Comments on: Six Degrees: Jon Stewart speaks, makes news media uncomfortable

By: Lucy

Lucy — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:07:14 +0000

While I agree that the 24-hour news networks will show “fluff” stories if they think that’s what people want to see, recent polls seem to indicate that people like fluff but not the excessive coverage of it.

Although the news networks do “serious” stories as well, the stories seem to be culled verbatim from press releases and other news outlets without any sort of input or further investigation on their part. It’s lazy, that’s what it is. It’s easier to read off a news website or blog, or comment on a celebrity’s SUV weaving through traffic on the way to court and shrug it off by saying “that’s what the viewers want” than it is to do any sort of actual investigative reporting. Like you, tiger, I don’t watch the news channels because I can get the exact same thing from my Yahoo! search engine.

But unlike you, tiger, I’m not willing to give up so easily. Jon Stewart went on Crossfire, ripped them new ones about how they spend valuable time just yelling over each other, and what happened? Crossfire got canceled. You see, things can change when you call Tucker Carlson a d**k on-air. :)

By: ColbertGirl27

ColbertGirl27 — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:36:59 +0000

I’m afraid I posted a comment awhile back, but it never came through. I think you’re saying that people recognize that these 24-hour news channels do not dispense hard news, but they accept it as entertainment and do not contest it. I definitely agree with you on this point. Supply and demand. Sigh…

By: tiger

tiger — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:37:35 +0000

I agree that the news as it is done now is unnecessary and pointless. but the companies wouldn’t do it if they couldn’t get advertisers, and they couldn’t get advertisers if people, the little people at home, didn’t watch. now I allow that the news channels purposely do things to make themselves indispensable. but I don’t really agree that the news channels are just shoving all this news at us just to be desperate. if it was getting ignored they couldn’t last.
the reason to be mad a the journalists is because they are directly in the position to make a change. but each individual within journalism, even the big guys, has very limited power. I think of that female reporter who was I believe in Afghanistan, and she was on TDS a few months ago. she got a great and responsible story about Marines, but they didn’t want to run it. if people lapped that stuff up, it would have been shown. but people are lazy and prefer entertainment and easy-to-digest news, and that is at the root of our information problem currently.

(I am writing a little forcefully but I don’t want you to think I’m mad (especially not at you Lucy!) I just don’t watch the stuff myself, avoid the frustration…got other better things to do.)

By: Lucy

Lucy — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:36:34 +0000

I think it also has to do with what Jon has said on many occasions: that there isn’t enough news to go around a 24-hour news cycle, so a lot of time has to be filled with speculation and following dead celebrities and whatnot. And while it’s true that they have to earn ratings and market shares, it seems that they’re more concerned about ratings than reporting the news that should be reported, asking the questions that should be asked, etc. And Faux News calling themselves “fair and balanced” is a freaking joke and everyone knows it.

Plus, I think it’s cowardly that the article quotes Jon Stewart, but not the contrasting opinion from FNC. It’s sloppy reporting, and only emphasizes Jon’s point.

(Still, I get the impression that if the FNC overlords found out one of their rank and file talked to the New York Times, even to defend them, this person would be fired for sure.)

By: Laura L.

Laura L. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:09:06 +0000

The ratings were bad, but that was more due to the fact that there were no movies nominated that the general moviegoing public really recognized. And honestly? While I like some art-house and foreign films, I can’t say I can remember half the stuff that won Oscars this year. Nonetheless, I guess the Fox spokesperson forgot that Jon was freakin’ NOMINATED for that Oscar telecast–and he sure deserves that nomination.

By: ColbertGirl27

ColbertGirl27 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:32:52 +0000

Haha! Nice analogy!

By: laughing at nothing

laughing at nothing — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:26:05 +0000

Does FOX do anything but howl, attack and whine?

I’ve listened to foxes in the night — they know how to be clever and silent. The news station is an insult to the animal.

By: Caitlin

Caitlin — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:10:13 +0000

The ratings for the Oscars had been steadily declining for YEARS before Jon even stepped up to be a host. Blaming Jon for low ratings is like blaming a random voyager on the Titanic for making the ship sink. Mother Theresa could’ve hosted the Oscars and nobody would’ve watched.

By: hb

hb — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:49:08 +0000

And he was nominated for an emmy for the performance!

By: ColbertGirl27

ColbertGirl27 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:27:14 +0000

Ah ok. I think you’re saying that people recognize it as entertainment more than hard news, but they don’t go as far as criticizing the media for taking on this role. Am I on the right track? Maybe I’m just being dense today:) I probably should get more sleep, but that won’t be happening this week!