digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at time.com

Study: The Daily Show = The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, etc.

time.com — The Project for Excellence studying The Daily Show doesn't believe many people get their news from Jon Stewart, because otherwise they wouldn't get the jokes.They also said it was surprised at how much The Daily Show resembles The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball and other cable news shows in regards to content.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Bukowsky, on 05/12/2008, -42/+60*****. I still learn more "Fair & Balanced" political news from Jon Stewart, than the opinionated Bill O'Reilly.
    • radiantstorm, on 05/12/2008, -8/+27You. Missed. The. Point.
      • GreatSunJester, on 05/12/2008, -10/+12That is because he learns more from "The Daily Show".........
    • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Notice how Time avoided any mention of audience numbers.
    • ahvi, on 05/12/2008, -4/+36The main difference in mentality between the two is that the O'Reilly Factor pretends to be the news while The Daily Show admits that it pretends to be the news.
      • nickj6282, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2ahvi,

        Best comment this month. Mind if I use that as my /. and forum sigs?
        • misguidedmonkey, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Actually, he stole that line from me. And I don't feel like giving you the rights to my brilliance. ***** off and find your own witty comment.
          • nickj6282, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Funny, I went through your digg history just now. Not only do I not see that line anywhere in your history, most of your comments are all in the negatives with diggs.

            So ***** off and find a different site to troll.
    • bjs3171, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah...article says you probably do. The Hardball comparison is just in terms of show format.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/12/2008, -5/+4Bill O'Reilly is a liar. He makes false statements of fact all the time to win arguments he decides he has to win.

      Other Fox News! tactics for lying to the public include:
      Turning off peoples microphones in mid sentence, so the host can override what they are trying to say. (Sometimes accompanied by turning out the lights, if the person is on a separate set, and not going to be allowed to speak further).

      Followup comments that in no way reflect what actually happened.

      Inviting strong speakers arguing GOP propaganda versus weak non-GOP views (non-GOP considered "Liberal").

      Pandering to GOP Political guests, while asking Democrat Political guests smear statement questions. (Like asking Bill Clinton why he let 911 happen, and asking Bush if he thinks people misunderstand him).

      Changing opinions of critical issues, policy, justice, due process, morality, freedom of information, transparency, and etc,when a Democrat President is replaced by one from the GOP.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3moron
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I didn't lie or exaggerate. I'm just against dishonest organizations.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2They've tested the audiences, and people watching the Daily Show, were more aware and well informed than people who mainly watched Fox News or Hardball.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Clearly you would not know "fair and balanced" even if it showed up as you fat introverted prom date
  • Continuum, on 05/12/2008, -6/+147Jon Stewart doesn't need to make jokes for a lot of the clips he shows. Most of the time, He simply points out the absurdity that exists in the news.
    • rholloway, on 05/12/2008, -29/+5That used to be the formula. When Jon Stewart started exploiting his own cult of personality, he became the joke but didn't get it. That show went into the ***** when Kilborn left--it was truly absurd satire then; now, Time magazine writes on it and Stewart gets a book deal. That's the utter antithesis of what it was supposed to be.
    • TheSeeker11, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Exactly - that's why the right wing can't do satire.
    • dagamer34, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2To be honest, Stewart and his writers don't have to do a lot of work. There's so much material every DAY from this silly excuse for a government that they'd never go broke.
  • JimmySpaza, on 05/12/2008, -21/+64Anyone that confuses The Daily Show with opinion-based news programs such as The O'Reilly Factor or Hardball should ask themselves if their medication is working.

    Seriously, there are some significant differences with the greatest being that humor, if it occurs, is secondary to these other shows. On the other hand, The Daily Show seems to exist foremost to provide humor and entertainment; news is secondary.
    • xienze, on 05/12/2008, -11/+32O'Reilly's show isn't a news program. I don't understand where people keep getting this idea. It's an opinion show. O'Reilly picks some current event stories and comments on them. That's it. The Daily Show picks some current event stories and comments on them -- in a humorous manner. That's why both shows are similar. Both shows lean heavily in either direction -- O'Reilly to the right, The Daily Show to the left (although it worries me that people are unable or unwilling to see how left-leaning that show really is!).
      • tbstudee, on 05/12/2008, -13/+9It wouldn't work if it was partisan. What happens if a democratic administration is elected?
        • tbstudee, on 05/12/2008, -9/+3Haha, idiots are digging me down because they think I was saying O'Reilly isn't partisan.

