereby unintentionally edifies his audience factually even though he intends to edify them laughably. The only alternative to a comedic routine that involves facts and corrections is a non-comedic one, and that stuff just doesn't sell. He's taking the ridiculous world and presenting it as ridiculous, which can only be done in an attractive manner if you're doing it with a comedic goal in mind -- which is easier oftentimes than presenting it straightfaced anyways.

He's found a loophole, I say.

Yes -- it is a sort of loophole.

I just wish we could get a conservative version but I illustrated that problem above...

Jon Stewart is mean to, well, a generally caucasian conservative Christian crowd.... This is purely acceptable. He is mean to your middle class dads around the world....

But if we were to be mean it would be to a lot of people it is not OK to be mean to, with the exception of hippies, who are an acceptabel target.

 

[DaisyDay]

However, the Right currently does not have a character like this, and we are hurting a little bit because of it. I would gladly like to fill such shoes but one of the issues that we have with the right wing is that a lot of our comedy would immediately be very hurtful.

Coulter? She's vicious, highly partisan and not afraid to go after "protected" groups.

People do not like hearing others make fun

They love hearing others made fun of, but not every one likes to hear himself made the butt of a joke.

...and stereotype single moms, impoverished people, homosexual activists, vegetarians, etc. because often times this would involve stereotyping protected groups within society.

Yeah. That would be seen as bullying, which some people have no problem with. Vegetarians are made ridiculed quite a bit; just say the word "tofurkey" and most people will chuckle, some will guffaw.

The only people you can really make fun of and not worry about: Caucasians, caucasian males, Christians, Jews and to some extent Asians.

Jon Stewart IS a Jewish Caucasian male, so he is making fun of his own kind. Yes, laughing at your own group is PC. Why can't you people do that, too? Do you have to make fun of the "other"?

He has a lot of minority staff comedians who make fun of their own kind, too.

Everything else is sort of a faux pas if it involves stereotyping people.

True, stereotyping people is seen as cheap and generally unfunny. Can't you people have humor without it?

So, we would be generally incapable of executing such a show...

(That is just some analysis).

Again, why? Why can't you show politicians and pundits of all stripes as the hypocrites they tend to be?

I just wish we could get a conservative version but I illustrated that problem above...

The problem seems to be that you want to bully poorer, weaker people rather than make fun of yourselves but you realize that doesn't go over so well these days, Coulter aside.

Jon Stewart is mean to, well, a generally caucasian conservative Christian crowd.... This is purely acceptable. He is mean to your middle class dads around the world....

That's not true, you know, unless you consider politicians and TV personalities to be "middle class". By that standard, he is a middle class Jewish Caucasian dad (he talks about raising his young kids from time to time).

He does not pick on conservative guys much more than non-conservative guys. I have never seen him go after anyone who was not already a public figure (unlike the people you want to ridicule).

But if we were to be mean it would be to a lot of people it is not OK to be mean to, with the exception of hippies, who are an acceptabel target.

He is "mean" to public figures who have done something laughable in public; you seem to want to be mean to private people who can't hit back - so, I guess you're right that your kind of humor is not generally acceptable these days. Tant pis.

 

[DeathMagus]

Coulter? She's vicious, highly partisan and not afraid to go after "protected" groups.

You're proposing Coulter as the conservative answer to Stewart? :o

 

[DaisyDay]

You're proposing Coulter as the conservative answer to Stewart? :o

Not exactly, I was just saying she does what Verv insists cannot be done.

I think he confuses "can not" with "should not".

 

[DaisyDay]

Last night I was watching a recent episode - there was a segment on Weiner which segued into a rift on Rangel, there was a piece on reporters counting down on "an arbitrarily set release date" of Palin's emails from a 2008 FOI (in this he was ridiculing the reporters, not Palin) and an interview with environmentalist author of a book on our endangered water supply.

I can't help wondering if Verv has ever seen the show because it does not resemble his description of it.