PeterDavid.net

Yeah, I laughed when I read that. It's pretty clear that Jon Stewart skewers everyone equally. His AUDIENCE clearly leans in a leftward direction, but that's another argument.

I may just find myself watching Fox's show, if only to scare the hell out of myself.

Yep, I thought the same thing. Jon Stewart attacks liberals as well as conservatives, and will continue to do so. I sometimes wonder if his audience will get uncomfortable now that there are more liberals in power to make fun of?

What the ...? The "Michael Moore channel"?!? Why the hell can't I get that on my cable lineup?

And didn't Dennis Miller try this act already?

Fox news leans right. Yes. Confirmed. Soooo.. NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, LA TIMEs etc etc etc all lean left.

Most won't admit it. Because you believe your POV are normal or in the centre. I lean to the centre-right and I am honest about it. And that is what is lacking in political discourse.

AS a suporter of gay marriage, I can say I suppport an extreme left socialist move.

The thing that cracks me up is that Fox takes itself so seriously when it's still the network that gave the world Married...With Children, Beans Baxter, The Simpsons, and innumerable When Whatever We Think Is Bad Attack specials. This show will quickly go the way of, not the Dinosaurs, because that was a GOOD show, but Ooops!, That 80's Show, and whatever other shows flamed out quick. But now that they have Fox NEWS, oh, they're the ultimate, they're the authority, stick a fork in everyone else. Wonder how O' Reilly's going to react. since all he did for a while is beat on Stewart's audience.

There's a problem with satire. If you're the first to do it, then you're funny. If you're the second, or in this case, fourth, to do it, then you fall into the "Oh. look at that. Did I clean the bathroom?" category. This show will have to be more than just "We're funny like the Daily Show!" I doubt it will be.

"A liberal mindset understands the notion that anything is fair game, but a conservative insists on lockstep adherence to its leaders and unwavering, unquestioning support."

You are painting both liberals and conservatives with far too broad a brush. There are many liberals who insist that their sacred cows must remain inviolate -- they're part of the "political correctness" movement. And there are a fair number of conservatives who can laugh at themselves. I know some of them personally.

That said, I do believe the liberal ideology has a leg up on conservatism when it comes to comedy. Why? One of the richest veins of comedic material comes from poking fun at the powerful. Liberalism ostensibly disdains power (I say ostensibly because extreme leftist movements like Marxism are no less prone to totalitarianism than extreme right-wing movements like fascism) whereas conservatism generally holds that in a free, capitalist society, the people who will become powerful are those who deserve it.

But one must be cautious about making sweeping generalizations. One of the dominant themes of Monty Python's Flying Circus was the deflating of authority through humor. According to the other cast members, John Cleese was perfect in the role of the authoritarian in so many skits precisely because he had a conservative, authoritarian streak.

In other words, liberals can be wet blankets too. And conservatives can be funny as well.

In the voice of the Subway chain's current Canadian TV commercials' spokes-mascot to answer your question:

"NevAHHHHR!!!"

"AS a suporter of gay marriage, I can say I suppport an extreme left socialist move."

What's socialist about gay marriage?

"beralism ostensibly disdains power (I say ostensibly because extreme leftist movements like Marxism are no less prone to totalitarianism than extreme right-wing movements like fascism) whereas conservatism generally holds that in a free, capitalist society, the people who will become powerful are those who deserve it."

It is unfair to mention marxism and liberalism in the same sentence even more than placing conservativism and fascism (but also). Marxism and fascism are authoritan, and therefore opposed satire against themselves. Some liberals and some conservatives are so ful of themselves that they are incapable of self criticism. Liberalism entails a challenge to tradition and authority, while conservativism does not. So it is easier for liberals to mock authority and tradiotion, even there own (or at least it should).

The Dail;y Show has a left leaning perspective, I think. But it is able to make fun of both conservative and liberal targets, and to do so fairly. Fox's show will be tested on its ability to do that. If all it's able to do, will be to make dumb jokes on liberals, than it will not be considered good satire.

I've rarely seen good right wing satire. I saw (on TV) Dennis Miller, and his political jokes were embarassing.

The biggest problem with Miller's show was the condescending tone he had. "I'm smarter than you, this is dumb, you're dumb, this is why." It was the same problem he had on MNF. A good comic makes you feel like you're being spoken with, Miller makes sure you know your being spoken TO.

He's had some funny bits over the years, but lately his stuff has been too self-aware for my taste. "I'M DENNIS MILLER, LISTEN TO ME."

"Mallard Filmore" makes me feel young. Whenever I read the strip, I flashback fifteen years and think I'm looking at a comic from my college newspaper. I'm too often repulsed by how poorly the strip is done to even bother getting annoyed by its politics. There's usually at least one strawman argument per strip. My favorite of which is when he postulates that liberals or the "mainstream media" doesn't care about something because it affects conservatives. He has no evidence of this, of course.

The criticism or rather the labeling of "The Daily Show" is typical. We used to see it about "Saturday Night Live" before it became the mess it is today. What I don't understand is the seeming inability for many conservatives to accept the fact that if your POV is the status quo/mainstream, then you are generally going to be the subject of, well, comedy in general, which almost always targets the status quo/mainstream.

Puncturing those in power is funny. Attacking hypocrisy of those in power is funny. Attacking those who aren't in power isn't really funny. It's being a bully. Of course, Rush Limbaugh and those who imitated him made a fortune doing this so I don't see why the conservatives are so upset.

Honestly, my head is spinning by this line of thought. Look guys, for the past six years, you were in charge of all three branches of government. Who else would "The Daily Show" target.

Yes, in all honesty, the people behind "The Daily Show" or "The Onion" are either liberal or definitely not conservative but it's overall goal is comedy not politics.

Good comedy is about the skewering of the hypocrisy of those in power, among other things. Good comedy is *not* about a specific political viewpoint.

Micha,

The reason gay marriage can be considered socialist engineering is that it is attempting to change a thousand year old social structure.

Once again, I am for it, mainly because it is the Christian thing to do.

For great writing and humour, read Mark Steyn. A wonderful wordsmith www.steynonline.com

Am I the only one who remembers The Daily Show tearing into Bill Clinton every night during Monicagate???

Totally agree, anything that isnt right-wing propaganda is by default "liberal" to these guys. That is why they have been harping about the so-called "liberal media." If something is impartial its got to be liberal. People will watch this show just because the ditto heads what whatever they put on Fox, but mark my words.. it WILL NOT be funny.

Lee Siegel from the New Republic (didn't that used to be known as a 'liberal' mag?) wrote “Why Jon Stewart isn't funny.” Google it. The phantom 'liberal' press corps stared icily at Stephen Colbert's brilliant dissecting of the so-called journalists (see: Candy Crowley, Cokie Roberts, Chris Matthews) who have let Bush and him cronies run rampant for six years without questioning them once.

The one conservative I find to be remotely amusing is P.J. O'Rourke, and he's only kinda-sorta funny; he's too far removed from his salad days at The National Lampoon.

Honestly, where are the funny far-right wingnuts? Names, anyone?

>
Okay, so give me a list of down-the-middle shows so I can see what is 'even-handed'...

"A liberal mindset understands the notion that anything is fair game, but a conservative insists on lockstep adherence to its leaders and unwavering, unquestioning support."
Luigi Novi: As long as it is understood that what is meant by "liberal" and "conservative" are the definitions of it them you're assuming. From an objective viewpoint, however, it can be seen that the tendency to think of some things as "not fair game" is a human trait, not a "liberal" one or a "conservative" one. If a "liberal mindset" sees anything as fair game, then how do you explain, to name one example, the persecution and censorship that David Horowitz went through on college campuses when he published his arguments as to why slavery reparations would be wrong, arguments that were based on fact and reason?

The reasoning I see in your post, Peter, seems to be one of association: You see everything as fair game (which I agree with), and you're a liberal, so perhaps you associate "a liberal mindset" (as if there is such a thing) with that outlook, and "the conservative mindset" as its opposite. At the very least, the qualifier "Right Wing" might've been properly placed in front of "conservative" in that sentence, much as you alluded to earlier in the post.

Whether you believe that anything is fair game, or so close-minded that you demand lockstepped, blind, unwavering support is a question of your own character and level of enlightenment. Not your poltiical persuasion. I've encountered quite a few so-called "liberals" that espoused hatred and bigotry toward those who did not share their views, and calls for censorship, just as I've encountered thoughtful words from conservatives that made no indication of such intent.

That said, while The Daily Show does make fun of everyone, the overall political POV I perceive from it (and my perception is just that) does seem to tilt to the left. While I'm usually in agreement with many of its points, I occassionally notice some ideas pop out when watching it that seem indicative of bias rather than objectivity.

I think it would be interesting to see what a FOX version of TDS would look like. Perhaps its humor may resemble much of what we see on South Park.

Happy Thanksgiving, Peter. :-)

Am I the only one who remembers The Daily Show tearing into Bill Clinton every night during Monicagate???
Yes, Egon - most people don't remember the 10 years of history The Daily Show has, because the audience grew so dramatically between Indecision 2000 and Indecision 2004. The months leading up to Jon's appearance on Crossfire, and that event, is really what popped The Daily Show into the spotlight it now shares with The Colbert Report. So really, there are an awful lot of people who don't remember just how much fun the show had with the Clinton years. ...they're about to be reminded. ;)

Fox actually announced this project right around the time Busboy and Comedy Central announced The Colbert Report. At the time, it had a female lead, who wasn't a standup comic or improv actor, and a rather unimpressive list of writers with very little comedy background. I think they dropped it to a backburner rather quickly because they realized there wasn't all that much to skewer. Now that the Democrats have taken control of both Houses, they're reviving the project because there's a target. (I think they realized quickly that a "right centered" poke at Entertainment Weekly would flop fast.)

I still think this will flop fast, just not as fast as it would have a year ago. For some reason, right-leaning comedy that tries to be highminded tends to come off, as someone noted about Dennis Miller, as simply arrogant and "I'm better than you." Stewart has managed to craft the perfect laughing because I'd otherwise cry, isn't this so absurd tone that I can't see Fox even trying to pull off.

Ahem. Don'tcha love grad students? We can study whatever we want, and justify it as "part of our studies". (No, seriously... I am a fount on this subject for a reason...)

Posted by Micha at November 22, 2006 02:51 PM

It is unfair to mention marxism and liberalism in the same sentence even more than placing conservativism and fascism (but also).

