Jon Stewart is to blame for Trump.

[civman110]

8 pages of graphs and analysis.

My complaint is satire cuts off discussion. We need more informed discussion.

Satire is ideological rhetoric. It's not informed discussion.

 

[Old Hippy]

Satire is ideological rhetoric. It's not informed discussion.

most satire actually requires a person to be informed about a topic to understand the satire.
The daily show would require me to know about US politics, before finding his show funny which I probably got from PBS or Al Jazeera ( which I am watching now) or DW, BBC news services, let alone our own national news services

without them the Daily show would have had no material to work with...

 

[abradley]

most satire actually requires a person to be informed about a topic to understand the satire.
The daily show would require me to know about US politics, before finding his show funny which I probably got from PBS or Al Jazeera ( which I am watching now) or DW, BBC news services, let alone our own national news services

without them the Daily show would have had no material to work with...

True, but it doesn't mean you have informed knowledge ... Knowledge based on pro and con discussion.

Your getting news filtered through liberal media.

 

[civman110]

most satire actually requires a person to be informed about a topic to understand the satire.

Not at all really. It's very easy to mock something with little to no information about it and whenever you do that you're not being objective you're beginning from a biased standpoint. There's a big difference between rhetoric and information.

 

[Lexicus]

Not at all really. It's very easy to mock something with little to no information about it and whenever you do that you're not being objective you're beginning from a biased standpoint. There's a big difference between rhetoric and information.

Yes, information is rhetoric you agree with and rhetoric is rhetoric you disagree with.

 

[civman110]

Yes, information is rhetoric you agree with and rhetoric is rhetoric you disagree with.

No, there is a big difference between rhetoric and information. Rhetoric always begins from a biased assumption and may, or may not contain facts. Information is simply the unbiased facts. Rhetoric would be "so and so is a hypocrite, clown etc." Information would be a collection of facts explaining why.

 

[Takhisis]

It's very easy to mock something with little to no information about it and whenever you do that you're not being objective you're beginning from a biased standpoint.

Ah, so this is why you call anyone you disagree with or want to blame for something ‘the left’.

 

[Old Hippy]

Not at all really. It's very easy to mock something with little to no information about it and whenever you do that you're not being objective you're beginning from a biased standpoint. There's a big difference between rhetoric and information.

true but you need context for satire

satire
/ˈsatʌɪə/
noun
noun: satire
the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

saying someone's a dickhead or stupid dose not get many laughs
saying "the turn on the aircraft carrier" has the audience falling over, especially with the key turning motion.
unless you are informed about what the Donald said by actually listening to his speech it has no context.
So information is needed by the audience to share in the satire.

 

[Mouthwash]

It bears noting that this in no way supports your assertion that an unreasonably high proportion of millenials ever got their news exclusively from The Daily Show. It doesn't say that anyone got all their news from The Daily Show, and says that less than 1 in 5 had their political views shaped by it. Considering how much of the overall population has their political views shaped by moronic things like religion or pop culture, I'd call that a win for millenials.

Well, actually I'd find it pretty embarrassing if my political views were based on a show like that. It's reasonable to expect that people wouldn't admit such a thing. But framing it differently by asking in generalities ("do you think it's taking the place of regular newcasts") got a very different response.

 

[metalhead]

The question didn't say "exclusively," so I'm not sure that's quite as bad as you're portraying it. I'd hope any relatively intelligent show would have an impact on someone's political views, even if it's mostly meant to be comical.

All of 30% answered yes to the "taking the place" question, which doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonably high percentage. Only about 10% higher than the number who said their views were shaped, so while it's a different response, I'd hesitate to say "very different."

I think you're grasping for something that simply isn't there.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think you're grasping for something that simply isn't there.

You may be right, but I still think most of bias in the results is going to be the direction of 'nay.'

 

[caketastydelish]

First, I don't think Stewart's "hypocrisy" or "obnoxiousness" could be blamed for Trump, even if Stewart were one tenth as hypocritical or obnoxious as people like Rush Limburgh or Hannity.

Second, I don't even understand the article. Stewart has raised a new generation to vote overwhelmingly democrat. Therefore... he's to blame for Trump? I don't think either of those statements are true.

 

[Agent327]

More importantly, they are as illogical as racists blaming Obama for their racism. Which kind of reminds me of antisemites blaming Rothschild for them being antisemites. If only there weren't any Rothschilds we wouldn''t be antisemite! Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Old Hippy]

True, but it doesn't mean you have informed knowledge ... Knowledge based on pro and con discussion.

Your getting news filtered through liberal media.

I get my pro and con discussion from current affairs programmes not news programmes an example being PBS 'brooks and shields' or 'meet the press" or the local ABC 'the Drum' which has people from both sides of issues arguing their points.
my knowledge is based on being a night owl and listening to live press conferences like both John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov giving their points of view at the UN this week on Syria

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, actually I'd find it pretty embarrassing if my political views were based on a show like that. It's reasonable to expect that people wouldn't admit such a thing. But framing it differently by asking in generalities ("do you think it's taking the place of regular newcasts") got a very different response.

It's important to point out that there was a time where people who used the Daily Show as a news source were more informed (er, well more 'less wrong') than people who used Fox News.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, neither are news sources. They do use news sources, however. (Like things written by actual journalists or reported by actual reporters.) They are wonderful opinion sources though.

 

[Takhisis]

That's, like, your opinion, man.