Fox Broadcasting has announced they’re developing their own “answer” to “The Daily Show.” In a Reuters article, they stated:
“The half-hour show would take aim at what executive producer Joel Surnow, the co-creator of “24,” calls “the sacred cows of the left” that don’t get made as much fun of by other comedy shows.
“It’s a satirical news format that would play more to the Fox News audience than the Michael Moore channel,” Surnow said. “It would tip more right as ‘The Daily Show’ tips left.” “
Yeah, here’s the thing: “The Daily Show” doesn’t tip left. It gores oxen to the right, the left, and the middle.
But the conservative point of view embraces the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” culture. “The Daily Show” will quickfry a liberal schmuck just as readily as a conservative, but because they *will* go after a conservative, that–to the conservative mindset–means they must be of liberal bent. A liberal mindset understands the notion that anything is fair game, but a conservative insists on lockstep adherence to its leaders and unwavering, unquestioning support. Anything else “tips to the left.”
It’s hardly limited to television. Compare “Doonesbury,” which will easily skewer pretentiousness of either a Democratic or Republican bent, to “Mallard Filmore,” which will ONLY go after liberal targets. The creator of the latter strip no doubt sees it as some sort of antidote to “Doonesbury,” except actually it’s just repetitive and dull. Okay, we get it, you think liberals are stupid. Got anything else? No? Okay, moving on.
Nice to know one thing, though: Fox is openly admitting that it’s audience skews right, and clearly tries to program in that direction. So can they drop the “fair and balanced” thing now?
PAD
• 
Okay, here’s the thing:
“24” is the best show on TV. Because its awesome.
Therefore, since Joel Surnow is involved, this show should be watched nightly.
That pretty much sums it up.
Oh, and PAD, I don’t quite think “Daily Show” is as even handed as you give it credit for. Whenever they near an election, the show’s tone dramatically tilts towards the left/democrats. Yes, yes, I know, they still throw a few at the Dems, but the overall tone durring election time is “Dems = Good. Republicans = evil.” As a generally left-leaning viewer, I love “The Daily Show”, don’t get me wrong – I like watching it for daily news even more than the daily news. However, to say “Daily” is completely even handed is a narrow-minded view of the overall picture. I mean, those elections shows are just total blue-state propaganda. I mean, COME ON!
It seems to me we need to change the assumptions of this argument.
1. Jon Strewart is a liberal, and his comedy is informed by his opinions.
2. The Daily Show is not even handed, and not trying to be. He goes more after conservative target because, from his pointy of view, they deserve to be mocked, their hypocracy is funnier.
3. Although one of the reasons for the Republicans getting a greater share of the mocking is that they are in power; and I think the Democrats would have gotten a greater share of the jokes if they were in power, had the Daily show wanted, they could have made sure there were equal amonut of humor on the expence of each side.
Similarly, South Park’s point of view seem to be Libertarian, and they seem to have been going more after left wing hypocracy as of late.
But, that’s not the point. The Daily Show and South Paerk are comedy shows. Their integrity as comedians is judged by the following
a. They don’t sit around asking themselves “how can we get the conservatives/liberals this week, or for that matter how can we get each equally?” They ask themselves “what happened this week that we think is funny?”
b. They can show us why they think something is funny. They are good at what they do. Even when Southpark goes after a liberal target, I think most liberals think its funny. I think conservatives that have not lost their sense of humor can understand why some of Bush’s statements and mistakes are funny. It seems that even he does [that’s one of the few things he does understand].
c. They are honest about their points of view, but they have the integrity and the humor not to shelter their own side. They are capable of understanding the hypocracy and humor on their side, and don’t refrain from making fun of it. They are not balanced, but they are fair.
In short, both shows are good because they are funny, not smug, and have integrity.
——–
Long answer. I think I’ll leave writing the research paper to Kelly.
“Posted by: TallestFanEver at November 25, 2006 01:05 AM
Okay, here’s the thing:
“24” is the best show on TV. Because its awesome.
Therefore, since Joel Surnow is involved, this show should be watched nightly.
That pretty much sums it up.”