I disagree. I believe they all occupy points on the same spectrum. Liberalism, when taken to an illogical extreme, leads to movements like Marxism, whereas fascism is an illogical right-wing extreme.

Don't get me wrong: just because an idea can be taken to an illogical extreme doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile idea. If people drive at excessive speeds, it's not the car that's the problem, it's the driver.

Yes, The Daily Show does skewer targets on both the right and left. It's more a question of which side gets their head handed to them on a platter more often and how deep Jon Stewart and Co. plunge the satirical knife.

You might as well say the New York Times is open to liberal and conservative viewpoints because they have a conservative columnist: David Brooks. It's a true statement, but not a helpful one, since Brooks is the *only* conservative columnist they've got. Context makes all the difference here, guys.

-Dave OConnell

>Puncturing those in power is funny. Attacking hypocrisy of those in power is funny. Attacking those who aren't in power isn't really funny. It's being a bully. Of course, Rush Limbaugh and those who imitated him made a fortune doing this so I don't see why the conservatives are so upset.>

One of Saturday Night Live's writers, Jim Downey, weighed on this sort of thing in Tom Shales' SNL book. I wish I had access to the actual quote, but his point was that there is a big difference between portraying, for instance, Clinton as a fast food-loving womanizer and Bush as a cold-blooded murderer. Some targets get a fairly light treatment and others get it full force, even though its pretty much the same comedians making the jokes. Let's not confuse being funny with being objective. Those are two very different things.

-Dave OConnell

// The reason gay marriage can be considered socialist engineering is that it is attempting to change a thousand year old social structure. //

Changing a thousand year old social structure?, you mean like getting rid of slavery, declaring that women are not property or doing away with royalty and class structures.

You are absolutly right, it is the Christian thing to do. :-)

// Yeah, I laughed when I read that. It's pretty clear that Jon Stewart skewers everyone equally. His AUDIENCE clearly leans in a leftward direction, but that's another argument. //

Maybe because those on the left are smart enought to get satire and think it's a good thing to point out that those in power have no cloths. The nature of a conservitive is to not change, the nature of a liberal is to change. Satire is an instriment of change, has been all though history. It's no surprise that those who lean liberal would tend to watch it more then those who don't.

>Attacking those who aren't in power isn't really funny. It's being a bully.

Not necessarily. Canada's left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP, a.k.a. Not Destined for Power) leader Jack Layton isn't in power and is not likely to be in our lifetimes. But everybody had fun verbally beating up on him (including most left-wing types) and no one thought it was bullying. Not after the idiot suggested we should not be going in shooting in Afghanistan. Instead, we should try talking to the Taliban.

No sympathies. He got the shellacking he deserved.

I would say that a more accurate title would be, "Once again, Fox News just doesn't get it."

// I've rarely seen good right wing satire. I saw (on TV) Dennis Miller, and his political jokes were embarassing. //

Part of the problem is that Dennis Miller has declared certian things "off-limits", including making fun of the president. Every comedian has something that's "off-limits", but if you are going to do political humor you have to be able to make fun of the people in power, reguardless of what party they are in or what party you are in. This is why Miller's post conservative conversion act so often falls short, what Miller is attempting is the equilalent of juggling with one hand and one foot tied behind your back.

I agree with several others here on the broad brush thing. Not all conservatives fall into the brush stroke you lay out anymore then all libs do. Hell, there are several self described conservatives who post here that have a hell of a sense of humor for poking both sides with sticks. I also see a lot of libs out there who have zero sense of humor with anything that is not 100% PC.

Luigi Novi,

"Perhaps its humor may resemble much of what we see on South Park."

It could, but I'm not sure from the way it has been described by its creators that it will. It may try to go after some of the South Park Conservatives in tone and style, but it will fail if that's all it goes after for veiwers. South Park flames the living hell out of every group's sacred cows. It has targets and fans on all sides of the field. This, as an answer to the "left's" shows, just sounds like a bad show in the making. Barring one hell of a gifted writing staff, I give it one season or less.

Yes, The Daily Show does skewer targets on both the right and left. It's more a question of which side gets their head handed to them on a platter more often and how deep Jon Stewart and Co. plunge the satirical knife.
Oh, I disagree, Dave - I think you're basing your opinion on the simple fact that there hasn't been terribly much around to use to stab the satirical heart of the Democrats with, as it were. But once upon a time, there was, and it was vicious, and it was funny.

Recent example, from... oh, I want to say August, was Dean appearing on the show, showing how they were going to flyer America for the midterms - basically hanging these paper doorknob things everywhere. Jon simply lost it, and managed to gasp out "this explains SO much about the Democrats", and it was fodder on the show for weeks. (And carried over to post-midterm, when it was apologized for, since it was obviously successful.)

Was it as hard biting as targeting Bush for his war, or the rest of the Republican Administration? No, but that's just cuz the Democrats haven't done much newsworthy aside from deciding to litter America with flyers. One does have to work with what one is handed, and for better or worse, the Republicans have been great at giving out well-stocked silver platters.

...wow, my metaphors are running amok, aren't they?

The first thought that popped into my head after starting to read Peter's post was of a sketch that was performed on SNL way back in the Murphy-Piscopo era: "The Moral Majority Comedy-Variety Hour." I suspect the Fox News version of "The Daily Show" will go over about as well.

Dave OConnell,

"One of Saturday Night Live's writers... there is a big difference between portraying, for instance, Clinton as a fast food-loving womanizer and Bush as a cold-blooded murderer. Some targets get a fairly light treatment and others get it full force..."

Ok. Maybe I missed something here. Granted I only tend to catch SNL every other week (and sometimes every third week), but I don't remember seeing an SNL skit where Bush was portrayed as some evil, cold-blooded murderer.

A dunce? Yeah. A clown? Yeah. An over grown child? Yeah. Cheney's sock puppet? Yeah. A cold-blooded murderer? No. You'll have to send me the tape or give me an upcoming date for a rerun to watch out for that one.

I am open to being corrected here. Like I said, I don't catch SNL as much as I used to.

Wait...I thought Bill O'Reilly's show was a satire?

Kelly,

Yeah. I seem to remember TDS launching a few good ones towards some of the dimmer lefties during Katrina and at the Jefferson scandel. But, hey, how's that gonna be anything like the fodder for humor of a Foley, Bush's moral adviser buying sex from a gay prostitute or just about any of Rummy's remarks on the Iraq War?

Come this time next year, we'll be seeing some nasty daggers plunged into Democrats by The Daily Show's writing staff. And many will likely be well deserved and repeated endlessly by members of the right-wing media.

It's (possibly) worth noting that in the UK Murdoch's Sun newspaper is a staunch supporter of Tony Blair and New Labour, who are our supposedly Left wing ruling party. (Currently they're about 2 millimetres to the Left of the Right wing Conservative party, but that's a seperate kettle of dormice...)

I tend to suspect that any and all of Murdoch's Media franchises are more interested in 'who got the power, who got the money' than any hard core political agenda.

Prepare to see some positively Orwellian changes in perspective if, as and when you do undergo regime change...

Cheers,
PJP

I guess you could call it right wing satire, but I always thought Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn was pretty honest and pretty funny. At the time it made a good follower to The Daily Show, but obviously, The Colbert Report is 50x better. :D

re: Dennis Miller.
On Oct 4th, following Dennis Miller's appearance on the Daily Show, I wrote the following on my blog
http://scavgraphics.livejournal.com/155709.html:

So Dennis Miller was on The Daily Show tonight.

Once upon a time, Dennis Miller was the king of intelligent political humor. A staunch libertarian, he took on all comers....any hypocritical politician (you know, all of them) were fair game.

The September 11, 2001 came, and as opposed to true American heroes (deletion for context) for whom the tragedy happening down the street from them crystallized just what it means to be an American, the man who once said "...it's that blind adherence to what is situationally palatable that is truly dangerous. We should question it all. Poke fun at it all. Piss off on it all. Rail against it all." found, while standing on the other side of the country, his spine had weakened and his colors did indeed run, mixing until his complexion had taken a heavy amber tinge. And the country's most erudite comedian became the country's least erudite president's biggest fan.

Many paragraphs, including comparisons to Colbert and Stewart follow, but I don't want to further fill up PAD's blog:
http://scavgraphics.livejournal.com/155709.html

Egon: The problem with Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn was that it was with Colin Quinn and his buddies...basically the guys who run in to 7-11 to get Dennis Leary's cigarettes. They were doing Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect, but they were all...uhm...how to say it politely...morons.

It's one thing to be a conservative comedian. It's another to be a monosyllabic idiot trying to debate issues.

edhopper -
Wait...I thought Bill O'Reilly's show was a satire?

It is, but from the position of, as others put it with Dennis Miller, "I'm right, you're wrong". O'Reilly is a master of ridiculing others, but it's almost always in a mean-spirited way that does nothing but make him look like an ass.

But, seriously... Comedy Central is now the "Michael Moore Channel"?

I hate to think of what they'll come up with next, because, no, Fox doesn't understand humorous satire.

They're gonna rehire O.J., and title it, "How We'll Kill Jon Stewart." eh, it's an idea . . .

"Posted by: AnthonyX at November 22, 2006 03:22 PM
Micha,

The reason gay marriage can be considered socialist engineering is that it is attempting to change a thousand year old social structure.

Once again, I am for it, mainly because it is the Christian thing to do. "

Socialism is a form of social engineering, but not all social engineering is socialism. 'socialist engineering' is not a real term.
It could be said that christianity is also a form of social engineering.

changing thousand year old social structures is a feature of liberalism. But Socialism specifically, to the best of my knowledge, does not have much to say about homosexuality. It is about economic structures mostly.

I think the Soviets did not approve of homosexuality. I think they thought it was capitalist decadence. But I'm not sure.

"Posted by: Bill Myers at November 22, 2006 04:50 PM
Posted by Micha at November 22, 2006 02:51 PM

It is unfair to mention marxism and liberalism in the same sentence even more than placing conservativism and fascism (but also).

I disagree. I believe they all occupy points on the same spectrum. Liberalism, when taken to an illogical extreme, leads to movements like Marxism, whereas fascism is an illogical right-wing extreme."

