SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reuters tells us:
As Jon Stewart winds down his 19-year stint as host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, he and Stephen Colbert sit at the peak of American punditry despite their left-leaning view of life, the universe and everything.
In an era of diffused voices and divided politics, they are well known, widely admired, and speak to Americans in ways that no one else does, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll.
This poll tracks 10 different pundits. Split evenly between conservative and liberal. It is also worth noting that four of the five on the liberal side are comedians, while none of the conservative pundits are trained to tell jokes.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Jon Stewart Stands at the Peak of American punditry
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 94 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
My NOSE is NUMB!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday May 11 2015, @03:23PM
> It is also worth noting that four of the five on the liberal side are comedians, while none of the conservative pundits are trained to tell jokes.
Satire and ridicule are perhaps the most effective weapons we have in politics. After all you aren't fighting people in politics, you're fighting ideas, and ideas tend to be hard to kill.
Sometimes it feels like the only way the powerful can be held accountable any more is through humour.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 11 2015, @03:56PM
There are other options besides laughing and crying, like being pissed-off enough to go to the voting booth.
It's probably why all those angry old codgers watching Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity are still a driving force in American politics -- often moreso the whiny punks who favor touchy-feely bullshit like amnesty and multiculturalism.
Well, if the Liberal pundits won't drive the social justice warriors to anger, at least the shameless non-stop race-baiting of local news outlets will everytime a Black man is shot or beaten to death by the police.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GlennC on Monday May 11 2015, @04:05PM
...like being pissed-off enough to go to the voting booth.
I think it's cute that you think voting will make a difference at this point.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 11 2015, @04:21PM
Tactical voting is the cancer killing democracy.
I voted for Gary Johnson last election and will likely vote third-party next election. I may get fucked up the ass by the next Rs or Ds voted into office and congress but at least I can sleep soundly knowing I voted against them.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday May 11 2015, @06:04PM
What is somewhat sad is that beyond my mayor, city council, and school board there isn't a single elected official that I voted for that holds office, and there hasn't been since Bush left office. I still bought the BS of wasting my vote if I didn't vote for one of the major party candidates when I voted for Bush but even that was the typical hold your nose and fill in the bubble. Of those that are there to supposedly represent my views in higher office the most competent one seems to be one of the more divisive figures in the US senate but has kept a low profile. I don't think the governor of my state could find his own ass with both hands, a map, and a compass. My other US senator is locally referred to as the senator of small things while my rep in the US House is a former nuclear football carrying for Regan war hawk. My rep to the state house is a right wing bible pounder who wants to legislate out of the good book and my senator to the state senate seems to be fairly decent even if he does used the think of the children or throw more money at it a bit too much.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Monday May 11 2015, @07:06PM
The way the MSM is in bed with the political machines means you have better odds of winning the lotto playing all 1s than any third party has of winning anything nationally.
Hell the way they have it set up now even a so called "dark horse" of 1 of the 2 completely corrupted political parties has ZERO chance of making it, for a perfect example see what they did to Ron Paul in 08, where his supported uploaded footage of some of the shenanigans (I'd call it rigging and I'm a socialist who is against pretty much everything he supports) they were pulling, like the anchor in one of the critical swing states outright telling the reporter on camera "let us know if you get any Palin or Christie footage, just toss the Paul stuff" even though he was actually ahead in that state, or those that counted the votes in at least 3 crucial counties saying "The votes we turned in was NOT what was counted, in our county Romney got virtually nothing and Paul got the majority but when the RNC reported the findings they just flipped the numbers and gave the votes to Romney" and culminating when they did the floor vote at the convention and somebody got their cell behind the podium and caught the teleprompter giving the results of the vote before the call to vote was cast showing that everything they worked for was for naught as it was decided beforehand!
