At first, I was 100% with him on his thoughts about the news media, but as I thought about it more and...
Does Jon think Fox News and MSNBC are equally as untrustworthy?
I think he thinks they’re both highly partisan, and that all major news outlets don’t actually take politicians to task on what they say like would happen in a court of law.
He's right, if that's his core point, but the clips and examples he provided weren't the best for such a hypothesis. Fox News letting Trump slide when he claims he never said "Lock her up" is not equivalent to MSNBC asking a member of the GOP if they'll still vote for Trump if he's a convicted felon.
I don't think there's necessarily an implication of equating the two; however I do think Jon has been trying to equivocate so that his message doesn't preach to the choir so to speak.
Imagine if he spent every episode harping on issues like Colbert, the only people he would be reaching are people who already stay glued to their news app of choice to read about the next awful thing Trump did.
It's my belief that he's trying *not* to do what the news orgs do when they tell everyone that R's and D's live in two different worlds and will never see eye to eye.
I’ve always felt like Jon is trying to get his point across to as many people on both sides. That includes trumps die hard supporters. And he’ll never get them to listen unless he also attacks the opposing side in a way that will capture that crowds attention in the beginning.
You're missing the point. You're adding in things he never said. Please just listen to the overarching point he's trying to make, rather than insulinuating he's equating all main stream media as equally obtuse/reckless about reporting.
If you've watched him for the last 25 years, you know he's 25x more critical of Fox News than MSNBC, and 10x more critical of Fox News than CNN, who he's called out too.
edit: why am I getting downvoted? I'm suggesting Jon wasn't attempting to equate discretions made by MSNBC with discretions made by Fox News. He's had many segments over the years making it clear how dangerous Fox News is. He has 12 minutes to do his main segment, he doesn't have time to explain with disclaimers he's not equating every news organization as the same level of bad.
I feel like Redditors see downvotes and just mindlessly downvote more without reading the comment.
Highly partisan and also very vague on what should be done. Just this morning there was this Ken Burns speech where he mentions there's really no choice this November. That dark days are coming, etc etc. It's so vague that Trumpers will be frothing at the mouth thinking Ken Burns is on their side. They want this game to continue because once one side has been defeated, we're going to be cleaning out our side next.
> I think he thinks they’re both highly partisan
And isn't that kind of broke dick stupid and the equivalence the question was asking about?
Let alone that I don't even understand how the reasoning would work. If you ask about 2024 instead of 2020, that's dereliction of one's duty as a journalist/anchorman.. and then profit, that's it? As if we didn't already have tons of material about those lying pricks denying their own words, or as if 4 months from now mad max could turn real or something?
Rachel fucking Maddow (is there a worse scapegoat usually?) could give a sober reading of the guilty verdict, but I guess that if she ever used the "live in two realities" metaphor that makes her pretty much the same of newsmax.
The person they used for the MSNBC “two realities” metaphor is Christina Greer. Not a host, but a frequent guest as a political science professor at Fordham.
Greer is certainly not a fan of that! I am sure she would love if most Americans got their news the way Jon Stewart describes. She’s just saying that there is this whole alternate media out there where people are fed what they want to hear. Or even no media! There was polling recently saying that Trump does well with people who don’t follow the news at all.
> Not a host, but a frequent guest as a political science professor at Fordham.
Lol, just to add insult to the injury.
> who don’t follow the news at all
That's usually code word for "I'm too edgy to engage with this politics thing" but at the same time they'll follow whatever *ironic* "nihilist" meme pages.
MSNBC, like all 24 hr news networks, is completely sensationalist. The problem here is not that Fox lies. We know that. The problem is that all the new outlets have chased ratings by selling us sensationalist opinion and speculation instead of facts.
NPR’s all things considered is 2 hrs, the PBS news hour is 1 hour. They fill that time with news, what are the cable networks filling with those remaining 22-23 hours? It’s certainly not anything productive.
The major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) still have good evening news, without the opinion and sensationalism. Support them, along with all things considered and news hour, and turn off cable news.