Bill, the terms in the US are somewhat different than I'm used to. In Britain, for example, you have a conservative party, a liberal party, and labor. If I'm not incorrect, the liberals are what you'd call liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative. In other words, they believe in freedom both in social issues and in the free market. I may be wrong about Britain now, since I'm not that familiar with it, but that's the historical meaning of liberalism. It is more akin to american liberterianism, though not that extreme.

However, Marxism challenged Liberalism by pointing out that the individual freedoms of a liberal capitalist (bourgeois) society can become
meaningless if a person becomes a slave to his economic condition.

It would seem that what you call liberalism has acquired some aspects of democratic-socialism (welfare etc), although to a lesser degree than Europe, while conservatives became more liberal economically. I still find it a little strange the way americans talk of liberalism as if it was socialism.
History is weird

JerryC: South Park flames the living hell out of every group's sacred cows. It has targets and fans on all sides of the field.
Luigi Novi: Proportionately, though, I think they've gone after left-wingers far more than right-wingers. Mind you, I've loved the episodes in which they've skewered those lefties, but they do seem to be far more ubiquitous than ones in which righties are targeted. The only one I can think of in which righties and lefties are targeted equally is the one in Kenny is depicted as a stand-in for Terri Schiavo.

Ah, yes, "Mallard Fillmore" -- showcase for Bruce Tinsley's tiresome right-wing hackery. There was a bit he included in a strip some months back which stood out to me, not because of its politics, but because it revealed what a warped view of an artist's responsibilities Tinsley has.

After providing the e-mail address where readers can reach him for comment, he snidely added, "And unlike 'Doonesbury', I'll usually reply."

So, in the world according to Bruce:
1) Cartoonists are somehow obligated to personally reply to their reader mail, and
2) Garry Trudeau is clearly a coward because, unlike the morally superior Tinsley, he doesn't make a habit of personally replying to his reader mail (presumably because so much of it is negative, what with him being a left-wing looneytune moonbat and all).

Those of us in the real world, however, understand that the only responsibility an artist (of any kind) has to his audience is to produce the best work of which he is capable. Anything beyond that -- signing autographs, personal appearances, personal replies to correspondence -- is purely at the artist's discretion. So Tinsley has enough time on his hands to personally reply to most of his reader mail? Bully for him. That doesn't mean those who don't are somehow deficient.

- Frank

Welcome to entitlement culture, Frank. Since we're speaking of Jon Stewart (and Stephen Colbert, although mostly indirectly), you should see the entitlement notions their fans have.

There are, sadly, too few of us living in the real world.

// JerryC: South Park flames the living hell out of every group's sacred cows. It has targets and fans on all sides of the field.
Luigi Novi: Proportionately, though, I think they've gone after left-wingers far more than right-wingers. Mind you, I've loved the episodes in which they've skewered those lefties, but they do seem to be far more ubiquitous than ones in which righties are targeted. The only one I can think of in which righties and lefties are targeted equally is the one in Kenny is depicted as a stand-in for Terri Schiavo. //

South Park attacks everyone, that's why it works. Even Trey and Parker's other work is an equal oportunity offenders. The movie they did with the puppets skewered the war on terror from both sides, attacking both the Hollywood left, (Micheal Moore and Alec Baldwin) and the Bush's basic "you're either with us or against us" policy. The minute those guys start going soft on one side or the other is the minute thier career is over and I suspect that, (unlike Dennis Miller), they're smart enought to know it.

Luigi Novi,

Yeah, South park hits the guys on the left with quite a few hard shots, but I think their over all record would tally up pretty close to being no more then 45/55 in targeting the left more then the right. Add in work like Team America and That's My Bush and Parker and Stone are hitting about 50/50.

________________________

"After providing the e-mail address where readers can reach him for comment, he snidely added, "And unlike 'Doonesbury', I'll usually reply.""

Well, yeah. Doonesbury has a long time readership that crosses several generations, is carried by most every major paper as well as lots of minor ones, has tons of book collections of the strips to reach even more readers and has something like a gazillion or so total fans. Mallard Fillmore has the creator's friends and family along with a few pet birds reading it. Can't imagine why he would have sooooo much more free time to answer ALL of his fan email.

Playing devil's (Murdoch's?) advocate here, it could be argued that TDS leans more to the left since they will often make fun of people who discriminate against gays (with the conservative position being that homosexuality is immoral and that they're all pedophiles and other such bullshit) and they believe that pollution causes problems like global warming (which lots of conservatives label a myth).

But PAD is right when he says that the people on the left don't get a free pass. Stewart has done an unflattering Kerry impression now and then, and when those liberal demonstrators rushed the stage and acted threatening to protest some right-wing speaker or military recruiter or something at a college, Stewart thought they'd crossed the line and told them (paraphrasing here) "stop it, you're making Sean Hannity look like the reasonable one!" :p (Hannity had been interviewing a couple of the demonstrators and, predictably, painting them as crazed villains)

As for Surnow, I've had a feeling he was a Bush toadie for quite some time now. The last season of 24 I watched (I think it was 3) was just a whole season full of propaganda; torture used by the "good guys" to get information out of people, the innocent daughter of the villain being kidnapped and used as a hostage against him by Bauer and her requests for an attorney being denied, and a deadly agonizing virus breaking out in a hotel painting a picture of the worst case scenario, as if to say "if we don't use any means necessary to stop the terrorists, including torture and all kinds of other awful things, THIS could happen to YOU!" Also, there was a sleazy political rival of then President David Palmer whose name was "John Keeler" and whose banners looked a LOT like John Kerry's.

i think they should get Stephen Colbert to do this Fox show. He wouldn't even have to change any dialogue.

Well, I hate to agree with Fox on anything, but Jon Stewart is a liberal. Just goes he pokes fun of Kerry and Hilary doesn't change that.

Does anyone remember "The Christian Song"? Back when Adam Sandler's first version of "The Chaunakah Song" was getting a lot of airplay, someone felt that the song's popularity was giving Christians too little airtime (since Christmas is such a hushed, uncelebrated holiday, I guess) and recorded "The Christian Song," listing famous people who are Christians. Unfortunately, the song failed for two reasons: It wasn't funny at all, and it was the majority trying to sound like the minority.

When Republicans had control of the presidency, the congress, several Supreme Court appointments, and the most popular cable news network, we heard about... liberal media! And activist judges! Now that Democrats have a slender majority over one of the branches of government -- time to make a cinservative comedy show. Will it work? Wel shall see, but I'm.... doubtful. I can think of plenty of liberal comics who shoot as much at their party as the opposition; I can think of very few on the other side who do the same.

And if this show will skewer "the sacred cows of the left," what have Bill O'Reilly and Ann Counlter been going after?

Maureen Dowd is an example of someone who attacks regardless of political affiliation -- she won her Pulitzer for savaging Clinton over MonicaGate -- but gets painted as a radical by the right.

I remember her saying if Bush wanted to find chemical weapons, he should have checked John Kerry's face for the botox treatments he was taking.

For what it's worth, re: Trudeau and his fans.

1) For a period in the mid-90s, Trudeau was reading and sometimes posting to rec.arts.comics.strips (search Google Groups for "dbury1" in the author field...and since Universal's Lee Salem was also active at the time, it's pretty sure it was him, as Salem would've caught any imposter). Lets see Tinsley do that.

2) After a talk he gave at UC Berkeley, I went up to compliment him on how well I thought he portrayed techie issues/types (Kim and Bernie at the time) for a non-tech type. He was kind enough to chat for a few minutes, and gave me his business card. No indications at all that he had any problem with his readers.

Fox could always greenlight a new show for Michael Ricards....

Rob sayeth (with the conservative position being that homosexuality is immoral and that they're all pedophiles and other such bullshit)
Well, no, that's not the conservative position. That's the Christian Evangelical/post Christian-Coalition movement position, which has major influence in the Republican party that is waning quick thanks to Haggard and irritated middle of the road Republicans who happen to think that birth control is necessary to prevent abortion, stem cells and gay rights are state issues, and a bunch of other things. It's dangerous to say that a conservative believes fundie Christian things (cuz it's wrong), and no Dem is a fundie Christian.

Conservative and liberal are descriptives, and can be applied to Republicans or Democrats, and neither term has a dedicated religious meaning attached to it.

Brian sayeth Well, I hate to agree with Fox on anything, but Jon Stewart is a liberal.
Yes, but Jon Stewart personally being a liberal has nothing to do with The Daily Show. The Daily Show is written by a talented team of writers - something like 13 or 15 the last time I looked - and while they tend to lean liberal, apparently cover the spectrum of political leanings. (If anything, inside reports suggest it's harder being Christian there than it is Republican.)

The Daily Show knocks them down as they're set up by others. The last six years, the majority of the set-ups have been done by the Republicans. Come January, the Dems get to swap places. I doubt it'll be long before they do something stupid.

As a slight aside, is anyone familiar with the right-leaning webcomic DAY BY DAY? It tries to be a "conservative answer" to DOONESBURY, but like MALLARD FILMORE tends to fail miserably because of it's overt policizing.

Curiously though, on those rare occasions when the creator makes a non-political strip, he's quite funny. This one in particular (http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2006/10/19/) had me cackling.

On a related note, had anyone read the excellent profile the Washington Post did on Gary Trudeau? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102000446.html)

As a slight aside, is anyone familiar with the right-leaning webcomic DAY BY DAY? It tries to be a "conservative answer" to DOONESBURY, but like MALLARD FILMORE tends to fail miserably because of it's overt policizing.

Curiously though, on those rare occasions when the creator makes a non-political strip, he's quite funny. This one in particular (http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2006/10/19/) had me cackling.

On a related note, had anyone read the excellent profile the Washington Post did on Gary Trudeau? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102000446.html)

Posted by SER

"Mallard Filmore" makes me feel young. Whenever I read the strip, I flashback fifteen years and think I'm looking at a comic from my college newspaper

"College"? Step back about four years earlier than that. Sophomoric, yes - but not at a college sophomore level

Posted by Dave OConnell

One of Saturday Night Live's writers, Jim Downey, weighed on this sort of thing in Tom Shales' SNL book. I wish I had access to the actual quote, but his point was that there is a big difference between portraying, for instance, Clinton as a fast food-loving womanizer and Bush as a cold-blooded murderer..

Yeah - a fast-food loving womaniser doesn't more or less singlehandely act as figurehead for the colaition whose lies and manipulations steal elections and arange the deaths of almost 3000 USAian troops (so far) and manymany more thosusands of Iraqi civilians. That's the difference.

