<p>Anyone else tired with his ignorance and the fact that many young people consider the Daily Show a source of news? His comments regarding his "protest" are idiot. I would have thought someone who went to William and Mary would not be so stupid.</p>
<p>What exactly is he so ignorant about? I think he’s a breath of fresh air among a turdpile of news networks.</p>
<p>Also, where are you getting the idea that he’s “young people’s” source of news?</p>
<p>He is many young people’s source of news, and he’s a better one than cable news. Not as good as actual news, but much better than the vast majority of cable.</p>
<p>op is ■■■■■</p>
<p>Yes, but what can you do? The main problem I have with news media at the moment:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>“News” like MSNBC, Fox, etc. - all the big networks - are really just sensationalist entertainment that try to come off as legitimate. As in, it’s propaganda.</p></li>
<li><p>The Daily Show is something that on the surface is very much entertainment, but there are way too many people who think it is an accurate source of news (or rather, their accurate source of news) when, in actuality, Jon Stewart horribly blows things out of proportion and makes really bad analysis of situations in order to achieve a comedic effect. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>So one type of show is entertainment parading as “news”</p>
<p>And the other is entertainment taken seriously by many to be news since they are dolts</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can they be simultaneously propaganda and sensationalist? In what sense could they be considered propaganda?</p>
<p>His protests are idiot.</p>
<p>Al-Jazeera and the BBC are my news outlets of choice. But Al-Jazeera delivers a consistent anti-Israel bias and the BBC well, has quite a liberal bias. </p>
<p>All major news networks have biases.</p>
<p>Erm… </p>
<p>If you actually watched Jon Stewart you’d realize he mocks both sides of the aisle. HOWEVER, what he mostly mocks is the absurd news media. </p>
<p>MSNBC and Fox are both political organizations… no matter what people say. Just because you happen to agree/disagree with their political views doesn’t make it nonpartisan.</p>
<p>Stewart is not a source of news for me, but as someone said he quite a nice breath of fresh air with all the idiots on these political shows. Same goes for Colbert. If you’re actually intelligent enough to see the message beneath the comedy then you probably wouldn’t be ■■■■■■■■ around in here.</p>
<p>He’s always been criticized for slanting things… to which anyone with a brain responds “HE’S A COMEDIAN!”</p>
<p>If you’re so seriously offended by a comedian, you might want a reality check.</p>
<p>How am I offended in any way? Or are you just sensationalizing by dislike for people like stewart who think that just because they’re on tv, they have a higher degree of intellegence than the rest of the sheep.</p>
<p>No, this is not a ■■■■■. There are young people who dislike yahoos like jon stewart.</p>
<p>His belief that conservatives are really just a small group of angry people is ignorant. Theres something called the silent majority. His misuse of quotes is ignorant. His entire program is an attempt to seem smart, but intelligent viewers at least see how poorly done the show is. It seems ironic he’s chastising the news media for being biased, when he does the same thing.</p>
<p>Anyone who takes programming on a channel called Comedy Central seriously is an idiot.</p>
<p>You’re going to have to be more specific than that, tiff. I’ve watched his show for years, and he seems to make fun of stupid people no matter their political ideology, despite his own liberal leanings. I like to think I’m pretty intelligent also (if I may toot my own horn) and I think the show is pretty well put together and, well, funny. The reason he’s so popular is because he’s acting as a media watchdog, which is kind of sad that we have to look to a comedian for that sort of thing.</p>
<p>tiff90, who are you to call anyone stupid? Barring your obvious mistakes in your original post, calling a program and a person out without backing your claim well is a demonstration of ignorance. I don’t take Stewart as my source of news, but you’re damn well assured I watch him every single night he’s on. Why? Because if there were never any humorous ways to think about how ****ed up the politics of this world are, I’d be a far more depressed person.
You’re also confusing conservatives with Tea Party members, who indeed are a relative minority. Can you give an example of his misuse of quotes?
And for saying his intelligent viewers see how poorly done his show is, I question your authority on the representative viewpoint of all intelligent people. While he has a flair for the dramatic, he and his writers have a flair for words and tend to bring in strong and intelligent guests from many walks of life.</p>
<p>“Theres something called the silent majority.”</p>
<p>You’re entitled to your own opinion and everything, but for Stewart’s “Rally To Restore Sanity” he is asking for the silent majority to come out and show that the majority of the country is not the people he pokes fun at daily.</p>
<p>I prefer Bill Maher.</p>
<p>[Bill</a> Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified - BLOGGA PLEASE](<a href=“http://therealbillmaher.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-rule-rich-people-who-complain-about.html]Bill”>Bill Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified - BLOGGA PLEASE)</p>
<p>“You’re going to have to be more specific than that, tiff”</p>
<p>I can’t rattle off examples of any recent programming, but when I watched him in high school and the beginning of college, and he makes ignorant claims. One misquote was in regards to Justice Scalia’s opinion a case involving profanity on television (Federal Communications Commission v. Fox). Scalia was questioning the station’s lawyers, who claimed that profanity was acceptable as long as it was funny. Scalia replied “Bawdy jokes are O.K., if they’re really good.” In the context of the case it was obvious, based on Scalia’s style of questioning and sarcasm in opinions, that he was being sarcastic. However, Stewart introduced the case and presented Scalia’s quote as a literal statement. It was 100% taken out of context in order to portray Scalia, a justice Stewart disagrees with, as an idiot. That is the best example I can think of, I stopped watching his show (other than when others have it on) after that episode. This was after a series of similar mishaps. I would compare his commentary to the political articles in Rolling Stone. </p>
<p>" tiff90, who are you to call anyone stupid? Barring your obvious mistakes in your original post, calling a program and a person out without backing your claim well is a demonstration of ignorance."</p>