          I meant that The Daily Show is not partisan.
          • yojiffyskippy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4They're both partisan.
          • brianara3, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2... The Daily Show cracks on Dems and Reps alike. It just goes with whatever one is making a bigger ass of its self that day.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3Same thing that happened when Clinton was president: they laugh at Republicans failing.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Actually Rush has made a comfortable living during the Bush administration. The fact is that the two parties are essentially split so there is about 50% of both parties at any given time that you can ridicule and attack. So there is more than enough comedy material to pick from. Unfortunately this 50/50 split also results in neither side taking responsibility or accepting any blame for the problems our country faces.
        • Speed, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6While the Daily Show obviously does have a left-leaning bias, Stewart is willing to make fun of anyone if he can get a decent joke out of it. He supported the writers during the strike, but that didn't stop him from poking fun at some of their tactics.

          And Jon even admits the bias of his show and audience at times. There was one episode after Hillary did a tour of a hospital where he said "this, of course, comes 14 years after she was in charge of revamping the health care system", and the audience started booing to which he replied: "Oh, I see. No so funny when it's your guy, is it?"
      • lead2thehead, on 05/12/2008, -5/+23Bill O'Reilly presents his information as fact on a cable news channel. John Stewart does a parody show on Comedy Central. Yes, he leans to the left, but he's not telling you the news. He's telling jokes. There's a clear difference.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2O'Really reports "news" that is a joke, and Stewart tells jokes about the news. Neither is useful for getting unbiased news. I rarely watch either of them because IMO Bill is an a$$ to his guests and John isn't funny (though occasionally one of his correspondents are.... then they leave).
        • xienze, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Have you ever watched O'Reilly's program? It's not structured like a news hour with O'Reilly as the anchor! It's strictly an op-ed program. He briefly mentions some news item of interest to him and presents his opinion on it. In most instances people with an opposing viewpoint come on the program to offer their opinion. It amazes me that so many people who think they're "sophisticated" and able to sniff out the hidden agenda and bias inherent in every news report can be so utterly unable to determine what is and isn't an opinion show.

          So let me ask you, what's your opinion on the op-ed page in your local newspaper? Do you have a problem with it because the authors tend to, you know, think their opinion is the right one?
          • lead2thehead, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1The Daily Show is not an opinion show. It's a comedy show, modeled after "Weekend Update" on SNL. John Stewart will frequently change the details of an story in order to make a joke work, just like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. This is understood and expected because it's a COMEDY show and there is absolutely no expectation of journalistic integrity. Bill O'Reiley presents his information as fact on a 24-hour cable news channel where there IS a reasonable expectation of integrity. That is the difference.

            And since you asked, I HATE the opinion pieces in my local newspaper. Opinions are not news. I do not want or appreciate other people telling me what I should think. I have a brain of my own and can think for myself.
        • flashback99, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Bill O'Reilly tells his audience what to think. He is utterly biased and has no respect for truth. He is not Fair and Balanced as his channels claims to be.

          A newspaper is no different. When journalists chat BS, people write letters to them. At the end of the day, BS is BS wherever is comes from, TV, news wherever.

          If his facts were correct, and he actually had evidence, not blind opinion, people wouldnt complain so much about this clown.
          • xienze, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Again, let me repeat myself: it's an opinion program! He's under no obligation to present stories in a manner that "you" find acceptable. It's just an hour long show where he can rant if he wants to.

