Hilarious: Daily Show Looks At 24 Hours of Fox News (and random DS bumps) MET

[Larry]

Endless Suffrage 2012 - Rick Santorum Drops Out

Endless Suffrage 2012 - Gingrich, Obama & Romney Campaign Headquarters. There's a really good joke about Gingrich's bounced check in there. Possible coffee-snort joke.

Bro-Choice

OK, I think that last one, they should have points taken off, because what they're doing is, they're making fun of a piece of legislation that was intended to be a joke when it was introduced.

But, they did a really good job of it.

[Larry]

Last night's show opened with the Zimmerman case:

Zimdecision 2012

and

Zimdecision 2012 - The Trial of the Millennium

Really funny.

Next segment's really good, too:

Road to Whatever House the President of Egypt Lives In

Seems like Egypt is six weeks away from their election, and they have a Birther controversy. (Good for some really good jokes.)

[Larry]

On Her Vagesty's Secret Service & Mitt Needs Moms

Touches on lots of subjects.

Mitt Needs Moms - Motherhood Is Hard

Has a few good parts.

And, for the next segment, we go to Jon's always bountiful show generator, Fox News.

The Battle for the War on Women
The "war on women" faces backlash as Fox News suggests elevating this political fight to the level of war diminishes the seriousness with which real conflicts are engaged.

Note to Jon: You missed a possible tie-in. You could have had a tie-in to your own first segment.

[Jumbo]

God that was awesome---thanks Larry. I wish I had more time to do clips. The "War" segment was hystercial! Jeebus, what a bunch of maroons (network & loyal viewers). I guess it's really sad more than funny, but I like laughing and already cry often enough.

[Park City Skins]

"Vagina Mangers????"

Stewart got it right again in that segment.

[Larry]

I liked the Sarah Palin/Joisey bit, too.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Seriously, and people wonder why I have no regard for Faux News.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...playershare_fb

[Burgold]

To be fair, this is just SOP punditry, Asbury. It's not a FOX thing. They all hate each other and then rally towards their guy. I can't really blame FOX for it. Yes, it's dishonest, hypocritical, and downright icky, but it ain't conservative or unique. Remember, the hard swallowing the Hillary backers did when Obama finally won the nod? Remember George H. Bush's hard pivot when he went from detesting Reagan to being his VP?

It's just part of the game. You love your guy and hate everyone else until your guy loses and then you love your new guy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

True enough Bur, seems though that Faux has taken an imperfect art and codified it into a true master piece of deceit. That said I do agree with you, and as much as I wanted in the last four years for things to be fixed in politics (as if) I'm again washed up upon the shores of disillusionment and bitterness toward our elected officials and their barking dogs.

[Burgold]

True enough Bur, seems though that Faux has taken an imperfect art and codified it into a true master piece of deceit. That said I do agree with you, and as much as I wanted in the last four years for things to be fixed in politics (as if) I'm again washed up upon the shores of disillusionment and bitterness toward our elected officials and their barking dogs.

That said, I wish we lived in a world where we didn't rely on political pundits who were so firmly entrenched in a side, but analysts who were area experts and more nuetral/objective. I'd really much rather hear how x or y policy works, needs strengthening, or is miserable than listening how candidate X, President Y, or Senator Z is a lousy guy out to hurt us... the game has superceded the work all too often. Worse, it's not just on TV, but in reality.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That said, I wish we lived in a world where we didn't rely on political pundits who were so firmly entrenched in a side, but analysts who were area experts and more nuetral/objective. I'd really much rather hear how x or y policy works, needs strengthening, or is miserable than listening how candidate X, President Y, or Senator Z is a lousy guy out to hurt us... the game has superceded the work all too often. Worse, it's not just on TV, but in reality.

The problem is that the media on both sides is so firmly entrenched into their political party that it is nearly impossible to figure out who is trust worthy in the media, it's not just cable news anymore, heck the Grey Lady is so corrupted as to no longer be trustworthy anymore. Trying to find truth in the political circus is like trying to dig through a giant pile of crap looking for a peanut, sure it's in there, but even when you find it is hard to be sure that it isn't just more of the same.

[Burgold]

I think that's part of it. I also think it's a simplistic definition of fairness or balance. Some think that in order to balance the story you need a guy from each side... often that is a Democrat and a Republican, but really that is a lazy way of achieving balance and getting close-minded shills is the opposite of creating fairness. But it is easier or at least quicker.

[Larry]

The problem is that the media on both sides is so firmly entrenched into their political party that it is nearly impossible to figure out who is trust worthy in the media, it's not just cable news anymore, heck the Grey Lady is so corrupted as to no longer be trustworthy anymore. Trying to find truth in the political circus is like trying to dig through a giant pile of crap looking for a peanut, sure it's in there, but even when you find it is hard to be sure that it isn't just more of the same.

1) No, I disagree with you. No, the grey lady is not so corrupted as to no longer be trustworthy any more. That's a myth, pushed for decades by people who want to justify propaganda.

2) That said, though, I do think that the media has, over the years, simply given up even attempting to print the truth.

I think that most of the media is so terrified of being accused of bias, that they no longer even attempt to present truth. Instead, their goal is "balance"

"Balance" seems to be defined as:

Take an issue, pretend that the issue has two, and only two 'sides',. Find a spokesman for each 'side', allow both spokesmen to spout off with whatever they want to say. Take what each spokesman said, and reduce each of them to a single sentence. Print each sentence, with appropriate attribution.

Do not in any way point out that one, or both, of the spokesmen are lying. If you do so, then you're biased.

In short, "balance" consists of "give each side an equal amount of air time to say whatever they want". (Kind of like the rules for our "political debates".)

It's a great way of not being accused of bias. Print an article that says "Senator Lardbutt stated that he supported the bill because the sky is green.", and point out that the sky, in fact, isn't green, and you'll be accused of fraud and bias from people pointing out that the actual spectra of light coming from the sky contains several colors of light, and that green is one of them, therefore it is possible, if you really try, to claim that maybe there might be support for the claim that the sky does, in fact, contain some green." But, leave out the fact that he's lying, and they can't accuse you. All you did was print that Senator Lardbutt said that, and he did.

(It's also cheap and easy. All you do is request each side to send you their standard press release, print it, and you're done. Whereas, trying to find out what the truth is, takes time, and lots of work, and exposes you to the risk of being accused, or of being wrong.)

But, it doesn't inform the public. The "print whatever the two sides want you to print, and don't even attempt to find out if it's true" method of "journalism", tells the public that there are two sides to the issue, and that both sides are equal.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Holy ****, I can't believe Herman Cain agreed to do that interview. That was perfect. John Oliver is a gawd

[DeaconTheVillain]

Holy ****, I can't believe Herman Cain agreed to do that interview. That was perfect. John Oliver is a gawd

yup.

A+