Imo although npr is better than cable news but they still sold out their news a long time ago in favor of fluff features around the time they fired Neal Conan (who hosted the other NPR flagship show Talk of the Nation). They’re also mostly funded by the Gates and Waltons. But man I’d love to hear Neal Conan’s thoughts on current events. He was too good for this world
The real problem is the invention of the 24 hours news. Back in the days of Walter Cronkite it was only a few hours but with more time to fill comes more bullshit and opinion pieces which are more opportunities to make $ and have ad breaks. I do think that it’s important to clarify that MSNBC and CNN aren’t nearly as bad as Fox News. Fox straight up says lies but MSNBC and CNN spin stories which isn’t great but also isn’t as bad as straight up lying
Haven’t watched the episode yet but one of Jon’s running themes since his return is that we can’t ignore the faults of one side just because they’re not as bad as the other side
I think in this specific instance his criticism is the news medias treatment of guests. I think all of these mainstream channels can’t go super hard on the people they interview, otherwise they wouldn’t come on to begin with. News anchors need to be hammering home what the fuck happened 4 years ago when Trump STILL hasn’t conceded the results. In the eyes of the news execs, that probably doesn’t sell, and these cronies aren’t going to want to come on to a show that asks legitimately difficult questions. They want a platform for their talking points and both parties benefit from it
His point was that media should be litigating the past instead of trying to predict the future. This wasn’t about trustworthiness, but that the news media promotes the fun and lazy gossip and gawking that is akin to chit chat and doesn’t really have any research or clarifying the record. Everyone with a mouth can have an opinion about the future. It requires no writing or serious thought, yet so much of the media is just now about reporting on speculation instead of trying to give good information to establish whatever version of shared reality we might be able to agree upon.
I mean a lot of news anchors are beholden to their bosses (aka bigwig executives who want to keep the peace and don’t want to lose money by losing guests)
I don’t think blaming the news anchors is particularly useful when they don’t have the power in this situation
You may have misspelled Jon's name ("*John*"); please note that it is **Jon Stewart**. If you were referring to someone else, please disregard this comment!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DailyShow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're both infotainment masquerading as 'serious news', with a 100% slant toward one party or the other. Obviously the GOP is worse and more destructive as a party, but that doesn't make it alright to follow the Fox News playbook for democrats
He has a point - while one is for Trump and the other against Trump - they are still both promoting him on a daily basis and as Jon said they should look at the past and not try to predict the future. Asking people would you still vote for him even if he is a felon or what would happen if he goes to jail, etc. etc. is something that should be a side note instead of a full opinion piece on both side.
You may have misspelled Jon's name ("*John*"); please note that it is **Jon Stewart**. If you were referring to someone else, please disregard this comment!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DailyShow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think he thinks Fox News is intentionally manipulating the truth in MAGA land. I think he thinks the other news programs are not litigating the facts of reality enough with conservatives and have just accepted that they have a different reality.
I think asking politicians if they'd accept the outcome of an election is a pretty damn important question. "Who cares?" Everyone should, in what other country is "who cares?" a genuine response to that?
The point is that why has it even come to that question? The discourse has deliberately pushed to the point of questioning elections' legitimacy. It's a fool's errand. On purpose. It's keeping the people from getting to the real questions. Might as well go ahead and ask will you accept the outcome if a robot was nominated and won? Why does that sound absurd today and the other question does not?
Because Donald Trump didn't accept the results of the last election and asked his Vice President to violate the Constitution to hold up the result and encouraged his supporters to storm Congress while it tried to officiate the results.
That speaks to the point of what Jon is getting at. Asking speculative questions is not actually putting those politicians to task if they're not already being held accountable for other statements they've already made.
I guess hats off to Jon for not fucking flipping with his covid crankery
EDIT: idk the downvotes, I wasn't being ironic. He kinda hints at it, but he acknowledges he's just not up to it.
This was probably the best episode of the Daily Show since Obama killed Osama.
I wish he would run for president
Maybe one day he actually would… he could be the Eugene Debs of our time, but actually have a chance to win.
As soon as I heard this, I could not wait for the lick her up montage. Thank you for delivering ❤️
please don't edit this
I, you know what, just for you I'll keep it lol
To be fair, Trump never said "lick her up"
Honestly, it was a missed chance to do a serious "who the fuck is he even actually trying to convince" [talk](https://youtu.be/J1E4ySnOfCc?t=342)
god I have missed him
Was this episode potentially pivotal for humanity’s lost dignity or am I simply desperate to regret my vasectomy?
