Jon Stewart

[EC-Bills]

linky

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

linky

 

713437[/snapback]

 

 

Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.

 

Of course, everything's sunshine and lollipops on mainstream news media...but that's beside the point...

 

Comedian and fake-news anchorman Jon Stewart makes the already cynical viewers of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" even more cynical -- and possibly less likely to vote, two political scientists at East Carolina University say. (Comedy Central)

 

That's particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don't bother to cast ballots.

 

So The Daily Show may lead people who already don't vote to not vote???

 

The following story's great, too..."studies" show that Republicans aren't likely to give much to Katrina victims, and Democrats, while likely to give more, give more to whites than blacks. This based on a study where people were asked to read a news story about a victim, then asked "Are you a Republican or Democrat?" and "How much would you give this person?" And that's supposed to be an accurate study of charity?

 

That article was all kinds of !@#$ing stupid. I feel dumber after having read it.

[Chilly]

linky

 

713437[/snapback]

 

Meh.

 

This has been an issue that my professors have been talking about in class since I started at UT. Is Stewart really helping by making people more cynical? He is an avid follower of politics and promotes America, but how does this have an effect on it? Yeah, it has an effect on people's views. Everything that a person sees does. The professors that did this study have a nice grasp of the obvious.

 

But where the hell is this sh-- stretched from more cynical opinions to not voting?

 

The whole thing goes like this:

 

College Kids watch the Daily Show.

The Daily Show makes kids more cynical.

 

Therefore, College Kids vote less because the Daily Show makes them cynical.

 

But they forgot one really important part.... that there needs to be evidence that being cynical is why they vote less.

[/dev/null]

Comedian and fake-news anchorman Jon Stewart makes the already cynical viewers of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" even more cynical

 

I was already plenty cynical when I started watching The Daily Show back in the day (and the Colber Report). Didn't make me any more cynical. Just watching GW Bush, Hitlary, John Kerry, Manbearpig, Pelosi, etc does that already.

[Simon]

I just recently started catching his show occasionally. Good stuff. The best humor often has a basis in truth.

I'm surprised that "political scientists" would draw the conclusion that viewers are less likely to vote; I'd think that they'd be more inclined to want to initiate change if they do indeed subscribe to his views. But I'm not a political scientist so what the hell do I know?

[UConn James]

I don't know.

 

There's the opinion based on shaky reasoning that the show creates cynacism --> not voting --> breakdown of democracy.

 

And then there's the opinion that far from that, people watch because they still do care. The opposite of love isn't hate (=cynacism, for purposes of our argument); it's indifference.

[RayFinkle]

Richard Morin, Douche Bag?

[ch19079]

linky

 

713437[/snapback]

!@#$ that guy.

 

John Stewart is funny and his show is great. he doesnt make people less likly to vote. most of the viewers would not watch any news program if it wasnt for the Daily Show.

 

John Stewarts viewers are mostly educated college students who actually do care and do have opinions. i dont know what college he went to, but at my school almost everyone had an opinion about everything and voted.

 

i think the problem the writer has with John Stewart is that he is a democrat who likes to point out the insainly moronic activities of the government and elected officials.

 

Bashing bush does not make his viewers any less likly to vote.

 

the writer is a !@#$ing moron.

[Jon in Pasadena]

That article was all kinds of !@#$ing stupid.  I feel dumber after having read it.

713445[/snapback]

I not only feel dumber after having read it, I think I just took another -10 IQ point hit because I read it even after having had fair warning.

[rockpile]

Of course anyone with an iota of intelligence would recognize that this show is satire on the comedy channel, right?

 

If it makes you think about current events, it is good.

 

Anyone else old enough to remember That Was The Week That Was (aka TW3) from the 60's?

Pretty much the same premise.

 

The day we stop challenging the status quo is the day liberty really dies.

 

...but I am an anarchist so what the !@#$ do I know anyway?

[millbank]

Jon Stewart on the Chicago Seven

[king bucko]

If your political views are founded soley on watching a news satire show on Comedy Central, then I don't know if I want you voting.

 

I'm a republican and I watch the Daily Show. I find it pretty funny some of the time, I guess I just remember that it's entertainment.

 

It's sort of sad that in today's world you really can't find any unbiased news and political content out there. CNN has a liberal slant, Fox News has a neo-conservative slant, and no watches MSNBC except to watch the financial babes. The best thing to do is look yourself in the mirror and realize where you want the country to be in the future, then vote accordingly to the candidate that supports your views based on a platform that you've researched yourself.

