Daily Show: Battle of the Ideological Cable News Networks
By SilentPatriot Tuesday Dec 02, 2008 1:00pm
Jon Stewart tries to make the case that MSNBC is drifting as far leftward as FOX has always been rightward. I'll admit that some of the comparisons are pretty damn accurate...although the Olbermann/Hannity might be going a tad bit too far.
On the similarities between O'Reilly and Chris Matthews
"Last month's election marked a poltiical sea change in America. But what about news-wise? Clearly FOX news will no longer be the mouthpiece of this new administration. who will step up to full that gap?"
[glowing MSNBC Obama commercial]
Subtle. But you know, MSNBC, it's not as simple as soaring music and a full scale embrace of the candidate's slogan. If you wanna be the administration's news source of choice, you're going to need foot soldiers. For instance, you're going to need a freakishly over-sized, ruddy-faced Irish multi-millionaire who still clings to his blue collar roots.
I can't tell you how happy I am that Stewart threw in that jab at Doocy at the end. Absolutely love it. And he's got a great point at the end there about MSNBC's documentary marathons. While CNN and FOX were covering the Mumbai attacks, MSNBC held strong with a full days worth of specials about local newscasters getting attacked by unwilling subjects. C'mon, Peacock!
Login or Register to post comments.
I can't download the .wmv or watch it via the "Play" link provided :(
[Thanks for saying. It's fixed now-Sitemonitor]
No administration should have a news mouthpiece. That's not what news people should be in business to do. They all should be rooting out the truth and reporting it. If they want to have commentary programs, label them as such but don't call them news.
...okay, Mr. Matthews was yelling at his guest. But the man was trying to peddle that "Neville Chamberlain appeasement" rhetoric while clearly having no idea what Neville Chamberlain actually did. So what precisely would Mr. Stewart have preferred Mr. Matthews do about this man? Let him get away with it? Just be calmer when talking to him? Not invite him on the show in the first place?
I can't get the joke if a better alternative to Mr. Matthews pointing out the guest's ignorance isn't provided.
thank you.
Not everyone gets the joke.
...who still clings to his blue collar roots."
Well put.
that makes the hypocrisy work... so i would have dropped it though.
... Rachel or Keith show, they'll never be as untruthful or demagogic as the reich-wingers at Faux Noise.
They do strive for the truth, whatever form it takes.
Republicans do not.
neither Maddow nor Olbermann are journalists. They are editors/commentators.
As much as I enjoy their segments some times, they are and should not be considered news.
I wish we actually had real news in this country. However, most people in this country, would not know the difference between an editorial piece and a news item if it byte them in the ass.
For example, FOX news is a misnomer. Since it seems that their only (somewhat) news-like segments is that silly "around the world in 80 seconds" they do every few hours. That means that the rest is pure commentary, i.e. editorial. So it should be FOX Opinion or FOX Edit, or some crap like that. Because sure as heck they are not news....
I know that Stewart & Co. are just making jokes, but to make some kind of equivalency between Hannity and Olberman is really disingenuous. Of course, this is what the media is all about, isn't it?
I mean, if someone is passionate and gets angry or loud, they must be unhinged and crazy. You must NEVER listen to the words or see if these passionate comments are backed with facts or logic. You must automatically dismiss the comments as being "angry" and "not serious".
As long as you say things in an even-toned manner (like David Frum) you are obviously a "serious person" that should be listened to, regardless of how many times you are wrong, distort facts or outright lie.
So, Olberman is "unhinged", and people like Joe Klein, David Brooks and the others who supported the Iraq war are "serious" and "responsible", right?
...I did a check on Google to see what Olbermann was freaking out about, and it was when John McCain's campaign was doing nothing to calm the "kill Obama" rhetoric of its supporters. Not exactly the "you're just upset because the Right is getting a little stronger" interpretation that Mr. Stewart put on it.
Oh well. The rest of the show was funny. I'll live.
Yeah, I did not like that comparison. AssHat could never measure up to KO. I know it was a joke, but still.
And also they don't tell lies.
Now when Obama takes office and they start cheerleading against all the available evidence THEN comparisons to FOX might be right.