            The reason people complain about O'Reilly's show is because they're just repeating the "Fox News is biased" meme over and over again without really knowing what happens on that channel. They tend to think O'Reilly's show is a news show and not an opinion show. THAT'S why they complain -- they think O'Reilly's show is the way NEWS and not OPINION is presented on Fox News.
          • flashback99, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1There's a difference between shouting your opinions down upon your guests and having a debate. He's an open liar and lying is something I find unnaceptable, opinion program / news / whatever. Maybe you find this acceptable, I don't know. Now if he framed his show as fiction, I wouldnt complain so much.
        • frankingeneral, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4@xienze: My problem with O'Reilly isn't that he offers his opinions, or that I disagree with almost all of his opinions. My problem with O'Reilly is that when he brings on an opposing viewpoint he basically sits there and berates the guest, as opposed to having a worthwhile political dialogue with the person. For instance, the greatest example of O'Reilly being a deuche bag, after 9/11 but slightly before the Iraq war (I think) he had on the child of one of the victims of 9/11. The kid was 20-something, and had signed a petition against the war in Iraq, which was ultimately published in a major magazine. O'Reilly berated this kid, and told him his father (who died in 9/11) would be ashamed of his son. The kid remained calm the whole time making valid points and O'Reilly just screamed and yelled and ultimately asked security to take the kid away. If you scroll midway down the page in this link you'll see the transcript. http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/w ...

          That's the difference between Stewart and O'Reilly, Stewart has light hearted, constructive political dialogue with his conservative guests, and O'Reilly berates his liberal guests.
          • xienze, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3O'Reilly can get heated with his guests, but that's just one example out of numerous interviews. He's generally fairly cool and collected during his interviews. Nice going cherry-picking the worst example you could find...
          • frankingeneral, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2That's the worst example, and it's COMPLETELY inexcusable, but if you google O'Reilly berates guest, you'll turn up at least a half-dozen other guests that O'Reilly brings on only to berate. He's a pompous ass.
      • Murdats, on 05/12/2008, -6/+10"although it worries me that people are unable or unwilling to see how left-leaning that show really is!"
        it still worries me that Americans think that is 'left leaning'. seriously, American politics range from extreme right, to right, with anyone daring to be in the centre being labelled an isolationists liberal moon bat.
        • Jio666, on 05/12/2008, -7/+7The thing that confuses me is that the Republican party are more liberal (in the true sense) than the Democrats and yet through the word around like an insult. Also the fear of socialism (and constant misuse of 'Marxist' and 'communist') is frustrating.
          • jezsik, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Can you give some examples of liberalism originating with the Republican party? (Sincere question.)
          • frankingeneral, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Republicans have been the party of big government for the last 8 years. And TRUE conservatives want to make government as little as possible. These means keeping the government out of the personal lives of the people, i.e. civil liberties, not interfering with the right of gay people to be civily married, not interfering with a woman's right to choose, less military spending.

            And it's not that liberalism originated with the Republican party, I think jio was just pointing out that modern republicans are quite liberal.
          • Jio666, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I never said it originated from the RP (it originated probably from Locke) I said the republican party was more liberal than the democrats, and what I should have said was this is probably no longer true due to the rise of neo-conservatism. The republican party traditionally favoured small government, a free market, strong rule of law, and lack of government involvement in peoples lives (pre-patriot act), and these are the main ideals of Liberalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism ).
          • jezsik, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I was asking for examples of the Republican party showing liberal tendencies (not examples of them being the originators of liberalism). I can't think of any Republican led initiatives, in this century, that could be labeled as liberal.
          • Jio666, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I can't find a history on Republican led initiatives on the interwebs, so I can't fully answer your question. However, I do know that the Republican Party has been the party of free market economics pretty much since it's creation, it was the party that was behind the civil right movement, and in the 20th Century came under a more conservative influence pushing small government and tougher laws. It has however become alot less liberal since the 80s when it was taken over by neo-conservatism and social conservatism, and especially since the patriot act and other measures.

            Interestingly the republican party was very progressive during the decades after its creation, and the party of the north until fairly recently.