To say now you can change things by voting is to say you can win at 3 card monty against a street hustler. No matter how good you focus, no matter how many times you play the game you will never win because the game is rigged and is only an illusion of chance, the outcome is already known.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday May 11 2015, @08:07PM
We need a new voting system [wikipedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday May 11 2015, @04:25PM
You vote DOES matter. Billions are at stake to get your vote. We should have an election every year (not just a perpetual campaign). Think of the advertisers' children!
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Monday May 11 2015, @06:23PM
Well, no. Your vote is only a slice of those 30 billion dollars. Ignroing the notion of "battleground" states and districts, your vote is worth about $200.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday May 11 2015, @07:53PM
You numbers are more flawed than you think.
PR strategy is based around maintaining the base and swinging the swing voters. Due to the blatantly corrupt way america tallies votes, this is all about battleground states. Most of the money goes there and most of the money is to swing the swingers.
So in summers: the swingers in the swing states get the most pounding...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by ikanreed on Monday May 11 2015, @08:46PM
Okay, so, like, I explicitly acknowledged that important distinction. I get why numbers are wrong. Why are they "wronger than I think"?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday May 11 2015, @09:28PM
a) You gave a bogus figure and give the reason its bogus.
b) I point out that PR campaigns focus on swing voters in swing states specifically.
Conclusion: You were wronger than this sentence and your original admission of wrongedness.
The fact that I have to explain this makes your quotes seem pretty stupid now, huh?
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday May 11 2015, @10:30PM
You can mod it flamebait all you want, I will still be right.
And my karma is astronomical so mark this one down also...
Ironically you marked it flamebait but mine is not the burn.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Tuesday May 12 2015, @04:54AM
And this one is still true also...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday May 11 2015, @06:24PM
Your vote DOES matter. Billions are at stake to get your vote. We should have an election every year (not just a perpetual campaign). Think of the advertisers' children!
In the U.S., voter turnout has not, at least since 1948, been over 65% of eligible voters. An election in which in which the turnout reached 90-95%, regardless of who won, would send shock waves through the system and might actually get politicians paying attention to the people rather than just the dollars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:26AM
Not if it was a 50:50 split between R and D.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @05:22PM
This is exactly why the angry old people get paid attention to the most, because they vote. For people like this guy, it is considered cool not to vote. He gets to feel like he's smarter than everyone and make condescending remarks like this, when in fact he is just exposing how much of a dumbshit he is. It does matter and there are differences. Look at Obamacare. That is a huge fucking program that makes a difference to millions of people. Both parties are not of the same mindset. Just because there doesn't seem to be much traction with the issues that you care about doesn't mean the two parties are the same. The same with the media. Just because you don't hear the stories reported such that they jibe with your political viewpoint doesn't mean the media is biased or "bought off."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @05:32PM
Both parties are similar enough when it comes to matters of freedom and the constitution that they are both worthless. Vote third party or don't bother voting at all, as voting for evil scumbags harms us all. As for me, I'll only vote for candidates that completely oppose mass surveillance (not just the NSA's, but other forms of it like license plate readers and Stringrays), completely oppose the drug war (Not just the war on marijuana; all drugs must be legalized.), oppose DUI checkpoints, want to eliminate the TSA entirely, want to end FCC censorship and all forms of obscenity laws, oppose all forms of warrantless wiretapping, oppose all these wars we're getting ourselves into, oppose constitution-free zones, oppose draconian copyright laws, and just generally want to follow the constitution rather than ignore it to give the government more power. If you vote for candidates that are not like this, you are the problem and it would be better if you don't vote at all.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @06:05PM
I'm fine with not voting at all, but in that case at least turn in a blank fucking ballot.
If you don't show up, they know they can safely ignore you. If you turn in a blank ballot, they don't get to know that. The added time taken is about 30m per year.
Now, if you want to form an educated opinion, that takes longer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @09:57PM
Some people have been told that there is "mandated voting" in Australia.
Strictly speaking, that isn't true.
You are required to show up at the polls and sign in.
Once they hand you a ballot, you can
- stick that unmarked ballot directly into the box (as you suggest).
- mark every square on the ballot and stick it in the box.
