Is Jon Stewart Correct that Fox News Viewers Are "the most consistently misinformed media viewers"?


No, says Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning site that checks statements by pols, media folks, and whatnot (note: Politifact is itself sometimes as full of shit as Daily Show Stewart is this time around).

On June 19, Stewart appeared on Fox News and socratized anchor Chris Wallace thusly:

"Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers?" Stewart asked Wallace. "The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll."

Yet, Politifact notes that in a 2007 Pew study of political knowledge, viewers of Fox scored 35 percent, a "score [that] places it exactly at the national average." A 2008 version of the study found overall Fox viewers around the national average for other news outlets. But then there's this:

…particular Fox shows scored well above the average. Hannity & Colmes was one of only four choices to exceed 40 percent—the others were the New Yorker/the Atlantic, NPR and MSNBC's Hardball — while The O'Reilly Factor scored 28 percent, or 10 points above the national average. (Hannity & Colmes even exceeded Stewart's Daily Show in this poll, 42 percent to 30 percent.)

In all, this poll undercuts Stewart's position even more than the 2007 poll did.

And in 2010, Fox viewers again hit the national average but 

Fox actually scored better than its two direct cable-news rivals—MSNBC, which is a liberal counterpoint to Fox, and CNN, which is considered more middle-of-the-road. Also scoring lower than Fox were local television news, the evening network news shows and the network morning shows.

And for the third time, particular Fox shows scored well. Hannity ranked fifth (just ahead of MSNBC's liberal shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and O'Reilly ranked ninth. For the first time, Pew included Glenn Beck in its rankings, and the Fox host finished 12th—slightly ahead of Stewart's own Daily Show.

How about that? Glenn Beck viewers more informed than Daily Show watchers? Hannity zombies sharper than Olbermann and Maddow drones? What a world of wonders! As the great band The Godfathers once put it: Things ain't what they seem to be/Cary Grant's on LSD. Mmm, LSD…

Whole thing here.

I enjoy The Daily Show and its brother show, The Colbert Report (million-dollar idea: given that Stephen Colbert is the Tony Randall of my generation, howze about he and Stewart teaming up in a remake of The Odd Couple already?). But for any of you who doubt that every show on earth is largely watched by folks who really don't know very much, well, watch our coverage of last year's Stewart/Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear:

NEXT: Supreme Court Decides that Federal Judges Shouldn't Regulate Greenhouse Gases

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. John Stewart is an annoying douchebag.

    1. This is accurate.

    2. In all fairness, Stewart was probably referring to this [PDF]”.

      1. Or this, which is much more recent:…..98146.html

    3. Since this article is about Jon Stewart, I don’t see how comments about John Stewart are relevant.

  2. I forget where I saw it but someone made a great point. The Daily Show has become like Monty Python and The Holy Grail; it is a lot more fun to talk about than actually watch.


      It is NOT funnier to talk about than to watch! You take that back!

      1. Oh come on. Everyone talks about that movie, but when is the last time they watched it? I am not saying it is not funny. I am just a lot more people say it is funny and talk about it than actually watch it on a regular basis.

        1. Fightin’ words, John, fightin’ words…

          1. Yeah I know. Kicking around Monte Python around here is almost worse than kicking around Rush.

            I will take it back. But you have to admit, that was a good piece of snark.

            1. It was good. You don’t have to take it back, John! We all friends here!

              Except for Tony and Max…

            2. As I’ve noted before, the King was an obsessive, film-quoting Python fan. He used to insist on people going to midnight showings of Holy Grail. I never thought that much of Elvis before I learned that. Now I understand why a religion is slowly forming around him–he offers something to everyone.

              1. Being a huge Elvis fan, I was aware of his love of The Holy Grail. If you want to see the formation of a religion, you should get an old documentary called Mondo Elvis. It is jaw-droppingly funny, sad, scary. Nothing about Monty Python in there. But some interesting discussion about cloud formations.

                1. None of the conventional Elvis fans want to acknowledge his Python geekiness, as it’s off brand.

            3. kicking around Rush.

              You are dead to me, John. D E A D !!!!

          2. I actually watched it a few months ago – I prefer “Life of Brian” though.

            1. It’s a little more coherent–there’s a plot, for instance–but the first film is more reminiscent of the series. I like both approaches and wish they’d done more.

              1. Brian is a fmaily favorite. My wife and I saw it in Columbus GA when it came out. There were protesters out front. Silly.

                1. Okay, I’m going to commit Python sacrilege: The Meaning of Life is the second best Python movie. First is Grail, last is Brian.

                  Brian isn’t bad, but meaning of life is better.

                  “This man is about to die. He has been sentenced to death for sexism in a major motion picture. He has chosen his own method of death.”

                  God, a bunch of naked chicks in roller skates? When you’re 13? Awesome.

                  1. Wish they all could be naked Palestinian girls.

            2. Life of Brian was the first place that I learned that historical and biblical figures were actual people just like me and my friends. The particular scene I have in mind is the sermon on the mount. As they are leaving, Reg turns to his friend: “What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it’s the meek who are the problem. “

              In that moment I “got it”. Pilot had local and imperial politics to worry about. Pharaoh had labor and production issues. All of them would have know-it-all regular folks opining as to what idiots they are – just like today.

              Shortly after that I saw a history text on artifacts from ancient Rome. There were pages upon pages of sex toys. They left all the good stuff out of my grade school textbooks. No wonder I didn’t think of them as real people. This book told about toilets and didoes. Real people use toilets and didoes. Suddenly history took on a whole different depth – much more interesting than a list of names and dates.

              1. Cyto!

                I hada similar sort of epiphany watching Brian, at the point where he ran, stepped out of his footwear, which his literal and figurative followers instantly seized upon. Within less than a minute there broke out a doctrinal fight about whether it was a “sandal” or a “shoe.” Instant schism.

        2. I fart in your general direction sir.

        3. I watched about 2 years ago, not as funny as I remembered. It actually kinda sucked, maybe it was because I was sober.

          1. My most recent experience with the subject matter was even worse… I saw “Spamalot” on Broadway and sat there the whole time wondering if the Python guys really needed the money that badly. It even made jokes from the film that I really liked seem terribly unfunny.

            1. I thought it was okay, but it was a pale reflection of the original production.

              1. Kind of like The Producers. Movie, hilarious. Musical, meh.

            2. I liked the Vegas version. My grandfather liked it, and he wasn’t a fan of Monty Python. Maybe it’s just geared to a different audience.

        4. My junior high son and his buddies have gotten into Python lately, so I’ve heard it on at least a dozen times this year. It is their favorite to watch in the van’s DVD while going on trips.

          1. My Jr. High aged niece recently got into Python as well. I sent her this T-Shirt for her birthday. Earned me lots of cool points.

          2. Please tell me oh, wise one, how did you perform this miracle? I am inundated with the sounds of “Jersey Shore” and “16 & Pregnant.” Please, I beseech you, before I am driven to madness.

        5. It is not funny in the same way Zeppelin is not good.

          It is over saturated and as such it has lost its edge.

          1. nah, you’re talking about French toast…

      2. I enjoyed the movie, all 567 times I’ve watched it.

        However, quotes from and references to the movie are even more enjoyable, and more culturally significant, than the movie itself.

        1. Ni!!!

          1. Favorite “Holy Grail” line: “You must tie her to the bed and spank her!”

            1. “i’m being oppressed!”

    2. Stewart, on the other hand? Watched snippets a couple times, can’t stand it. At all.

      AND I don’t like to talk about it.

      So it’s more like diarrhea in that regard.

    3. I don’t agree. The problem with the Python movies, of course, is that there are so few of them. Can’t just watch them every night.

      I don’t find The Daily Show to be very funny, the few times I’ve seen it. I watched it a little bit more frequently in the Craig Kilborn era, but it’s been so long that I couldn’t tell you why.

      From what I can tell, it seems to be much more popular with people of a certain political bend than actually entertaining. I’m sure it has its moments, and I have to reserve a little bit because a guy I went to high school with is a “correspondent” on the show.

      1. I remember Craig Kilborn’s version of the show being 10x better, and fail to understand the cult appreciation for Stewart. He is a heaping pile of douche, HEAPING..

        1. He is a heaping pile of douche, HEAPING..

          Daily Show fans like having someone they can identify with.

        2. Craig Kilborn mocked the media. Stewart mocks politicians. Okay, Republican politicians.

          Politicians suck but the media is a far richer target. The media RESPECTS politicians.

          1. Craig Kilborn mocked the media. Stewart mocks politicians.

            Stewart tried to mock the media but it was very unfunny and he ended up looking like a huge d-bag.


        3. Liked the Kilborn Daily Show, hate The Daily Showwithjonstewart. That tack-on to the title might have something to do with the ‘appreciation’.

          When Stewart took over we figured that thing would linger until people got used to him….but it just stayed.

          Craig was mocking the news media in a very satirical way–a quasi-parody, a nightly mockumentary of the news.

          Jon is a standard neurotic comic who mocks Republicans(mostly) in the standard neurotic comic style.

