What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs?
from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept
Poynter has an interesting article, looking at The Daily Show as being a leader in media criticism, an area where it does an excellent job, even if that's not its intention. But, what struck me most of all in the description of the team behind the show, was that it has a full-time researcher and fact-checker, who looks for multiple sources to verify the content that they're using in the show. Now, in a typical news room, this shouldn't be surprising. But, instead, we've actually seen the opposite. Fewer and fewer news operations have full-time fact checkers (or fact-checkers at all). Yet, here we're talking about a comedy program, whose main job is to make people laugh, and it employs a fact-checker who verifies points with multiple sources. Doesn't that seem backwards?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comedy, daily show, fact checking, jon stewart
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Topsy Turvy.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was one of the many things I learned in journalism school that I never heard about again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That pretty much sums up the majority of news networks out there. They parrot statements rather than report on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll leave it to you to google for the statements that showed that this led to the demise of Crossfile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember the sound bite? That little piece of propaganda that could only fit inside of television. Of course, the internet goes in the opposite direction. A longer analysis is preferred. Which is why blogging and tweeting can co-exist.
Twenty years ago even if you could record a politician being dishonest it was difficult to show it to the rest of the population. The national news didn't really care. They didn't want to rock that boat and receive less access because they were being "over-critical". Besides, politicians lie, everybody knows that?
And it's getting harder for them to lie, thanks to the internet.
Maybe that's what ACTA is really about? Sure, it "supposedly" helps the content industry but I could see it helping the politicians too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
he (or his writers) summed it up perfectly by saying that making the statement undermined obama's postition because only islamic radicals get upset over cartoons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Watch the full Lou Dobbs interview from this week, and pretend for a second that you don't 100% agree with either of them, and see where they stumble upon themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BWAHAHAHBWAHAHHAHAHA. heh he. Snort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, you're probably right, the internet has no hope in hell of changing a politician's ability to relate to the truth.
The internet must've had some positive effect? Against the political establishment? Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What better way to make people laugh Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another perpsective
As a people we want meat on our bone. So the meat comes in the form of comedy, from someone we view as "real".
Such as dose of reality blog such as Mike's hard lemonade. Hey, the analogy fits :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News Sources
By the way, all this started when the real news sources decided to stop covering the news and parrot what the Cheney/Bush administration told them too do after 9/11. Stewart and his staff took over and filled the very large hole left by the print and television news department.
Ken Fretz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Daily Show is not a comedy show, it's an actual news show that also happens to be funny. The news is real, it's merely presented in a funny and highly entertaining way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesters through the ages
There has been a centuries-long tradition in the role of the court jester to speak the truth where it might otherwise never be spoken, and to shine the light of reason and insight by way of parody and mockery.
For instance, Shakespeare's King Lear had just such a fool, his wisest and most truthful advisor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We only laugh to keep from screaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone watching the Daily Show right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Humor is pain seperated by distance.
When you were sitting on the loo when it happens - not funny. Wait 20 years and it'll be funny at the class reunion.
Because of the distance and the pain of the fact checking result - its funny.
#2 - calling something humor lets you 'get away' with things. Court Jester diss'n the king. Rush Limbaugh when caught out says 'its humor people'.
#3 - the 'news' outlets have stopped being 'newsy'. Michael Moore at the Commonwealth Club talking about his love story movie points out that Newspapers in Europe arn't having the issues like the American News outlets are. If one believes markets abhor a vacuum, Comedy Central is filling it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point #4?
Though I would like to see CC ratings staked next to Fox to conclude the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Point #4?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show the videotape.
A half-dozen ACORN offices advising undercover reporters how to set up brothels for 15-year-old illegal immigrants; Van Jones bragging how he is a Communist; Anita Dunn rhapsodizing about how Chairman Mao, killer of over 70 million people (take that Adolf!), is her role model; the NEA offering quid pro quos to artists who make propaganda for Dear Leader's programs; the influence of SEIU cash on Obama and the graft he returns to them; and so on.
60 Minutes used to do the reporting that commentators like Beck are doing now. Why does Andrew Breirbart have to start a website - www.biggovernment.com - to host the work of a 25-year-old kid who blew the lid of the corrupt ACORN that until then routinely fed at the taxpayer money trough? A: The press is allied with Obama's statist agenda and will not do anything to slow down the empty suit they provided the hagiography to get elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Glenn Beck is not some brilliant arbiter of truth. He's a theatrical act meant to pander to right-leaning viewers.
Just like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are theatrical acts pandering (for the most part) to the left.
The only difference between them is that Beck actually pretends to be a real reporter, while Stewart and Colbert acknowledge that they're actors.
If the news industries actually bothered to get off their asses and started doing their job, then Stewart, Beck and the entire industry of fake reporters wouldn't need to exist.
Of course, Stewart would still have a job as a comedian. Beck...not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Beck, not so much. If you believed him, you'd think the right are full of folks who never lied in their lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Show the videotape.
You do realise that TDS actually _did_ show that videotape, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact Checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact Checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comedy of this type needs to be as accurate as possible because it is used to hold the actions of people up to ridicule. The audience need to be able to trust that what they are told and what they laugh at are actually true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do I firmly believe that they focus only on people with a (R) after their name, and ignore anyone with a (D).
Or maybe, just maybe, they want to make sure that they don't get sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Knowledge - Holding something to be true with (or because of) evidence.
Watch the show, learn something, and you will see he mocks the Dems when they are dumb asses as well. It just turns out that the current neo-con circus is doing a lot better at making themselves a target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Why do I firmly believe that they focus only on people with a (R) after their name, and ignore anyone with a (D)."
Is it because you don't even watch the show and believe what Beck tells you to believe? TDS & TCR do equal opportunity sarcasm. If it's worthy of ridicule, they ridicule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant Show
It's a complete role reversal really. The news media makes up the comedy and then the comedy shows report on it. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't always agree with Stewart, but I get more real information from The Daily Show than from all three broadcast networks put together. Stewart's not afraid to think for himself, and his program doesn't swallow, smile and wipe off its chin for some corporate agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the Daily Show is a great news show - not just a commedy show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Daily Show is a great news show - not just a commedy show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Late...
There is no reason that the news can't be funny or entertaining; even if you aren't in a society requiring the guise of humor to hide the fact that you're telling the truth it can still make the news more relevant and memorable by enriching it with the spice of humor.
The humor can also offer a better way of tying in extra points, such as making the butt of the joke the responsible target.
The sad part is that thanks to our two-party first past the post system it's very difficult to do anything about it (like send congress a message by voting out -any- incumbent via voting against them in the primaries).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]