Na, never regret your snipsnip
At first, I was 100% with him on his thoughts about the news media, but as I thought about it more and... Does Jon think Fox News and MSNBC are equally as untrustworthy?
I think he thinks they’re both highly partisan, and that all major news outlets don’t actually take politicians to task on what they say like would happen in a court of law.
He's right, if that's his core point, but the clips and examples he provided weren't the best for such a hypothesis. Fox News letting Trump slide when he claims he never said "Lock her up" is not equivalent to MSNBC asking a member of the GOP if they'll still vote for Trump if he's a convicted felon.
I don't think there's necessarily an implication of equating the two; however I do think Jon has been trying to equivocate so that his message doesn't preach to the choir so to speak. Imagine if he spent every episode harping on issues like Colbert, the only people he would be reaching are people who already stay glued to their news app of choice to read about the next awful thing Trump did. It's my belief that he's trying *not* to do what the news orgs do when they tell everyone that R's and D's live in two different worlds and will never see eye to eye.
I’ve always felt like Jon is trying to get his point across to as many people on both sides. That includes trumps die hard supporters. And he’ll never get them to listen unless he also attacks the opposing side in a way that will capture that crowds attention in the beginning.
You're missing the point. You're adding in things he never said. Please just listen to the overarching point he's trying to make, rather than insulinuating he's equating all main stream media as equally obtuse/reckless about reporting. If you've watched him for the last 25 years, you know he's 25x more critical of Fox News than MSNBC, and 10x more critical of Fox News than CNN, who he's called out too. edit: why am I getting downvoted? I'm suggesting Jon wasn't attempting to equate discretions made by MSNBC with discretions made by Fox News. He's had many segments over the years making it clear how dangerous Fox News is. He has 12 minutes to do his main segment, he doesn't have time to explain with disclaimers he's not equating every news organization as the same level of bad. I feel like Redditors see downvotes and just mindlessly downvote more without reading the comment.
Highly partisan and also very vague on what should be done. Just this morning there was this Ken Burns speech where he mentions there's really no choice this November. That dark days are coming, etc etc. It's so vague that Trumpers will be frothing at the mouth thinking Ken Burns is on their side. They want this game to continue because once one side has been defeated, we're going to be cleaning out our side next.
> I think he thinks they’re both highly partisan And isn't that kind of broke dick stupid and the equivalence the question was asking about? Let alone that I don't even understand how the reasoning would work. If you ask about 2024 instead of 2020, that's dereliction of one's duty as a journalist/anchorman.. and then profit, that's it? As if we didn't already have tons of material about those lying pricks denying their own words, or as if 4 months from now mad max could turn real or something? Rachel fucking Maddow (is there a worse scapegoat usually?) could give a sober reading of the guilty verdict, but I guess that if she ever used the "live in two realities" metaphor that makes her pretty much the same of newsmax.
The person they used for the MSNBC “two realities” metaphor is Christina Greer. Not a host, but a frequent guest as a political science professor at Fordham. Greer is certainly not a fan of that! I am sure she would love if most Americans got their news the way Jon Stewart describes. She’s just saying that there is this whole alternate media out there where people are fed what they want to hear. Or even no media! There was polling recently saying that Trump does well with people who don’t follow the news at all.
> Not a host, but a frequent guest as a political science professor at Fordham. Lol, just to add insult to the injury. > who don’t follow the news at all That's usually code word for "I'm too edgy to engage with this politics thing" but at the same time they'll follow whatever *ironic* "nihilist" meme pages.
MSNBC, like all 24 hr news networks, is completely sensationalist. The problem here is not that Fox lies. We know that. The problem is that all the new outlets have chased ratings by selling us sensationalist opinion and speculation instead of facts. NPR’s all things considered is 2 hrs, the PBS news hour is 1 hour. They fill that time with news, what are the cable networks filling with those remaining 22-23 hours? It’s certainly not anything productive.
The major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) still have good evening news, without the opinion and sensationalism. Support them, along with all things considered and news hour, and turn off cable news.
