Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Government Media Television The Media Politics

Daily Show's Viewers Best O'Reilly's In Political Quiz 254

Posted by timothy from the jon-stewart-is-the-greatest-living-american dept.
tjg89 writes "CNN.com has an interesting article about some deragatory comments made about Daily Show viewers by Bill O'Reilly and how Comedy Central reacted. They not only proved that the Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of his show, but they are also more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen. Are more slashdot readers Daily Show people or O'Reilly people?" Update: 09/29 16:55 GMT by T : The Daily Show's audience actually topped viewers of "The Tonight Show,""The Late Show" and "The O'Reilly Factor"; CNN just carried the story. (Thanks to reader Robert Nevitt for the correction.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Daily Show's Viewers Best O'Reilly's In Political Quiz More

Daily Show's Viewers Best O'Reilly's In Political Quiz

Comments Filter:

  • Fox? (Score:3, Funny)

    by PrvtBurrito ( 557287 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:41AM (#10383977)
    Isn't O'Reilly on Fox, not CNN?

    • Re:Fox? (Score:5, Informative)

      by sevinkey ( 448480 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:58AM (#10384234)
      The reason O'Reilly's name was brought up is that he recently called the Daily Show's audience a bunch of "pot smoking slackers", which is the whole point of this post.

      • Re:Fox? (Score:2, Funny)

        by nekoniku ( 183821 )
        Okay, so the survey dispels the "slacker" stereotype in regard to Daily Show viewers. Now we need to find out who smokes the most pot, O'Reilly, Daily Show, Letterman, or Leno viewers.

        • Re:Fox? (Score:3, Funny)

          by AltaMannen ( 568693 )
          I would guess Letterman viewers have the most pot smokers. My reasoning: the "will it float" segment commonly features edible items and posing the question whether it will float or not and then tries it out. This strikes me as most relevant to the market groups 'pot smokers' and 'soup chefs'.

    • WTFox? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lord Prox ( 521892 )
      They not only proved that the Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of his show, but they are also more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen.

      I call troll. After RTFA twice now it clearly says that the survey was between Daily Show, Late Night, and The Tonight Show, nowhere did they survey The Factor viewers. So how does this "prove" the viewers of the Daily Show are better informed than The Factor viewers?

      Also did anyone else catch the percentages?! From the CNN.com artic

  • Neither (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scumbucket ( 680352 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:44AM (#10384023)
    I can't stand either of them. Give me John McLaughlin and his McLaughlin Group [mclaughlin.com] over those other clowns anyday.

    • Try her out (Score:2, Informative)

      by AmBoy00 ( 812165 )
      You would like The Diane Rhem Show then. http://www.wamu.org/dr/index.html
      • I've tried listening to Diane Rhem on NPR, but to tell the truth her voice and the way she talks is a BIG distraction for me. I just end up turning the dial........

      • Re:Try her out (Score:2, Informative)

        by the idoru ( 125059 )
        I'll second this. The Diane Rehm show is wonderful. She rarely has "talking points" guests who just spout off rhetoric and her questions are excellent. Her guests also show a very good balance of viewpoint.

        And I don't mind her voice at all.

    • Re:Neither (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheCarp ( 96830 ) * <sjc AT carpanet DOT net> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @12:06PM (#10385110) Homepage
      I never think about that show, ive only seen it once or twice, but yah its good.

      The thing that strikes me... even tho John Stewart calls his show "the most respected name in fake news"... its not really fake news. They don't make shit up (like the onion), they take real news, and insert funny little quips.

      The fact is THEY ARE REAL NEWS. They are biased, they poke alot of incessant fun at the news. However, they still report real news and, I think, do it better than the average news show.

      Most news shows spend alot more time on car accidents, shootings and just generally parading out the clowns and disasters in society, whereas the daily show generally reports on relevant political and social issues (only occasionally parading out some freaks).