I don’t know. I really liked it the first season. Maybe the second. But since then it feels to me that they just repeat exactly the same formula year after year. The only major development is the amount of torture per season.
Every season I start watching, hoping that they will find a way to take the formula to the next level, and kicking myself when it doesn’t.
Posted by: Kelly at November 24, 2006 11:56 AM
If someone has an archive of the last 8-10 years of show show, however, I’ll gladly take the project on. Just email me with how we get *me* the archives!
You are a better person than I am!
I was a TV/Radio major in college. I took a class called “Mass Media Research Methods,” and for my research project I chose to do a content analysis of several years worth of X-Men comics.
If you want to create an aversion to stories you used to love, do a content analysis of ’em. If you want a cure for insomnia, do a content analysis. If you want to retain your sanity — run! Run away from the content analysis!
Bill, you can add that to the list of things from you I’d like to read.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 25, 2006 09:05 AM
Bill, you can add that to the list of things from you I’d like to read.
I don’t think I even have it anymore. If I do, I have no earthly idea where I have it stashed.
Let me give you an idea of what it would take to do a content analysis of “The Daily Show,” and why I break in cold sweats about the idea of ever doing another content analysis:
First, you’d have to define what it is you’re trying to measure. Sounds simple, eh? Not so much. On the one hand, one could easily say, “Let’s count the stories they do about Democrats, and the ones they do about Republicans, as a percentage of the total political stories satirized on ‘The Daily Show.'” But, what if they poke fun at conservative/moderate Democrats who frequently cross party lines, or liberal/moderate Republicans who do the same? How would you categorize that? For that matter, how does one define “political?” Politics can extend far beyond the bounds of government, after all, but for the purposes of an analysis like this you might have to arbitrarily limit the word’s definition. Why? Well, if you define it too broadly the study becomes meaningless. But if you define it too narrowly, you get the same result.
(A good example would be a decades-old content analysis of violence on television. It included “verbal violence” in its overall definition of violence, and thus determined that “The Brady Bunch” was the most violent show on television. Talk about mixing your apples and your oranges!)
Second, some poor shlub would have to sit there with a clipboard going, “Okay, that one’s about the Democrats. Check. That one’s about the Republicans. Check. Oh, God, where did my life go wrong? Apparently, right here. Check.” When you read or view something to take it apart analytically, rather than enjoying it as it’s meant to be, you sour your enjoyment of it.
As an aside, I used a run of the X-Men from the 80’s: Claremont/Romita Jr. and Claremont/Silvestri. I know Claremont’s writing from that period is oft-maligned, but recently I went back and re-read that stuff. I think it holds up better than people give it credit for.
I know Claremont’s writing from that period is oft-maligned, but recently I went back and re-read that stuff. I think it holds up better than people give it credit for.
I agree but to those of us who were there for the Claremont/Byrne issues everything else was a letdown. They may have hated each other but it made for some great comics.
Which causes me to ponder–is there something about tension between creators that makes for better stories? Claremont/Byrne, Ditko/Lee, Kirby/Lee, those guys may have had serious issues between them but the result was some of the best comic books ever, stuff that still holds up decades later. Maybe the tension caused each part of thepartnership to make sure they were on their top game.
I mean, if (in some universe where both lost their minds and thought this would not end badly) PAD and John Byrne decided to do a project, you know that each one would bring their top game to it. We’d probably see the best Byrne art in years.
Bill Myers – The Claremont/JRjr and Silvestri runs are getting hated on, too? Dang. I thought it was just more recent Claremont stuff that some fans were turning on (also [at least mostly] undeservedly, IMHO). Some of my favorite comics are from those mid-late 80s issues… (Oh, and BTW, did see your note a little while back that your girlfriend is, like me, a grad of SUNY Oswego. Very cool! Os-we-go! Os-we-go!)
Bill Mulligan – Interesting theory. I wonder if it could also be applied to David/McFarlane, and their excellent run on Incredible Hulk (331-346, give or take an artist fill-in or two); or did their problems not start until after that?
Luke, there are those who declare that the X-Men “haven’t existed” since Paul Smith left the book. How many? I don’t know. I don’t keep track. I like what I like and I don’t like what I don’t like. I don’t worry about what everyone else is sayin’.