Posted by SER

"Mallard Filmore" makes me feel young. Whenever I read the strip, I flashback fifteen years and think I'm looking at a comic from my college newspaper

"College"? Step back about four years earlier than that. Sophomoric, yes - but not at a college sophomore level

Posted by Dave OConnell

One of Saturday Night Live's writers, Jim Downey, weighed on this sort of thing in Tom Shales' SNL book. I wish I had access to the actual quote, but his point was that there is a big difference between portraying, for instance, Clinton as a fast food-loving womanizer and Bush as a cold-blooded murderer..

Yeah - a fast-food loving womaniser doesn't more or less singlehandely act as figurehead for the colaition whose lies and manipulations steal elections and arange the deaths of almost 3000 USAian troops (so far) and manymany more thosusands of Iraqi civilians. That's the difference.

Posted by SER

"Mallard Filmore" makes me feel young. Whenever I read the strip, I flashback fifteen years and think I'm looking at a comic from my college newspaper

"College"? Step back about four years earlier than that. Sophomoric, yes - but not at a college sophomore level

Posted by Dave OConnell

One of Saturday Night Live's writers, Jim Downey, weighed on this sort of thing in Tom Shales' SNL book. I wish I had access to the actual quote, but his point was that there is a big difference between portraying, for instance, Clinton as a fast food-loving womanizer and Bush as a cold-blooded murderer..

Yeah - a fast-food loving womaniser doesn't more or less singlehandely act as figurehead for the colaition whose lies and manipulations steal elections and arange the deaths of almost 3000 USAian troops (so far) and manymany more thosusands of Iraqi civilians. That's the difference.

Interesting thread, considering the almost stranglehold 'The Murdoch Empire' has over Media here in the UK. A hold he's attempting to make bigger by trying for a bid on ITV, our largest terrestrial television network.

It should be pointed out however that the Murdoch press only began to support the Blair Labour Party when became almost inevitable they were going to get into power here in 1997. Before that they were seriously pro-Conservative.

// 1) For a period in the mid-90s, Trudeau was reading and sometimes posting to rec.arts.comics.strips (search Google Groups for "dbury1" in the author field...and since Universal's Lee Salem was also active at the time, it's pretty sure it was him, as Salem would've caught any imposter). Lets see Tinsley do that. //

Trudeau used to also post, (and at least one time if memory serves, joined in a chat), on the old Compuserve Comics and Animation board. (Which at one time in the early to mid 90's was were everyone who was anyone in comics could be found).

// As for Surnow, I've had a feeling he was a Bush toadie for quite some time now. The last season of 24 I watched (I think it was 3) was just a whole season full of propaganda; torture used by the "good guys" to get information out of people, the innocent daughter of the villain being kidnapped and used as a hostage against him by Bauer and her requests for an attorney being denied, and a deadly agonizing virus breaking out in a hotel painting a picture of the worst case scenario, as if to say "if we don't use any means necessary to stop the terrorists, including torture and all kinds of other awful things, THIS could happen to YOU!" //

See I hear that and I don't hear "right wing propaganda", I hear "borrowing from Ian Fleming", but that's just me.

On a recent Bill Marher they were discussing the use of torture and the conservitive guest, (who's name I'm blanking on at the moment), said something along the line of "this is just what America wants, Jack Bauwer justice", at which point Marher replied, "you do realize it's just a TV show, right".

Luigi Novi said:

If a "liberal mindset" sees anything as fair game, then how do you explain, to name one example, the persecution and censorship that David Horowitz went through on college campuses when he published his arguments as to why slavery reparations would be wrong, arguments that were based on fact and reason?

Although I'm still not sure I agree with the censorship, I do strongly feel that Horowitz's arguments were extremely inflamatory- and if there was any fact or reason behind his arguents it was only a loose association. I still have my copy of the Brown Daily Herald, where he first published his ad- I was a contributer to the paper and my voice was also censored that day.

Horowitz wasn't trying to be funny or satirical- he was trying to sell his book. He created controversy for the sake of commercialism, just like a conservative Michael Moore.

There are many good arguments against reparations for slavery- David Horowitz didn't name any of them. That's why his message was rejected.

As a fan of the Daily Show, I must say the jokes haven't been "equal" in years.

Mostly of this has to do with who's been in charge the past few years: the GOP. Comedy goes after the top dog in politics and that's the conservatives. Of course that excuses the jokes about the headlines...

The rest of the show leans towards the left. From Jon Stewards personal comments to his interviews, he show's he's either a pretty liberal guy or he's playing up to the left audience.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's the show you want to be and you're still funny as consistently as this show is -- God bless. Go with it.

But to say both sides get joked on evenly doesn't really fly anymore.

Remember back before the 2000 election, when Fox News was the "let's drop everything important to bring you this car chase, LIVE!!!" network? Ahh, I miss those days...

I remember about ten years ago I did an interview with Kenny Rhodes from the satirical folkgroup the Foreman and we were talking about how political satire has a dendency to skew towards the left's pov. On making fun of the left from the right's pov he said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "It's just kind of hard to make fun of people who want to help others."

I wish FOX all the luck in the world with their project. If they can mine some honest laughs from the foibles on the left, I'll be watching. However, I suspect that the real interesting story will be off-screen- what goes on in that writing room, what memoes come down from their corporate masters forbidding certain topics or demanding that they go after certain things with an extra vigor (recall the recent leaked FOX memoes instructing reporters to be on the lookout for terrorists happy with the Democratic wins last month).

Interestingly, the Forbes article on this suggests the show will air once a week on a Saturday. I guess that gives them all week to watch TDS and figure out how to respond instead of trying to find its own unique voice.

And lets not bring up "Mallard Fillmore" any more. That strip has the worse lettering I've ever seen. It looks like it was written by a four-year-old having a seizure. (Of course that was about 15 years ago or so whenever I last looked at the stupid strip...)

If you want a strip that's funnier than Mallard Fillmore and conservative, try Day By Day by Chris Muir. http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

More political than side splitting but it has good characters that are worth caring about.

It's been my own experience that liberal writers are funnier than conservative ones but liberal audiences are more likely to be the ones muttering "That's not funny." when their own ox gets gored. But one's own mileage may vary. As to who is actually "middle of the road", it's so subjective as to be pointless. Dan rather can seriously claim that the New York Times is a middle of the road newspaper even though he would ahve a very hard time coming up with examples of a position the paper takes that are not entirely consistant with liberal Democratic positions. Biut there you are.

As a slight aside, is anyone familiar with the right-leaning webcomic DAY BY DAY? It tries to be a "conservative answer" to DOONESBURY, but like MALLARD FILMORE tends to fail miserably because of it's overt policizing.

Curiously though, on those rare occasions when the creator makes a non-political strip, he's quite funny. This one in particular (www.daybydaycartoon.com/2006/10/19/) had me cackling.

On a related note, had anyone read the excellent profile the Washington Post did on Gary Trudeau? (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102000446.html)

Curiously though, on those rare occasions when the creator makes a non-political strip, he's quite funny.

I don't know if it's so "rare". I counted up the cartoons for October (yeah, I know, but the Turkey is stuffed and the game doesn't look interesting) and I got 18 political entries and 13 non-political ones.

He also draws some pretty sexy women.

I think the people responsible for The Daily Show and the Colbert Report have a pretty liberal point of view and of course that informs their comedy but that's fundamentally irrelevant because they're not *trying* to make political points. They're trying to make people laugh. They don't sit around thinking "Will this joke help the Democrats?", they sit around thinking "Will this joke be hillarious?" and thank goodness they do.

I'm a fairly left leaning sort myself but I recently saw an awful sketch comedy show in Chicago that is explicitly devoted to doing left wing political humor, but it's humor "for the cause".

It's predictably horrible. Comedy can have a point of view, the moment it becomes propaganda is the moment it stops being funny, it becomes bad comedy as well as bad propaganda.

I'd never seen or heard of Mallard Fillmore before, so I Googled it. And wow, it's worse than even you people have made it out to be. I could only read about five of the strips before I had to make it go away.

I don't know if it's so "rare". I counted up the cartoons for October (yeah, I know, but the Turkey is stuffed and the game doesn't look interesting) and I got 18 political entries and 13 non-political ones.

Really? Usually when I visit, it's shrill politizing. I'm glad the signal-to-noise ratio is improving. (I did love that 300 movie reference they did earlier.)

He also draws some pretty sexy women.

QFT.

Man, they're going to have to work really hard on TDS and this new show to keep up with the ever growing dimbulbness of the real world. A friend sent me this link in an email. For half a second, I thought it was joke.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/20/navarrette.flag/index.html

Is this where we laugh or cry?

Jerry- That's the same town they just visited in that two part STUDIO 60 episode...

Rich,

Yeah, I know. It's also the town that Art Bell made famous to just about every person who had to work graveyard shift. That's why I first wondered if this was a joke or note. I played around on CNN's site for a good minute or two before posting here just to make sure.

It's not a joke or a bit for Studio 60. This is a real news story.

Here are other news links if you want to check.

//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061116/us_nm/usa_immigration_flags_dc

//www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-15-foreign-flags_x.htm

//blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/old_glory_is_th.html

//articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/town-bans-foreign-flags-flying-alone/20061116071009990022

//www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005537027

//www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Nov-15-Wed-2006/news/10847735.html

Here are other news links if you want to check.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061116/us_nm/usa_immigration_flags_dc

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-15-foreign-flags_x.htm

blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/old_glory_is_th.html

articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/town-bans-foreign-flags-flying-alone/20061116071009990022

www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005537027

www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Nov-15-Wed-2006/news/10847735.html

well it seems like this would be easy to verify. someone needs to watch the daily show and keep a running tally of just how many jokes are aimed at conservatives and how many are aimed at liberals.

it's funny a while ago, i would have said SNL leans just as left as studio 60, but due to the alec baldwin episode it made me realise that they actually do try really hard to remain mocking of both sides. i dunno if i agree that the daily show does the same.

I can't believe this is even legal...well, actually, I suppose they can get away with some stupid shit with zoning laws and such regarding any flag display period but I imagine that limiting which flags will run afoul of first amendment privilages.

"i dunno if i agree that the daily show does the same."

It did once when the left had the White House and some ability to call the shots. The last six years, the right has owned the playing field and called all the shots. By this time next year, I expect that TDS will be spending quite a bit of time on the left each night.

"I can't believe this is even legal..."