      Sure they make fun of them alot, and don't really try to cover the whole story. But they do make the issues fun, and they talk about more real issues. That instantly puts them ahead of any network news I have seen . Who seem to try and make the political news as short and boring as possible.... so they can as quickly get back to scaring the shit out fo you with the human freaks.

      -Steve
      • If "Occasionally parading out some freaks" means "any night we can't have an in-depth joke comentary on some public figure, usually at least twice a week", then I agree.

      • Re:Neither (Score:3, Interesting)

        by barawn ( 25691 )
        They are biased, they poke alot of incessant fun at the news.

        How are they biased? Bias would imply that they have a preferred viewpoint that they choose over the facts, regularly.

        Stewart's got a liberal viewpoint - that's fairly obvious. But he blasts Democrats just as much as Republicans, and he has people from both parties on the show, and he's equally kind to both of them.

        One of the best Daily Show episodes was when Stewart interviewed the author of a book about a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Th

  • Daily Show (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bravo_Two_Zero ( 516479 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:46AM (#10384059)
    Jon Stewart is the man. O'Reilly is just a bully and a blowhard. And, while the Daily Show is fake news, it's still more real than The Factor.

    To be fair, I did try listening to the Radio Factor for a few weeks. O'Reilly is head and shoulders above Hannity and Rush. But that's like saying Franco was head and shoulders above Hitler and Stalin. It's all relative.

    • ... Franco...

      ... who is still dead, BTW.

    • O'Reilly is just a bully and a blowhard

      You forgot liar.
  • Too bad he's a dyed-in-the-wool Leno fan- no wonder he's voting for Bush.

  • Well.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by SimianOverlord ( 727643 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:52AM (#10384155) Homepage Journal
    I guess you could say I'm a huge O'Reilly fan, not only because of his show, but because of all those top quality Computing books he finds time to write. It's just wronger to say us O'Reilly viewers are less intellignet.

  • The Daily Show is responsible... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:55AM (#10384202) Homepage Journal
    for my favorite quote of this circus so far:

    "The Facts are obviously biased against the Bush administration."

  • Quote from O'Reilly (Score:5, Funny)

    by wcbarksdale ( 621327 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:57AM (#10384222)
    "You know what's really frightening?" O'Reilly asked Stewart. "You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it's true."
    I can think of someone whose influence frightens me more.
    • I'll play devils advocate here and suggest that perhaps O'Reilly wasn't wasn't trying to deride Stewart for having an influence on the election, but rather its frightening that the politcal views of his audience are influenced by a comedy show. Then again, I only read the transcript [foxnews.com] but it seems like the interview was done in good fun. But I do think O'Reilly has a point: my vote, despite exhaustive research on issues and candidates, carries with it precisely the same voting power as someone who learns of

      • Re:Quote from O'Reilly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @11:32AM (#10384667)
        For better or for worse, quality information is spread because of comedy.

        Remember after September 11th, The Onion ran "Holy Fucking Shit: Attack on America"? Summed up the situation pretty good, and actually contained real information (about the history of Muslim anti-American sentiment). Meanwhile all the cable channels could do is have an endless loop of planes crashing into buildings or pundits who knew very little and preached fear.

        And more often then not, we remember the lame jokes told during late-night monologs than the long boring congressional sessions on CSPAN. Believe me, I watch both regularly, and a good 30-second joke can sum up a 2-hour fillibuster quite nicely.
      • I watched the segment with Stewart, I'm an O'Reilly fan, and even I didn't like where he was going with it. O'Reilly is (don't flame me) a bit pompous. It comes across in interviews like this. He kept pounding on Stewart's viewers, and it was unfair in my eyes. Eventually, he did stop, and we'll see if Stewart is the bigger man when he has O'Reilly on his show.