          With Craig a lot of the joke was the schtick itself. With Jon, the jokes are what the writers hand him before he goes on–the schtick is the same one that he’s uses whenever he performs.

      2. Which one? I went to high school with Wyatt Cenac.

        1. Aasif Mandvi[wala].

    4. Actually, I’m totally fucking bored of hearing people talk about it, but I still enjoy watching it once or twice a year.

  3. Curse you and your “facts”, Gillespie. You and Politifact are ruining THE MEME!

    Also – I really don’t care about any of this, so, moving on…

    1. Well, Fonzie did forget to mention the other studies, especially the ones where Fox viewers were found to be dunderheads. But, why ruin a good rant?

      He probably just assumed the readership here wouldn’t click through and read about the other studies and the ridiculous methodology Politifact used to distinguish them (it helps to reach a conclusion and then work backwards, doesn’t it Politifact?).

      In other words he counted on the “libertarians” here to remain uninformed about what politifact said. Ain’t irony pretty?

      1. Ain’t ignoring the “don’t care about this so moving on” delicious?

        I’m just here for the comments. Kind of like looking at Playboy and not reading the articles.

        Moving on…

        PS Enjoy your MSNBC, Timbits!

      2. Dunderhead because they don’t believe in man made global warming, or dunderheads because they don’t think the stimulus worked?

        1. The stimulus worked just fine. I think the White House has been clear about that for some time.

          1. Now that made me laugh…You don’t really believe the stimulus worked do you?

            1. i believe, but made or saved that’s where i have the problem…
              smells like a religious test…

            2. You could print off enough money to douse wildfires.. It will work eventually.

      3. I did click through. Politifact says “false”. In some polls, yes, Fox viewers came out worse. But “consistently, every poll”? No.

  4. so beck is also a comedian like stewart?

    1. The issue, ultimately, becomes less about what the host intends and more about what the audience perceives.

      1. More than anything else, this is the most charished meme of the left, that we are smarter than you are. It forms the basis of the authoritarian mindset, that because we are smarter than you, we know better than you what you should and should not be doing.

        I challenge you to find a modest leftist in this regard.

        1. Tolerance means being tolerant of those who agree, and having contempt for anyone who disagrees.

          Inclusiveness means including anyone who agrees, and having contempt for anyone who disagrees.

          Equality means anyone who agrees is your equal, and having contempt for anyone who disagrees.

          Contempt is the hallmark of the left.

          1. Whereas deep and abiding respect for one’s ideological foes is the hallmark of the right

            1. “Whereas deep and abiding respect for one’s ideological foes is the hallmark of the right”

              The right doesn’t claim to be tolerant and show it by who they do not tolerate.

              The right doesn’t claim to be inclusive and show it by who they exclude.

              The right doesn’t claim to be for equality and show it by who they treat as unequal.

              The right isn’t a bunch of flagrant hypocrites.

              1. We’ll agree to disagree since I hate to bother a man when he’s preaching, especially to a non-believer who knows he’s full of shit.

                Still, i will say that neither of those comments sound particularly sarcastic. i think you need a new nomme de plume

                1. And should we call you “timb” this week, or only today, Dan?

                2. The left claims to be tolerant.
                  The right makes no such claim.
                  The left claims to be inclusive.
                  The right makes no such claim.
                  The left claims to champion equality.
                  The right makes no such claim.

                  I’m not saying the right are angels, but the left is definitely a bunch of intellectually dishonest hypocrites.

                  Oh, and that was not sarcasm.

                  1. one must admire the “rights” ability to walk & quack exactly like the ducks they look like.

                    1. to paraphrase pj orourke, the right claims that govt doesn’t work, and then gets elected and proves it

                    2. and in the age of the Democrats it hasn’t worked either. Maybe there’s something in the water preventing a government that spends $4 trillion a year from doing so efficiently.

                    3. “Maybe there’s something in the water preventing a government that spends $4 trillion a year from doing so efficiently.”

                      I dunno.

                      I mean, when you give people gobs of other people’s money and ask them to spend it on things they will never use, you would expect them to be frugal and pay attention to detail.

                      Or is it the other way around?

                  2. What’s the saying- Hypocrisy is vice’s tribute to virtue? If your own view of yourself finds no hypocrisy, you must be a real clod. Which is precisely how the right strikes the rest of us.

                    1. “the rest of us”…

                  3. just because some one is tolerant doesn’t mean tolerance is never-ending or there aren’t limits. at some point even the most dedicated people realize there has to be boundaries. i suggest you read a dictionary before you sound off and reveal your ignorance.

          2. Contempt is the hallmark of the left.

            I’m not a leftist and I find casual contempt to be the best way to deal with Team Red/Blue. Giving an actual damn about their opinions leads to frustration, rage, and insanity.

        2. I have contempt for your opinion right now! And, it’s just because I like to “look down” on others.

          It’s cause you’re a conservative masquerading as a libertarian who just called leftists “authoritarian,” while supporting a side that champions internment, arresting people for not having their papers with them, illegal wiretapping, water-boarding, detaining American citizens without trials, etc

          If hypocrisy were an explosive, your entire basement would have exploded when you hit submit on that ridiculous comment.

          PS One wonders when the definition of “authoritarian” in the conservative came to mean “one who wants to increase MARGINAL tax rates to the rates paid in the 90’s. Then again, carelessness with definitions is the hallmark of the internet.

          1. while supporting a side that champions internment, arresting people for not having their papers with them, illegal wiretapping, water-boarding, detaining American citizens without trials,

            I didn’t know mofo was an Obama supporter. That bastard!

            1. Clever…I see what you did there. But, I, even more cleverly anticipated that argument and included things Obama does differently from bush….unfortunately for all of us, there aren’t enough differences. ’cause, I bet like me, Karl, you would love to see John Yoo on trial for approving torture? Right? I mean, you’re such a “libertarian” and all, so you’re against it.


              1. If they tried John Yoo, they would have to try Holder. And if they tried Chaney, they would have to try Susan Power. That isn’t and wasn’t ever going to happen.

                Now just shut up and get back in the car before Obama has to hit you again. He is under a lot of pressure. And you know you will be voting for him no matter what he does. So don’t make this hard.

                1. I prefer timb to be under the bus, with the rest of them.

          2. Im at a loss as to why you think im a hypocrite, im guessing its just a continuation of the whole “yeah, well, your side is a bunch of doo doo heads” misdirect.

            Ill tell you what, timb, i dont really expect you to agree with me publicly, but next time your lefty friends get to talking about politics, take note of how many of them are totally sure of thier superiority to others and how many of them are not. I think, if you are honest, you will find that most leftists are as arrogant a bunch as you could hope to find.

            1. This disdain for Leftists? Spoken like a conservative masquerading as a libertarian

          3. Please spare us your “No true Scotsman” arguments and trivial crap. If you paid attention we hate both sides of the spectrum with a passion.

            1. If you mean you, Nates, then you might have a poitn. If you mean Karl or mofo, you are sadly mistaken. They’re on a team and it ain’t the libertarian one you think it is

        3. Exactly, and it’s not even just that they are “smart”…they are on the “smart side”. Just like they are on the “moral side” and the “forward thinking side”, etc. This absolves them of actually having to be smart, or moral or forward thinking. It’s a pretty neat gimmick.

    2. Stewart’s a comedian? I thought comedians were supposed to be funny.

      1. sorry for the big words

        1. You should be sorry for the lack of funny.

          1. But he’s so edgy, man. Like when he stares into the camera and stutters. DROOOLZZ!!

      2. Well, 15 years ago, when he had his late night talk show, the “Moron Boy Walk” was pretty funny. Oops!! I meant “Mentally Differently Abled Pre-Man Perambulation”

  5. The Daily Show vs. The Media is awesome.
    Jon Stewart vs. Fox News is incredibly less so.

    1. Mainly because the battle is so lop-sided

      1. A smirk is a powerful thing…

  6. Who determines what’s “misinformed”?

    If someone tells the pollster that they don’t believe in Global Warming, does that make them misinformed?

    1. Read the politifact article and see.

    2. well, stupid is also possible

      1. But, but, we still have consensus. That must count for something?

    3. A few of them were definitely biased. Someone can be skeptical that the bailouts actually created jobs and might be correct. But the question was: the majority of economists believe …

      And the one about the health plan increasing the deficit is definitely true, even the CBO admits it. So if you know this you are actually better informed than the idiot’s at U. of Maryland who think the health care plan will save money. This one also was asking about what economists think so that might be different than what the CBO says.

    4. P.S. I hate Fox news.

  7. Even I find it hard to believe that Hannity viewers score above the national average. The national average must seriously suck.

    1. Maybe most Hannity viewers watch him for amusement?

      1. You sir, are a great American.

        1. Technically he’s Puerto Rican.

    2. It was Hannity and Colmes, but the article never said the new simply Hannity show featured well informed viewers. As much as I didn’t have any respect or agreement with Colmes, I like to think that he must’ve been the one driving the audience get informed. Hannity is grade A moron.

      1. Colmes is also grade A moron. His adherence to talking points was laughable — I remember hearing him say stuff that I can’t imagine he actually believed. They really did belong together.