 

Or you could read the Onion.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The day we stop challenging the status quo is the day liberty really dies.

715148[/snapback]

 

 

So...then I take it you find the evils of affirmative action to be far greater than its goods?

 

Didn't think so.

[rockpile]

QUOTE(Rockpile @ Jun 27 2006, 10:44 PM)

The day we stop challenging the status quo is the day liberty really dies.

So...then I take it you find the evils of affirmative action to be far greater than its goods?

 

Didn't think so.

718767[/snapback]

 

...and I said that when?

 

I thought you knew me a little better, Joe.

 

I have been "victimized" by reverse discrimination enough that I cannot say that I support affirmative action, but that's WAY too general of a statement.

 

I guess if you were a bit more specific I could tell you what I think.

 

If you mean that everyone should be on a level plain when being considered for opportunities in education, employment, housing, etc., as intended in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - I support affirmative action.

 

If you mean arbitrarily granting PREFERRED treatment to targeted groups solely to fill government defined quotas, I oppose it.

 

Quotas dehumanize all of us.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

...and I said that when?

 

I thought you knew me a little better, Joe.

 

I have been "victimized" by reverse discrimination enough that I cannot say that I support affirmative action, but that's WAY too general of a statement.

 

I guess if you were a bit more specific I could tell you what I think. 

 

If you mean that everyone should be on a level plain when being considered for opportunities in education, employment, housing, etc., as intended in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - I support affirmative action.

 

If you mean arbitrarily granting PREFERRED treatment to targeted groups solely to fill government defined quotas, I oppose it.

 

Quotas dehumanize all of us.

719631[/snapback]

 

 

*applauds*

 

Thank you...you speak the truth.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

...and I said that when?

 

I thought you knew me a little better, Joe.

 

I have been "victimized" by reverse discrimination enough that I cannot say that I support affirmative action, but that's WAY too general of a statement.

 

I guess if you were a bit more specific I could tell you what I think. 

 

If you mean that everyone should be on a level plain when being considered for opportunities in education, employment, housing, etc., as intended in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - I support affirmative action.

 

If you mean arbitrarily granting PREFERRED treatment to targeted groups solely to fill government defined quotas, I oppose it.

 

Quotas dehumanize all of us.

719631[/snapback]

 

But they dehumanize whites more than minorities, so that's okay.

 

Look at the current crop of "leaders" of the Civil Rights movement. Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton. You think they worry about dehumanizing anyone?

[rockpile]

But they dehumanize whites more than minorities, so that's okay. 

 

Look at the current crop of "leaders" of the Civil Rights movement.  Jesse Jackson.  Al Sharpton.  You think they worry about dehumanizing anyone?

719643[/snapback]

 

Too much generality in your first sentence (yes, I recognize the sarcasm). I see dehumanization on a much wider scale - to those who materially benefit as well as those who don't.

 

Those "leaders" are an embarassment to anyone with a brain.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Too much generality in your first sentence (yes, I recognize the sarcasm). I see dehumanization on a much wider scale - to those who materially benefit as well as those who don't.

 

Though actually, there are people within the Civil Rights movement itself nowadays that see it in just those terms. You see that most frequently in the feminist movement: the idea that women become stronger by demeaning men. Well...maybe, proportionally. But it doesn't really benefit anyone.

 

Eventually, sooner than we think, we'll start seeing the same philosophy in the Hispanic immigrant community. Since a portion of the illegal immigrant community (i.e. Hispanics) is functionally illiterate in English, the easiest way to achieve equality of opportunity is for them to try to make English speakers functionally illiterate as well...i.e., refuse conduct business in anything but Spanish. I see instances of it every so often locally (just yesterday, I couldn't fill a prescription in a pharmacy because the pharmacist, though clearly fluent in English judging by the paperwork she was filling out, refused to speak anything but Spanish to me.)

 

Those "leaders" are an embarassment to anyone with a brain.

719707[/snapback]

 

Some people on the other side of the Civil Rights movement see them differently, though. I have no idea how anyone begins to believe Al Sharpton represents their interests...but they do.

 

And Martin Luther King Jr. is rolling over in his grave.

[rockpile]

And Martin Luther King Jr. is rolling over in his grave.

719719[/snapback]

too true

[Gavin in Va Beach]

And Martin Luther King Jr. is rolling over in his grave.

719719[/snapback]

 

On the Boondocks, they wondered what it would be like if, instead of dying from his wounds, MLK Jr was instead in a coma and he comes out of it in 2005. When he sees what the current civil rights movement has done to black culture, he tells everyone to piss off and moves to Canada...