Just because it leans left doesn't mean it is the opposite.
I love Stewart, but he's totally off by comparing Hannity with Olbermann and (even jokingly) Maddow and Douchebag. I admit that Keith is patisan, but he's nowhere near as biased, delusional and narcissistic as Hannity. Same goes for Matthews and O'Reilly.
Hannity is mostly wrong (OK, he is basically wrong all the time), and Olbermann is mostly correct a lot of the time.
msnbc has a LOT of catching up to do...
i was grinning all through this bit, just a bit incredulous, knowing that only a few parts of the nbc family are left - which, after all, means only that those are the truthful parts... reality having a liberal bias, ya know...
i mean, matt lauer was gushing that kkkarl rove paid a visit to the TODAY show this morning... nauseating...
I am almost think this segment is a service for MSNBC. Jon is clearly calling out their intended path for the next four years and trying to stop that through his comedic outlet.
the point is that none of the "news" stations really provide news. they are mostly commentary. i stopped watching news tv for this very reason (instead of presenting facts they present opinions for you to choose). I for one can make up my own mind on issues based on facts, not some rinky dink "analysis" by a talking head rather than an expert.
...and General Electric makes NOOOKULAR weapons and jet engines and shit.
I dont think there are any "good" mainstream news outlets anymore.
MSNBC = The military industrial channel?
MSNBC = Mega strategic nuclear bomb company?
Main Strategic Nuclear Bomb Command; remember they did updates on Iraq war, so its like a war room/command room sorta thingy.
To quote the late great MST3K: "Repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax."
When I was watching TDS last night, I remember thinking that that particular segment wasn't going to go over well here. Looks like I wasn't that far off.
I do agree that using the "Great Appeasement" segment from Hardball was maybe not the best choice for Tweety, seeing as Matthews' guest was being called on the carpet for essentially making shit up.
Everyone needs to develop some thicker skins, though. It's a comedy show. They exaggerate things for comedic effect.
Matt A
Isn't there a difference between exaggeration and misrepresentation?
Sungrey, there is a difference, but in comedy it's an incredibly gray area that may not matter as to whether something is funny or not. Also, as demonstrated here, not everyone finds the same thing funny.
And let's be honest: many readers of this site are fine as long as it's Fox News/GOP/Bush/Palin etc. that are being exaggerated or misrepresented. I say that as someone who voted for Obama. I stand by my "thicker skin" comment.
the only difference between exaggeration and misrepresentation is whether the listener is offended.
Consider Tiny Fey's lampooning of Governor Palin - "I can see Russia from my house." That's not what the Governor said. Fey's line was misrepresentation if you supported McCain/Palin and exaggeration if you didn't.
Anyone who has known me personally for at least 24 hours knows that I am an obsessive Jon Stewart Fan. I agree with him and love his commentaries/jokes 99% of the time.
This is one of the first times I have ever thought Stewart was reaching a little for material. First of all, as much as there are Chris Matthews haters out there, he is NO BILL O!!!
And to compare Olbermann to Hannity is grossly inaccurate. Olberman cares about human rights, liberties, freedoms, and the progressive movement, Hannity only cares about his elite bushie friends and their well being and piss on the rest of America. Olberman may be a loud mouth and certainly a leftist, he is not a hater or lie spewer like those guys at Faux News.
Is MSNBC in the tank for Obama? Maybe. But they are no Fox News. It´s fair to bash a news corporation for being biased, but it is not fair to compare them to a news company that is not only biased but uses hate and fear to prop up their own opinions. MSNBC uses logic and progressive thoughts to do it.
Yeah...a little disappointed in my hero on this one issue.
It's a JOKE, deliberately using exaggeration as a device...hello? This is going to be a long 4 years if the left doesn't get a sense of humor. Obama can take it (Bush/Cheney couldn't).
Again, isn't there a difference between exaggeration and misrepresentation?
Sungrey, I didn't see your latest post. Here's my reply to your original:
There is a difference, but in comedy it's an incredibly gray area that may not matter as to whether something is funny or not. Also, as demonstrated here, not everyone finds the same thing funny.