            My sources are fairly poor I'm afraid, I'm mainly relying on wikipedia. Its surprisingly difficult to find anything about GOP policies from more than 30 years ago.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 05/12/2008, -8/+3'left leaning' is generally used to indicate that someone is left of center - which is exactly where Stewart's show is. He's not a left-wing radical (like Obama or Hillary), he's just 'left leaning' - it's a milder form of the disorder.
        • xienze, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I love how the same foreigners who always complain about Americans offering up their opinions as fact turn around and do the exact same thing.
          • Jio666, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4What Murdats says is not incorrect, just an exaggeration. It is a fact that American Politics does not really have a left wing compared to most European countries, not least because in America socialism = communism = evil.
        • flashback99, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1There is no such thing as left and right. It's just a way of categorising somebody in an effort to arrogantly claim to know what they stand for.
      • scout29c, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Stephen Colbert: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias”

        If you are far enough to the right, the center looks left to you.

        Actually, making fun of liberals is funnier than making fun of conservatives. They are supposed to be the smart ones, better educated, hung up on political correctness and pretentious out the ying-yang, so when they are the butt of a joke, it is much funnier.

        No one really enjoys laughing at the humorously disadvantage. Just like many on the right don’t get Colbert, so too, much of the Daily Show’s humor goes right passed them except for a vague awareness that they are the target.

        Wait until the Democrats take over, and we’ll see some really funny stuff then − that is, if the Democrats ever take over, and that’s joke all by itself. LOL
    • 4d669, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2Can't wait till someone creates a 'comedy' show which happens to be extremely biased towards the right, I wonder what you Stewartbots will say then. Jon Stewart is a democratic O'Reilly who says everything hidden behind jokes.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2It would be called the Half-hour News Hour and it's audience would be people in prison, and others confined so that they couldn't run screaming from the room. IN other news, Dennis Miller, who replaced the #1 Donahue Show (O'Reilly has yet to match), with a studio audience that was actually paid to show up.

        Oh wait, there was another long-running right leaning comedy show; Hee Haw. What a knee-slapper.
  • greytfriend, on 05/12/2008, -5/+27I appreciate that they use the humor to help the audience see different perspectives than the standard news presentations. Sometimes a situation will sound totally logical until Jon pokes holes in it. Then I am so ashamed of myself! I'm trying to be more analytical, if actual humor is beyond me.
  • spammishking, on 05/12/2008, -6/+86This just in.... Time study shows The Daily Show is political satire.... Also proves that if a news event isn't funny then the comedy show doesn't cover it.
    • Hangly, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7This just in: Study concludes something that Jon Stewart himself has been saying for years.
    • NotOptium, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8I feel dumber for having read that article. Did they make a single point in the entire thing?
  • BelatedHero, on 05/12/2008, -3/+38People still read Time?
    • alienunknown, on 05/12/2008, -2/+17I guess so. Unless you have one of those fancy talking watches...

      /joke
    • PrinceVern, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I get it in the mail for free ^o^ Great toilet reading~
  • tbstudee, on 05/12/2008, -1/+45The formats are intentionally similar. Making fun of the news is the entire basis of the show...
  • pennvneff, on 05/12/2008, -7/+13They said the show resembles The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball and other cable news shows in content. IN CONTENT. That doesn't mean the Daily Show equals or is exactly the same as crap like the O'Rly Factor, a connection which your title tries to make.

    Buried.
    • pennvneff, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Also by content, the study means that the Daily Show is similar to these other cable news shows because the spend a lot of their time discussing things like President Bush, Washington, and what's going on in Iraq. The same topics but that doesn't mean what they're saying about these topics is the same or equal.

      But honestly did you really need a study to tell that to you?
  • martoq, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5Good read. I have been a long time watcher of TDS. I never really thought about the point of having difficulty understanding portions of the humor if you weren't following regular news but I could definitely see how thats the case.
  • radiantstorm, on 05/12/2008, -5/+16THE POINT IS that O'Reilly et al are closer to a comedy show than actual news or commentary.

    They actually comment in the article that the Daily Show is refreshingly balanced in terms of guests.
  • flaknugget, on 05/12/2008, -5/+8I'd love to see O'Rielly or Matthews in front of a live studio audience, that would call them on their *****.