The post-Paul Smith stories had their haters even when they were new. I oughtta know. I was one of ’em! But I’ve since changed my mind about those stories.
Back on topic, I haven’t watched “The Daily Show” in ages. It was easy to catch when it was being re-run at 7 p.m. — my dinner hour. But I think the re-runs are on at 8 p.m., now, correct? I’m usually working at that hour (either spill-over from my job or personal projects). And I must confess I’ve never seen “The Colbert Report.” I think I’ll start DVR-ing them.
Anyway, how did “The Daily Show” treat the recent elections? I’d have to imagine that, despite what detractors are claiming, Stewart found some material for skewering the Dems. And I can only imagine that Colbert’s reaction must’ve been side-splitting.
Oh, and Luke, my girlfriend says “hello” and asks if you ever did a “Bridge Street Run?”
“Hello!”
Ah, the Bridge Street Run… 🙂 While Oswego did also give me my drinking education, taking me from someone who had never tasted alcohol before I went there, to a twenty year old who couldn’t wait to turn twenty one (seriously, the U.S. drinking age is one of our stupidest laws), to someone who went out pretty much every Friday and Saturday night of at least the second half of senior year (and then there was grad school), I never did actually go on the Run myself. Not a big fan of hangovers, and that many drinks that often… Did see many Runs and sign the shirts of a few Runners, though, and thoroughly enjoyed several Springfests and Dirt Days. Were these still around when your girlfriend was there (I’ve gotten the inmpression they may have been discontinued), and did she go on the Run (I know that that’s still around)?
Luke, Jeannie says she did a few partial “Runs” in her time but could never finish! She thinks she does recall the whole signing the Runnders’ tee-shirts thing, too.
You know, I wonder if those people who think Jon Stewart is a tool of the left saw his performance on “Crossfire.” He disparaged the show, calling it “partisan hackery,” and complained about the shallowness of the discourse on the program. Not once did he exempt Paul Begala from his criticisms. The only reason why it was primarily Stewart and Tucker Carlson going at it was because Paul Begala just sat there looking like a deer caught in someone’s headlights.
As an aside, I thought it was disingenuous at best for Carlson to ask Stewart if this is how he would’ve behaved had he been invited to someone’s house for dinner. Being on “Crossfire” is comparable to eating dinner at someone’s house only if: that house has three walls rather than four; the residents of that house heavily promote their dinner hour with television spots pronouncing, “Hey, dinner at our house is at six every evening, come by and watch;” and the residents run paid advertisements at certain intervals during their evening meal.
“If I do, I have no earthly idea where I have it stashed.”
You’ve blocked it, your mind can’t handle the trauma. Someday, something will click, and all the HORROR will come streaming back into your mind, and then you’ll be locked in a room somewhere, just rocking back and forth in your staightjacket, repeating endlessly, “Have to keep moving, Mike’s squirrels will get me, Have to keep moving, Mike’s squirrels will get me…”
How can anyone talk bad about Claremont’s ’80’s run on the X-Men? I mean, if that’s not the ULTIMATE mutant sacrilege, I don’t know what is.
Eating dinner on Crossfire is like sitting to eat at a table with a bunch of people who think everyone else at said table is a complete áššhëád with less intelect than the garlic bread in the basket with more sniping going on than if you repeated that one sequence from “Saving Private Ryan” from now until January.
Come to think of it, it’s like dinner with my in-laws, only less talk about whale genetalia.
How can anyone talk bad about Claremont’s ’80’s run on the X-Men? I mean, if that’s not the ULTIMATE mutant sacrilege, I don’t know what is.
Maybe this is wishful thinking but it may not have been entirely his fault. I enjoyed Claremont’s post-Byrne work, more specifically the stuff with John Romita Jr. during the period when Louise Simonson and Ann Nocenti were editors on the book.
Then Bob Harras took over. The current Wikipedia on Harras says “Before becoming editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics, during the early 1990s, Harras was chief editor of X-Men-related comic books. During this time, X-Men-related storylines became very convoluted and crossovers were very frequent, as this was selling books at the time. He also is partially blamed for Chris Claremont departing the book after writing it for 16 years.”