We can only wait and see.

well it seems like this would be easy to verify. someone needs to watch the daily show and keep a running tally of just how many jokes are aimed at conservatives and how many are aimed at liberals.

That wouldn't prove anything by itself--here's a hypothetical example: "Today on the news, Dick Cheney has a bad hair day, George Bush mispronounces another word, Rupert Murdoch still has a funny accent and Hillary Clinton eats live babies on national TV while wiping her mouth with the American flag." Three jokes about conservatives, one about a liberal...not what you'd call a liberal slant, however.

Methinks Peter doesn't get it. Mallard Fillmore has been around HOW LONG?(12 years)

Apparently, someone finds that stuff funny.

Just because it's not YOUR sense of humor(or mine for that matter, I'm a South Park independant fuck the two parties type) doesn't mean it doesn't make someone else laugh or entertaining them or SOMETHING.

I love this ongoing urban legend that the right has no sense of humor.

It hasa sense of humor, it's just not YOUR sense of humor.

Or mine, Mallard Fillmore blows the proverbial goat.

But...12 years...

But...12 years...

I dunno...I take your point, but comic strips aren't the best example because they're infamous for coasting not on being funny, but on not enough people caring enough to get rid of them. (Changing comic strips can be difficult because people get worked up about not seeing the same strips they're used to having seen for years--editors get letters along the lines of "Ever since I was a child, "Marmaduke" has been in the upper right-hand corner of the comics page...")

Still, there's a certain segment of the market that seeks validation of their world-view by any means (the same ones who buy Ann Coulter books) and I suspect they're the ones keeping it going--though whether they find it funny is beyond my power to answer. (Don't underestimate how far backwards news outlets will bend to avoid the appearance of being liberal, as well--although I found it hilarious when my local paper, which definitely skews right, replaced Mallard Fillmore with The Boondocks...)

(On the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" principle, I'll admit I did chuckle over a "Mallard Fillmore" once, but that's because it made fun of George W. Bush (in the process of attacking Saddam, but that's by the by).)

I like Snoopy. I like Garfield. I can relate to Ziggy and Grimm. I usually don't get Non Sequitur. (As in, I don't see it, not I don't understand it.) I don't like comic strips with a political edginess. For either side, really. Don't like Doonesbury, don't like Boondocks, never heard of Mallard Fillmore before the other day. Looking at it kinda makes me think of Howard the Duck.

The biggest thing I can see going against this conservative satire show is the label "conservative." Kinda limiting their options, I think. How often can you make fun of liberals before it gets old? For that matter, how often can you make fun of conservatives before it gets old? How often can we make fun of Mike before it gets old. (Answer: I think about a week ago.) Heck, even Steven Colbert sometimes gets on my nerves. I don't know.

Sean Scullion posted:
". . .never heard of Mallard Fillmore before the other day. Looking at it kinda makes me think of Howard the Duck."

Well, maybe the George Lucas film version. If we're talking a Steve Gerber story, Mallard Fillmore wouldn't be worthy of cleaning Howard's tail feathers after a nasty bout of ducky diarrhea.

1If you bash conservatives just once, your a liberal in FOX's mind and therefore the enemy. Given the conservative humor of people like Glen Beck and somewhat bitter humor of former liberal turned right winger, Dennis Miller, I dread the very idea of the show.
I doubt the humor will be witty, smart, or even bitting. I think it'll be more like nitpicking and sophmoric at best. More over I think it'll lack Stewart's humor and intellegence and he's interview skill. The man channels Carson I think, I dread whomever the FOX show will channel.
I might be wrong of course, some people find the right wing humor of Rush to be a hoot. But I don't get it!
Bottom line, I think that this is another attempt to control the debate by controling the messenger. Or more simply, they didn't like the game so they took their ball and went home. Let's just let go!

I just have to wonder if they'll have the balls to have Stewart on as a guest. If they do, I'll just bet that whoever they get to host it will try to beat Stewart at his own game and end up looking like an ass.

-Rex Hondo-

"Methinks Peter doesn't get it. Mallard Fillmore has been around HOW LONG?(12 years)

Apparently, someone finds that stuff funny."

The notion that you're arguing that longevity=funny when it comes to comic strips is actually more humorous than an average "Mallard Fillmore" strip.

PAD

Rex, it'll be just like when he went on Crossfire, only maybe slightly meaner in tone.

"Methinks Peter doesn't get it."
Methinks maybe different people get it, just some people know better what they think is funny. It's that thing where you know something is SUPPOSED to be funny, you can see where it MIGHT be, but it doesn't even getcha to crack a smile. For example, every time I see the URL thing under the e-mail address line up there, I half-smile, thinking, No, I am Sean, but if I see L, I'll tell it you're watching for it. I know people that have to change their shorts after watching Benny Hill, does nothing for me. On the other hand, show me a good Friends episode or any movie with any of the classic SNL cast in it and you'll be cleaning my intestines off your floor as I will have split my sides.

"On the other hand, show me a good Friends episode or any movie with any of the classic SNL cast in it and you'll be cleaning my intestines off your floor as I will have split my sides."

Memo to me: Remove Sean from the guest list for that upcoming "Friends/Blues Brothers" DVD marathon you had planned for Christmas.

PAD

It hasa sense of humor, it's just not YOUR sense of humor.

The Daily Show doesn't sit there and go "man, we've gotta target conservatives to be funny". They just pick their targets and run with it. The same with South Park.

Fox is saying "man, we've gotta target liberals" because they're too stupid to realize that, no, that won't make it funny at all.

well it seems like this would be easy to verify. someone needs to watch the daily show and keep a running tally of just how many jokes are aimed at conservatives and how many are aimed at liberals.
No, the only way this would be valid is if you did the last 10 years. Or 8 years, if you want to stick with the Jon Stewart reign on the show. (You have to cover a period of time where Dems are in control - you cannot blame someone for the fact that the Dems are not in enough power to do stupid things deserving of satire.)

If someone has an archive of the last 8-10 years of show show, however, I'll gladly take the project on. Just email me with how we get *me* the archives!

"The notion that you're arguing that longevity=funny when it comes to comic strips is actually more humorous than an average "Mallard Fillmore" strip" by PAD: Well, strangely, I agree with PAD that "Mallard Fillmore" is one-note, unfunny and repetitive, but my previous diatribes against PAD, and the poor reactions they received go to show that just because I (or PAD or anyone else) find something unfunny - or right, or wrong, or obvious - doesn't mean someone else feels the same way. The fact that there have been readers for a significant time shows that they like it, whether it makes any sense to us or not. They do find it amusing, seemingly!

I haven't made up my mind as to whether there is any need for a conservative version of the Daily Show, but I do think it's obvious that the right wing has a point that its views are disregarded on the original show. While the neoconservative approach to left wing opposition is calling it disloyal, the hard-left approach to the right is to belittle it as ignorant and unworthy of further consideration.

I think I know why some comic strips never get cancelled:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-11-24T204845Z_01_N24365789_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-GUNMAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Armed cartoonist forces Miami paper to evacuate

MIAMI (Reuters) - An armed cartoonist with an apparent grudge against his editor entered the headquarters of the Miami Herald on Friday and forced the newspaper to evacuate its bayfront building before surrendering, police said.

Interesting, if counter-productive.

Let's see, Jon Stewart isn't a liberal? Daily Show is purely balanced? he attacks people of the right on the same grounds as he does leftists?

Anyone believe the answers to all of this is "yes"? Fie on you!

http://apologiesdemanded.blogspot.com/2004/10/eric-spratling-on-jon-stewart.html

and if we really want to go for a "what is the right thinking" vibe by using the "Joel Surnow wants a right-wing version of the Daily Show" as if this kind of attitude is just fused with a "right-wingers think so wrong" kind of deal... what the hell was Al Franken planning with his Air America network? It sure wasn't all about original programming!

Well, Air America would certainly show the folly of putting politics ahead of entertainment. As for any of this being indicative of "how the right/left think"...eh, that's just silly. You can find plenty of people on both sides that break any preconceived notions one might have--which forces you to actually argue the issues and not hide behind any "those people are all (insult of your choice) and therefore not worth arguing with." type generalizations.

Kelly, way to step up to the plate! I can se it now, you get an historic paper analyzing the Daily Show and somewhere Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson both suffer at the same time catastrophic intercranial pressure.

Yeah. Their heads go 'splodey.

But, but, Peter, I was going to bring my famous hot wings! And my DJ stuff! (I have a large collection of funny holiday music!)

Oh, fine. I know when I'm not wanted. Unless you're my wife, in which case I haven't a clue.

Blue Spider--(I almost called you by the initials, but that would've sent a slightly impolite message, and when I'm impolite, it ain't slight. Just ask Mike or travel into an alternate future and ask PAD's carpet.) The Daily Show makes no claims about being balanced. In fact, I can think of only one network that makes that claim, and it's about as balanced as I am. The Daily Show doesn't NEED to be balanced or fair. It's, as it's host has said on one painfully innapropriate confrontational show, A COMEDY SHOW. It's there for the yuks, gang.

Posted by: Blue Spider at November 24, 2006 10:11 PM

Let's see, Jon Stewart isn't a liberal?

Jon Stewart has personally acknowledged he is a liberal. He openly supported John Kerry during the 2004 election. Your attempt to "out" him has failed because he wasn't, y'know, "in."

Daily Show is purely balanced? he attacks people of the right on the same grounds as he does leftists?

Anyone believe the answers to all of this is "yes"? Fie on you!

The mere fact that an extreme right-winger is angry at Jon Stewart doesn't prove that "The Daily Show" is afraid to go after the sacred cows on the left.

The Republicans have been in control of the federal government for a good portion of Stewart's tenure as host of "The Daily Show," by the way. Until now, they've been in the spotlight far more than the Democrats. Until recently, there have simply been more opportunities to target the GOP.

Stewart wasn't the host of "The Daily Show" when Clinton was in office. If you don't think he would have had a field day with Monica-gate, you don't understand what drives comedians. They look for the funny. And make no mistake -- Jon Stewart is a comedian first and foremost.

Posted by Micha at November 22, 2006 07:35 PM

Bill, the terms in the US are somewhat different than I'm used to.

Actually, Micha, I think it's less a case of how the terms are used -- and more a case of my over-simplifying things. Which is kind of ironic given my initial post in this thread. Thank you for pointing out that liberalism and conservatism are complex, and that there is no one set definition of either.