    Too bad they're both giant pussies.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3You mean like Obama political Q and A sessions? You know the audiences are screened right? He made a visit to a park down the street from me during his pass through Indiana. The entire park was closed and "invitation only". WTF? Oh and it isn't just Obama that does it, Slick-Willy also made an appearance at a Middle school down the street from my house. Guess what?!?!? Invite only. All of the "Question/Answer" appearances are carefully screened and scripted just like the fake new shows like O'Really and Matthews.
    • jhandfield, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0TDS's audience would call Jon Stewart on *****? Seems to me if TOF had an in-studio audience it'd be pretty close to what TDS is, preaching to the choir.
  • macweirdo42, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4That's really cool - glad someone went out there and finally dispelled the myth that people who watch the Daily Show are relying on it as their sole source of news.
    • jgzman, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2I get a great deal of news from TDS. More from Digg and the BBC. Crooks and Liars. The Consumerist.
  • prleet, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3News: News is any new information or information on current events which is relayed by print, broadcast, Internet or word of mouth to a third party or mass audience.

    Note, it does not say news is analytical which the system has become, therefore most broadcasts cable *news (cough) can be excluded out of the category, its simply a propaganda or for people who can't logically deduce subjects themselves..sad but true!
  • mmcwhorter, on 05/12/2008, -5/+69The difference is that Stewart does not think his show is news, O'Reilly doesn't know his show is a joke.
    • OisinT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4DING DING DING! Finally someone gets it.
  • Mier, on 05/12/2008, -12/+1Imagine that big media liberals talking up other big media liberals. Time magazine is just so relevant and factual in today's world
    /sarcasm
  • lead2thehead, on 05/12/2008, -0/+13The news stopped being the news a long time ago. Now it's all celebrity gossip, top 10 lists, sensationalism, fear-mongering, and stupid crap. I challenge anyone to watch the news today and find actual news.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Actually the news is still there. It's just buried beneath all that bias and hatred. You have to use your critical thinking skills to sift through the BS to get the real news. You can not passively watch the news like you watch sitcoms or you'll be fooled every time.
    • jezsik, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3You have to tune in to the BBC and CBC to get the real news.
  • ColonelJessup, on 05/12/2008, -6/+6I get my opinion from The Daily Show. Jon Stewart tells me what to think.
  • bhowell, on 05/12/2008, -2/+18And I suppose next you're going to tell me that the Colbert Report resembles the O'Reilly Factor too! Blasphemy!
  • JoeVet, on 05/12/2008, -4/+22The Daily Show = political satire
    O'Reily/Limbaugh = hate mongering
    Hardball = political infighting
    • Hangly, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3The McLaughlin Group = goddamn three ring circus
    • IronDonut, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4I've always viewed O'Reilly / Limbaugh / Hannity as right wing propaganda for profit.
    • betasp, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2You state the above, yet many of the posters state that they get their news from the Daily Show. That, in itself, negates your point.
      • JoeVet, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I disagree. I believe The Daily Show is political satire and to understand it requires knowlege of current events. There may some events that people learn about during the show but they are not covered in a journalistic fashion and to fully learn about an event outside news sources are required.
  • brstilson, on 05/12/2008, -2/+15But The Daily Show is a fake news program on a Comedy channel. The O'Reilly Factor is supposed to be serious and unbiased.
    • jgzman, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2supposed to be: isn't.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Supposed to be unbiased. Since when was "news" supposed to be unbiased? News has been biased since the beginning. Read some of your local newspaper headlines from history. In fact, it's kind of a tradition for newspapers to publicly support political candidates. And if you don't know which party your local newspaper supports then you haven't been paying attention. YES, there may be a few unbiased ones out there but the VAST majority are biased. Count yourself very lucky if you happy to have an unbiased local news rag.
      • brstilson, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1That's right, if it happened in the past, it must be ok! Right?
    • MisteryMeat, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Serious and unbiased? There is no intellectual conversation on Bill's show, it's basically just him just yelling his own opinion at someone and not letting them get their point across.
  • spearce, on 05/12/2008, -2/+14i think it's pretty sad that i trust The Daily Show more than Fox or CNN. what has media become in this country. Where have the great news men and women gone. 24 hour news stations are killing this country with a stick. They really are affecting more areas of life then we realize. From what we find important to who we are able to vote for. i'm scared of the future because of how tired I've become of the entire process.
  • Smiff2, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5yeah, and Time is similar to Playboy because they are both printed on glossy paper.. well done to this study for completely missing what matters.
  • aflaks, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Complete *****! I get my news from stewart most of the time, and I get the jokes because he makes them funny.