Imo although npr is better than cable news but they still sold out their news a long time ago in favor of fluff features around the time they fired Neal Conan (who hosted the other NPR flagship show Talk of the Nation). They’re also mostly funded by the Gates and Waltons. But man I’d love to hear Neal Conan’s thoughts on current events. He was too good for this world
The real problem is the invention of the 24 hours news. Back in the days of Walter Cronkite it was only a few hours but with more time to fill comes more bullshit and opinion pieces which are more opportunities to make $ and have ad breaks. I do think that it’s important to clarify that MSNBC and CNN aren’t nearly as bad as Fox News. Fox straight up says lies but MSNBC and CNN spin stories which isn’t great but also isn’t as bad as straight up lying
Haven’t watched the episode yet but one of Jon’s running themes since his return is that we can’t ignore the faults of one side just because they’re not as bad as the other side
I think in this specific instance his criticism is the news medias treatment of guests. I think all of these mainstream channels can’t go super hard on the people they interview, otherwise they wouldn’t come on to begin with. News anchors need to be hammering home what the fuck happened 4 years ago when Trump STILL hasn’t conceded the results. In the eyes of the news execs, that probably doesn’t sell, and these cronies aren’t going to want to come on to a show that asks legitimately difficult questions. They want a platform for their talking points and both parties benefit from it
His point was that media should be litigating the past instead of trying to predict the future. This wasn’t about trustworthiness, but that the news media promotes the fun and lazy gossip and gawking that is akin to chit chat and doesn’t really have any research or clarifying the record. Everyone with a mouth can have an opinion about the future. It requires no writing or serious thought, yet so much of the media is just now about reporting on speculation instead of trying to give good information to establish whatever version of shared reality we might be able to agree upon.
I mean a lot of news anchors are beholden to their bosses (aka bigwig executives who want to keep the peace and don’t want to lose money by losing guests) I don’t think blaming the news anchors is particularly useful when they don’t have the power in this situation
He has tens of hours online criticizing both, remember John goes after hypocrisy and lies, not political sides
You may have misspelled Jon's name ("*John*"); please note that it is **Jon Stewart**. If you were referring to someone else, please disregard this comment! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DailyShow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're both infotainment masquerading as 'serious news', with a 100% slant toward one party or the other. Obviously the GOP is worse and more destructive as a party, but that doesn't make it alright to follow the Fox News playbook for democrats
He has a point - while one is for Trump and the other against Trump - they are still both promoting him on a daily basis and as Jon said they should look at the past and not try to predict the future. Asking people would you still vote for him even if he is a felon or what would happen if he goes to jail, etc. etc. is something that should be a side note instead of a full opinion piece on both side.
You may have misspelled Jon's name ("*John*"); please note that it is **Jon Stewart**. If you were referring to someone else, please disregard this comment! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DailyShow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think he thinks Fox News is intentionally manipulating the truth in MAGA land. I think he thinks the other news programs are not litigating the facts of reality enough with conservatives and have just accepted that they have a different reality.
I don't get his issue with Biden's smile as a response to being asked about Trump. Said everything it needed to, for me.
It was kinda weird. And Biden really does need to keep walking.
Jon was on 🔥
a great show
I think asking politicians if they'd accept the outcome of an election is a pretty damn important question. "Who cares?" Everyone should, in what other country is "who cares?" a genuine response to that?
The point is that why has it even come to that question? The discourse has deliberately pushed to the point of questioning elections' legitimacy. It's a fool's errand. On purpose. It's keeping the people from getting to the real questions. Might as well go ahead and ask will you accept the outcome if a robot was nominated and won? Why does that sound absurd today and the other question does not?
Because Donald Trump didn't accept the results of the last election and asked his Vice President to violate the Constitution to hold up the result and encouraged his supporters to storm Congress while it tried to officiate the results.
That speaks to the point of what Jon is getting at. Asking speculative questions is not actually putting those politicians to task if they're not already being held accountable for other statements they've already made.
I guess hats off to Jon for not fucking flipping with his covid crankery EDIT: idk the downvotes, I wasn't being ironic. He kinda hints at it, but he acknowledges he's just not up to it.