        I suspect that relatively-informed people listen to or watch commentary of whatever kind. They don’t become informed directly by the commentary. People who don’t know or care about politics, also don’t care to tune in to commentary, no matter whose.

        1. From what I have heard, Colmes did just repeat a lot of talking points that he didn’t necessarily believe because that was his role on the show.

      2. The problem with studies like these are “self-selection” biases. IOW, the folks who watch Hannity may know more basic objective information about politics to begin with, and this interest dovetails with a desire to watch shows like Hannity (or Olbermann or whatever).

        In any event having basic political knowledge (“who is the junior Senator from Massachusetts”) is probably overrated anyway.

  8. We would be so much more of a well-informed country if everyone got their news from a bad comedian who uses a fake name.

    Stephen Colbert is a lefty too, but at least the guy is pretty damn funny most of the time. Jon Leibowitz isn’t even funny.

    1. Indeed; there is nothing sadder than when a comedian decides to take themselves seriously. Rosie O’Donnell actually had some good stand-up, before she shared TMI about herself.
      I’ve always considered Stewart a third-tier comedian. Now we all know he’s just a shill for the Left. Not funny. Kilborn (and his team) were funny.

    1. If only people didn’t watch Fox they would understand the truth that we can spend money forever without consequences, Keynesian economics is going to really work this time, and bombing people in Libya for no apparent reason is a noble thing.

      1. The might also think that the Cedar Revolution was ended by the murder of the Lebanese President rather than it instigating it, like you.

    2. And of course, they would understand the truth about the evil Jews in Israel.

      1. Notice how John, who is here criticizing Jewish Jon Stewart and failing to call out Mike M. for his anti-Semitic remark about Stewart above wants to call me an anti-Semite for pointing out John’s ignorance of Lebanese recent events on another thread. You’re pathetic John. You toss out careless assertion after incorrect assumption and when called on them you devolve in spittle-flecked, profanity laced, misspelling strewn ad hominens.

        1. get a room

        2. What “anti-Semitic” remark are you talking about, you freaking loon?

          1. Yes Mike, it’s not a common trade of anti-Semites to refer to Jews who have changed their name by their given Jewish names. Like the Klansman did with Geraldo?

            1. Listen you fucking piece of garbage, I’m an “ethnic” of partial Jewish descent myself, and unlike Jon Leibowitz, I’m not ashamed of my heritage. This is the year 2011, there’s nothing wrong with being Jewish or having a Jewish-sounding name.

              1. Yea, I’m sure the Klansman that sparked the fight with Geraldo by calling him his given name was just part Jewish and upset with Geraldo for the same reasons.

                1. I’m sure that anyone who calls a Jewish person by their given name instead of their stage name does so because they’re a Klansman.

                  Holy shit you’re stupid.

                  1. Thats why I never call Hesus Jesus…hold it, is he Christian or Jewish??? Anyway, calling him a Jew is anti-static…

              2. Listen you fucking piece of garbage, I’m an “ethnic” of partial Jewish descent myself, and unlike Jon Leibowitz, I’m not ashamed of my heritage. This is the year 2011, there’s nothing wrong with being Jewish or having a Jewish-sounding name.

                Sorry, Mike, but regardless of whether your your argument was intentionally anti-semitic or not, it is easily construed as anti-semitic for the well known fact that a large portion of Hollywood goes by stage names.

                1. Hey Wang, this place is restricted, so don’t tell ’em you’re Jewish, ok? No offense!

                2. it is easily construed as anti-semitic for the well known fact that a large portion of Hollywood goes by stage names.


              3. You self-hating Jooz! Calling out other TEH JOOz for using anglo names.

              4. Changing your name to something less ethnic does help get work in entertainment. Not something to celebrate, but it does seem to be the case.

            2. So a Jewish guy changes his name to appeal to an anti-semitic audience and it is somehow anti semitic to point that out?

              You really are a fucking idiotic douche.

              1. Anyway if you want to address someone seriously who has a stage name would it not be preferable to address that person by their given name?

            3. Jon Stewart changed his name? I didn’t think he had. I thought it was a stage name.

              Would you have the same objection to calling Michael Savage by his real name Michael Weiner?

              How is that anti-Semitic, though?

              1. I thought people called Stewart by his birth name just because the nutroots calls Bobby Jindal by his birth name.

        3. I really couldn’t actually figure out if Mike M.’s comment was meant to be anti-Semitic. I mean, it’s not like Stewart’s audience is unaware that he’s Jewish. It’s practically a third of his shtick. Maybe Mike M. is just really, really opposed to the use of stage names?

      2. Wait, they keep Jews in Israel now?

        1. Just Jesus, his disciples and a few dinosaurs.

            1. You know, that is awesome.

              1. That’s the way it really happened.

            2. That is funny

        2. Yep, have for some time.

    3. * most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

      * most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

      * the economy is getting worse (26 points)

      * most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

      * the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

      * their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

      * the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

      * when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

      * and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

      So informed smart people know the economy got better, the stimulus created or saved millions of jobs, the health care bill won’t affect (or will improve) the deficit.

      1. Reading comprehension is anathema to careless conservatives. None of those statements is in the above selection, not a ONE.

        1. “most economists” say you’re a dipshit MNG

          1. I’m sorry you can’t read well SIV.

            Too much time huntin’ and hating Jimmy Carter I guess.

            1. I’m sure MNG’s wife has an intersesting perspective on this, that he will no doubt adopt. They have a great time filling eachothers shit vessels (that empty space where a brain belongs), don’t ya know?

              1. Did Pippie forget his P?

          2. There is an inverse relationship between one’s knowledge of economics and the likelihood of their being a leftist.

            1. Yes, yes, the field of economics simply confirms everything you conservatives already believe…

                1. FACT PWNED

                  1. no questions about rainbows and unicorns…

                2. That’s just a conservative meme.

              1. Yes, yes, the field of economics simply confirms everything you conservatives already believe…

                The absence of being left wing does not make one a conservative.

                One who posts daily on a libertarian blog should know that.

                So in reply:

                FUCK YOU, YOU PILE OF HACK SHIT!!!

            2. There is also an inverse relationship to a person claiming to be sarcastic and that person’s successful application of the concept

              1. Oh no! I didn’t realize that once I chose this handle that I had to try to make every comment contain a note of sarcasm, and then abandon the handle if it didn’t live up to timb’s expectations.

                This sucks.

                I will change my handle to ‘can I use this handle timb?’ as soon as I give a shit what timb thinks.

                That’ll be, I dunno, never?

                1. Wait, was that sarcasm? Or irony?

                  This would be a good place for a Roxanne quote about the practice of irony C.D. Bales’ town.

                  Instead, I’ll use this:

                  C.D. Bales: I think it’s brilliant! What an idea! And I was there! He took the idea! He saw it ripe on the tree, he plucked it, and he put it in his pocket. It’s, it’s, dare I say… genius? Ah, no, no! But maybe, ooh! ah! maybe it is! Maybe I’m in the presence of greatness, maybe I just don’t know it. But I saw it…

                2. Now THAT was sarcastic. ;^)

                3. see, that wasn’t sarcastic either. I really think you need to re-assess the name.

      2. Alright then.

      3. Yes. Since these are objective facts, smart people do know them.

        Economic growth started again in 2009; by definition, positive growth after negative growth is a recovery, no matter what Rush says.

        Economists DO say the stimulus saved jobs, since the majority of unemployed over the last 12 months are former public employees getting the boot and the stimulus kept them employed. Private employment numbers have risen consistently over the last 12 months. And, finally, Congress’s authority on budget matters DID say the deficit would go down under the ACA. Right wing partisan, however, rejected the CBO analysis because they’re feelings were hurt.

        So, the answer is not that you feel the economy has not recovered, and you feel the stimulus was a waste, and you just know –dammit — that that socialized Romney care will not lower the budget….it’s that you are wrong.

        1. Just because it is no longer strinking and growing at a slow rate, doesn’t mean it has “recovered”. This is the worst recovery of the post war period.

          And keeping people on the government dole via jobs doing shit we don’t need is not creating or saving jobs. it is just glorified welfare

          And the CBO analysis, like everything else about Obamacare had a date time group of truth of about a week. No one is claiming now that Obamacare is saving money and they are finally admitting it is going to cost millions of people their insurance. So much for “if you like your plan you can keep it.”

          We have a real UE rate of over 16%. Growth is barely above stagnation. Inflation is coming back. The deficit is enormous. And it looks like there may be another recession.

          The village idiot you people put in the White House is getting the blame. Tough shit. Just call him Barrack W. Hoover.

          1. I’d like a link to the CBO analysis where it admits to changing its mind. I’ll wait, john.

            Meanwhile, you can call teachers and caseworkers welfare cheats as much as you like, doesn’t mean they didn’t have a job and the economic impact of their unemployment kills the economy. Hell, why would you care if your fellow citizens had a job. If it was for the government, then they must not deserve one? Stupidest, least informed comment on this board (to be fair, the winner before this was you too.)

            I admire the fact that concede point one.