    This study should have researched "how to understand humor" first.
    • OisinT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3The sad thing is that on a lot of local news I have seen, they're more interested in covering cats in trees than real hard-hitting news stories. There has been a few times where I've seen something on the daily show that was not covered on local news in the US.
      Being online and interested in the news, I've seen the story anyway... but it makes me wonder how many people who aren't using online resources actually understand world events.
      • Karmavs, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Local news shows/papers realise that they aren't the only news sorce for most people. They try to cater to what is lacking in more widely distributed media. Thus they cover ONLY local news (almost). More important, but more geographically broad news is available elsewhere; and local news would do a hopeless job at reporting it (in most cases).
  • mlvassallo, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4So TIME just pretty much told us what we already know?
  • yunus, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6The difference is Stewart mocks the stupidity in the world, especially when related to politics. The other shows attempt to defend and justify what the politicians do.
  • Apocrypha, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3"The Daily Show resembles The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball and other cable news shows in regards to content"
    Ah, yeah. Since when is the Daily Show considered to be a news show? It's frickin' comedy for crissakes. Just because the topic is politics and news doesn't make it a news show.
    • betasp, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Above, people state that the Daily Show is where they get their news. I think that would make it a news show.
      • pakruse, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I can get my news from the homeless guy on the corner in a tin foil hat - that doesn't make him a reporter.

        I love the Daily Show, but one of the points this article makes is that if a topic isn't funny (the Minnesota bridge collapse, for example), TDS doesn't touch it. It's political and news satire, not a news show - that someone watches it for news and doesn't watch anything else doesn't change the nature of the show.
  • kinerry, on 05/12/2008, -8/+1breakthematrix.com
  • CypressQ, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3Daily Show used to be funny with Kilborn, now it's just a shadow of its former self.
  • tolbs, on 05/12/2008, -1/+13*woosh*

    Thats the sound of the intent of the Daily Show going over Time Magazine's head.
    • NotOptium, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1No way! Time is down with all the latest trends! They're keen on our hip hops dude! And they even have a totally radical My Space!!
  • IronDonut, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7Yeah Jon Stewart is exactly like O'Reilly except for he is;

    * Funny
    * Charming
    * Likable
    * Good Hearted
    * Correct
    * Decent


    And Bill O'Reilly is none of those things.
  • RabidAngel, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Who the hell are they writing this article for? What target audience needs to be told whether the Jon Stewart show dispenses "real" news to people or just humor? Seriously... wtf?
  • tanuki0, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2In my opinion and because TDS is my main source for American news after the internet, it's not a parody show but one of the only shows on tv that dares to criticize what's wrong in America and the governement. I love it for this because even here in France where everybody bitches about the governement, we don't have a show like this. So yay for The Daily Show! :D
  • depro9, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1*****!!!!!11
  • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -9/+2Notice how Time avoided any mention of audience numbers. Stewart, Mathews and Olberman would grovel for a piece of the Factor's action. Come to think of it, they already do grovel for some of O'Reilly's numbers.
  • valkyrie123, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1It really shows the sad state of our media and our country when a comedy news show is the only news show with enough guts to tell it like it is, no pasteurizing, no homogenizing, no candy coating, no flat out lying. I’m sure Jon is pissed about the comparison to O’liely. Have the asshats that did this study ever watch The Daily Show?
  • p51d007, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3hahahhaahahahaha
    Your "saint" Stewart in the same league with O'Reilly!
    Both are "TALK/OPINION" shows. Neither is a "news" show.
  • RogueMountie, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1The difference between Stewart and O'Reilly is that the O'Reilly factor is dishonest in claiming to be legitimate news, while the Daily Show reminds its viewers quite often that it is a fake news show.
  • MCBowelmovement, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2That's a bit of a misleading headline after reading the article. It only says they're similar in the material that they cover.
    • KrisC65, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Exactly what I thought... where was the analysis of how these shows were similar? The article covers which pieces of new the Daily Show didn't talk about, but none of the pieces that it has in common with O'Reilly, etc.

