Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Except that everything besides your eyes says different. Including the news articles and the congressman himself. 729570[/snapback] Obviously, I meant say stuff like that seriously, as if it were a serious interview. And they did edit it completely, again, you can tell where they did it. That is not to say everything wasn't said once, or they changed his words. I didn't mean to imply that at all. It is edited to make it appear like a real interview, or a seamless interview, when it's really not. Like, for instance, it's easy to see they cut right before he says it's a fun thing to do for the first time. It's easy to tell the facial expressions of Colbert when Wexler said the bit about both of them together would be even better was from a different time or cut in such a way to make it appear just then. Or they cut out all the stuff when Colbert is trying to get him to say "because it's fun". I wasn't there, and cannot say for sure, but I would bet anything they taped that a dozen times, and kept on asking him to say different things. Or maybe even gave him the line. But he knew it was all in fun, which it was, and he said it and knew he was saying it. I'm sure he was taped for 15-30 minutes with the camera rolling for the 1:30 spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 Obviously, I meant say stuff like that seriously, as if it were a serious interview. And they did edit it completely, again, you can tell where they did it. That is not to say everything wasn't said once, or they changed his words. I didn't mean to imply that at all. It is edited to make it appear like a real interview, or a seamless interview, when it's really not. Like, for instance, it's easy to see they cut right before he says it's a fun thing to do for the first time. It's easy to tell the facial expressions of Colbert when Wexler said the bit about both of them together would be even better was from a different time or cut in such a way to make it appear just then. Or they cut out all the stuff when Colbert is trying to get him to say "because it's fun". I wasn't there, and cannot say for sure, but I would bet anything they taped that a dozen times, and kept on asking him to say different things. Or maybe even gave him the line. But he knew it was all in fun, which it was, and he said it and knew he was saying it. I'm sure he was taped for 15-30 minutes with the camera rolling for the 1:30 spot. 729582[/snapback] And thats differnt than a Barbara Walters interview, or 60 minutes interview how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 The interview lasted 90 minutes. It was heavily edited. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/conten...exler_0722.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 And thats differnt than a Barbara Walters interview, or 60 minutes interview how? 729596[/snapback] Those are actually worse. Because they act as if it's serious when Colbert is clearly not. 60 Minutes, IMO, is the biggest, most deceitful piece of crap in the history of television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Obviously, I meant say stuff like that seriously, as if it were a serious interview. And they did edit it completely, again, you can tell where they did it. That is not to say everything wasn't said once, or they changed his words. I didn't mean to imply that at all. It is edited to make it appear like a real interview, or a seamless interview, when it's really not. Like, for instance, it's easy to see they cut right before he says it's a fun thing to do for the first time. It's easy to tell the facial expressions of Colbert when Wexler said the bit about both of them together would be even better was from a different time or cut in such a way to make it appear just then. Or they cut out all the stuff when Colbert is trying to get him to say "because it's fun". I wasn't there, and cannot say for sure, but I would bet anything they taped that a dozen times, and kept on asking him to say different things. Or maybe even gave him the line. But he knew it was all in fun, which it was, and he said it and knew he was saying it. I'm sure he was taped for 15-30 minutes with the camera rolling for the 1:30 spot. 729582[/snapback] The interview lasted 90 minutes. It was heavily edited. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/conten...exler_0722.html 729599[/snapback] The point is still that Colbert didn't edit it to look a lot worse then it actually was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Those are actually worse. Because they act as if it's serious when Colbert is clearly not. 60 Minutes, IMO, is the biggest, most deceitful piece of crap in the history of television. 729600[/snapback] Exactly why Stewart and Colbert are genius. They point out how absurd it is to take the media (and media personalities) seriously, and in so doing deliver more serious news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Exactly why Stewart and Colbert are genius. They point out how absurd it is to take the media (and media personalities) seriously, and in so doing deliver more serious news. 729644[/snapback] Some people could argue that Daily Show & Colbert Report are not real news shows. But I guess that probably doesn't matter these days, as I'm sure people are as captured by the serious news offered between 11 and midnight on COMEDY CENTRAL, as they are by the Best of Girls Gone Wild ads that run between each segment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Some people could argue that Daily Show & Colbert Report are not real news shows. But I guess that probably doesn't matter these days, as I'm sure people are as captured by the serious news offered between 11 and midnight on COMEDY CENTRAL, as they are by the Best of Girls Gone Wild ads that run between each segment. 