            As far as the last two paragraphs, that’s not part of the question we’re wrestling with, john, but it is sweet to see a conservative pretend to care about unemployment, three paragraphs after calling the previously employed cheaters and “on welfare.”

            but, I get it, unemployment rates are useful as a tool in continued partisan hatred of the President. good luck with Governor Johnson’s campaign.

            1. Government jobs do not add to the economy because the wealth that is used to pay them must be extracted from someone else directly, or borrowed from someone who may have lent it to someone who would have produced something of value.
              No wealth is created by government.

              Give this a read. You might learn something. Though judging from your posts you appear to be a terminally ignorant leftist.


              Oh, and that was not sarcasm.

              1. If no government job creates anything, then why does Boeing keep making those fighter jets? How many people go to restuarants unexamined by health inspectors? How mnay private roads do you drive on? How was John Adams so wrong on universal education? How the hell are you typing on the internet created by government scientists?

                the mind reels at how colossally stupid your point was.

                PS From now on, maybe you should just indicate when you ARE being sarcastic, since light of the times a) you aren’t trying to be sarcastic or b) you fail at being sarcastic vastly outnumber the times you have suceeded.

                Again, just trying to help.

                PPS Still, I like how government workers aren’t the unemployed in your world. the ability to buy cars, houses and contribute economically is just not important unless John Galt is the one paying you to it, eh?

                1. Go ahead and finish that thought… Government pays for all of these things using what? That’s right wealth extracted from taxpayers. While the functions that you list off may or may not be useful functions, they happen at the expense of other things that the taxed individual would have done with the extracted wealth.


              This is the CBO analysis where it admits that, in reality, Obamacare will add almost a trillion dollars to the deficit over 10 years.

              Geez, I leave for a few days and we get a whole new troll? Or is this an alt?

              1. It’s Dan T.

                1. No, it’s not

              2. Brandon, you might have missed this explicit statement and all:

                “That estimate is unchanged from the one that CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation published in March, when the legislation was being considered.”

            3. looks as though McDonald’s was “shovel ready”…

    4. Ignore the polls referenced in Nick’s article. They are a conservative meme.

    5. The “most economists” questions are pretty dumb. When politicians and experts from either team talk about “most economists”, they really mean the ones they care to listen to. Nobody ever refers to the set of ALL economists unless the results come out in their favor.

      Additionally, some of the questions are vague enough to allow one to get whatever answer one wants. For instance, questions about PPACA’s contribution to the deficit can be asked in a fictional hypo-verse where the doc fix is allowed to expire, but even the CBO has rejected that line of thinking.

      The questions about the Iraq War are good stuff though. Any ideas what type of questions could be asked to MSNBC or Daily Show viewers to get similarly hilarious results? I’m thinking that questions about the effects of AGW would work.

      1. The CBO indicated the deficit would fall and you reject it (and throw in the meaningless “doc fix” bs), because you don’t want it to be true. That makes your answer to the question wrong, brian, no matter how much you wish it were not so.

        1. The CBO indicated the deficit would fall and you reject it (and throw in the meaningless “doc fix” bs), because you don’t want it to be true.

          I reject it because all the predictions that these people make, and the media too, usually turn out to be wrong. They are no better at predicting the future than Miss Cleo.

          1. Dude, what are you doing? Don’t rain on Dan’s parade.

            1. sorry, I won’t be his porn anymore.

      2. i missed the question:
        If you are in debt, how do you get out?
        a) spend more
        b) spend at 1980 levels
        c) have your wife chat you up
        d) go play golf
        e) rein in budgetary excesses

        1. make more money

          1. If you have the capability to make more money why are you not already doing so?

            1. dang!
              i forgot:
              f) raise taxes (in the name of supporting the disenfranchised)

              1. or
                g)print more money (and use inflation to undercut the amount owed)

  9. I wish Stewart wasn’t on some sort of suicide mission to put himself and The Daily Show on the same battlefield as the media outlets they mock instead of above it.

    1. agreed. stick to straight comedy

      1. I’m not sure if he can help it. He may have become addicted when he stuffed Tucker.

  10. “”Yet, Politifact notes that in a 2007 Pew study of political knowledge, viewers of Fox scored 35 percent, a “score [that] places it exactly at the national average.”””

    35 percent is the national average?

    “”while The O’Reilly Factor scored 28 percent, or 10 points above the national average””

    Or is the average 18?

    1. Two different sets of questions. Read the whole article.

      1. Ah, ok. Funny how the national average went from 35% to 18% in one year.

    2. Those are two different polls. The incredibly sad thing is that the threshold for “highly-informed” designation is woefully small. 51% of O’Reilly viewers scored highly-informed vs. 54% of Daily Show viewers, but highly informed pretty much means you can name the VP, Chief Justice, Party controlling congress, President of Russia (and even in 2007 I bet they’d take Putin as a response as well as Medvedev) and if we have a trade deficit. Seriously, those aren’t exactly super tough questions.

      1. Indeed.

        1. Sudden isn’t this just splitting hairs…
          Were the voters who put Owebama in office informed?
          Hope and Change gave them enough to make their decision…

  11. Stewart’s algorithm became pretty clear to me early on.

    When someone from the right side of the aisle screws up or says something stupid, skewer them relentlessly.

    When someone from the left side of the aisle screws up or says something stupid, skewer the media’s coverage of it relentlessly.

    If someone tries to call him out on his bias, he cowers behind the defense of “hey this is a comedy show, not news!”

    It’s old. Haven’t watched his show in almost two years.

    1. You pretty much nailed it. It was one thing when the Democrats were out of power. At least then he was some kind of opposition figure. But once they took over in 2008, he just became government propaganda.

      1. I’m slow.

      2. Oh yeah right. Stewart’s pro-Libya war rantings are overwhelming.

        1. His pro health care and pro stimulus stuff sure as hell was.

    2. I think you pretty much nailed it right there.

    3. “Haven’t watched his show in almost two years.”

      So you admit you haven’t watched the show during Obama’s administration but you can assert he goes easy on leftie administrations.

      Did you go to the John School of Careless Journalism?

      1. I watched the Daily Show/Colbert Report with fair regularity during Bush’s reign of terror, but since Obama’s election I was rapidly turned off and now pretty much only watch linked clips.

      2. Did I say “leftie administrations”? No. No, I didn’t. I said “someone from the left side of the aisle.”

        Did you go to the minge school of reading comprehension and strawman construction?

      3. “Did you go to the John School of Careless Journalism?”

        Christ what an asshole.

        1. You don’t have to tell me. I’m married to that idiot. But at least he thinks the way I tell him to.

        2. MNG went to WWJD, Worldwide Webinar for Jealous Douchebags.

    4. I liked the Daily Show and watched it regularly about 7 years ago. Haven’t seen it much since, but when I have seen it since Obama has been president, he seemed to do a pretty good job skewering both sides. This is based on a sample of about 3 episodes.

    5. I finally figured out why I didn’t like Daily, or Colbert.

      All they do is mock. They don’t really have answers, they don’t really offer real solutions.

    6. He is funny at times and he does (usually) try to be respectful when he brings on politicians or authors from “the other side” or at least on a few occasions when I’ve seen him bring on someone who I kind of agree with.

      I can watch Stewart since it does not pretend to be news much easier than I can watch Fox or MSNBC.

  12. On the book tour, I suggest Gillespie go on The Daily Show. I would very much like to see how Stewart would handle that back and forth.

    1. TDS wouldn’t have Gillespie.

      1. Because Nick makes libertarianism sexy and would run off with Stewart’s audience?

        1. No, Jacket, you make Nick sexy, as well as libertarianism. You could make Rosie O’Donnell sexy.

          1. no, i’m sorry. this is not possible. the jacket has immense power (and it must be used wisely) but nothing under the sun could make rosie sexy. she is the anti-sexy. there is no sexy in her. a lesbian three way with her, mila kunis and kate beckinsdale would be unwatchable.

            that’s the litmus test

            1. Given careful enough editing…..

    2. I’d like to see Hannity or O’Reilly take on Gillespie.

      1. I would not. Every single person they talk to on their shows are just different- sized speedbumps in their monologues.

        Stewart, at least, interviews people. I wish he had the passion to be as strong a devil’s advocate when interviewing people he likes/agrees with, because he’s quite good at that with opposing viewpoints.

        1. Stewart’s tactic when he’s losing a serious argument is to make a joke to get the audience involved and throw his guest off. It doesn’t make for a particularly good adversarial interview. But I don’t think this would work with Gillespie, who seems to be able to make serious points and joke at the same time.

          1. Gillespie and Welch are among the best interviewees for dissemination of libertarian ideas.

            1. Throw Gillespie into a presidential debate. The world would change.

              Now, I know Gillespie would say that he’d never run for president. This is exactly why he is perfectly qualified.

          2. And that’s actually the same reason Bill Maher won’t let either of them on his show. Gillespie would absolutely walk away with a significant portion of a Maher or Stewart audience, he’s a threat to them in a way that their usual guests aren’t.

            1. Where would he take the audience to? Does the Jacket have a TV show on weeknights at 11 that I don’t know about?

              1. No… the Jacket has pockets!

              2. “Where would he take the audience to?”