You know, it never seems to sting when you point out that I'm wrong. I don't know how you do it, but whatever it is, you should bottle it and sell it (your civility, not my penchant for being wrong).

Okay, here's the thing:

"24" is the best show on TV. Because its awesome.

Therefore, since Joel Surnow is involved, this show should be watched nightly.

That pretty much sums it up.

Oh, and PAD, I don't quite think "Daily Show" is as even handed as you give it credit for. Whenever they near an election, the show's tone dramatically tilts towards the left/democrats. Yes, yes, I know, they still throw a few at the Dems, but the overall tone durring election time is "Dems = Good. Republicans = evil." As a generally left-leaning viewer, I love "The Daily Show", don't get me wrong - I like watching it for daily news even more than the daily news. However, to say "Daily" is completely even handed is a narrow-minded view of the overall picture. I mean, those elections shows are just total blue-state propaganda. I mean, COME ON!

It seems to me we need to change the assumptions of this argument.

1. Jon Strewart is a liberal, and his comedy is informed by his opinions.
2. The Daily Show is not even handed, and not trying to be. He goes more after conservative target because, from his pointy of view, they deserve to be mocked, their hypocracy is funnier.
3. Although one of the reasons for the Republicans getting a greater share of the mocking is that they are in power; and I think the Democrats would have gotten a greater share of the jokes if they were in power, had the Daily show wanted, they could have made sure there were equal amonut of humor on the expence of each side.

Similarly, South Park's point of view seem to be Libertarian, and they seem to have been going more after left wing hypocracy as of late.

But, that's not the point. The Daily Show and South Paerk are comedy shows. Their integrity as comedians is judged by the following
a. They don't sit around asking themselves "how can we get the conservatives/liberals this week, or for that matter how can we get each equally?" They ask themselves "what happened this week that we think is funny?"
b. They can show us why they think something is funny. They are good at what they do. Even when Southpark goes after a liberal target, I think most liberals think its funny. I think conservatives that have not lost their sense of humor can understand why some of Bush's statements and mistakes are funny. It seems that even he does [that's one of the few things he does understand].
c. They are honest about their points of view, but they have the integrity and the humor not to shelter their own side. They are capable of understanding the hypocracy and humor on their side, and don't refrain from making fun of it. They are not balanced, but they are fair.

In short, both shows are good because they are funny, not smug, and have integrity.

--------
Long answer. I think I'll leave writing the research paper to Kelly.

"Posted by: TallestFanEver at November 25, 2006 01:05 AM

Okay, here's the thing:

"24" is the best show on TV. Because its awesome.

Therefore, since Joel Surnow is involved, this show should be watched nightly.

That pretty much sums it up."

I don't know. I really liked it the first season. Maybe the second. But since then it feels to me that they just repeat exactly the same formula year after year. The only major development is the amount of torture per season.

Every season I start watching, hoping that they will find a way to take the formula to the next level, and kicking myself when it doesn't.

Posted by: Kelly at November 24, 2006 11:56 AM

If someone has an archive of the last 8-10 years of show show, however, I'll gladly take the project on. Just email me with how we get *me* the archives!

You are a better person than I am!

I was a TV/Radio major in college. I took a class called "Mass Media Research Methods," and for my research project I chose to do a content analysis of several years worth of X-Men comics.

If you want to create an aversion to stories you used to love, do a content analysis of 'em. If you want a cure for insomnia, do a content analysis. If you want to retain your sanity -- run! Run away from the content analysis!

Bill, you can add that to the list of things from you I'd like to read.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 25, 2006 09:05 AM

Bill, you can add that to the list of things from you I'd like to read.

I don't think I even have it anymore. If I do, I have no earthly idea where I have it stashed.

Let me give you an idea of what it would take to do a content analysis of "The Daily Show," and why I break in cold sweats about the idea of ever doing another content analysis:

First, you'd have to define what it is you're trying to measure. Sounds simple, eh? Not so much. On the one hand, one could easily say, "Let's count the stories they do about Democrats, and the ones they do about Republicans, as a percentage of the total political stories satirized on 'The Daily Show.'" But, what if they poke fun at conservative/moderate Democrats who frequently cross party lines, or liberal/moderate Republicans who do the same? How would you categorize that? For that matter, how does one define "political?" Politics can extend far beyond the bounds of government, after all, but for the purposes of an analysis like this you might have to arbitrarily limit the word's definition. Why? Well, if you define it too broadly the study becomes meaningless. But if you define it too narrowly, you get the same result.

(A good example would be a decades-old content analysis of violence on television. It included "verbal violence" in its overall definition of violence, and thus determined that "The Brady Bunch" was the most violent show on television. Talk about mixing your apples and your oranges!)

Second, some poor shlub would have to sit there with a clipboard going, "Okay, that one's about the Democrats. Check. That one's about the Republicans. Check. Oh, God, where did my life go wrong? Apparently, right here. Check." When you read or view something to take it apart analytically, rather than enjoying it as it's meant to be, you sour your enjoyment of it.

As an aside, I used a run of the X-Men from the 80's: Claremont/Romita Jr. and Claremont/Silvestri. I know Claremont's writing from that period is oft-maligned, but recently I went back and re-read that stuff. I think it holds up better than people give it credit for.

I know Claremont's writing from that period is oft-maligned, but recently I went back and re-read that stuff. I think it holds up better than people give it credit for.

I agree but to those of us who were there for the Claremont/Byrne issues everything else was a letdown. They may have hated each other but it made for some great comics.

Which causes me to ponder--is there something about tension between creators that makes for better stories? Claremont/Byrne, Ditko/Lee, Kirby/Lee, those guys may have had serious issues between them but the result was some of the best comic books ever, stuff that still holds up decades later. Maybe the tension caused each part of thepartnership to make sure they were on their top game.

I mean, if (in some universe where both lost their minds and thought this would not end badly) PAD and John Byrne decided to do a project, you know that each one would bring their top game to it. We'd probably see the best Byrne art in years.

Bill Myers - The Claremont/JRjr and Silvestri runs are getting hated on, too? Dang. I thought it was just more recent Claremont stuff that some fans were turning on (also [at least mostly] undeservedly, IMHO). Some of my favorite comics are from those mid-late 80s issues... (Oh, and BTW, did see your note a little while back that your girlfriend is, like me, a grad of SUNY Oswego. Very cool! Os-we-go! Os-we-go!)

Bill Mulligan - Interesting theory. I wonder if it could also be applied to David/McFarlane, and their excellent run on Incredible Hulk (331-346, give or take an artist fill-in or two); or did their problems not start until after that?

Luke, there are those who declare that the X-Men "haven't existed" since Paul Smith left the book. How many? I don't know. I don't keep track. I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like. I don't worry about what everyone else is sayin'.

The post-Paul Smith stories had their haters even when they were new. I oughtta know. I was one of 'em! But I've since changed my mind about those stories.

Back on topic, I haven't watched "The Daily Show" in ages. It was easy to catch when it was being re-run at 7 p.m. -- my dinner hour. But I think the re-runs are on at 8 p.m., now, correct? I'm usually working at that hour (either spill-over from my job or personal projects). And I must confess I've never seen "The Colbert Report." I think I'll start DVR-ing them.

Anyway, how did "The Daily Show" treat the recent elections? I'd have to imagine that, despite what detractors are claiming, Stewart found some material for skewering the Dems. And I can only imagine that Colbert's reaction must've been side-splitting.

Oh, and Luke, my girlfriend says "hello" and asks if you ever did a "Bridge Street Run?"

"Hello!"

Ah, the Bridge Street Run... :) While Oswego did also give me my drinking education, taking me from someone who had never tasted alcohol before I went there, to a twenty year old who couldn't wait to turn twenty one (seriously, the U.S. drinking age is one of our stupidest laws), to someone who went out pretty much every Friday and Saturday night of at least the second half of senior year (and then there was grad school), I never did actually go on the Run myself. Not a big fan of hangovers, and that many drinks that often... Did see many Runs and sign the shirts of a few Runners, though, and thoroughly enjoyed several Springfests and Dirt Days. Were these still around when your girlfriend was there (I've gotten the inmpression they may have been discontinued), and did she go on the Run (I know that that's still around)?

Luke, Jeannie says she did a few partial "Runs" in her time but could never finish! She thinks she does recall the whole signing the Runnders' tee-shirts thing, too.

You know, I wonder if those people who think Jon Stewart is a tool of the left saw his performance on "Crossfire." He disparaged the show, calling it "partisan hackery," and complained about the shallowness of the discourse on the program. Not once did he exempt Paul Begala from his criticisms. The only reason why it was primarily Stewart and Tucker Carlson going at it was because Paul Begala just sat there looking like a deer caught in someone's headlights.

As an aside, I thought it was disingenuous at best for Carlson to ask Stewart if this is how he would've behaved had he been invited to someone's house for dinner. Being on "Crossfire" is comparable to eating dinner at someone's house only if: that house has three walls rather than four; the residents of that house heavily promote their dinner hour with television spots pronouncing, "Hey, dinner at our house is at six every evening, come by and watch;" and the residents run paid advertisements at certain intervals during their evening meal.

"If I do, I have no earthly idea where I have it stashed."

You've blocked it, your mind can't handle the trauma. Someday, something will click, and all the HORROR will come streaming back into your mind, and then you'll be locked in a room somewhere, just rocking back and forth in your staightjacket, repeating endlessly, "Have to keep moving, Mike's squirrels will get me, Have to keep moving, Mike's squirrels will get me..."

How can anyone talk bad about Claremont's '80's run on the X-Men? I mean, if that's not the ULTIMATE mutant sacrilege, I don't know what is.

Eating dinner on Crossfire is like sitting to eat at a table with a bunch of people who think everyone else at said table is a complete asshead with less intelect than the garlic bread in the basket with more sniping going on than if you repeated that one sequence from "Saving Private Ryan" from now until January.

Come to think of it, it's like dinner with my in-laws, only less talk about whale genetalia.

How can anyone talk bad about Claremont's '80's run on the X-Men? I mean, if that's not the ULTIMATE mutant sacrilege, I don't know what is.

Maybe this is wishful thinking but it may not have been entirely his fault. I enjoyed Claremont's post-Byrne work, more specifically the stuff with John Romita Jr. during the period when Louise Simonson and Ann Nocenti were editors on the book.