        --trb
      • It depends on the comedy, and the alternatives. Humor comes from learning something unexpectedly quickly, which makes us laugh. We can learn something false, or something true, or partial. Compare the info conveyed in comedic style on _The Daily Show_ to the info conveyed in news style on the "non-fake" news shows. My anecdotatal experience, measured in frequency of screaming back at the talking head, shows Stewart's info to be much more accurate, as cross-referenced by decades of research in books, films,

    • Even More Frightening (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NickFusion ( 456530 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:25PM (#10386011) Homepage
      Is that the press in this country has become so toothless, so infotainment [ahrg...I said Infotainment] focused, so utterly devoid of the principle of good journalism, so lax (as to be virtually absent) in their watchdog role, that one of the best TV new sources these days is a comedy show.

      That's frightening.

  • Summary has several errors (Score:5, Informative)

    by fnord123 ( 748158 ) * on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:59AM (#10384246)
    First, the title of the summary says "Daily Show viewers best CNN viewers" - which is incorrect, CNN viewers where not included in the quiz.

    Second, the summary says, "Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of [O'Reilly's] show", which is also incorrect. The CNN article states that more Daily Show viewers are 4+ years college educated and $100K+ salaried, but it says nothing about who is more informed between O'Reilly and the Daily Show. The Daily Show viewers are more informed than Letterman etc.

    Story submitters and mods need to do a better job and actually read the articles they submit.

    • Actually, the poll [annenbergp...center.org] does ask about cable news viewership.

      Daily Show viewers tie heavy (4+ days/week) cable news viewers and beat the ones that watch less. The poll doesn't break out which cable network they prefer. So technically, Daily Show viewers are just as or better informed than O'Reilly viewers *and* CNN viewers, but CNN's not going to tell you that in their article. ;)

  • Coincidence (Score:3, Informative)

    by seasleepy ( 651293 ) <seasleepy@gmaTWAINil.com minus author> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @11:00AM (#10384255)
    The poll was taken by Annenberg, not CNN, and wasn't taken in response to anything in particular.... This PDF from them directly [annenbergp...center.org] has more specific stats and methodology. (I'm just amused that someone had to classify all the jokes. <g>)

  • Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Edax Rarem ( 187218 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @11:00AM (#10384259) Homepage Journal
    If you have seen "OutFoxed" you see him totally reem a guy whos parents died in 9-11 just because he said something that Bill didn't agree with. Had the guy escorted off the studio only after insulting his dead parents. Great guy that O'Reilly.
    On the other hand... Jon Stewart is a comic genius. I get more real news from the first 15 minutes of the daily show than watching CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX all day. Plus I get to LOL on many occasions. Jon definitely deserves a shot at the tonight show after Jay is gone, or even Letterman's spot.
    • Outfoxed is a load of crap, and I'll be happy to slam it point by point if you so desire. The scene that you're referring to, the interview with Jeremy Glick, was certainly not O'Reilly's high point, but to dismiss the 8 years he's had the Factor on FoxNews because of it is ridiculous.

      First, this was a taped segment that O'Reilly showed, and apologized for twice. Second, he cut Glick off for multiple reasons; a personal insult saying that O'Reilly had used 9/11 to push his own agenda, referring to the Fl

      • Re:Bill O'Reilly is a liar and a bully. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Glick wouldn't stop talking and pressing his points, essentially filibustering.

        What is the point of an interview if not to get the guest's views? I don't care about the host's opinion! We see them every day (and hear them on the radio)! O'Reilly has a segment on his show where he gets his own soap box, save it for then.

        Glick was talked over, and over, and over, repeatedly. That's the weakest and lamest excuse for a "filibuster" if indeed he was trying to make one. He had a few points he wanted to make,

        • <i>What is the point of an interview if not to get the guest's views?</i>

          If The Factor was simply a news show, I would agree. But it's not, it editorializes the news and makes no bones about it. Look at Bill Maher, look at Dennis Miller...similar formats, they can cut their guests off anytime they want. The McGlaughlin (sp?) group as well...they present news, debate it, and you're left to make a decision.