729793[/snapback] Well, considering that both Stewart and Colbert go way out of their way to say that their own news shows are not really news shows, but comedy shows, on Comedy Central, with a studio audience who laughs, why should we believe them? They're part of the lying media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Well, considering that both Stewart and Colbert go way out of their way to say that their own news shows are not really news shows, but comedy shows, on Comedy Central, with a studio audience who laughs, why should we believe them? They're part of the lying media. 729812[/snapback] Of course they are. They are spawned by the same evil big corporate scientist that gave the world Dan Rather. My concern is that despite the shows' obvious, over the top, exaggerated mockeries of news programs, there is a significant number of viewers that thinks that they deliver serious news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Oh, come on people! You guys kill me. a) He said it, he meant to say it, while I wouldnt be suprised to know that editing occurs on these sketches frequently, the cocaine is fun part WAS NOT EDITED (source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/24/...litics_1830819) b) Who cares! I am as conservative as they get, and I dont like wexlers politics much. But seriously, WHO CARES. The guy isnt saying he did cocaine today, or even 20 years ago (and even if he did... again, who cares). It was a joke, it was funny, it was apparently NOT edited. End of story. Some of you guys make this WAY more serious than it is. 729569[/snapback] a Youtuber who recorded both the CR original and then the FAUX News story where they edit out the goading and coaching by Colbert, and report it as if Wexler, seriously, said those of his own accord. Getting 'had' by Comedy Central would be a low point for most other news shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Of course they are. They are spawned by the same evil big corporate scientist that gave the world Dan Rather. My concern is that despite the shows' obvious, over the top, exaggerated mockeries of news programs, there is a significant number of viewers that thinks that they deliver serious news. 729831[/snapback] Proof? Link? I'd say a more likely result is this: People that don't care at all about politics, will never care, and did never care, don't watch the Daily Show. You have to have some political knowledge to watch and enjoy the Daily Show, and you also have to have some interest in politics to do so. These are the people who follow politics from other sources. The Daily Show viewers are already politically-inclined people who follow the news, and can tell the difference. Why? The first reason is, there is no shortage of comedy programs that come on at that time. Here in Austin, for example, the show comes on at 10:00pm (as labeled comedy by Yahoo! TV). Other comedy programs on from 10:00pm-11:00pm on Thursdays (during Daily Show/Colbert Report): - The Simpsons - Hogan's Heroes - Will & Grace - M*A*S*H - The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air - It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Usually at least 1 movie thats a comedy - Seinfeld - Family Guy - Late Shows - Everybody Loves Raymond - Becker - I love Lucy - The Planet's Funniest Animals - I Married Joan - Three's Company And thats just on regular cable which you'd get with Comedy Central. Not to mention all of the other options out there that aren't Comedy. And this changes based upon what day it is. On some days, theres better competition for the Daily Show & Colbert Report. So if someone doesn't care about politics, its really easy for them to find another show that they actually are interested in, whether its comedy or something else. In fact, there is evidence to back up this claim. According to Annenburg, a leading political research division of UPenn, this is the case. Report. They found, and I quote, "People who watch the Daily Show are more interested in the Presidential Campaign...". Another part of it to back up what I'm saying: "These findings do not show that the Daily Show itself is not responsible for the higher level knowledge among its viewers. The Daily Show assumes a fairly high level of political knowledge on the prat of its audience - more so then Leno or Letterman. So, in fact, your concerns are unfounded, and are actually the opposite of what is happening in America and with the Daily Show audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Is today the opposite reading comprehension day? Where did I even hint that Stewart & Colbert audiences are not more knowledgeable about politics? The concern is that good number of those politically savvy folk think that the shows air serious news Linky 1 Linky 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 I wouldnt go so far as to say these shows are serious news. However, I believe (the intro at least) is amung the most objective news out there. The fact that they make a complete mockery out of real news makes it more the real story than anything on at CNN. Once they get to the interviews, their bias shows (especially Stewart), but thats okay. I dont have a problem with ANYONE on CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX whoever who shows an opinion. Just make it known its your opinion and then I will choose to watch accordingly. Just dont try to twist stories to fit your point of view. By exploiting how these networks twist stories, Stewart and Colbert untie the knots and make the news more objective. Just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Is today the opposite reading comprehension day? Where did I even hint that Stewart & Colbert audiences are not more knowledgeable about politics? The concern is that good number of those politically savvy folk think that the shows air serious news Linky 1 Linky 2 