Then Bob Harras took over. The current Wikipedia on Harras says "Before becoming editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics, during the early 1990s, Harras was chief editor of X-Men-related comic books. During this time, X-Men-related storylines became very convoluted and crossovers were very frequent, as this was selling books at the time. He also is partially blamed for Chris Claremont departing the book after writing it for 16 years."

There is a good interview conducted with Claremont in 1994 here:

http://www.vision-on.net/sundries/claremont.txt

I considered his reasoning as to why it was implausible for Scott and Jean to get hitched to be spot on. Even his hypothetical dialogue between them brought back fond memories of his first run on the book.

Also of interest are his ideas for Wolverine (we only have his word about these but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) and Harras' response to them.

(As somebody who worked with Harras around that time, and if it's not much trouble, could you maybe weigh in on this, PAD? Does Chris' account sound right to you?)

I agree but to those of us who were there for the Claremont/Byrne issues everything else was a letdown. They may have hated each other but it made for some great comics.

With all the stuff I'm learning about Byrne lately, much of it learned by reading statements from the man himself ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Byrne ), I'm glad to hear Claremont didn't see eye to eye with him. It would have been a shame if BOTH the guys responsible for such stories as the "Dark Phoenix Saga" were total whackjobs.

How can anyone talk bad about Claremont's '80's run on the X-Men? I mean, if that's not the ULTIMATE mutant sacrilege, I don't know what is.

Maybe this is wishful thinking, but any decline in the quality of the stories may not have been entirely his fault. I enjoyed the stories in Uncanny when John Romita, Jr., was penciller and Louise Simonson and Ann Nocenti editors. Then Bob Harras took over.

The current Wikipedia entry on Harras says "Before becoming editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics, during the early 1990s, Harras was chief editor of X-Men-related comic books. During this time, X-Men-related storylines became very convoluted and crossovers were very frequent, as this was selling books at the time. He also is partially blamed for Chris Claremont departing the book after writing it for 16 years."
There is a good interview with Claremont from 1994 here:

http://www.vision-on.net/sundries/claremont.txt

I find his reasoning as to why it was implausible for Scott and Jean to get hitched spot on, and reading the hypothetical dialogue between them brought back fond memories of his first run on the book.

Also interesting are his ideas for Wolverine (which we only have his word on, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) and Harras' response to it. PAD, if it's not too much trouble, might you be able to comment on this, as somebody who has worked with Harras? Does it seem likely to you that such a conversation would have taken place?

(Bear in mind that I'd be much more likely to take people at their word if not for all the conflicting accounts of what happened with the original Hobgoblin)

I agree but to those of us who were there for the Claremont/Byrne issues everything else was a letdown. They may have hated each other but it made for some great comics.

After what I've recently learned of Byrne, much of it learned from statements he himself has made, I'm relieved that Claremont didn't see eye to eye with him much less share his warped views. It would have been a shame if BOTH the guys responsible for stories as awesome as "The Dark Phoenix Saga" were complete whackjobs.

(note: I posted this earlier but got a message thanking me for my comment, which would be reviewed eventually since there was something in place to prevent first-time posters from making malicious comments. Since I'm not posting for the first time, and since this happened with another comment I made that never saw the light of day despite it not being malicious or anything, I'm going to guess that there was some kind of snafu and post again in the hopes that it will actually show up on the board, like my other recent comments. If this causes any inconvenience, I apologize.)

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. Excuse me while I get caught up:

The Daily Show: I've always felt that the main thrust of the show is skewering the pompous and the arrogant. It's why one of it's bread-and-butter bits are the profiles of people trying to make a federal case out of trivialities like gay penguins or a shirt ruinned by a sticker. It's also why the pundit talking head class is a frequent target.

Yes, they have been going after the GOP more than the Dems lately, but that's because the GOP has been in power for the past six years. I've noticed that when they go after the Dems, it's usually to skewer their inept ability to lose virtually any election. Obviously, they're learning to change that tact in recent weeks.

Jon Stewart is a liberal. He's made no secret that he supported Kerry in 2004, but that had never stopped him from jumping on every mistatement and stumble that Kerry had made. In fact, I think he often went out of his way to mock Kerry's pomposity precisely because he expected better from him.

In general, though, I'd say the show goes where the funny is, unlike Mallard Filmore, which clearly has attacking liberals as a higher priority than being funny.

The DNS audience does skew left. Not surprising, considering the show is taped in NYC. You could see it in how they cheered Santorum's defeat. But they also laughed when Kerry ripped on the liberal student protesters.

Dennis Miller: I used to think he was funny when his politics were more libertarian than conservative, but since he's proclaimed himself as not only a conservative, but a Bush cheerleader, he comes across more as Rush-light, more interested in demonstrating how much smarter he is than his guests/audience than in being funny. It's a weakness Bill Maher also exhibits to a lesser extent, though he still manages to be funny more often.

I do have to take issue with PAD's initial statement that liberals are more likely to find jokes on their sacred cows funny than conservatives. It is an overgeneralization. I've seen people on both sides of the aisle that defy the dual stereotype. What's frustrating is that what apparently passes for conservative humor these days is Ann Coulter calling for a SCOTUS justice to be poisoned.

One final thought on David Horowitz: While he's made quite the cottage industry peddling his book on how colleges today are uniform liberal indoctrination camp, he's produced little to support his contention other than anecdotal stories about professors whose politics he disagrees with. Recently, he convinced a state representative here in PA to conduct a series of hearings in the state to investigate the issue of academic freedom at colleges. He convinced the rep that if they held hearings, we'd see hordes of poor conservatives who've been persecuted for their views.

After about two years of hearings, including at least one in which no one showed up, the results failed to live up to expectations. While there were a few conservative students who complained about liberal professors, few could point to specific incidents in which students felt that their political views had hurt them in the classroom. Moreover, a few liberal students even testified about conservative professors who made no effort to hide their views in the classroom, putting Horowitz's central thesis in suspect.

The special committee recently completed it's work, concluding that there was no pervasive oppression of conservative views at PA's colleges and that most colleges had adequate safeguards in place to protect free speech rights of students. The biggest thing to come out of it was a recommendation that the schools do more to publicize the complaint procedures that a student can follow if they believe their political views are being oppressed.

Oh, and in regards to the town that made it illegal to fly a foreign flag: Anyone think this will be enforced when Irish flags are flown on St. Patrick's Day or Italian flags are flown on Columbus Day?

Two truisms of political oriented shows:

1. Conservatives do not do comedy well.
2. Liberals do not do talk radio well.

I predict the Fox "Daily Right Show" will do about as well as "Air America" (and I don't mean the old Mel Gibson flick.)

Speaking of talk radio, turns out our buddy Surnow is a BIG fan of Limbaugh, according to IMDB anyway. *gag*

http://imdb.com/name/nm0839695/

// Jon Stewart is a liberal. He's made no secret that he supported Kerry in 2004, but that had never stopped him from jumping on every mistatement and stumble that Kerry had made. //

Not disputing that Stewart is a liberal but I don't think it's fair, in a two party system, to lable someone as such on all things just because they supported one partular canadiate. I know people who consider themselves primarily conservitive but voted for Kerry because they think Bush fumbled the Iraq situation, conversly I know people who consider themselves reasonalbly liberal who voted for Bush because they really didn't like Al Gore.

When there's only two choices I think it's a mistake to assume that because you vote for or support canadiate A you support all thier views or even everyone else in thier party.

I voted for Kerry because I can't stand Bush, but had it been Kerry up against McCain or Rudy, I might have gone the other way. I'm liberal on some things, very conservative on others, and tend to vote for the people I think will do the best job or occasionally vote against the people I think are doing a really bad job.

Unless there's somewhere where Stewart said, "I am a Liberal" I wouldn't assume he is because just because he supported Kerry. Nor would I assume he's an across the board Liberal on all things. Most thinking people aren't totally one way or the other, despite what the polititians and talk shows want you to think.

Not disputing that Stewart is a liberal but I don't think it's fair, in a two party system, to lable someone as such on all things just because they supported one partular canadiate.

Fair enough, but Stewart has never made his political leanings a secret. He is a liberal. I respect that in him. I'd rather someone be forthright in their views than make a big show of being objective when they obviously are not (cough, billoreilly, cough).

Or Keith Olberman, who claims in an LA Times article The longtime sportscaster, who doesn't vote and eschews any political identity — "I may be a Whig, possibly a Free-Soiler," he quipped — has nevertheless become an unexpected folk hero for the frustrated left.

I dunno...was Phil Donahue the only guy on TV who was unashamedly liberal?

"Oh, and in regards to the town that made it illegal to fly a foreign flag: Anyone think this will be enforced when Irish flags are flown on St. Patrick's Day or Italian flags are flown on Columbus Day?"

I can't see someone from a small Nevada town doing that, but yeah, I think it will be enforced. But, really, who flies Italian flags on Columbus Day? I've never heard of such a practice (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've never seen it).

// "Oh, and in regards to the town that made it illegal to fly a foreign flag: Anyone think this will be enforced when Irish flags are flown on St. Patrick's Day or Italian flags are flown on Columbus Day?"

I can't see someone from a small Nevada town doing that, but yeah, I think it will be enforced. But, really, who flies Italian flags on Columbus Day? I've never heard of such a practice (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've never seen it). //

I have, quite common in certian parts of Jersey and New York. Also several Columbus Day parades around these parts, never drive in NYC on Columbus day, speaking from experience here.

When I was a kid it was a fairly big holiday, (day off from school), banks were closed, as were a lot of retail stores and offices. Some schools still have off but most banks are open and I have not seen a retail store closed on Columbus day in years. Growing up, my parents both had off on Columbus day, now I don't think I know anyone who gets that as a Holiday.

I'm not sure they would even try to enforce the law for those flags and that is what would trip them up if the SCOTUS doesn't.

Go back and read some of those news bits again. Every ref I saw was to Mexican flags and how steamed people were about the big march or this or that place being closed for the march. Be funny as hell if they got themselves sued for selective enforcement within a month or two of getting the law passed.

Den, I could be wrong about this, but I don't know that O'Reilly has ever made any claim to objectivity or neutrality. He's still not my favorite person in the world, but I did recently gain a little more respect for him when he had Donahue on his show. They were talking about kids going into the service, Donahue said something Donahue-ish, and O'Reilly flipped on him, said his nephew just joined up, and if he was going to talk like that about his nephew O'Reilly would throw him right off the set. Although I DO think the now-annual War On Christmas thing burnt out it's half life twenty minutes after the phrase was first uttered.