          As far as the business of "The Paris Business Review", I remember him correcting himself,
          • He didn't get the periodical wrong, several groups did searches of the Business Review type papers in France, Canada and the US and found nothing to support his claims. The whole episode that sparked this off was over an interview with a Canadian official where O'Reilly threatened her with the "effectiveness" of his boycott of France, which he completely made up. The official practically laughed at him on air. We're talking about a guy who was doing crap entertainment journalism before he found out how effe
            • How, exactly, do you prove you grew up in a blue-collar, middle class town? I grew up in a middle class family, but short of providing my parents' tax returns, I don't know that I could prove it.

              Franken's challenge to O'Reilly was that he lived in Westbury. O'Reilly says he lived in the Westbury part of Levittown. If people accept that Levittown was a blue-collar, working class town then the proof is in the deed [billoreilly.com].

              --trb
      • he cut Glick off for multiple reasons;

        Let's take a look at these reasons one at a time:

        a personal insult saying that O'Reilly had used 9/11 to push his own agenda,

        Isn't this exactly what the conservatives have done? If I were them, I'd be proud of it, not insulted by it.

        referring to the Florida election as a "coup",

        A coup doesn't have to be violent and you can't deny that they *never* had the recount that would prove it one way or the other.falsely accusing Bush Sr. of training 100,000 moujahadee
        • Isn't this exactly what the conservatives have done?

          Do you mean conservatives or Republicans? I'll grant you that O'Reilly leans conservative, but not Republican. We can argue this one if you want, but he's a registered independant and while he happens to agree with many Republicans *because* they're conservative, he has opposed the Bush administration on issues (in other words, he's not a talking head like Hannity).

          A coup doesn't have to be violent

          I would argue you're not even technically correct
          • Do you mean conservatives or Republicans? I'll grant you that O'Reilly leans conservative, but not Republican. We can argue this one if you want, but he's a registered independant and while he happens to agree with many Republicans *because* they're conservative, he has opposed the Bush administration on issues (in other words, he's not a talking head like Hannity).

            I would say conservatives in general- Republicans are the worst of the lot, but every conservative I've ever seen, including the ones who are
            • Your reply is, I think, the most civil I've had today defending O'Reilly :)

              I might cede the point that everyone with an agenda has used 9/11 for that agenda in some ways. I'm just not sure what O'Reilly's agenda is, per se. If he's not a Republican or a Democrat, and he doesn't advocate one candidate or the other, does he have an agenda past his ratings?

              Bush I's decision to leave troops in Saudi Arabia was a direct cause

              If you look at the transcripts, Glick wasn't saying that Bush's actions were a di
          • How do you register to be an independant? Who would you register with?
    • I get more real news from the first 15 minutes of the daily show than watching CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX all day.

      Agreed but it's 24 hours late- thus it's still worthwhile reading the newspaper as well (it takes time to make up all of those jokes). The closest ever will be Thursday Night after they've spent the entire time of the debate getting clips and making up jokes.
    • "Jon definitely deserves a shot at the tonight show after Jay is gone"

      I wish that were to be... however they have already promised the job to Conan. Which is sad, I think. Conan is funny sometimes, but I just don't think it is right for the Tonight Show. Jon would be a FAR better fit.
  • Stewart is great. O'Reilly is a one-dimensional asshole. What I really miss is "Politically Incorrect".
    • What I really miss is "Politically Incorrect".

      Bill Maher often had intelligent commentary, but I don't miss B-level celebrities trying to convince the world they're still relevant with hackneyed and trite positions on every inane issue which they feel compelled to thrust into the discussion despite Maher's best efforts at keeping the conversation above the high school level..

      *gasp*

    • HBO, Friday Night 11PM (ET) - Real Time with Bill Mahar
    • Politically Incorrect was a great show. Bill Maher was like a breath of fresh air. It was amazing, hearing someone on the teevee whose opinions and attitudes were so well articulated and sounded so much like my own (or at least what I imagined my own to be).