                I can think of at least one country on the horn of Africa…

            2. There’s that many libertarian sympathizers watching these shows that don’t realize they are hip deep in authoritarian progressive rheyoric?

            3. Oops, I guess it has now been proven that you are wrong about both of your points.

      2. O’Reilly is a terrible interviewer when I’ve observed him: he can’t stop interrupting to the point of extreme fucking annoyance.

      3. Nick has been on O’Reilly a bunch of times. Very entertaining. Maybe check Youtube?

  13. If we’re talking about the power hungry (right or left), here’s the appropriate Godfathers song.

  14. If I watch Fox, it’s only to watch Napolitano or Stossel, so no.

    1. Neither of which is actually on Fox News, except on rare occasion. And sadly, most cable packages don’t include Fox Business.

      1. Yeah I sadly don’t get FBN. I’m a fan of The Judge’s facebook page so I know when he’s going to appear and I always try to watch when he does. Hopefully, he will replace Beck.

        1. Recently got FBN through TWC. Its a mixed bag, I get FBN which most don’t, but I’m shit outta luck with NFLN.

      2. FBN also has Neil Cavuto, who is pretty good at covering the business stuff. I have no idea about his politics on social issues–which is actually a great compliment to him. I’ve never seen him mention them. He sticks to the nuts and bolts.

    2. Freedom watch on FBN is easily the most libertarian thing on TV nowadays. I love his daily end-of-the-show rants.

    1. Hamsher admits to being PWNED by Sean Hannity viewers!

  15. Daily Show viewers have to be smug about Fox News and Palin, because they sure as fuck don’t have anything to be smug about when it comes to the authoritarian idiot they elected to the office of President.

    1. I’m not a big fan of Stewart, I find his childish mugging to be profoundly unfunny. But he has attacked Obama quite a bit, especially for some of his stupider stances (like on Libya).

      1. Got any links to good clips?

        1. No, I don’t tend to keep a collection of Daily Show bookmarks…I imagine you can browse the web and find some.

          1. The burden is on you my good man.

      2. When he attacks Obama or anybody else from Team Blue, it’s always in the sense of “you’ve disappointed me”. When he attacks somebody from Team Red, it’s “hahahaha stupid dipshit Republicans”.

        Stewart’s not a fool. He knows what side his bread is buttered on and he’s not going to do anything that will drive away his audience. Despite the thin veneer of equal cynicism about all politicians, he will never treat Team Blue with the same amount of contempt as Team Red.

        1. and he never said he would. in fact, on chris wallace’s show, he said he’s primarily a comedian w a point of view.

        2. True, but I don’t know why anyone would expect him to do anything else. He makes no bones about being a liberal and that’s his point of view.

      3. Stewart did go after the global warming crowd over climategate.…..rming-data

        he does go after the left from time to time.

        But his net bias is pretty close to Saga’s analysis above.

        Also note that his bias does not seem to be against libertarians.

        It follows the left/right axis pretty stringently.

    2. Daily Show viewers have to be smug about Fox News and Palin, because they sure as fuck don’t have anything to be smug about when it comes to the authoritarian idiot they elected to the office of President.

      Or in their own lives.

      The righties are super dumb meme is the opium of the left losers. “Sure my life sucks, but I’m not a dumb republican”

      1. Obama was nothing but brand. They branded themselves as “smart and hip”. Being lefty was a brand signal. A way to show your friends how cool you were. The whole thing was and is totally fucked up.

        1. iPresident

      2. The anyone is super dumb meme is the opium of losers. Granted, I see it more from the left than right, although sometimes the right’s contempt for elitism manifests itself in a celebration of its own ignorance, which is just as pathetic.

        But labeling someone something as a means to not address their points and evidence is profoundly weak.

    3. “the authoritarian idiot they elected to the office of President”

      As someone quipped yesterday:

      “I had the most absurd nightmare. I was poor and no one liked me. I lost my job, I lost my house, Penelope hated me and it was all because of this terrible, awful Negro”

  16. A college professor once told me, when there was only one 24-hour cable news network and no internet, to subscribe to The New Republic and The National Review and make up my own damned mind.

    1. That must have been before WFB died. Nowadays NR is exactly the same as TNR: low grade toilet paper.

      1. Which one is NR and which one is TNR?

        1. NR is National Review. TNR is The New Republic. Each of these esteemed fishwrap purveyors uses these conventions when talking about the other, so don’t blame me.

  17. The Jon Stewart of Cambodia at least gets to be a Colonel of the Presidential Guard.…..ts/240441/

    In 2005, Krem created a routine called “Be Careful Not to Overuse Your Rights” that cast aspersions on human rights workers who teach Cambodian villagers about equality.

  18. I’m glad I don’t have cable (or satellite).

  19. I think Stewart is funny. Fuck you guys. If he could get Rush on the show. That would be awesome.

    I can’t stank Colbert after his PAC fiasco.

    For the record, my favorites are George Carlin, Don Rickles, Louis CK, and Chris Rock.

    1. some of his stuff is funny. I guess that is why people hate him so much. It is that he could be so much better if he wasn’t such a hack. No one hates Randi Rhodes. They just ignore her because she sucks. They hate on Stewart because he seems to have some talent and you expect more.

      1. And some people worship Randy Rhodes, god of the guitar solo who did not perish from this Earth in the plane crash but only went on to perform monstrous ballads for the demons of hell in the afterlife. Although one can argue that Zach Wylde took Rhodes style to another plane of existence.

        1. Randy *Rhoads*. The spelling is important, so as not to confuse him with the leftist harridan.

          1. Apologies. I hath committed a sin against the Church of Metal. Do not forsake me dark one.

        2. Or we can argue that Zach Wylde is a hack who is only successful due to firm attachment to the Osbournes asses since he was 20.

          1. Dude, no. Black Label Society is awesome.

    2. george carlin devolved from insightful and funny as hell into cranky liberaltalkingpoints spewing onenotepony boring curmudgeon

      1. Yeah, he hit his peak in the 90’s. He called TSA before it happened. His final HBO show, though, was mostly sad leftist tripe.

        But still funnier than Stewart.

    3. Chris Rock is hilarious. John Stewart is just not funny ? he’s just a lap dog for toe Left. David Schwimmer could do his gig.

  20. I watch Bret Baier’s newscast, and Fox News Sunday. I watched Stewart’s interview. I do not doubt that every cable news and network news shows have idiot devotees. Each host tries to make their viewers feel superior. It’s natural.

    1. Back in a college I had a job where I drove all day. I spent the whole summer listening to Limbaugh. The only time I have ever listened to him. The listeners seemed to be divided into two groups. About 20% of them seemed to take everything about the show seriously. The other 80% listened to it because they mostly agreed with Limbaugh and found him to be entertaining but understood a lot of what he said was tongue and cheek. Unlike the serious 20% they got the joke when they were supposed to.

      It seems like the Daily Show has a similiar fan base only the percentages are reversed and 80% take it way too seriously. Maybe that is a product of Stewart having a youner following and young people being stupid and naive. Or maybe Limbaugh has changed too. I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in twenty years so maybe both sides don’t get the joke anymore.

      1. I think it that they come to believe their own bullshit. A lot of what Limbaugh did was to make liberals go apoplectic. But now, he has been drinking his own kool aid for so long be believes it.

        1. For sure. At least back then, about 30 percent of what Limbaugh said was obvious sarcasm meant to tweak liberals. I don’t think a lot of liberals got the joke. And thought he was serious.

  21. I think the Food Network needs to be investigated for overstating the deliciousness of certain dishes, and HGTV for making home improvement projects look like something that can be done in an hour or less.

    1. Right on, brother! HGTV is a propaganda machine for Realtors and home improvement stores! They fuel unrealistic expectations and promote a gnawing envy. My wife’s addicted to this shiite and I have to keep bringing her back down to Earth telling her that their cost analysis is waaaay off.

  22. How about that? Glenn Beck viewers more informed than Daily Show watchers? Hannity zombies sharper than Olbermann and Maddow drones? What a world of wonders!

    I think the real take-away from this is not anything regarding the relative level of ‘informed-ness’ between watchers of (cough) shitty cable newsish-looking programs… (why not compare the @)*$ fitness levels of people who eat at Wendy’s vs. McDonalds every day?) … but rather, that the assumption that Everyone Other That You must be more ignorant than you is so widespread and pervasive that people proudly make such claims in the public sphere without any regard for actual facts, statistics, reality, etc. Solipsim has reached a new apex in the modern day, where people will adamently defend their *imaginary interpretations of the world* in broad daylight depsite the ready availability of actual objective facts to hand. When confronted with the ‘facts’, people will take offense and cast suspicion on your motives for resorting to ‘reality’, which as we all know, is like all subjective and shit and don’t you be foisting your clearly-biased ‘details’ on my worldview, man. Here’s some Howard Zinn.. now go fuck yourself.


    A dude who writes a political/investments newsletter with a not-too-small-readership sent out a note like 6mos ago talking about the Tea Party base, which was ‘largely poor and uneducated’; I sent him the NYT poll showing they were in fact more wealthy and better educated than average, and he replied, “polls fail to capture the complete spectrum… there’s a bias towards who chooses to respond… yadda yadda”

    I was like, “yeah, OK asshole – and the price of Coca Cola’s stock is also just a @*#$& fiction too, huh?”