There is a good interview conducted with Claremont in 1994 here:
http://www.vision-on.net/sundries/claremont.txt
I considered his reasoning as to why it was implausible for Scott and Jean to get hitched to be spot on. Even his hypothetical dialogue between them brought back fond memories of his first run on the book.
Also of interest are his ideas for Wolverine (we only have his word about these but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt) and Harras’ response to them.
(As somebody who worked with Harras around that time, and if it’s not much trouble, could you maybe weigh in on this, PAD? Does Chris’ account sound right to you?)
I agree but to those of us who were there for the Claremont/Byrne issues everything else was a letdown. They may have hated each other but it made for some great comics.
With all the stuff I’m learning about Byrne lately, much of it learned by reading statements from the man himself ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Byrne ), I’m glad to hear Claremont didn’t see eye to eye with him. It would have been a shame if BOTH the guys responsible for such stories as the “Dark Phoenix Saga” were total whackjobs.
How can anyone talk bad about Claremont’s ’80’s run on the X-Men? I mean, if that’s not the ULTIMATE mutant sacrilege, I don’t know what is.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but any decline in the quality of the stories may not have been entirely his fault. I enjoyed the stories in Uncanny when John Romita, Jr., was penciller and Louise Simonson and Ann Nocenti editors. Then Bob Harras took over.
The current Wikipedia entry on Harras says “Before becoming editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics, during the early 1990s, Harras was chief editor of X-Men-related comic books. During this time, X-Men-related storylines became very convoluted and crossovers were very frequent, as this was selling books at the time. He also is partially blamed for Chris Claremont departing the book after writing it for 16 years.”
There is a good interview with Claremont from 1994 here:
http://www.vision-on.net/sundries/claremont.txt
I find his reasoning as to why it was implausible for Scott and Jean to get hitched spot on, and reading the hypothetical dialogue between them brought back fond memories of his first run on the book.
Also interesting are his ideas for Wolverine (which we only have his word on, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt) and Harras’ response to it. PAD, if it’s not too much trouble, might you be able to comment on this, as somebody who has worked with Harras? Does it seem likely to you that such a conversation would have taken place?
(Bear in mind that I’d be much more likely to take people at their word if not for all the conflicting accounts of what happened with the original Hobgoblin)
I agree but to those of us who were there for the Claremont/Byrne issues everything else was a letdown. They may have hated each other but it made for some great comics.
After what I’ve recently learned of Byrne, much of it learned from statements he himself has made, I’m relieved that Claremont didn’t see eye to eye with him much less share his warped views. It would have been a shame if BOTH the guys responsible for stories as awesome as “The Dark Phoenix Saga” were complete whackjobs.
(note: I posted this earlier but got a message thanking me for my comment, which would be reviewed eventually since there was something in place to prevent first-time posters from making malicious comments. Since I’m not posting for the first time, and since this happened with another comment I made that never saw the light of day despite it not being malicious or anything, I’m going to guess that there was some kind of snafu and post again in the hopes that it will actually show up on the board, like my other recent comments. If this causes any inconvenience, I apologize.)
Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. Excuse me while I get caught up:
The Daily Show: I’ve always felt that the main thrust of the show is skewering the pompous and the arrogant. It’s why one of it’s bread-and-butter bits are the profiles of people trying to make a federal case out of trivialities like gay penguins or a shirt ruinned by a sticker. It’s also why the pundit talking head class is a frequent target.
Yes, they have been going after the GOP more than the Dems lately, but that’s because the GOP has been in power for the past six years. I’ve noticed that when they go after the Dems, it’s usually to skewer their inept ability to lose virtually any election. Obviously, they’re learning to change that tact in recent weeks.
Jon Stewart is a liberal. He’s made no secret that he supported Kerry in 2004, but that had never stopped him from jumping on every mistatement and stumble that Kerry had made. In fact, I think he often went out of his way to mock Kerry’s pomposity precisely because he expected better from him.
In general, though, I’d say the show goes where the funny is, unlike Mallard Filmore, which clearly has attacking liberals as a higher priority than being funny.