      Seems like this "study" was just an excuse to watch the Daily Show for 4000 hours. Buried.
  • digghasnoethics, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3That doesn't hold up.

    If it were true there there would be no international market for the Daily Show - since international viewers are certainly not watch typical US media. The reality is you could almost certainly understand 80% of what's shown purely from the Daily Show content, since that's what millions of people around the world actually do (me included).
  • bluezombie, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2So what Time is really saying is that O'Reilly and Hardball are comedic entertainment? Yeah I'd vote for that. Look at the monkeys! They hoot and throw stuff at each other! People get their news from all over (including Digg, god help us). What they get from Stewart is witty analysis that helps us laugh at the issues rather than cry over them.
  • MrFurious2k, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yes, part of the problem is the news channels. The other part of the problem is the viewers. On one hand, the news channels are not impartial or balanced. I'm not sure that this is a problem other than they ALL claim to be impartial. If they declared their loyalties, it would be a bit easier to mix them all together and get a better understanding of the world around us.

    The problem with the viewers is that they actually believe the ***** of their preferred news source being "the correct" viewpoint or impartial/balanced. Talk with a leftist and they undoubtedly hate Fox News for a myriad of reasons. Talk to a right winger and they despise MSNBC or CNN for mainly the same reasons. Are they all wrong? Probably not. The issue is more about news shows portraying themselves as something they're most definitely not and people being continually disappointed about that fact.
  • jizzypop, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I disagree with this premise that "many people get their news from Jon Stewart, because otherwise they wouldn't get the jokes"

    You can get the jokes if thats all you watch, because he shows clips of the parts that you need to get the jokes.
  • PosedMagnet, on 05/12/2008, -2/+0Difference between The Daily Show (or A Daily Show, whatever the hell they're calling it now - not sure what's up with that) is that it doesn't try to be serious where the others DO.
  • BECoole, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4"The Daily Show" is funny?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1You wouldn't know funny, if it hit you in the face, with a very large, rear-end of a flatulent opera singer.

      We watch the Daily Show for the News, and because it makes us NOT LAUGH in droves. Now Bill O'Reilly -- THAT is comedy.
  • donald347, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Haven't we abused the "=" sign enough people?
  • TSCheredar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Dude, you're comparing PRIME TIME news programs with a half hour cable show that's lead in is cursing cartoon 4th graders. I'm sorry, your "study" is completely retarded.
  • nukethewhales, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3In other news, Jon Stewart doesn't know whether to be insulted or not.
  • FunkNotPunk, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3So the article stated, "The show is actually making some very serious political commentary, "but they use humor to do it," Rosenstiel said."

    Did it really take them a year long study to come up with this conclusion? Also, are the researchers retarded?

    The main difference I see between this show and folks like O'Reilly is that the Daily show acts foolish and ends up making serious points, whereas O'Reilly focuses on making serious points, but often just looks foolish.
  • vichussmith, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4The Project for Excellence? So what do they do, go around making people more excellent? I've never heard a more pompous title for a group of people! :)
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1How about the "Excellence in Broadcasting Network" -- that pompous enough for you?
      Guess who is the sole product of this Network -- go ahead and guess.
      ;-)
    • verifex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Read the article: it's called the "Project for Excellence in Journalism", and to answer your questions: Yes and Yes.
      Excellence is the state or quality of excelling. It is superiority, or the state of being good to a high degree.
  • blagoaw, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1If Fox News added a laugh track, it might actually be pretty entertaining.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.