Journalist and Journalism professors chime in on how TDS does a better job of actual journalism than actual journalists do.
Long read, but worth every word. They talk about how TDS shows the fact-checking that is all but absent. They talk about how “objectivity” has been replaced by “balance.” They talk about TDS’s honesty in covering events. And that’s just in the first half of the article.
Great great stuff.
Those pinko commies over at the Daily Show wouldn’t know fair and balanced if it shat in their cereal. Only Colbert can show us what the liberal media tries to bury.
The only way traditional American journalism is going to survive in the 21st century is by lobbying for legislation that places massive restrictions on new media.
Man I never thought I’d find myself typing this - but good link Rimbo.
True. Taxes, tariffs, and restrictions on New Media, and we should subsidize newspapers and network television.
It’s what all the cool kid old-style industries are doing, rather than adapting to new technology. Isn’t that DCMA working out great for everyone, RIAA/MPAA?
Thanks.
I think?
Yeah, I’m troubled too. Quick Rimbo, link us an unfunny webcomic [winkysmiley]
This is why I like the newspaper I’m working for now (again). It’s always been the papers goal to be “fair, not objective”, which gives much greater leeway.
Unfortunately also to get it even more wrong, which happens.
This is essential to what’s wrong with most of my colleagues. Evertything has two sides and dumb journalists will give both sides equal place - Darwin versus Intelligent Design is an even worse example.
Trying to be objective often obscures the truth because a minority groups oppinion can get equal billing with established fact.
Of course we should question established fact as well, but with intelligent questions, better facts and not just some guys opinnion.
Dammit, this post keeps coming up as FAIL in my Sarcast-O-Meter. I fear it may be broken. Can anyone check my results?
I don’t think it was sarcasm. It wouldn’t make sense if it was sarcasm. Say it out loud in that sarcastic voice, it just doesn’t work. If it was was an attempt at sarcasm, wow. Wow.
I think it was just an attempt at the funny. But that definitely failed.
I don’t know about sarcasm, but I thought it was pretty clearly supposed to be tongue in cheek. I thought it was kind of funny, a 1.7 on the internal “Heh” scale.
My God. There is hope for peace in the Middle East. Either that or this is a sign of the End Times. (“Cats and dogs sleeping together. Mass Hysteria!”)
This is essential to what’s wrong with most of my colleagues. Evertything has two sides and dumb journalists will give both sides equal place - Darwin versus Intelligent Design is an even worse example.
It’s kind of the best example of how wrong it can be. I like that even better than the article’s Global Warming example.
Trying to be objective often obscures the truth because a minority groups oppinion can get equal billing with established fact.
Of course we should question established fact as well, but with intelligent questions, better facts and not just some guys opinnion.
QFMFT. I think you just said in two sentences what that article did in twelve pages.
Shows like “The Daily Show” use sarcasm and parody to meet the bullshit released by PR people.
As a serious question, how are real journalists supposed to compete? They can’t call bullshit without actual proof. In Metropolis, the real fictional character is Louis the investigative reporter.
Political cartoons have been around for ages, though, and the Daily Show is really just a political cartoon in video format. People have been using humor and sarcasm as a foil for journalism since forever. Not knocking the Daily Show, which I love, but people are always talking like it’s some new and previously unprecedented thing, and it’s really not. It’s mostly notable for being well-written and topical, not for its novelty.
originally they wanted Howard Stern and Robin to do the show as they do their newscasts at the end of the Stern show…they didn’t want to pay anything though.
I think it worked out well the way it is.
Hey, look who posted a comment without reading the linked article! :)
I did read the linked article. I was responding to wisefool’s post, not commenting on the article.
They may not be able to refute everything, but they can at least try. When a politician contradicts himself, they can point it out. When someone lies and they know it, they could actually say it’s bullshit.
Like the article says, the biggest problem with the media today is their idea of ‘balance’, that instead of trying to report the truth they just report two sides, even when one side has no credibility. There was a story a while back about how some holocaust scholar canceled an appearance on a show because the show said if they had her on, they’d also have to have a holocaust denier on for ‘balance’.
I’m guessing they mean more along the lines of reponsible broadcasting through things like the now gone Fairness Doctrine, rather controls like the DMCA.
I’m sorry. I didn’t (still don’t) see where wisefool was suggesting that the Daily Show was something new.
Getting back to the criticism of media, this just popped up in rec.humor.funny:
I think they got what Gore said backwards; “Turning issues into entertainment” is what The Daily Show does. “Turning entertainment into issues,” which is what we get from e.g. Good Morning America, is the real problem.