The DNS audience does skew left. Not surprising, considering the show is taped in NYC. You could see it in how they cheered Santorum’s defeat. But they also laughed when Kerry ripped on the liberal student protesters.
Dennis Miller: I used to think he was funny when his politics were more libertarian than conservative, but since he’s proclaimed himself as not only a conservative, but a Bush cheerleader, he comes across more as Rush-light, more interested in demonstrating how much smarter he is than his guests/audience than in being funny. It’s a weakness Bill Maher also exhibits to a lesser extent, though he still manages to be funny more often.
I do have to take issue with PAD’s initial statement that liberals are more likely to find jokes on their sacred cows funny than conservatives. It is an overgeneralization. I’ve seen people on both sides of the aisle that defy the dual stereotype. What’s frustrating is that what apparently passes for conservative humor these days is Ann Coulter calling for a SCOTUS justice to be poisoned.
One final thought on David Horowitz: While he’s made quite the cottage industry peddling his book on how colleges today are uniform liberal indoctrination camp, he’s produced little to support his contention other than anecdotal stories about professors whose politics he disagrees with. Recently, he convinced a state representative here in PA to conduct a series of hearings in the state to investigate the issue of academic freedom at colleges. He convinced the rep that if they held hearings, we’d see hordes of poor conservatives who’ve been persecuted for their views.
After about two years of hearings, including at least one in which no one showed up, the results failed to live up to expectations. While there were a few conservative students who complained about liberal professors, few could point to specific incidents in which students felt that their political views had hurt them in the classroom. Moreover, a few liberal students even testified about conservative professors who made no effort to hide their views in the classroom, putting Horowitz’s central thesis in suspect.
The special committee recently completed it’s work, concluding that there was no pervasive oppression of conservative views at PA’s colleges and that most colleges had adequate safeguards in place to protect free speech rights of students. The biggest thing to come out of it was a recommendation that the schools do more to publicize the complaint procedures that a student can follow if they believe their political views are being oppressed.
Oh, and in regards to the town that made it illegal to fly a foreign flag: Anyone think this will be enforced when Irish flags are flown on St. Patrick’s Day or Italian flags are flown on Columbus Day?
Two truisms of political oriented shows:
1. Conservatives do not do comedy well.
2. Liberals do not do talk radio well.
I predict the Fox “Daily Right Show” will do about as well as “Air America” (and I don’t mean the old Mel Gibson flick.)
Speaking of talk radio, turns out our buddy Surnow is a BIG fan of Limbaugh, according to IMDB anyway. *gag*
http://imdb.com/name/nm0839695/
// Jon Stewart is a liberal. He’s made no secret that he supported Kerry in 2004, but that had never stopped him from jumping on every mistatement and stumble that Kerry had made. //
Not disputing that Stewart is a liberal but I don’t think it’s fair, in a two party system, to lable someone as such on all things just because they supported one partular canadiate. I know people who consider themselves primarily conservitive but voted for Kerry because they think Bush fumbled the Iraq situation, conversly I know people who consider themselves reasonalbly liberal who voted for Bush because they really didn’t like Al Gore.
When there’s only two choices I think it’s a mistake to assume that because you vote for or support canadiate A you support all thier views or even everyone else in thier party.
I voted for Kerry because I can’t stand Bush, but had it been Kerry up against McCain or Rudy, I might have gone the other way. I’m liberal on some things, very conservative on others, and tend to vote for the people I think will do the best job or occasionally vote against the people I think are doing a really bad job.
Unless there’s somewhere where Stewart said, “I am a Liberal” I wouldn’t assume he is because just because he supported Kerry. Nor would I assume he’s an across the board Liberal on all things. Most thinking people aren’t totally one way or the other, despite what the polititians and talk shows want you to think.
Not disputing that Stewart is a liberal but I don’t think it’s fair, in a two party system, to lable someone as such on all things just because they supported one partular canadiate.
Fair enough, but Stewart has never made his political leanings a secret. He is a liberal. I respect that in him. I’d rather someone be forthright in their views than make a big show of being objective when they obviously are not (cough, billoreilly, cough).