(This is better IMO than a blank ballot that someone with evil intent can easily alter.)
- write FUCK $DAMNED_POLITICIAN in giant letters on it and stick it in the box.
If you don't show up and sign in, there is a fine of an hour or two's wages.
...and isn't it interesting how some people will piss and moan out loud or in an online forum then--when it really counts--don't want their voices heard and don't cast a ballot?
-- gewg_ (who tends to vote 3rd party)
(Score: 1) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:20AM
An an aussie, I have staunchly defended our compulsory voting regime against all those who have tried to tear it down as an afront to freedom, liberty etc etc.
If you don't cast your vote, you have no legitimate right to piss and moan about the people who end up running the country. They are all too happy to whine loudly about the politicians, but they cant be arsed to do the one thing that matters to try and hold them accountable.
Sure, these days it doesnt seem to matter much whether you vote right, left, centre, or just scrawl "fuck them all sideways with a bargepole" on the ballot form, but at least going in to vote actually shows you give a shit about how you want your country run.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 12 2015, @02:34AM
If you don't cast your vote, you have no legitimate right to piss and moan about the people who end up running the country.
That right is called "freedom of speech", and yes, they would have that right if they failed to vote. And no, even if they didn't vote, that wouldn't make their observations incorrect, as arguments stand on their own merit. You might argue that if they want to see things change, they should vote for candidates who will implement changes. I would agree. But saying they don't have a right to complain if they don't vote makes no sense no matter how I look at it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 12 2015, @03:08AM
"Ah, but Mr. Anderson, how can you vote for a candidate who will implement changes, if such a candidate cannot get on the ballot?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @04:27AM
Perhaps you should have read my comment fully, before claiming something that does not exist in the context to which you are replying. I draw your attention to "As an aussie".
Now, unlike the US, we do not have "the right to free speech" enshrined in our constitution. It's not even listed as a common law principle in our country. It is, however, staunchly defended by threat of beating politicians to death with a cricket bat, should they try to remove our "free" speech.
In the US, you may have a "legal" right to whinge, bitch and moan about whoever gets into power, but if all you do is whinge, bitch and moan, instead of acting as a force of change, then that "right" is only a legal one, and not a legitimate one.
Get out and vote. Hold your politicians accountable for their actions towards you, and your society. To do otherwise is the equivalent of telling your parents you're going to hold your breath until they buy you that candy bar.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @06:01AM
And, the Aussie wins! Yeah! Now you were saying about internet freedom and not being a nation of criminals, and that Bufo toads are _not_ a problem? But good on ya, mate! Free speech is not free! I like that slogan.
(Score: 1) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @07:26AM
We're not a nation of criminals. We are a nation that has descended/evolved from criminals. Working class criminals I hasten to add.
Upper class criminals (d)evolve into politicians.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 12 2015, @07:39AM
Yes, of course. This is why America and Australia have so much in common. They both are equally opposed to Bloody Poms. (Americans don't call them that, but share the sentiment.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @07:47PM
...until a baby is born to the royal family.
...or a commoner marries into that inbred lot.
...or that commoner dies in a car wreck.
We fought a revolutionary war to dump the lot but there is a certain portion that still feels a need to fawn over aristocratic overlords.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 13 2015, @11:54PM
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:26PM
Perhaps you should have read my comment fully, before claiming something that does not exist in the context to which you are replying. I draw your attention to "As an aussie".
I don't care if you're an aussie, because even you have free speech rights, even if they're not in some constitution.
In the US, you may have a "legal" right to whinge, bitch and moan about whoever gets into power, but if all you do is whinge, bitch and moan, instead of acting as a force of change, then that "right" is only a legal one, and not a legitimate one.
It's fully legitimate either way.
Get out and vote.
I did say that that's a good idea for the people who want change.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by isostatic on Monday May 11 2015, @11:18PM
If everyone who didn't bother do vote in 2012 had turns up and written "Fuck You", the president with a landslide - twice as many votes as Obama - would be a Chinese bloke. Don't you DARE tell me that voting doesn't work your fucking terrorist commie fascist.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 11 2015, @10:47PM
That is a huge fucking program that makes a difference to millions of people.
