Shameless much?

[Bravus]

The Daily Show brings the tape

[Tom Wetmore]

[Dr. Shane]

Jon Stewart is an ideologue on the left like Glenn Beck is on the right. They are both guilty of selective reporting. In the clip on this link I could go on and on for hours about how he manages to distort the facts he is supposedly reporting on. That is why we have to really balance out our news consumption. That is especially true if we are going to lend our minds to ideologues like this to fill. Yet few people do. There are many people that listen to Rush Limbaugh everyday and never listen to the other side. Same is true with people watching The Daily Show. These people think they know something when they are really being played for fools. These ideologues are filling their heads with a bunch of twisted information and they are not getting a balanced view of reality.

[Tom Wetmore]

The huge difference is that Stewart is a comedian and the Daily Show is on Comedy Central. Beck poses as a bona fide news person on a serious network, CNN. We are supposed to be entertained by one and informed by the other.

Stewart wasn't making up the two-faced Republican spinning. The Rove flip flopping spin for Palin vs. Kaine were straight clips. Rove really has no shame. And to try to boost her mayoral credentials by saying she was mayor of the "second largest" city in Alaska shows his typical disregard for facts and accuracy in furthering a political objective. Reality check time - Her city was the 4th largest "city" (population of 8,000) in Alaska. (That is really a town.) And by comparison Rove's denigration of Kaine as mayor of Richmond - its population is more that Alaska's largest city, Anchorage.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Karl Rove may know how to run a successful campaign but I don't think he is much of a political commentator. He is perhaps the most extreme example of a far right winger I can think of although Ann Coulter is in about the same place.

I know the Daily Show is suppose to be comedy. Yet this is the political forum and not the humor forum so it wasn't posted here as a joke.

The O'Reilly clips that Jon Stewart showed were way out of context. What O'Reilly said really made sense and was not contradictory as they seemed to be with the little clips shown on the Daily Show.

I don't get Comedy Central so I rarely watch the Daily Show. The language seems a bit over the top. From what I understand, Jon Stewart doesn't spend equal time making fun of the liberals and conservative. I understand Jon Stewart to be an ideologue that uses humor to push his agenda. There is nothing wrong with that but viewers need to beware.

Glenn Beck's theme says he is "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment". He is basically trying to do the same thing as Jon Stewart. That is, using humor to push his agenda. Again, nothing wrong with that but the viewers need to beware.

[Amelia]

The politics forum is as good a place as any for political satire.

[Bravus]

Leave aside the context - those clips, where the Republicans say precisely the opposite thing depending on who they're talking about, are not manufactured. They really said those things. And the clips are not so short as to be shorn from context in any major way. These people seem to be incapable of seeing that they see the same issue in opposite ways when it pertains to 'one of ours' and 'one of theirs'. The Jamie Lynn Spears/Bristol Palin example is particularly egregious. You're welcome to bring the context that makes it less so if you like, Shane.

[Dr. Shane]

OK. Please tell me what O'Reilly said Jamie Lynn Spears' parents did that caused her to get pregnant? If the clips were long enough to show such context that should not be a problem. The fact is that O'Reilly went on and on about exactly what they did. So anyone watching his show or listening on the radio would clearly know the context of him blaming the parents. The Daily Show takes him so far out of context it casts doubt on all the others they are showing clips from. Are they taking them out of context too?

[there buster]

Quote:

Leave aside the context

Almost always a mistake. Context does indeed come into play.

Comparisons depend upon what is being compared.

Is 500 a large number? Depends. Five hundred grains of sand isn't very much, but you wouldn't want it in your engine. Five hundred gallons of water is a lot to drink, but not much to put out a large fire. So the same person might declare 500 gallons of water "a huge amount," when speaking of available drinking water for one person (say on a trip), while also declaring it "insignificant" for putting out the fire. IF it were videotaped and cut properly, the person would look a fool.

Is Time Kaine experienced compared to McCain? Nope. Is Barack Obama? Nope. Is Sarah Palin? Nope.

Is Tim Kaine experienced compared to Palin? Tougher question, but NOT THE ONE being addressed in the clips.

Is Palin experienced compared to Obama? Answers will vary. One has more experience as an executive, the other on the national political stage. There are many ways to make a legitimate comparison, but Stewart wasn't interested. He just sought an easy cheap shot.

As to the other matter, Jamie Lynn Spears is one of two daughters, both of whom are living very publicly irresponsible lives. Neither is married, nor does Jamie Lynn have any intention of marrying.

In contrast. Bristol and Levi are engaged. Yes, they made a mistake, and they are taking responsibility for their action--and their child-- and preparing to make a home for it. The Spears girls are publicly pursuing their feckless lifestyle. Bristol and Levi have not sought the public eye. Britney and Jamie Lynn live for it.

Until the left understands the radical difference between Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears--and their parents--they will continue to be spurned by middle America.

[Neil D]

Oh my....I don't believe what I am seeing....The NEW REPUBLICAN TRAIT...or the new republican way on how to flip-flop without sounding too rediculous...

First, the clip on Rove flipping and flopping like a fish...Then those other people....Now, our previous poster who claimed that ONE sentence meant one thing [when many told him to view it in context] is now claiming that context is key in the understanding of our view....

Whoa! Heady stuff here....