Or Keith Olberman, who claims in an LA Times article The longtime sportscaster, who doesn’t vote and eschews any political identity — “I may be a Whig, possibly a Free-Soiler,” he quipped — has nevertheless become an unexpected folk hero for the frustrated left.
I dunno…was Phil Donahue the only guy on TV who was unashamedly liberal?
“Oh, and in regards to the town that made it illegal to fly a foreign flag: Anyone think this will be enforced when Irish flags are flown on St. Patrick’s Day or Italian flags are flown on Columbus Day?”
I can’t see someone from a small Nevada town doing that, but yeah, I think it will be enforced. But, really, who flies Italian flags on Columbus Day? I’ve never heard of such a practice (I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’ve never seen it).
// “Oh, and in regards to the town that made it illegal to fly a foreign flag: Anyone think this will be enforced when Irish flags are flown on St. Patrick’s Day or Italian flags are flown on Columbus Day?”
I can’t see someone from a small Nevada town doing that, but yeah, I think it will be enforced. But, really, who flies Italian flags on Columbus Day? I’ve never heard of such a practice (I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’ve never seen it). //
I have, quite common in certian parts of Jersey and New York. Also several Columbus Day parades around these parts, never drive in NYC on Columbus day, speaking from experience here.
When I was a kid it was a fairly big holiday, (day off from school), banks were closed, as were a lot of retail stores and offices. Some schools still have off but most banks are open and I have not seen a retail store closed on Columbus day in years. Growing up, my parents both had off on Columbus day, now I don’t think I know anyone who gets that as a Holiday.
I’m not sure they would even try to enforce the law for those flags and that is what would trip them up if the SCOTUS doesn’t.
Go back and read some of those news bits again. Every ref I saw was to Mexican flags and how steamed people were about the big march or this or that place being closed for the march. Be funny as hëll if they got themselves sued for selective enforcement within a month or two of getting the law passed.
Den, I could be wrong about this, but I don’t know that O’Reilly has ever made any claim to objectivity or neutrality. He’s still not my favorite person in the world, but I did recently gain a little more respect for him when he had Donahue on his show. They were talking about kids going into the service, Donahue said something Donahue-ish, and O’Reilly flipped on him, said his nephew just joined up, and if he was going to talk like that about his nephew O’Reilly would throw him right off the set. Although I DO think the now-annual War On Christmas thing burnt out it’s half life twenty minutes after the phrase was first uttered.
Speaking of flipping out and stuff like that, I just want to apologize for the part I played in the Smart Move thread. Now, half the time I wasn’t sure if Mike was actaully interested in discussion or what, and PAD has been classy enough not to lay blame, but I have to lay at least part of it at my feet. My old boss always said if you think something applies to you, it probably does, so again, I apologize if I offended anyone and for the weird turns I had a hand in taking that.
I can’t see someone from a small Nevada town doing that, but yeah, I think it will be enforced.
Just about every bar in the universe flies Irish flags on St. Patty’s Day.
But, really, who flies Italian flags on Columbus Day?
Not sure about Nevada on this point, but many Italian Americans do, particularly in NY/NJ.
Den, I could be wrong about this, but I don’t know that O’Reilly has ever made any claim to objectivity or neutrality.
You mean besides just about every episode of his show, right?
Unh, hunh.
No, I was interested. Apparently, you are, still.
What the wikipedia entry you cite said:
“Western sources” are citing “the sheer scale of the death toll” to establish intent on the part Turks to eliminate the Armenians.
The controversy in labeling the Armenian massacre genocide is rooted in the Turks’ claim “inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I” was responsible for the Armenian deaths. Not whether the volume of deaths qualified it as what would later be known as genocide.
Nothing in the wikipedia entry you cite gives exception to the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in Lemkin’s definition of genocide, which you agreed matches “ANY racially motivated murder.”
While you’ve introduced the rational for dictionaries and encyclopedias to refer to volume in genocide — where the volume establishes the intent of a governing body to wipe out an ethnicity, intent being a requirement to qualify — there’s still nothing in Lemkin’s definition that says only governments can engage in genocide. Saying only governments can engage in genocide is like saying only governments can engage in torture, which is less severe than genocide.