I think the detractors such as myself wholly agree. We just don't agree that the difference is positive. There's a lot of people with pre-existing conditions and whatnot. There's also a lot of people without. And there are other aspects of the economy which we want to have around which are impacted such as every manner of business, the ability of the government to carry out important services like police protection or road systems, and just having a future that is better than the present.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:38PM
For people like this guy, it is considered cool not to vote.
That assumes that I don't vote.
Granted, the ballot I turn in is almost completely blank, but I do go to the polls. If there's only an R or a D, I leave it blank.
Depressingly often, there is only one candidate. I leave that one blank as well.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday May 12 2015, @12:36AM
It isn't anger that they are channeling it is fear. Humor is the best motivator of Stewart/Colbert's key demographics, younger more liberal leaning people. Fear is the best motivator for older conservatives. We have known this since 2001, media beats the fear drum constantly. The Limbaugh/Hannity demographic has been primarily motivated by fear for pretty much ever. It is only post 2001 that it has become truly effective. Fear the terrorists (that kill .001% the as many Americans as cars, guns, or heart disease); fear immigrants, because they will take your jobs; fear Obamacare because.. hmm.. only the rich deserve healthcare (even though a well run social health system will cut costs for everyone by encouraging people to get preventative care instead of waiting and ending up in the emergency room); fear the gays... because... uhh.. Hannity is a closet homosexual? I have no idea on that one. It always seems to me that the more a Republican bang the anti-gay drum the more likely they are banging... oh nevermind.
And before people jump all over my on the Obamacare thing. Yeah, it is a clusterfuck, mostly because half of congress wants the thing to fail for political reasons. Yes, I think the states should and could do it better. But I know the states won't fucking do it without a federal mandate. Perhaps if people tries to work for a compromise on how to do it instead of both parties being "my way or the highway", we could get shit done. But the ship has sailed on getting shit done about 20 years ago.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:25AM
(even though a well run social health system will cut costs for everyone by encouraging people to get preventative care instead of waiting and ending up in the emergency room)
Obamacare is not a well-run social health system; it's corporate welfare, plain and simple. We should've gone with single-payer, not this insurance company scam that still leaves millions uninsured and confuses many people with its overly complex implementation. Yet, last I checked, Obama came out against single-payer, so there goes the "He's just easing us into single-payer!" theory.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:01PM
Like I said, I agree it is a disaster and single payer would be beter. But anyone pretending that Republicans voting against Obamacare simply because they would rather have single payer is a straight up lie. They would have voted that down too, and any other national healthcare scheme that parted from the status quo. Both parties were getting significant money from the existing health insurance framework in order to maintain the gravytrain as long as possible.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @04:03PM
> After all you aren't fighting people in politics, you're fighting ideas, and ideas tend to be hard to kill.
If we had a comedy-industrial complex we would be flooding the internet with jokes about ISIS and al qaeda. So much cheaper, so much less opportunity for blowback (never have to worry about jokes of mass deconstruction falling into the wrong hands). But we don't so investing the money in people who understand the society and make cultural relevant jokes is just more than we can afford.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 11 2015, @05:12PM
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."
(Letter to Étienne Noël Damilaville, May 16, 1767)
― Voltaire
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday May 11 2015, @10:43PM
Satire and ridicule are perhaps the most effective weapons we have in politics.
And if you don't have any legitimate basis for your viewpoint, they often are the only weapon you have. Being a comedian means you never have to be right.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday May 12 2015, @09:15AM
If there's no truth in it, it's not funny, and it's not an effective weapon. That's the beauty of it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 12 2015, @08:27PM
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:45PM
> I didn't say comedy had to be funny.