    It seems to me people increasingly don’t like the real world they live in and insist on having their own version… and ALSO expect you to play along. Like, otherwise, you’re a dick.

    Maybe I’m just in a bad mood today.

    1. It is all just a meme man. But yeah. You make a great point. After the Rather faked Bush memo scandal, someone, I forget who, said in defense of CBS, “we got the narative right, it was just that the facts were wrong.” That sums up 21st America in so many ways.

      1. The war in Libya is illegal, but hey, it is for humanitarian reasons.

      2. “we got the narative right, it was just that the facts were wrong.”

        I never heard that before, but you nailed it right on the head with that.

        The absurdity is not so much the issue that some ‘facts’ were ‘wrong’, but rather that a large number of people have absolutely given up on the relative importance of ‘facts’ at all…. and that ‘the narrative’ is in fact the predominant driver of ones worldview. “Start with the Story, Look for some Facts… Maybe”

        Of course, I’m probably digging myself into some kind of epistemological hole, where I’m doing the same @#(* I accuse others of… however maybe the difference is at least I *know I’m doing it*… but who really knows if that’s worth anything.

        1. I think it has all become about “winning the argument,” facts be damned.

          It’s human nature and I’m sure we are all guilty of it to some degree. It just seems worse with partisan politics.

          1. they’re just hoping they get tapped for the next State Dept opening …

      3. This is such a huge problem with what we have devolved into. I have been a newspaper editor for 24 years and have witnessed this horseshit of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. How many award-winning ‘journalists’ have been unmasked by creating composite characters or simply making up stories because their editors are so enamored with the writer’s ‘life story’ (which likely lacks veracity as well). Cheating and plagiarism are now the hallmarks of our new ‘journalism.’ It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not as long as it gets people talking or generates clicks. It’s atrocious.

    2. It seems to me people increasingly don’t like the real world they live in and insist on having their own version

      I wonder if it has always been that way. But it sure seems to pretty bad. I hear a lot of people talk about how they don’t watch or read any news because they don’t want to know all the bad things going on. It is willful fucking ignorance.

      1. Admittedly, I don’t think someone needs to be plugged in to the 24 hour news feed to be well informed. Knowing the number of casualties in Afghanistan in the last month does not make you more well informed than the person who understands the justifications used for getting us involved, the actual or potential other geopolitical reasons that we are there, the handling of the conflict by the two administrations presiding over it since it began, the current political regime governing the area, and the implications of the current policy.

        I don’t watch any news. Occassionally I’ll check out some CSPAN during congressional recesses to watch the think tank symposiums (and I try to sample them all from DEMOS and CAP to AEI and Heritage and everything in between). I get broad overviews, philosophies and understanding of the more or less permanent debates. I’ll get whatever evidence is presented by either side in favor of their positions. But there is no sense in getting caught up in too much of the finite minutea. Although, the occassional article linked to through H&R helps fill in the gaps with information on current affairs.

        1. Dude, I CALL your lackluster interest in cable news AND RAISE YOU with = “I don’t even have a fucking TV”

          Thats’ right. No TV. When I drop that on people, they initially think i’m kidding. Then they start treating me like I’m some kind of wacko luddite creep.

          But, to wit: watching Cable News /= “informed”. In fact, I’d go farther and consider it a form of mental self-abuse. The only thing on TV I miss is Jim Leher/News Hour. But whatever…its on the intertubes.

          1. I have a TV but only use it for watching movies. No cable, no satellite, no anttenna.

            1. Yeah, I kept it around for a while hooked up to an Xbox (mostly for DVD watching), but then netflix’s ‘Watch Instantly’ deal sorta gradually took over as a go-to option, so I just got a bigger monitor for the PC, and its basically the same shit, only it’s like “Pull-Only-Televion” now.

    3. “”Here’s some Howard Zinn.. now go fuck yourself.””

      Your moment of Zinn.

  23. Did anyone notice throughout the interview that none of you listened to and that Fonzie didn’t comment upon, that Wallace NEVER even pretended Fox new is objective?

    Not once did he claim Fox News is fair and balanced. He admitted they are skewed rightward and justified it by saying everyone is leftward (which is, of course, bs, except for MSNBC)

    I find it interesting that they preceded int heir conversation with their acknowledgement that outside of Mr. Wallace, Fox News is just a bunch of talk show hosts pretending to be a news organization. never thought I’d actually see truth on Fox, but there it was, unspoken, but there.

    Next thing you know, the writers of Hit and Run will give up their faux Libertarianism and just admit to being conservative Republicans.

    Can the internet handle that much truth?

    1. If you hate Fox News so much, why do you watch it? And if you don’t watch it, how do you know it is so biased?

      1. Non-sequitor, eh?

        Still, I’ll play, since it’s more fun than working

        I used to watch and listen to Hannity everyday, so that I knew what you think, John. Now, that the conservatives are about to fall off a cliff (electorally speaking), I find them less interesting.

        Nonetheless, I’m here, aren’t I. Read the politifact thing, read Fonzie’s piece, read your comments….when was the last time you read and posted anything like a discussion point on a liberal blog? Epistemic closure, john, is no way to criticize someone who DOES consume news from many sources.

        1. I love how liberals think every conservative must listen to “so and so” bogie man. They are so cute when they do that.

        2. If you spent hours listening to people you claim to hate, you are pretty pathetic and probably need to get out more.

        3. Republicans are going to fall off the electoral cliff? Just like Obamacare was going to ensure that Pelosi was speaker for life? How is that one working for you?

          1. Since I never said it, I’m not too concerned. I do however, note the 43 million Hispanic voters y’all are giving Dems every day you conservatives express fear of the Latin Menace means that Dems should do pretty well.

            See California after Prop 187.

            1. I think you are confused. Please point out the expressed fear of the “Latin Menace”.

        4. Huh? You think this prolonged recession spells doom for the opposition party?

          Not sure whether Congress will go all the way GOP–the Senate might not go, though it’s not unlikely that it will–but the presidency is very likely going to the GOP, regardless of the idiot they nominate. This administration is that bad. In fact, let’s just say it–Obama is worse than Bush. Incredible, but true. He does virtually all of the bad things that Bush did, plus some all-new absurdities. Bush would’ve lost but for the uncertainties of 9/11 and the resulting wars, despite the economy not being too bad in 2004. Obama is unlikely to have anything to make people think twice about voting against him.

          1. No, it won’t.

            Still, although I get internet commenting is short-sighted and all, I’m not just talking 2012. When Texas goes blue in 2016, you will remember this conversation

        5. No explanation, John, of the last time you consumed news which wasn’t filtered for your ideloglocial outlook?

          I, for one, am shocked

    2. You’re a funny troll, mostly cause you’re so sincere.

      Please stay around and make more comments here. I, for one, appreciate the laughs.

      1. Ah, the definition of the word troll…misused by a “libertarian” to mean “someone who is not in lock-step with the other commenters.”

        Thank you, Almanian, for NOT commenting on the point and instead commenting on the commenter. It’s like you’re trying to change the subject from my observation to me….I think that actually is what ‘troll” means in the internet sense.

        PS If I were sincere, why would I be here making fun of faux libertarians? I can’t change the minds of a bunch of right wingers who think libertarianism is either a) a relevant political idea, or b) a nice diversion before they go back to Red State.

        1. See how funny you are? Let me see if I can get that hook out of your lower lip…stop fussing…

          1. I like how people who make the effort to come here, read posts, read comments, then even make comments themselves talk about our irrelevance. If that were true, why bother with us? We may be on the margins, but we, and the fact that there is a libertarian streak in many Americans, bother the crap out of statists. Of any variety.

            1. because the level of intelligence is higher than most wingnut blogs. ur welcome

              1. Amen. Go to any wingnut blog and you’ll be lucky to get a post or two off before you’re shouted down and cursed (it’s the combination that bothers me!).

                Plus, I have yet to run in to an out and out racist on this blog. Whereas, wingnuts welcome racists (I’m looking at you, Stacy McCain)

                Here, you get all the conservatism without that nasty after-taste

    3. Hit and Run will give up their faux Libertarianism and admit to being conservative Republicans

      Oh snap! We’re so busted!…

      Ok guys, I guess the game is up. Let’s have a quick group-prayer for all the abortion fetuses and write letters to our congressmen telling them not to cut defense spending to appease the terrorists and then let’s go volunteer to stand on the border and defend our Nation from the predations of immigrants and make sure we keep circulating those petitions to Defend Marriage from those Fagholes who want to marry each other in blatant violation of God’s intent.

      See what I mean? We’re outed. Might as well just quit pretending.

      Oh yeah, and let’s all have a HUGE FUCKING DRINK

      1. Man, I gotta get to bible school quick – right after watching a few laps of Nascar and do some huntin’!

        Not that there is anything wrong with that.