And let's be honest: many readers of this site are fine as long as it's Fox News/GOP/Bush/Palin etc. that are being exaggerated or misrepresented. I say that as someone who voted for Obama. I stand by my "thicker skin" comment.
I have no problem with Fox News, Bush, Olbermann, or anybody's mannerisms, view points, or anything else being exaggerated for comedic effect.
However, I don't find it very funny or fair when someone or their beliefs are misrepresented, even if it is the GOP, Hannity or O'Reilly. Maybe I'm not as partisan as some of my fellow liberals.
To exaggerate, by definition, is to enlarge or increase beyond the truth.
To misrepresent, on the other hand, is to give a false or misleading representation with an intent to deceive or to be unfair.
...and you're welcome to it, but it sounds like you've got a real narrow definition of funny.
Comedy isn't about fair, it's about getting the laugh. You might want to avoid Comedy Central between 11 PM and 12AM or "The Simpsons" for the foreseeable future.
Matt A
No reason to get curt, Matt A. In fact, I do watch "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" on a weekly basis. I'm just disappointed with this segment.
And I don't watch "The Simpson," thanks. That show jumped the shark years ago, IMO.
Just disagree with your assessment of the MSNBC segment, and your definition of what's funny. I'm surprised that with your take on misrepresentation that you're even watching "Colbert". He's been riding the misrepresentation train all the way to the Peabodys.
As for "The Simpsons", I think it's gotten better over the last few seasons. Groenig's heart is definitely with "Futurama", though.
Matt A
Just depends on whether you were offended or not.
...and said it more succinctly than I did. Well played, sir! (or ma'am; damn this Internet anonymity!)
Matt A
Ma'am will do thanks.
I think a good test of humor is whether you can laugh when the barbs are aimed at you (or your beliefs). I kiss the ground Obama walks on but I think his "aaaaands, uhs.... now look......." and other tics will be roundly skewered by humorists/impersonators. The good news is they won't be able to attack his intelligence. What a relief! :) BTW I also love Olbermann but he is easy to parody. Check out the youtube "subway sandwich" rant by an Olbermann impersonator, it's hilarious.
MSNBC is only good for "Lockdown". They actually do report news prior to 4pm daily. After that, it's nothing but commentary.
Olbermans clip was from a 'special comment' in which he admittedly and openly EDITORIALIZES. Hannitys clip was Hannity going about his business as usual distorting the lines between editorializing and and journalism. Chris Matthew was calling BS when it should have ben called. . . and the bullying Scar being equal to the impish (and now departed) Colmes . . .
Love TDS but they missed the mark on this one . . . was still worth a chuckle though.
Olbermann is definitely not Hannity. But still a funny segment nonetheless.
Anyone here remember the Olber-spoof on SNL? That was even acknowledged on these very blogs that such a thing Keith had it comin to him. Ben Affleck (who I like and respect) was REALLY spot on. I could swear that was KO himself.
And if THAT isn't enough for you, EVEN Keith got a good chuckle out of it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYbI1zS2Pmk
Yeah, that's one of the many things Olbermann has over O'Really or Handjob Hannity - he can laugh at himself. Christ, even a dick like Tucker Carlson called O'Reilly a "humorless phony".
Jon Stewart is becoming the real news as he seems to be the only person telling the truth. Most just follow the White House rules and continue to do so today.
but there is no comparison in ideology if one network is simply committed to reporting the OPPOSITE of FOX's ideology, which just happens to be the TRUTH.
Sorry Jon, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Funny as usual though
I agree with Jon Stewart. Whenever you go purely partisan it probably isn't helpful.
I watched this last night and it was funny. I really do agree with the part about Joe needs to be just a token. Actually, why not just get rid of the token part altogether.
The difference between MSNBC and Fox is that MSNBC folks like Olbermann and Rachel Maddow will see this piece and see the humor in it. Fox's people, inversely, will see it and foam at the mouth.
I must agree with you and Stewart on the Doocy dig. He does sound kind of shrill.
Too bad for FOX, though. Maddow has more intellectual ability in her pinky than all of FOX News' on-air talent combined, backups included.
Login or Register to post comments.