[Bravus]

Just a note that by 'leave aside the context' I meant leave aside that the video was presented on The Daily Show, and leave aside any commentary by Jon Stewart, seeing Shane seemed to be finding that a stumbling block, and look only at what those in the videos said. I did *not* mean leave aside the context in which those those things were said, and am grateful for any further contextual information that helps clarify the intentions of the speakers.

I still think they're saying different things about the same classes of things in different contexts, though.

[Tom Wetmore]

TU

[Dr. Shane]

O'Reilly was criticizing Spears' parents for selling their children to Hollywood. I am not sure I agree with him but I have heard the criticism by many others. Children stars often don't have a childhood and are forced to grow up too fast. That is the context that O'Reilly blamed Spears' parents for her pregnancy.

Those at the Daily Show had to know the context of O'Reilly's criticism of Spears' parents. Yet they made it look like O'Reilly blamed all parents when their teenage children become pregnant until Palin comes along and then he gives her a break. That is outright deception. O'Reilly was blaming the parents of children stars for making their kids grow up so fast. Governor Palin hasn't sold her kids to Hollywood. Her daughter becoming pregnant has nothing to do with children stars in the entertainment industry.

[Tom Wetmore]

Shane, to quote a most infallible Republican source, Ronald Reagan, "There you go again!"

I think you are being too much an apologist for Bill-O. The context was not selling out children to Hollywood. It was Jamie Lynn's teen pregnancy. He very clearly lays the blame for her teen pregnancy at the parents feet for having no control over her. Here is the complete transcript of the segment of what Bill-O actually said with the words in red that the Daily Show editted out:

Quote:

On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet.

Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves.

And by the way, the mother, Lynne Spears, has reportedly already sold pictures of the upcoming baby of her 16-year-old for a million bucks. Incredible pinhead.

There's your whole context. Not much about Hollywood kids growing up too fast, is there! It's clearly blaming parents for their out of control kids, even their adult kids.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

That is not the whole context. I actually listened to him rant and rave about this on his radio program. The excerpt here is from his TV program. He has more time on the radio so he can rant longer. The "Pinheads and Patriots" section of his TV show is quite short. The issue was completely, 100%, no doubt about it, centered around the parents selling their children off to Hollywood.

[Tom Wetmore]

Shane,

You have a strange view of context. Of course he rants more on his radio show, about a lot of things. I am sure he added much more material to his rant. So shall we enlarge the context to his books as well? And any other remotely related subject? And why are you defending Bill-O?

The context was video clips on the Daily show of what he had said on his FoxNoise TV show, first about Palin and her pregnant teenage daughter, and then what he had said about Jamie Spears' pregnancy also on his TV show. Both were similar situations and he sounded much more understanding for Palin than Spears. You really can't see how two faced he was being?!!?

Shane, your true Republican self is showing.

[Tom Wetmore]

OK Shane. Here is a take on your FoxNoise fair and balanced coverage of the Daily Show. They even twist and spin jokes to the far right...

[Tom Wetmore]

McCain's idea of Change?!?!

[Tom Wetmore]

The whole Daily Show segment on McCain's acceptance speech-

[Tom Wetmore]

McCain - Reformed Maverick

Daily Show's redo of the McCain bio...

[Dr. Shane]

I have a dial-up connection at home and only on rare occasion at work do I have time to watch videos on the web so posting Utube links or other online video isn't too helpful to me.

It isn't a matter of defending O'Reilly, it is about being fair to him. Now O'Reilly often shows clips on his TV show or plays them on his radio show of other news organizations taking him out of context. It happens all the time. It is called selective reporting. I have also caught O'Reilly doing it although not near as much as Limbaugh or Beck. O'Reilly seems to be fair especially since he often has guests on his programs that disagree with him and point out what they believe to be his defects.

The Daily show may have put their clips together sloppily without looking into the issues at any depth. I give them this benefit of the doubt because they are a comedy program like Saturday Night Live. Any hard news program would be expected to do enough research to know the context of the quotes they are using. O'Reilly was clearly criticizing Spears' parents because they sold their children off to Hollywood and then were capitalizing on the unwed teen pregnancy to make even more money. Palin did not sell her children off to Hollywood and has not been using her child's unwed pregnancy for profit or political gain. Thus there is no comparison between the two in that context.

[carolaa]

Those 3 videos had me laughing till I cried.

[Woody]

Crying in the Politics Section is not allowed.

[Bravus]

Dang - I do it regularly

[Jeannieb43]

McCain - Reformed Maverick

Daily Show's redo of the McCain bio...

Those videos are great! And this last one is wonderful.

Pictures don't lie. It just shows how McCain has become a turncoat to his prior positions... evidently in order to win the support of the radical right.

[Anybody else here agree that Lieberman's speech at the Republican convention was actually a reworked version of what was originally intended to be his acceptance speech as V-P nominee?? I heard that idea expressly stated by one of the news anchors that night.]

IOW, McCain (who is a moderate at heart) has had to become a radical right, and had to get Sarah Palin, also a radical, rather than Lieberman (who is a moderate) as his running mate -- all in order to get the support of the big money (read: radical conservatives) in the Republican Party.

But by becoming a turncoat -- pretending to be something he's not -- he's lost the support of both sides.