+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] (/showthread.php?tid=54131)
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - davester - 05-02-2008
[quote kj]
That's not really what I said. I've seen him be reluctant to admit there is anything serious about his show or that he is trying to influence people. He says things to the effect that, "it's just a stupid show.".
I really don't understand where you get that conclusion from unless you confused a satirical remark (which he is famous for) as being his true feelings. I've never seen him say or imply anything of the sort. You seem to be saying that while everybody else in the country knows that his show is a campaign against hypocritical and lying primarily right-wing politicians, Jon Stewart has deluded himself into thinking he can convince people tthat it's not a political show. Stewart is way too smart for such a thing...and what would be the point? In fact, when he is outside the show, such as his famous interview on Crossfire where he ripped that bow-tied twit apart, he is deadly serious and political.
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - guitarist - 05-02-2008
[quote Dennis S]"with Fox News, Rupert Murdoch discovered an untapped niche audience. Half the country".
That's about the same number as the people who watch professional wrestling. Coincidence?
Nielsen ratings for April, Pro Wrestling totally beats FNC. Smackdown!
Pro Wrestling, #1 in cable: "WWE Raw" USA, 5.7 million viewers.
Fox News #8 in cable, 1.3 viewers
Maybe if Greta Van Susteren and Shawn Hannity wore Mexican masks and capes, smashed faces and cracked some ribs, they could boost those ratings!
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - mattkime - 05-02-2008
>>Maybe if Greta Van Susteren and Shawn Hannity wore Mexican masks and capes, smashed faces and cracked some ribs, they could boost those ratings!
I kinda thought thats what they did....
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - kj - 05-02-2008
>>I really don't understand where you get that conclusion from unless you confused a satirical remark (which he is famous for) as being his true feelings. I've never seen him say or imply anything of the sort.
Not that big of a deal, but when he goes way over the top, is misleading, etc., he can say, "It's comedy, not a news show." I've seen him do it, and it's just the nature of the show. It's a way to be a weenie without taking responsibility. Like I said, I watch it when I get the chance, but I don't assign it one iota of truth. Where does the comedy end, and the truth start? I don't care. I treat it like 100% comedy. kj.
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - mattkime - 05-02-2008
>>Where does the comedy end, and the truth start? I don't care.
I don't think they've ever needed to lie to make a joke.
I can't think of another show that does a better job of pointing out political hypocrisy.
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - kj - 05-02-2008
>>I don't think they've ever needed to lie to make a joke.
I don't know if I would say they're outright "lying", but I can't imagine taking it seriously either. Is it even supposed to be "the truth"? I would classify a lot of it as absurdity that gets closer to truth than it should, at times. kj.
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - guitarist - 05-02-2008
[quote mattkime]>>Maybe if Greta Van Susteren and Shawn Hannity wore Mexican masks and capes, smashed faces and cracked some ribs, they could boost those ratings!
I kinda thought thats what they did....
Well, I do sorta remember Greta before the mask, and after the mask...(cosmetic surgery)
O'Rielly, on the other hand...unfortunately, that's his real face.
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - davester - 05-03-2008
[quote kj]>>I don't think they've ever needed to lie to make a joke.
I don't know if I would say they're outright "lying", but I can't imagine taking it seriously either. Is it even supposed to be "the truth"?
Their satirical pieces (i.e. Jon Stewart interviewing the "correspondent in the field" or them doing a fake interview with some poor sap) are so absurdly comedic that lying doesn't enter into it.
However, when Stewart does the talking head "news" portion of the show he seldom says much if anything in the way of analysis, and generally just makes fun of the actual clips of politicians themselves who are doing the lying (for example, he's done numerous clips of Cheney saying adamantly that he's never said anything to suggest a connection between Iraq and 9/11, then follows it with many earlier clips of Cheney saying exactly that). That kind of stuff speaks for itself...no analysis or lying needed.
On the other hand, from what I've seen of O'Reilly et al (and I must admit I've only watched him something like 10 times), they will far less often show the actual clips (i.e. real data), but would rather quote people out of context (i.e. LIE), then rant and rave about what it means (i.e. strawman argument, aka LYING).
In summary:
Daily Show: They find the humor in real life political theater and expose it to the light of day. Catching people in the midst of blatant corruption and hypocrisy is (sadly) often hilarious. Because they deal so much in reality-based humor, people confuse it with a real news show. Since the repubs (IMHO) are more corrupt and hypocritical than the dems, they bear the brunt of the exposes (though note that Stewart has gone after quite a few dems too...seldom mentioned by the right).
Fox News: They are on a serious mission to obfuscate reality, so there is no humor about it. They want you to think that their made up analyses, out of context quotes, omissions of wrongdoing by republicans, consistent identification of republican wrongdoers as democrats ("Oops, sorry, our mistake....again!) and pretending to be a news source (e.g. "Fair and Balanced") is the truth. Obfuscation is lying.
Tell me, what's better, Daily Show "we're a comedy show, don't rely on us for actual information" or Fox News "trust us, we're a news program...get all your info here"?
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - guitarist - 05-03-2008
"Fox News: They are on a serious mission to obfuscate reality, so there is no humor about it. They want you to think that their made up analyses, out of context quotes, omissions of wrongdoing by republicans, consistent identification of republican wrongdoers as democrats ("Oops, sorry, our mistake....again!) and pretending to be a news source (e.g. "Fair and Balanced") is the truth. Obfuscation is lying."
Sheesh, the same thing could be said about CNN. Or the New York Times. Or the Wall Street Journal.
Leaving aside Fox's Op-Ed shows---opinion shows, with all the bluster and table-pounding whacko punditry---their NEWS programing, when measured by Independent Media Watch-dog organizations, scores closer to dead center than deluded hyperventilating Fox-hating finger-wagging critics like to admit. It's no more or less "biased" than the other mainstream news organizations. Results show Fox News is slightly right of center. Big surprise. NBC, ABC, CNN, etc., are slightly left of center. Another big surprise. None swing 'dramatically' either way. But don't kid yourself. ALL OF THEM tilt one way or the other.
-----
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
"While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly..."
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664
Re: Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ] - kj - 05-03-2008
First you repeat back what I said, as if you are correcting me, then you substitute "Fox News" for "O'Reilly". Nowhere is there an indication that you understand my point. This is not discussion. kj.