      PI got great ratings, and certainly didn't suffer for a lack of audience. But you don't see it anymore because the advertising dried up. The Man turned that show right off.
      • The Man turned that show right off.

        No Bill Maher turned that show off by making stupid comments about 9/11.

        I used to like PI when it was first on HBO (before it was picked up by network TV). There was some balance in his opinion and he ueually split the guest 2-2 (both in terms of political leanings and actual substance). He would have on a joker from each POV (comedian, actor, ...) and a semi-serious thinker with each POV.

        When he moved to network it because him and three guest who were left and one p

  • Not Surprising . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by npsimons ( 32752 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @11:07AM (#10384357) Homepage Journal

    CNN.com has an interesting article about some deragatory comments made about Daily Show viewers by Bill O'Reilly and how Comedy Central reacted. They not only proved that the Daily Show viewers are better informed than viewers of his show, but they are also more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen.

    This is not surprising for two reasons: first, Bill O'Reilly saying something derogatory about anyone is about as novel as shit coming out of my ass. He's the Rush Limbaugh of TV: extremely close minded and very inflammatory to those who don't agree with him.


    Second, anyone who watches The Daily Show has to be pretty open minded and independent thinking. The Daily Show pokes fun at everyone: Republicans, Democrats and even themselves! Their brand of humor also takes a little bit more thought, so those who don't "get it" usually stop watching.

    • Bill O'Reilly saying something derogatory about anyone is about as novel as shit coming out of my ass.

      I know you're not supposed to post comments that don't add anything to the discusson, but this statement just made me crack up. ^___^
    • Their brand of humor also takes a little bit more thought, so those who don't "get it" usually stop watching.

      I love the Daily Show, but if that is what passes for requiring thought then I feel really bad about the mental state of our society.

      Most of the skits involve the correspondents doing or saying something outlandish and absurd and Jon playing the straight man to it. Then there is the whole category of jokes geared to our inner 12 years olds that are just funny because they use course language, e.g "


      • I love the Daily Show, but if that is what passes for requiring thought then I feel really bad about the mental state of our society.

        Agreed, but I think I may have not clarified that statement enough: what I was referring to was when John does the whole headlines thing, with each headline followed closely by a zinger. People unfamiliar with this format have often confused what John says as really happening, and since truth can be stranger than fiction, it's not too hard to imagine someone taking it se

    • O'Reilly is far worse than Rush, I'd say. For one thing, Bill has more power than Rush ever did. The Fox brainwashing about being "fair and balanced" has suckered a HUGE number of people in and they buy it. They really seem to think O'Reilly is somehow "on their side." The fact that Bill himself spouts that line almost every show just further cements that notion into people's heads.

      I admit to not listening to Rush very much, but I think he is far less full of himself than Bill is. Rush knows that, if
  • I noticed that they attached a quiz to this story, apparently to test readers' ability to answer questions about, no, not politics -- late night talk shows. Huh???
    • There are two quizzes. One of them asks the 6 questions that were in the survey, and another one quizzes you on the political leanings of the three talk shows mentioned. I don't see what you're complaining about... the article is about political knowledge and late-night talk shows, and the quizzes are about political knowledge and how that applies to late-night talk shows.

  • Paris Business Review (Score:5, Informative)

    by foistboinder ( 99286 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @11:26AM (#10384610) Homepage Journal

    Someone should ask Bill O'Reilly abount the Paris Business Review [amon-hen.com].

  • The Annenberg Public Policy Center is here [annenbergp...center.org], a detailed release fo the specific study is here [annenbergp...center.org] (it's a pdf).

  • Cut Em Some Slack (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @11:33AM (#10384690) Homepage Journal

    Something like this came out about a year ago from the Pew Trust.

    Basically, viewers of certain TV networks were less informed than viewers of other networks - not naming any names here, mind you - and people who got their news from other sources, such as radio and newspapers tended to be more informed than people who got their news just from TV.