Speaking of flipping out and stuff like that, I just want to apologize for the part I played in the Smart Move thread. Now, half the time I wasn't sure if Mike was actaully interested in discussion or what, and PAD has been classy enough not to lay blame, but I have to lay at least part of it at my feet. My old boss always said if you think something applies to you, it probably does, so again, I apologize if I offended anyone and for the weird turns I had a hand in taking that.

I can't see someone from a small Nevada town doing that, but yeah, I think it will be enforced.

Just about every bar in the universe flies Irish flags on St. Patty's Day.

But, really, who flies Italian flags on Columbus Day?

Not sure about Nevada on this point, but many Italian Americans do, particularly in NY/NJ.

Den, I could be wrong about this, but I don't know that O'Reilly has ever made any claim to objectivity or neutrality.

You mean besides just about every episode of his show, right?

How often can we make fun of Mike before it gets old. (Answer: I think about a week ago.)

Unh, hunh.

Blue Spider--(I almost called you by the initials, but that would've sent a slightly impolite message, and when I'm impolite, it ain't slight. Just ask Mike or travel into an alternate future and ask PAD's carpet.)...

"Have to keep moving, Mike's squirrels will get me, Have to keep moving, Mike's squirrels will get me..."

Now, half the time I wasn't sure if Mike was actaully interested in discussion or what...

No, I was interested. Apparently, you are, still.

See? Other people can play in paste, too. And as you can see, it points to another phrase, "the sheer scale of the death toll" as a freaking QUALIFIER for the term.

What the wikipedia entry you cite said:

...some Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the group.

"Western sources" are citing "the sheer scale of the death toll" to establish intent on the part Turks to eliminate the Armenians.

The controversy in labeling the Armenian massacre genocide is rooted in the Turks' claim "inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I" was responsible for the Armenian deaths. Not whether the volume of deaths qualified it as what would later be known as genocide.

Nothing in the wikipedia entry you cite gives exception to the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in Lemkin's definition of genocide, which you agreed matches "ANY racially motivated murder."

While you've introduced the rational for dictionaries and encyclopedias to refer to volume in genocide -- where the volume establishes the intent of a governing body to wipe out an ethnicity, intent being a requirement to qualify -- there's still nothing in Lemkin's definition that says only governments can engage in genocide. Saying only governments can engage in genocide is like saying only governments can engage in torture, which is less severe than genocide.

He's Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak.

Posted by: Jerry C at November 27, 2006 10:43 PM

I'm not sure they would even try to enforce the law for those flags and that is what would trip them up if the SCOTUS doesn't.

Even if they enforce the law even-handedly, it flies in the face of the First Amendment. One would hope that if this law was ever brought before the SCOTUS, they'd recognize that and strike it down.

Robert Fuller -
But, really, who flies Italian flags on Columbus Day?

With all the contention surrounding Columbus Day these days, it's probably less than it used to be.

I know there less parades now than 10-15 years ago. Less people celebrate it as a holiday, too.

Bill Mulligan -
Or Keith Olberman, who claims in an LA Times article The longtime sportscaster, who doesn't vote and eschews any political identity

Olbermann himself has discussed this on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio and the fact that since he bashes Bush, of course he must be liberal.

But then, when he had to cover the Monica Lewinsky stuff for MSNBC 8 years ago, he was accused of being a conservative.

And I see somebody is trying really hard to ruin another thread.

It isn't the fact that he bashes bush that makes me think he's a liberal. I always was led to believe he was a liberal because he's a liberal. I know Eric Alterman, who sees conservatives under the bedsheets, described him as the ONLY true liberal with a TV show.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And I'm sure Bill ORielly gets letters calling him a liberal when he says that Swiftboat Vet attacks on John Kerry were unjustifiable or when he supports gun control. I doubt that very many people can be said to be right down the line conservative or liberal (assuming we could even come up with a "true" definition of the words).

Bill Mulligan -- I think the problem with Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann isn't their ideologies. It's their "yellow journalism."

(For those of you not in the know, the term "yellow journalism" originated in the late 1890's, and refers to journalism that emphasizes sensationalism over true news value.)

If I recall correctly, Olbermann was among those who accused George W. Bush of manipulating the timing of the arrests of the U.K.-based terrorists planning on bombing planes earlier this year. The fact that there was no evidence to back that up didn't stop him.

And what to say about Bill O'Reilly? He may have left the trash-tabloid T.V. show "Inside Edition," but it doesn't seem to have left him.

It isn't the fact that he bashes bush that makes me think he's a liberal.

Well, I agree with you there: I do think Olbermann is a liberal, but, yeah, it's not just because he bashes Bush; almost everybody has done that at some point, regardless.

I just don't think Olbermann makes it an issue like so many others.

I still think O'Reilly is a conservative, but I think he's more into playing whichever side will get him the most viewers.

As for 'yellow journalism'. I don't think Olbermann is guilty of that, or at least any more than your average 6 o'lock newscast is, which offers just as much sensationalism as anything on cable.

And I'm sure Bill ORielly gets letters calling him a liberal when he says that Swiftboat Vet attacks on John Kerry were unjustifiable or when he supports gun control.

He did that? Wow, I thought the only half-decent thing he did during the 2004 campaign was to stick up for Dan Rather and tell people he was sure that Rather wouldn't have intentionally run with a story he knew was fake.

I wasn't aware of him denouncing the Swifties, and if he did that I guess I respect him a little bit more, meaning that I now respect him about as much as a cockroach instead of my previous level of respect, which was the same amount I have reserved for houseflies and their disgusting offspring,

I think what both Olberman and O'Reilly are guilty of is not so much yellow journalism as it is trivializing the news. They mix news reading with punditry and (at least in Olberman's case) sophomoric humor. They mix up facts and opinion in an effort to conflate the two.

Again, Stewart is at least above board in that he is doing a "fake news" comedy show.

And whatever their claims, Olberman is a liberal and O'Reilly is a conservative. As Bill Mulligan noted, they may break with the prevailing views on a few issues, but those are the camps that they line up with the majority of the time. The bitter rivalry between the two of them, however, has more to do with personality than politics. Slate.com did an excellent piece on that a couple of years ago. I think even if they were on the same page politically, they'd still hate each other.

Posted by: Den at November 28, 2006 02:26 PM

I think what both Olberman and O'Reilly are guilty of is not so much yellow journalism as it is trivializing the news. They mix news reading with punditry and (at least in Olberman's case) sophomoric humor. They mix up facts and opinion in an effort to conflate the two.

I would say what you have described meets the definition of "sensationalism," and thus I'm still comfortable applying the pejorative of "yellow journalism" to the likes of Olbermann and O'Reilly.

And yet...even though the O'reilly/Olberman stuff is to news what PG-13 horror movies are to art, they ARE news. A viewer who only watches one or the other is still probably better informed than someone who only fills their head with entertainment, especially the empty calory entertainment of Real World/Road Rules Gauntlet 3 (hey, aren't some of these "kids" in their freaking 30s by now??? The 15 minutes is up! Get a real job!)

(the preceeding was a I'm So Old I Remember When MTV Showed Music Videos Production)

Bill Mulligan, you forgot to yell at the crazy hippies to get out of your yard. :)

After seeing some of the newest Real World stuff...I think it should just stop the pretense and change it's name to Kids Behaving Badly and Having Sex...because that's pretty much all it is.

Not that I watch those shows at all. My wife does. It's just on. I'm not paying any attention to it.

It is rather sad that some people only get their news from news entertainment shows. I'm checking several sources during the day via internet: CNN, Yahoo, the Chicago Tribine, even Fox News (because while it's far from fair or balanced, it is interesting to see how they spin things). You can't trust or rely on any one source, and I don't know how people get into the mindset that you should. Events are complex...there's very little that's black and white in the world.

I stillthink this Fox show is going to suffer a quick cancellation, but my record for predicting these things is notoriously bad. I swore Misfits of Science would go on forever, after all. And when I first saw the ads for the Daily Show PJS(no, not the Victoria's Secret edition(hmmmmm....) Pre Jon Stewart) I thought THAT would last maybe five minutes. This hsow MIGHT have a chance, and that's kind of a big MIGHT(notice?) if they skewer everybody, not just liberals, but I don't have high hopes. Although occasionally something on Fox News does make me laugh, Shepherd Smith--kind of like watching Trip Tucker deliver the Engineering News or something. And does John Gibson come closer to Waldorf every year or is it just me?

And as far as the Real World stuff--just haven't had any interest since Julie left. Shallow of me, yeah, but hey, not EVERYTHING has to be deep.

Sean,

If they had only kept the ice cream truck and the frozen guy, that show might still be on the air today.

I swore Misfits of Science would go on forever, after all.

I'm still waiting for Manimal to come off hiatus.

Okay, Jerry, I think you may have hit something there.

Anyway, I was just out in our living room, sorry, the Brian Commemorative Toybox and Play Area, which is also where we have the largest part of our collection of DVDs, and I happened to spot Stacie's Murphy Brown season, and I thought that this kind of humor is really hard. See, first, you not only have to be funny. People have to either like you enough to laugh with you or not hate you so much that they can laugh AT you. You also have tonot limit yourself to a certain kind of joke or sketch or whatever so that you're not doing the same joke over and over and over again. ou also can't come off too mean-spirited, either, or THAT will turn people off. MAN, this is hard work. GLad I write horror.

"I'm still waiting for Manimal to come off hiatus."

Don't worry, they just took a break for 20 years in anticipation of the Spring 2007 season, so they can show the next 400 episodes without any reruns or breaks.

Dr. Jonathan Chase is a wealthy, young, and handsome man with the brightest of futures with a very dark past. From Africa’s deepest recesses, to the rarest peaks of Tibet, Heir to his father’s legacy, and the world’s darkest mysteries is Jonathan Chase, master of the secrets that divide man from animal, animal from man, Manimal.

I wouldn't worry, we can't be to far from the remake starring Johnny Knoxville.

Didn't Rob Schneider already do the movie version a couple years back?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yes, I'm sure "The Animal" was a completely different concept. It's a joke, son...

Seems the writer of Mallard Fillmore IS capable of being amusing, even if only unintentionally.

-Rex Hondo-

Geeze, if I looked like that I'd drink too.