He’s Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak.
Posted by: Jerry C at November 27, 2006 10:43 PM
I’m not sure they would even try to enforce the law for those flags and that is what would trip them up if the SCOTUS doesn’t.
Even if they enforce the law even-handedly, it flies in the face of the First Amendment. One would hope that if this law was ever brought before the SCOTUS, they’d recognize that and strike it down.
Robert Fuller –
But, really, who flies Italian flags on Columbus Day?
With all the contention surrounding Columbus Day these days, it’s probably less than it used to be.
I know there less parades now than 10-15 years ago. Less people celebrate it as a holiday, too.
Bill Mulligan –
Or Keith Olberman, who claims in an LA Times article The longtime sportscaster, who doesn’t vote and eschews any political identity
Olbermann himself has discussed this on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio and the fact that since he bashes Bush, of course he must be liberal.
But then, when he had to cover the Monica Lewinsky stuff for MSNBC 8 years ago, he was accused of being a conservative.
And I see somebody is trying really hard to ruin another thread.
It isn’t the fact that he bashes bush that makes me think he’s a liberal. I always was led to believe he was a liberal because he’s a liberal. I know Eric Alterman, who sees conservatives under the bedsheets, described him as the ONLY true liberal with a TV show.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
And I’m sure Bill ORielly gets letters calling him a liberal when he says that Swiftboat Vet attacks on John Kerry were unjustifiable or when he supports gun control. I doubt that very many people can be said to be right down the line conservative or liberal (assuming we could even come up with a “true” definition of the words).
Bill Mulligan — I think the problem with Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann isn’t their ideologies. It’s their “yellow journalism.”
(For those of you not in the know, the term “yellow journalism” originated in the late 1890’s, and refers to journalism that emphasizes sensationalism over true news value.)
If I recall correctly, Olbermann was among those who accused George W. Bush of manipulating the timing of the arrests of the U.K.-based terrorists planning on bombing planes earlier this year. The fact that there was no evidence to back that up didn’t stop him.
And what to say about Bill O’Reilly? He may have left the trash-tabloid T.V. show “Inside Edition,” but it doesn’t seem to have left him.
It isn’t the fact that he bashes bush that makes me think he’s a liberal.
Well, I agree with you there: I do think Olbermann is a liberal, but, yeah, it’s not just because he bashes Bush; almost everybody has done that at some point, regardless.
I just don’t think Olbermann makes it an issue like so many others.
I still think O’Reilly is a conservative, but I think he’s more into playing whichever side will get him the most viewers.
As for ‘yellow journalism’. I don’t think Olbermann is guilty of that, or at least any more than your average 6 o’lock newscast is, which offers just as much sensationalism as anything on cable.
And I’m sure Bill ORielly gets letters calling him a liberal when he says that Swiftboat Vet attacks on John Kerry were unjustifiable or when he supports gun control.
He did that? Wow, I thought the only half-decent thing he did during the 2004 campaign was to stick up for Dan Rather and tell people he was sure that Rather wouldn’t have intentionally run with a story he knew was fake.
I wasn’t aware of him denouncing the Swifties, and if he did that I guess I respect him a little bit more, meaning that I now respect him about as much as a cockroach instead of my previous level of respect, which was the same amount I have reserved for houseflies and their disgusting offspring,
I think what both Olberman and O’Reilly are guilty of is not so much yellow journalism as it is trivializing the news. They mix news reading with punditry and (at least in Olberman’s case) sophomoric humor. They mix up facts and opinion in an effort to conflate the two.
Again, Stewart is at least above board in that he is doing a “fake news” comedy show.
And whatever their claims, Olberman is a liberal and O’Reilly is a conservative. As Bill Mulligan noted, they may break with the prevailing views on a few issues, but those are the camps that they line up with the majority of the time. The bitter rivalry between the two of them, however, has more to do with personality than politics. Slate.com did an excellent piece on that a couple of years ago. I think even if they were on the same page politically, they’d still hate each other.