    Such polls don't give proper credit to the tough job that some of those TV hosts have on their hands, the challenges they must confront to educate their viewers.

    But picking on viewers of certains shows is like picking on special ed teachers for the abilities of their class - those teachers have a tough job on their hands and people need to cut them some slack. Here they are, working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man, and people ridicule them for mistakes of their students.

    Let's "Leave No Viewer Behind."

    • I'll have to disagree with you on that. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @12:40PM (#10385483)
      "Basically, viewers of certain TV networks were less informed than viewers of other networks - not naming any names here, mind you - and people who got their news from other sources, such as radio and newspapers tended to be more informed than people who got their news just from TV."

      Yup. I'm with you so far.

      "But picking on viewers of certains shows is like picking on special ed teachers for the abilities of their class - those teachers have a tough job on their hands and people need to cut them some slack. Here they are, working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man, and people ridicule them for mistakes of their students."

      Nope. That's the problem. The "political" talk show hosts aren't "working selflessly for little compensation to educate the common man".

      They have their agenda to push and the manner in which they push it determines their audience.

      If you are a small-minded, mean bigot, your audience will, primarily, be others of that type.

      Therefore, surveying the self-selected audience gives you a good indication of the nature of that show.
    • I'd agree with you if you were talking about people who watch "Nightline". But don't you think the fact that O'Reilly makes shit up and shouts down anyone who tries to present any information contrary to his opinions my have a teensy bit to do with it?

      Personally, getting all you news from Fox is like getting all your news from one politial campaign or another. Roger Aisles is in charge of news at Fox, and he was and for practical purposes still is a Republican operative. If there were a network run by
  • I loved the Indecision 2000 coverage. But this time it's more mean-spirited. Last time you could be either of the major parties and have fun, but this time it seems to be aimed more for the Democrats.

    It's not fun to watch anymore, so I don't. (And no, I don't watch O'Reilly either)
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • The Daily Show has always been a bit anti-republican. That's why its audience members are smarter and more informed. They don't fall for that, "They hate us because of our freedom" malarky the right-wing spew. If you're conservative/republican and you claim to be a party supporter yet you dismiss all the intelligence-insulting rhetoric your party routinely spews, you might want to get a grip and start doing your own research instead of demonizing any show that doesn't 100% jive with your agenda.

        And let'

      • Re:Given up on the Daily Show (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dtolman ( 688781 ) <dtolman@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @03:34PM (#10387542) Homepage
        In the Daily Show's defense, the Republicans basically control both elected branches of government at this point...

        Since the Daily Shows mission is basically to make fun of the media, the current government in power, and coverage of the government by the media - that sort of makes the republicans target numero uno at this point, just because of their own success.

    • But this time it's more mean-spirited. Last time you could be either of the major parties and have fun, but this time it seems to be aimed more for the Democrats.

      I have seen what you mean but I don't think it's as bad as you do. I think they still make fun of both sides penty it's just that this time around Jon Stewart, himself, is having trouble holding back his feeling of disdain for the Bush Administration. The Daily Show is still one of the most balanced shows there is (even if their anti-Bush sentie
    • The actual pdf report [annenbergp...center.org] points out that between July 15th and September 16th, out of 83 political jokes on The Daily Show, 9 were directed at Bush, and 9 were directed at Kerry (page 8). Seems pretty balanced to me. Letterman was just about the same (20 Bush / 21 Kerry). Leno was a bit skewed (97 Bush / 76 Kerry), but, not being a fan of Leno, I would expect him to take the easy route when hunting for a joke. :)

  • Why the Daily Show works (for me) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@yahoo.cLIONom minus cat> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @12:00PM (#10385043) Journal
    When I see something outrageous on the Daily Show, I look it up to see the truth of it, and end up learning more details than a regular news show would provide.

    The issues are there in either type of show; the difference is that I research the DS stories afterwards more often. (probably because they pick the most insane real life stuff to begin with, and the stories that *don't* make it to other media outlets.)

    People who watch other 'news' shows take for granted that the story, as presented, is all there is to it. (In my experience)

    Much like the Patriot Act is anything but what its name alludes to - there is always more to the story.

    Bill O'Riley is a tool. Of the right, btw.

  • That CNN quiz seemed more like a push poll. I download the Daily Show every day, but the only real reason I knew the answers to the questions is because my girlfriend is strongly anybody-but-Bush so I dig up dirt from both sides to humour her.

    Besides, I always figured the crowd watching O'Reilly were the people who watched talk shows during the daytime and then O'Reilly at night just to feel smarter while still getting inflamatory characters onscreen. The conservatives I know are much more boring than that

  • CNN Article Ending (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HebrewToYou ( 644998 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:09PM (#10385836)
    "So the guy watching Stewart may not only be smart, but may also be rich."

    ROFL
    Fantastic analysis by CNN on this one.

    Maybe it's because most people who watch The Daily Show are the people laughing at all the poor interviewees being lambasted by clever editing. I enjoy the show thoroughly, but c'mon....sometimes they are just ridiculously mean-spirited.

    The show has turned from a wonderful comedy half-hour hosted by Craig Kilborn ( I miss Thursday's Dance Dance Dance and the 5 questions) into a left-wing bombthrowing extravaganze. From Mess-o-potamia to Indecision 2004 (a.k.a Anybody But Bush-a-palooza) -- John Stewart is now hosting a show that is merely appealing to the leftist youth of the East and West coasts.

    I watch the show every day as I am one of said youths.
    Thank heavens I'm open-minded enough to see through John Stewart and Stephen Colbert's biased 'coverage.'

    I love comedy when it's funny, not angry.

    • I disagree on your take on the bias of the show. I've always thought TDS does a great job of picking on everybody...and I'm a conservative (mostly) youth (still, barely) from the midwest (completely).

      I can guess from the on set interviews that Stewart is a liberal, but I have to say he and the writers do a good job of keeping the ripping "fair and balanced" (tm)...not to mention damn funny. The Republicans get a bit more coverage simply because they're in charge...that's the way it always works with poli
  • "more informed than viewers of Jay Leno and David Lettermen"

    Wow, do the Lettermen still perform shows?
    http://www.grabow.biz/Nostalgia/Lettermen. htm
  • I love the Daily Show, and watch it just about every night. I've probably only missed a handful of episodes since it went on the air with Craig Kilborn all those years ago. However, I'm a little annoyed with it this election cycle, because I feel like Jon's not being an equal opportunity offender. There's plenty of dumb stuff on both sides of the aisle, but these days he hammers the Republicans, and lets the Dems completely off the hook.
    • There's plenty of dumb stuff on both sides of the aisle, but these days he hammers the Republicans, and lets the Dems completely off the hook.

      I don't see where you get this. On every show he makes fun of Kerry. While the Daily Show is anything but right-leaning, they have more high-powered right wing figures as guests than they do the left on average, and they routinely promote the impression that Kerry is a monotone, one-dimensional person that's incapable of inspiring people - the idea of which might

  • Funniest Daily Show Moment (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theghost ( 156240 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @03:18PM (#10387374)
    Mark Racicot, chairman of Bush's reselection campaign, was the guest. He says, "This campaign is so focused on being positive," and the audience spontaneously busts out laughing like it was the punchline to a joke.

    That's what happens when you try to pawn off bullshit platitudes on an informed audience. They laugh at you. Unfortunately all of America is not so well-informed.

  • This just in.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH ( 182037 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @05:15PM (#10388737) Homepage Journal
    O'Reilly claims the viewers average test scores did not reflect a true random sample.

    "Of the Daily Show viewers polled, only those with enough drive and ambition took the quiz (and did well). The "pot smoking slackers" on the other hand, were up and rattled for a few seconds, then took another hit from the bong and forgot about this nonsense all together."

    Of course I'm joking...

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close