<p>1) Last time I checked, grammar and spelling are not related to IQ, and do not appear on the IQ test, nor the LSAT. You are just looking to get set off. You also misapplied “ignorant.” So who are YOU to make claims of intelligence, if I am to hold you to an equal standard as you held me? The mistakes can be attributed to intoxication. You are 100% write: grammatic construction on an internet forum is a clear indication of intelligence…not. It would be wrong for me to attack Stewart for grammar and spelling errors in his writing if I made similar mistakes, but I am “calling out (high level vocabulary I must say, highly advanced I must say)” for being hypocritical. He employs the same biased tactic he seeks to absolve/attack. He also slants stories and frames his interviews as somewhat legitimate sources of information, while simultaenously “calling out” newscasters such as Beck and Anderson Cooper (oh wait, I think he likes Cooper and CNN). </p>
<p>“I don’t take Stewart as my source of news, but you’re damn well assured I watch him every single night he’s on. Why? Because if there were never any humorous ways to think about how ****ed up the politics of this world are, I’d be a far more depressed person”</p>
<p>Why did you add this piece of information? It is superfluous. I don’t really care about your personal life.</p>
<p>“You’re also confusing conservatives with Tea Party members, who indeed are a relative minority.”</p>
<p>How so? It’s really funny that you are “calling me out” or “attacking” me for not supporting my position, yet you resort to the same tactics. Appears highly hypocritical and contradictory. Very Jon Stewart like I must say. </p>
<p>“Can you give an example of his misuse of quotes?”</p>
<p>Check above.</p>
<p>My point is Stewart is a joke, his show is a joke, and people should stop acting like he is a legitimate source of news or an authority figure of any kind. His program is like Big Bang Theory: a show that goes out of its way to try to be smart, because it is not a smart show.</p>
<p>“You’re entitled to your own opinion and everything, but for Stewart’s “Rally To Restore Sanity” he is asking for the silent majority to come out and show that the majority of the country is not the people he pokes fun at daily.”</p>
<p>The definition of Silent Majority is a block of middle aged American conservatives who go out and vote but do not project their views on others, or participate in public displays of political support. That is a basic fact rooted in American politics. The Silent Majority is a conservative bloc of citizens. Liberals that share his views are hardly the silent minority. Did you see all the people shedding tears at Obama rallies and speeches? That hardly appeared to be a Silent Majority, but rather a loud bloc of extremely passionate voters.The people he pokes fun of, are not running the country. They are the minority, because he likes the establishment. It is a protest in response to the Tea Party. Regardless of what he says, he is targeting a movement that opposes his personal views, and projecting it as a general protest. There is not even a logical point of the protest. Protesting against people who are “loud” by being loud is irrational. I simply can not understand why anyone thinks Stewart’s protest is even a good idea. It is absolutely pointless. The first step in restoring sanity would be not protesting for the sake of protesting, because people with different views are protesting. Stewart is an idiot pretending to be an intellectual, when all he is a periodically funny comedian. </p>
<p>That may or may not make sense, I just got back and may be a bit buzzed.</p>
<p>No **** he uses quotes out of context, his purpose as a comedian is NOT to provide unbiased and informative news as if he was on a news network, his goal is to entertain. I don’t think your smart enough to discern between a comedy show and a legit news show, which I can assure you the Daily Show never claims to be.</p>
<p>“You also misapplied “ignorant.”” Uh, no. I typed “ignorance,” which is indeed a word in its own right that applies well to the situation.
“You are 100% write” Speaks for itself.
“while simultaenously “calling out” newscasters such as Beck” I’ll even excuse the misspelled “simultaenously” and point out that if you can actually call Beck a newscaster with a straight face, then you’re obviously suffering from delusions rather than demonstrating any form of intelligence.
“It is superfluous. I don’t really care about your personal life.” In a post about your personal opinion. The raw hypocrisy is utterly delicious.</p>
<p>Saying the Tea Party is a relative minority isn’t a claim that needs a detailed statistical report, it’s fairly obvious. They’re too new to have grandly altered the mass of the population, and considering the amount of America that doesn’t care at all about politics, the Tea Party members are very much so a relative minority. But here, “Gallup reports that 28% of Americans consider themselves to be supporters of the Tea Party. 26% oppose it and the remainder – a full 46% of the population – either doesn’t know or doesn’t care.”</p>
<p>“Stewart is an idiot pretending to be an intellectual” I think indeed that we’ve come to the point of an absolute hypocritical statement in your posts. Your views are irrational and you’re making a fuss about a comedian as if he were attempting to preach about his political views. A rally to restore sanity is completely the opposite of proselytizing, it is reconnecting people who aren’t extremists to the political process which has been so obscured to the newer generation.</p>
<p>And just to add, putting stock in an IQ test is pretty silly. Just because something isn’t on it, doesn’t mean that intelligence plays no role in it. Being cogent with writing is often a clear indicator of intelligence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I must be getting my definitions of words mixed up then.</p>
<p>What I intended to say was that the “news” likes to stir up people’s emotions and then paint their particular ideological leaning as the remedy for their fears and the other side as, most often, “nazis”, simply because people are freaking terrified of nazis, regardless of the actual application of the term. Both left and right like to throw around that term when they have nothing else to say about the other. Like, “this was originally a nazi policy”, or, “that is what the nazis did and look what happened”, etc. Irrational fear-mongering in order to ally people with their ideology. That is what I meant by “sensationalist” but maybe that isn’t a good word to use. It’s propaganda because it is total fabrication and distortion of truth in order to brainwash the viewers.</p>