730243[/snapback] Must be, since you have no idea what you are talking about, and didn't comprehend my post or the article. Listen up, school is in session. Neither link you posted was relevant to your point. The 2nd one especially because it wasn't even to your own post, but to a post by RTB. First, let me start off by talking about my own post, then I will repond to the link you posted and explain why its not proof of what you are saying. The whole point to my first post was that, because the Daily Show is not responsible for the higher political knowledge among people watching it (which is stated directly in the part of the study that I posted), people generally already know most of the stories that the Daily Show is talking about. This means they already know what is real, and what isn't. Thus, since people can differentiate between what is real on the Daily Show and what is different, your concerns are unfounded. But lets take a look at the article that you are talking about. First off, I'm 21, and if I was asked if The Daily Show was a source of news for me, I'd say hell yeah. It has to do with reading comprehension and actually understanding what the word source means. According to dictionary.com, source has 5 meanings as a noun. We are going to look at meaning #4, which is the relevant meaning in this case. source (sôrs, srs) n. 4. One, such as a person or document, that supplies information: A reporter is only as reliable as his or her sources. Guess what? Its a thing that supplies information. So, does the Daily Show supply information? True, factual information? Yep, it does. If you don't think it does, you haven't watched it. If you see just one news story on there that you haven't seen other places, guess what? Its a source of news for you that day. If you repeat this over multiple days, its a normal source of news for you. It *also* jokes heavily and makes fun of the government with a very cynical view, but it does talk about real news stories. Therefore, The Daily Show *is* a source of news. I've seen stories on there about senate/house races that I hadn't seen other places, and it was very easy to seperate what was fake from what wasn't, given a background in political knowledge, like the majority of his viewers. Now, lets break down that article you posted in your first link. First off, its not surprising that they don't cite network news, but they do cite the Daily Show and SNL. It has to do with the schedules of people aged 18-29. They are *much* more likely to be at home during the time that the Daily Show and SNL is on, compared to network news. Secondly, network news has never had a big draw for young people. But guess what? Television isn't the only source of news, which this article is making it out to be. Vernon's companion at "The Daily Show" taping, 25-year-old graduate student Yvgeni Sverdlov, may be a typical young news consumer. He said he absorbed news from various sources -- a little bit of CNN, a newspaper, even reading news tickers while walking in Manhattan. This typical young news consumer lists many different sources. I have a similar news habit, with websites (cnn.com, newspaper, news.google.com) and the Daily Show. I get new stories on the Daily Show that I haven't seen on other places. Its a source for me. But I can tell whats fake from whats real, and if I ever have a problem, I can just google it to find out for sure, just like most of the Daily Show's viewership. This point is further driven home by the article that you posted, so thanks. Hold on there, said Ben Karlin, the show's executive producer. A "Daily Show" viewer who doesn't supplement it with real news isn't very well-informed, he said. Pew confirmed that; its survey showed that people who regularly learned news from the comedy shows were less likely to know basic facts of the campaign. Yet, the Daily Show had an audience which was more informed then network news audiences. Know why? Cause they get their news from other sources as well, and can tell what is real and what is not. So, lets look at what we've established: 1.) The Daily Show is a news source for young Americans, and it does supply truthful news mixed in with humor and joking. Therefore, it IS a true news source, but not all of the program is true, and some of it is fake, just like other news comedy shows. 2.) The Daily Show is a larger news source for young Americans than network news, but this does not mean that it is the only news source that young Amerians use. 3.) Young American's don't watch Network News, but this doesn't mean that they are uninformed. Actually, it just means that network news isn't convenient and doesn't cover the topics that young American's care about. 4.) People that just use the Daily Show as a sole news source aren't very well informed. 5.) People that watch the Daily Show are well informed, much more informed then other viewers of network news. 6.) Therefore, the majority of people who watch the Daily Show don't use it as their primary news source, and can tell the difference between whats real and whats not, but DO pick up true news from it. 7.) Given what we established above, your concerns are unfounded, as its not what is happening in America. Now, go do your homework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Now, go do your homework. 730930[/snapback] Sorry, don't have the time. I'm late for cheerleading practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Sorry, don't have the time. I'm late for cheerleading practice. 730952[/snapback] Oooh, three o'clock. So'm I. Now where'd I put that video camera... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Oooh, three o'clock. So'm I. Now where'd I put that video camera... 730963[/snapback] Stop video taping high schoolers from your van! They don't care if you have candy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts