Roger Ailes might send out daily GOP-approved talking point memos to make sure Megyn Kelly spends hours a day for weeks on end lying about the New Black Panthers non-story to stoke racial fears among the voter base....

But Jon Stewart said mean things about Steve Doocy! Plus he never puts on fake horn rimmed glasses to make fun of Rachel Maddow and her habit of, uh...

I'm not sure what hotdog wants him to do to CNN/MSNBC. Find an example where CNN/MSNBC did something as ridiculous as single-handedly creating the Ground Zero Mosque controversy through blatant racism(or something equally as transparently stupid) and Jon Stewart didn't mock them. That'd be something of a legitimate criticism.

[x] hyperdefensiveness in this post

no.

nope

[x] pvn resorting to memes rather than making an argument ITT

I was never trying to make a particular argument to begin with. Not everyone is out to get the steward nuthuggers.

So, you're just trolling, then? I mean, yeah, arguing with someone who's making a stupid argument about "Steward's bias something something" for sport makes us all nuthuggers?

I'm not even sure what I'm being defensive about. I'm still confused about what, exactly, Stewart is being accused of. So, as is my wont, I'm speculating about what psychologically is making people attack in him in such an unfocused and stupid way.

I mean, to not be "hyper-defensive" I think I'd need to be like agreeing with hotdogfallacy, right? But I'm not sure what his point is! I don't think he has one!

Armchair freud is fun. We should speculate about the psychological defects that make people think everything is an attack.

Seriously? Every post can be dropped into one (and ONLY ONE!) of two buckets? "serious arguments" or "trolls"????

Well, you're accusing Fly of being "hyperdefensive" because he's trying to figure out just what the hell HDF is blathering about, and then laying down the perjoratives at people in this thread, calling all of us nuthuggers. We know it's not a serious argument, so please fill us in on what you are doing, then.

no.

Dude, I'm just exploring your thoughts on obligations and seeing where that takes us. That's all. I don't really have any agenda here or preconceived trap I'm trying to set.

"Exploring our thoughts," and "calling us names" are very different things.

I didn't use "nuthuggers" until the haters got mad about my posts.

Fly addressed your question. He subsequently ranted about this whole silly debate. You stop "exploring thoughts" and start pulling out "u mad." Sweet exploration, dude.

we're partially in agreement. News is supposed to be an impartial coverage of events. The problem with news organizations is they've given up their claims to integrity by foregoing truth (or relevence) in the quest for ratings. This is largely what the focus of Stewart's criticism consists of (to all the media).

Fox is unique in that its the first network created with the sole purpose of subverting the 'news' in the interests of promoting a political agenda. (This is relatively uncontested and there's internal memos that have come out showing the leaders of Fox commanding the channel how to frame issues for propagandistic reasons) While many have argued that there has been a bias in the mainstream media to the best of my knowledge (and I did study media many years ago and have worked in the industry) there has never been another channel set up and driven by this same purpose. MSNBC is arguably the second in that they're trying to become the liberal equivalent of Fox.

Back to your post- Partisan outlets as you called it is not the same thing as news. Fox protests when critics (like Stewart) draw attention to their rampant partisanship, outright lies, etc. This is what Stewart attacks. The fact that he is liberal has no bearing on the truthfulness of his criticisms.

See above. The other networks are not so overtly political in nature as Fox. Fox is a pioneer in this respect. And again regarding Stewart; Stewart regularly mocks ALL the networks for their shoddy journalism.

And as I've stated, he regularly mocks all of them. But to be clear, even if Stewart ONLY mocked Fox, it would not be a criticism of him so long as his criticisms were accurate and truthful. When he criticizes Fox he's not saying the other news organizations are doing it right. But all this is moot because any regularly viewer of the Daily Show can attest that he thinks most of the media sucks and is negligent in their journalistic duties.

yeah. I started pulling out the "u mad".



Definitely some nuthugging going on itt. you don't like being reminded of it, though.

grown men with kids ITT

I think this thread would be better if we all just ignore hotdogfallacy and his desire to make baseless assertions with no evidence.

lollll

Applicable to almost every thread almost every time.

It's more likely Bowlby/Ainsworth than Freud.

GB:
I'm kinda surprised at the airtime he's been given.

b

I think hdf's point is that the primary purpose of The Daily Show isn't always comedy, even though it's on Comedy Central and JS is a comedian.

you forgot, "and its not fair to just single out Fox and its viewers. Poke fun at the libs too more"

I really don't get what you guys primary purpose. The viewers perception of the show is obviously going to be different from the authors' intentions.

What HDF doesn't get is that criticizing Stewart for being biased and letting that influence his show - even if we accept that there is such slanted coverage - is like criticizing U2 for publishing "Sunday bloody Sunday".

"Geez man, why doesn't that Bono dude sing about people killed by the IRA for a change. He is so biased and totally failing as a political commentator."


edit: old German guy ITT

hi... haven't been following the thread much since the first few painful pages... are people still defending Fox as a legit news agency? just curious.