Let me guess, you're a conservative.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:00AM
But really, there is this unwarranted assumption that comedy has to be funny. I notice this attitude on occasion when someone is losing an argument on SN or those other sites. They start cutting jokes and wittily insulting those who disagree. I gather they think they're being funny and that somehow making jokes adequately compensates for not having a thing to say, but it's a sad thing to see.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:05PM
> But really, there is this unwarranted assumption that comedy has to be funny.
Unwarranted? Surely funniness is the defining trait of comedy. What's funny is highly subjective, granted, but saying "Comedy doesn't have to be funny" is like saying "Erotica doesn't have to be sexy" or "War doesn't have to be violent" or "Food doesn't have to be edible."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 15 2015, @12:23AM
while most multinationals are vulnerable to boycotts, sabotage, and other public protests
lol, funniest joke of the week!
My observation wasn't funny or even incorrect, but it became "funniest joke" because the AC author had no basis on which to rationally argue against it. This is the form of a lot of comedy of which I speak. People often don't have a good reason to disagree, so they bitterly mock it instead.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 15 2015, @11:10AM
I suspect your sarcasm meter is incorrectly calibrated. In your example AC isn't making a joke (well, kind of), and doesn't genuinely think that you are. AC was deliberately misinterpreting your comment as a joke in order to imply that what you said was so ridiculous that you couldn't possibly have been speaking seriously. AC does have a point, but didn't bother to spell out his/ her arguments of provide links, presumably because s/he thought they would be obvious. Or maybe because s/he is lazy. Actually, I suspect it's mostly the latter.
I am not AC so I don't know and I'm not going to bother doing his/ her research, but I'd guess the point s/he is trying to make is either:
A) Multinationals are effectively immune to boycotts etc because they can use mass-brainwashing of the public (aka advertising) and/or re-branding to make public image problems simply go away. They can use political connections to prevent or mitigate sabotage / mass protests. Consider how many people choose to boycott Wal-Mart, or MacDonalds, or Disney for various reasons. Do those companies really seem to be suffering significantly? How many people boycotted/ protested BP following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Are BP on their knees begging for forgiveness?
or
B) The vast bulk of the general public is so apathetic and uneducated about the complex ethical issues surrounding their purchasing habits that public action on the scale required to dent multinationals is so rare as to be practically non-existent. So what if twelve million dirty hippies decide to boycott Nestle when there are several billion more customers lined up around the world?
If I could be bothered to dig up some links these would probably be points worth arguing but again, I'm not AC and only marginally less lazy than him/her.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 15 2015, @06:49PM
In your example AC isn't making a joke (well, kind of), and doesn't genuinely think that you are. AC was deliberately misinterpreting your comment as a joke in order to imply that what you said was so ridiculous that you couldn't possibly have been speaking seriously.
Which is a joke. This also is a standard rhetorical maneuver by comedians. I bet I could find one or two examples from a typical Jon Stewart night.
AC does have a point, but didn't bother to spell out his/ her arguments of provide links, presumably because s/he thought they would be obvious.
If only we knew for sure. There's a way that the AC could have done that and avoid all this meaningless speculation. They could even have been funny in the process.
I am not AC so I don't know and I'm not going to bother doing his/ her research, but I'd guess the point s/he is trying to make
The thing is, the AC didn't try to make that point. It's just unfounded conjecture on your part that they even understood the argument well enough to make such points.
My point here is that humor and comedy can be and are misused easily. Sure, it can be used to illustrate the truth of some ill or evil and it can be quite engaging and memorable (for example, we still remember the gerrymander [wikipedia.org] and honor the senator who "spoke to Buncombe" [wiktionary.org]). But it can also be a tool of sloth, used by the lazy to insult or belittle without even a little bit of content. My take is that many of the people lauding the use of humor are of this listless sort, unable or unwilling to put together a more serious argument (even one using humor!).
So I have to roll my eyes when I read stories of the truthiness of humor, especially blatantly partisan (and clueless) ones ("none of the conservative pundits are trained to tell jokes" - well I doubt any of the supposedly liberal ones were trained either). It's good to have a sense of humor, but merely going through the motions of making a joke doesn't make you funny.