Posted by: Den at November 28, 2006 02:26 PM
I think what both Olberman and O’Reilly are guilty of is not so much yellow journalism as it is trivializing the news. They mix news reading with punditry and (at least in Olberman’s case) sophomoric humor. They mix up facts and opinion in an effort to conflate the two.
I would say what you have described meets the definition of “sensationalism,” and thus I’m still comfortable applying the pejorative of “yellow journalism” to the likes of Olbermann and O’Reilly.
And yet…even though the O’reilly/Olberman stuff is to news what PG-13 horror movies are to art, they ARE news. A viewer who only watches one or the other is still probably better informed than someone who only fills their head with entertainment, especially the empty calory entertainment of Real World/Road Rules Gauntlet 3 (hey, aren’t some of these “kids” in their freaking 30s by now??? The 15 minutes is up! Get a real job!)
(the preceeding was a I’m So Old I Remember When MTV Showed Music Videos Production)
Bill Mulligan, you forgot to yell at the crazy hippies to get out of your yard. 🙂
After seeing some of the newest Real World stuff…I think it should just stop the pretense and change it’s name to Kids Behaving Badly and Having Sex…because that’s pretty much all it is.
Not that I watch those shows at all. My wife does. It’s just on. I’m not paying any attention to it.
It is rather sad that some people only get their news from news entertainment shows. I’m checking several sources during the day via internet: CNN, Yahoo, the Chicago Tribine, even Fox News (because while it’s far from fair or balanced, it is interesting to see how they spin things). You can’t trust or rely on any one source, and I don’t know how people get into the mindset that you should. Events are complex…there’s very little that’s black and white in the world.
I stillthink this Fox show is going to suffer a quick cancellation, but my record for predicting these things is notoriously bad. I swore Misfits of Science would go on forever, after all. And when I first saw the ads for the Daily Show PJS(no, not the Victoria’s Secret edition(hmmmmm….) Pre Jon Stewart) I thought THAT would last maybe five minutes. This hsow MIGHT have a chance, and that’s kind of a big MIGHT(notice?) if they skewer everybody, not just liberals, but I don’t have high hopes. Although occasionally something on Fox News does make me laugh, Shepherd Smith–kind of like watching Trip Tucker deliver the Engineering News or something. And does John Gibson come closer to Waldorf every year or is it just me?
And as far as the Real World stuff–just haven’t had any interest since Julie left. Shallow of me, yeah, but hey, not EVERYTHING has to be deep.
Sean,
If they had only kept the ice cream truck and the frozen guy, that show might still be on the air today.
I swore Misfits of Science would go on forever, after all.
I’m still waiting for Manimal to come off hiatus.
Okay, Jerry, I think you may have hit something there.
Anyway, I was just out in our living room, sorry, the Brian Commemorative Toybox and Play Area, which is also where we have the largest part of our collection of DVDs, and I happened to spot Stacie’s Murphy Brown season, and I thought that this kind of humor is really hard. See, first, you not only have to be funny. People have to either like you enough to laugh with you or not hate you so much that they can laugh AT you. You also have tonot limit yourself to a certain kind of joke or sketch or whatever so that you’re not doing the same joke over and over and over again. ou also can’t come off too mean-spirited, either, or THAT will turn people off. MAN, this is hard work. GLad I write horror.
“I’m still waiting for Manimal to come off hiatus.”
Don’t worry, they just took a break for 20 years in anticipation of the Spring 2007 season, so they can show the next 400 episodes without any reruns or breaks.
Dr. Jonathan Chase is a wealthy, young, and handsome man with the brightest of futures with a very dark past. From Africa’s deepest recesses, to the rarest peaks of Tibet, Heir to his father’s legacy, and the world’s darkest mysteries is Jonathan Chase, master of the secrets that divide man from animal, animal from man, Manimal.
I wouldn’t worry, we can’t be to far from the remake starring Johnny Knoxville.
Didn’t Rob Schneider already do the movie version a couple years back?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yes, I’m sure “The Animal” was a completely different concept. It’s a joke, son…
Seems the writer of Mallard Fillmore IS capable of being amusing, even if only unintentionally.
-Rex Hondo-