        1. Make sure to wear your American Flag Lapel Pin @ bible study

        2. See you at the Tractor Pull !

      2. I’m from–and a resident of–the South. Ipso facto uneducated, redneck, conservative, racist, Creationist.

        1. and sister fucker

          1. Oh, right, thanks. The omission is solely due to my poor, southern education. I went to “college” in the South, which likely means my “degree” was in NASCAR Tire Changing Science or something. Or maybe Klan Management.

            1. Tractor design, Creationist Anthropology, Gender Studies…

              That last one was just to see if you were reading. And there could in theory be a Conservative Gender Studies department. Women study the importance of how to take their shoes off and stay in the kitchen…

              1. I minored in Confederate Revisionist History. My JD focused on the law of oppressing minorities.

                1. Awesome Pro

                2. ProL wins this one

                3. A JD for a libertarian? I hate the state so much I want to work within its rules and licensing requirements!

                  Too rich

                  1. How many jobs out there don’t require some kind of licensing or government approved training?

            2. What’s the best detergent for those white robes?

              1. Calgon, because it uses an ancient Chinese secret. Insert ethnic slur of your choice here.

                1. Nonsense.

                  First off, Calgon’s not a detergent smart guy, its bath soap, and secondly, the obvious answer is that the robes are washed by hand by colored domestic servants who use only the finest lard-based soap rendered from the bodies of a recently lynched-family member.

                  Man, that’s pretty harsh even for me.

    4. And after all the hinting and innuendo from his previous posts, it comes out: …the writers of Hit and Run will give up their faux Libertarianism and just admit to being conservative Republicans. Someone just CANNOT wrap his stupid little head around the fact that there is more to life than TEAMREDTEAMBLUE. Fucking tribalism, how does it work?

      1. Damn. Should’ve F5’d!

      2. Weird, I’m a liberal, but don’t consider myself on Team Blue. I do note that many of the commenters are clearly members of Team Red. Maybe you missed that in all the Obama and liberal bashing that there hasn’t been too many mentions of how the folks here depliore the Team Red of Fox News. After all, the post is about defending the Reddest of Team Red and, yet, no one here denounces them for their tribalism.

        Perhaps, Kool, you only see tribalism on the tribe you don’t like?

        Personally, I must agree with Stewart again: there are two parties in America. one represents the oligarchy and plutocrats and one represents the other party. Many members of the “Money Party” have a “D” after their name (Schumer, Nelson, Bayh, Trester, Machin, etc).

        Unfortunately for you, that means, though, even though I consider myself in the party in oppostition to the Money Party, it means you and I will continue to disagree.

        1. and they both call Independents stupid but come crawling on all fours every couple of years…

    5. “Not once did he claim Fox News is fair and balanced. He admitted they are skewed rightward and justified it by saying everyone is leftward (which is, of course, bs, except for MSNBC)”

      Wallace was quite correct.

      ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, BBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, etc. – without exception every last one of them is not one iota less biased to the left than liberals claim Fox is to the right.

      1. this is patently untrue,but you can continue to believe it if it makes you happy.

        1. how’s looking through that keyhole working for ya’…

  24. Fox News is just a bunch of talk show hosts pretending to be working for a news organization.

    But that’s all 24 hour news channels. It’s Op-ed that some people take way to seriously. It’s important to divide the consumers, Coke vs. Pepsi so to speak. But I’ve never seen a cola commercial that claims your a pinhead, idiot, or other names because you consume the other brand.

    The more of any 24 hour news channel you watch, the more of a sheep you become for that brand.

    1. I never watch any of the cable news channels for more than five minutes at a time. But Fox always seemed more tabloid than anything else. I mostly see blond anchors with great legs talking about local, if it bleeds it leads, kind of stories.

      I honestly don’t see what the big deal is. Is O’Reilly or Hanity any worse than Special Ed Shutlz or Crazy Larry O’Donnell?

      1. I will cop to turning to Fox and muting it just for the Leggy Blondes show. They are spectacularly ahead of the competition on that front. Babe Central!

        1. They do know how to pick them.

          1. legs sure…but what if you’re an ass man ?

            1. And MSNBC picked Mika Brezinski and Savanah Guthrie for their big brains? And how about the two chicas on CNN’s American Morning – Dumb and Dumberer? FNC may have been ahead of the trend, but they’re all going with eye candy now.

      2. O”Reilly is way better then Schultz and Hannity and Schultz are equally moronic. O’Donnell, when he’s actually trying to be less sensational and less Olberman can be decent, but, I find, he’s trying to keep Olberman’s audience and he’s way too over the top for me.

        1. Hannity is unwatchable. O’Reilly is quickly returning to unwatchable.

          They’re all banned from Almanian’s TV for now, so hopefully it will get better when I start watching again.

          If not, there’s always my old friend the radio.

        2. Hanity is unwatchabe. And O’Reilly is just an asshole. I really can’t figure out if he leans left or right. His show mostly seems to be about how great he thinks himself to be.

          1. DOH! JinX!

          2. and the frickin’ Freedom/Liberty er whatever country shows.

          3. Forget left/right when it comes to O’Reilly. He’s an moralizing evangelical populist. Period. Those creatures come in all flavors.

            He just cares about “the folks”.

            1. You hit it precisely, which is why I do not willingly watch O’Reilly, few yhongs stick in my craw more than populism.

      3. Is O’Reilly or Hanity any worse than Special Ed Shutlz or Crazy Larry O’Donnell?””

        IMO, they are all pretty much different flavors of cola. Some like Pepsi, some like Coke. I don’t think any is better quality than the other.

        1. One thing that has to be stressed about O’Reilly: they really push balance in the guests. In the times I’ve watched regularly I’ve noted that every week he has one segment where he faces off against two liberals. Every week (usually Wednesday or Thursday). The only problem with O’Reilly’s show: it’s all about Bill. And in the age of Obama the guests aren’t as good (though that’s really across FNC). The White House has foolishly decided to bypass FNC to a great extent, and to their loss.

    2. For me, they pretty much all suck balls. Which is why I’ve boycotted The News? again.

      You can get an awful lot – an AWFUL lot – of information outside the pablum from the MSM and cable. Sometimes I have to remind myself and go seek it out, so I remember how easy it is to “stay informed” without having to take the load of shit the “news” channels typically serve with the scintilla of information they provide on a daily basis.

      The world is a wonderful place.

      1. I actually find sampling a wide range of blogs is a way to stay informed…besides my wife and kids aren’t going to let me watch John King or Maddow or Hannity. They like to be entertained.

        Speaking of which, as a bonus, on conservative blogs, I bring amusement to Almanian!

        If I can be permitted to make a point, that’s what Stewart was criticizing: sensational, conflict creating laziness

        1. Yep, I sample the blogs, too. Do that for work stuff as well. Many viewpoints = good.

          As for Stewart – huh? Who cares. Not I.

        2. whadda mean “let you”? how long ur balls been nailed above the mantle?

          1. A looonnnngggg time.

  25. http://blogs.the-american-inte…..-a-nation/

    Speaking of informed, interesting take on the failure of the blue state education model. Remember, liberal voters are more informed.

    1. That’s pretty amazing that two separate surveys done by liberal media outlets show that Texas and Florida have the best public school systems in the country today.

      I can already see the liberal heads exploding all over the place. You watch, the Tonys and MNGs of Hit n’ Run will never accept this as valid, because they can’t even comprehend that it could possibly be true.

      1. I remember during the Walker Hates Children protests in Wisconsin Iowahawk compared the performance of Texas to Wisconsin in the various age and racial breakdowns to find that in 17 of the 19 metrics Texas was ahead, and only trailed by tenths of a percentage in the other two.

  26. Just a little tip from me to Reasonoids – turn on the news and watch it – muted – while listening to “Montrose” or “Astr0creep 2000” or “Motley Crue Greatest Hits” or pretty much anything by Pantera. Or whatever you like.

    Oh, and do your mind-altering of choice if you wish.

    It’s fun. But no turning up the sound on the TEEVEE – that’s cheating. You have to guess what they’re talking about. It’s more interesting. And the soundtrack is EPIC!

    PS I shed a tear Sunday when my 16 year old son started singing “Rock Candy” while we were working outside. “Dad, I’ve been playing Montrose a LOT on my iPod….” He’s gonna turn out OK, my son.

    1. I should break out AC2000. I haven’t listened to that in a while. I’ve been walking around singing (that should probably be in quotes) Wild Side by the Crue. East LA at midnight. Papa won’t be home tonight. Caught dead with his beast friend’s wife. Then my wife looks at me funny.


    Oh noes!!! The chinks are buying Boise. Someone go and tell The Truth before it is too late.

    Note: Read the comments to that article at your own risk. The stupid is liable to rub off.

    1. I miss Teh Troof! Although maybe the ultra-serious and much-smarter-than-I-am newbies can take its place.

      Naaah – only teh Troof is teh Troof.

      1. He was my favorite troll too. I am not sure who was behind him. But it was brilliant trolling.

    2. Note: Read the comments to that article at your own risk

      Dude, that sounds like a challenge.

      I used to find myself often reading long comment-threads that were skull-achingly stupid (e.g. NYT articles on the Wisconsin public sector unions? Ouch, it still hurts)… its like a toothache that you wont stop fiddling with, causing unnecessary paid out of some weird fascination.

      If this is nearly as bad as you suggest, I look forward to it…

      1. Meh. I’d give them a 6-7 out of 10 on the Stupid-o-tron index.

        What impresses me the most is that there are actually 500 people who read news about Idaho. Or rather, a small group of people who can generate 500+ posts about a Chinese factory maybe opening in Idaho.

        The best dumbness was the broad consensus that the Chinese Factory opening in Idaho would be yet another example of “Foreigners Taking US Jobs”. It does depress one a little. There was the typical anti-capitalism, and TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE hoo-haa… really, generally par for the course.

        1. The general ignorance about international trade and comparative advantage never fails to amaze/appall me. When US companies invest overseas it is “The foreigners are taking our jobs man”. When foreign companies invest in the US it is “the Chinks are buying America man”.

          No international transaction of any kind makes people happy.

          1. We should try to reapply the “isolationist” label to these particular jerkwads.

  28. I’m convinced that cable news in general employs some sort of magic device to lower the viewer’s IQ. Of course, relentless talking points from talking heads might be enough to do that without any secret technology.

    1. The error is getting anything other than breaking disaster news from television. And even that should be limited to the actual disaster itself, not their brainless, mind-numbing filler/speculation/political bullshit.

      1. Yep. If only there was some device out there that let you pick the news items you wish to be informed about and ignore all the blather. If only.

        1. Exactly. The Internet meets my needs without the empty, pointless chatter.

          1. Not that the Internet doesn’t have that as well, but I can avoid it if I want to, at least in part.

      2. Agreed. Once I know about the disaster, I refuse to watch any follow-up (except cool video of tsunami damage etc.). It is impossible to be more trite than to report on day 6 of the big fire, the big earthquake, the big hurricane.

    2. I’m convinced that cable news in general employs some sort of magic device to lower the viewer’s IQ.

      Duh! It’s the freaking ticker at the bottom. They constantly distract you with unnecessary and substance-less information so that over time you are unable to carry on a thought for more than a second or two…

      …what was I saying?

  29. Best part of the article was the reference to one of my favorite bands as well. The Godfathers!

  30. Good morning, reason.

    Legalize LSD and make alcohol illegal again — especially microbrews. Microbrews are like the saggy pants or platform sandals trend. It’s a disgrace. Snap out of it.

    1. BS. Without microbrews we’d still be swilling Shclitz. By the way, I swilled more Shlitz any man ever seen.

      1. Schlitz!!! Jesus!

        1. That’d be a great ad. A picture of Christ sporting a huge grin popping open a can of Schlitz with the line: “Are you a Schlitz man?” underneath.

          1. no, you missed the Owebama ad:
            “Let me be clear, it is not a beer summit without THE beer. Schlitz, when you want to have a beer summit drink the summit of beers!”

  31. Exactly. The Internet meets my needs without the empty, pointless chatter.

    Said in yet another meandering, yet entertaining, blog comment section.

  32. Legalize LSD and make alcohol illegal again

    Well, unless it has LSD in it, of course.

    1. I can forum shop on the Internet and quickly wade through the chaff.

      Naturally, I don’t depend on this forum for news except for the occasional “Oh, really?” moment.

      1. I don’t depend on this forum for news

        Once again in Game of Thrones news:

        (note: TV series news not the fucking books…do not talk about the books bitches!!!)

        Dany gos herself some baby dragons, Ned Stark got his head chopped off, Aya stark is heading north disguised as a boy…and apparently one of King Robert’s bastards is joining her on that journey. Jon Snow is heading out with the rest of the Watch beyond the wall in force hopefully to kick some white walker ass, and Cat and Robb Stark have planned to get the Stark girls back and then are going to “Kill them all”. “All” being the Lanesters not the Stark girls….oh yeah and Robb is the King of the North apparently.

        Also Tyrion is the new Hand of the king the new king is Joffery and Jamie is held prisoner by Robb Stark’s army.

    2. True. Research shows that LSD helps alcoholics end their addiction. If we legalize LSD O’Doul’s, we stand a chance at finally seeing our glorious manifest destiny of 100% sober graduations — and putting Senator McCain’s wife’s family out of business.

      Sorry Senator McCain, but national greatness is not spelled B-u-d-w-e-i-s-e-r. For real, yo.

      1. And we need a national anthem that’s sorta danceable once in a while.

        I nominate Robyn Hitchcock’s “America”

  33. I don’t doubt that Fox News viewers are equally as well *informed* as others, particularly in light of the fact that most Fox News viewers, inasmuch as they are watching Fox because they perceive their views to be marginalized in the MSM, probably take a more active interest in politics than your average CNN viewer. Stewart’s claim was specifically about how “misinformed” they were, not how well or poorly informed. And there, I think, he’s still probably and demonstrably correct, that Fox viewers carry around more misinformation in their heads than your average CNN viewer, who simply has no information.

  34. I question if polls of overall knowledge of politics equates to a direct correlation as to if Fox news viewers are being consistently presented incorrect information.

    I’m not familiar with the political knowledge the polls test, but if it is fact based, such as who holds what political office, and how particular political procedures are handled, rather than the state of politics and the opinions and leanings of individual politicians and politicos, then the poll would likely not catch the majority of information given by political news shows on the various channels and therefor miss the alleged misinformation.

    If the poll does take these into factor, I would be very critical of it’s findings, given how hard it is to poll/test such content without bias inherent in the test.

  35. Classic deception by omission here by Nick. Fox scored at the national average when you count people WHO DON”T WATCH THE NEWS OR READ ANYTHING! Wow, so Fox viewers score lower than any other network, but because their viewers know more than people who consume absolutely no news products, they’re at the national average. Nice trick.

    Also, Stewart’s claim was “misinformed,” which is different than uninformed or whatever most of the studies cited by Politifact tend to measure. The only two they found that purported to test misinformation, the last two. On one Fox viewers did the worst, and the other Politifact doesn’t even bother to tell us the results, due to methodology concerns from the statistical experts at … Politifact! Another nice trick. (I’ll save you the trouble of reading the PDF: Fox viewers did the worst).

    Politifact: Pretend Jon Stewart said something else, then proceed to show that even had he said the thing which you say he said, he’d still probably be right, then mark the statement false anyhow because of the word “consistently.” Nice.

  36. I’d like to know what we’re calling mis-information these days. Because hasn’t most of what came out of the White House in year one now been proven to be mis-information?

    I don’t know who has the smartest viewers nor do I care. I just know the folks that put out polls like this on an ad hoc basis (not Pew and other groups that have do these regularly and have been doing them for years) are just looking to have their own biases confirmed.

  37. Has anybody actually read the 2007 Pew poll? Okay, it doesn’t actually say that Fox News viewers are “consistently misinformed.” BUT it does say that, out of 16 news outlets, Fox has the second lowest proportion of highly informed viewers, and the second highest proportion of least informed viewers. While technically inaccurate, Stewart’s larger point is sound: Fox viewers are less well informed.

    Also, if you’re not watching the Daily Show, you’re missing out. Brilliant stuff.

    1. The problem here is that this again could simply be a function of popularity. The higher ratings you get, the more likely you are to get viewers who aren’t as interested in politics in general and therefore not as informed.

      As for the questions that included “most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit,” I find that whole set of questions unpersuasive because it’s clearly designed to make a certain group of people look bad. It’s no different than asking Daily Show viewers “the number of Federal financial regulations went down from 2001 to 2008,” and then mocking them as misinformed when they get it ‘wrong.’ If you design a poll to make certain people look bad, that’s what is going to happen.

      1. of course ratings cant measure streaming content. think faux or msnbc is streamed more?

  38. The only people who watch Fox News are rednecks and bitter impotent old white men who dont like the darkie in the White House. That’s it. Fox droolers are the dumbest fucking people on the planet. How fitting that the Koch sucker Freedumb Fonzie is front and center defending them. I guess he really wants to be invited back on John Stoseels show so they can both take off their shoes again.

    1. Is there a “drink now!” trigger in there somewhere? My eyes glazed over after the first line.

  39. The the standard of being misinformed is disagreeing with John Stewart, this result is hardly shocking.

  40. There is clearly no empirical evidence to support Stewart since Fox viewers tend to be the ones who saw through Obama first.A far better case can be made for Stewart’s

  41. Those surveys are made to make conservatives score badly. It would be easy to make one in which liberals scored badly.

    1. Did the Arizona law require police to stop anyone they suspect of being illegal?

    2. Did the income to the government drop in the 8 years after Reagan tax cuts?

    I could go on…but I made my point.

    And my questions are not asking opinion as many of the others did. Such as, is the economy doing better? That is more a survey question then something that is or is not a fact. And of course more in the opposition party would think the economy is doing worse. That is why the qestion is being asked.

    1. 1. No

      2. I assume you mean revenue. As to that:…..hemselves?

      You have made A point, though it might not have exactly been the one you wanted to make.

      1. revenues as a share of GDP?
        right, when G.E. is paying zero in taxes…
        ah, try again…

  42. I was more a survey to test if they could re-spout liberal talking points.

  43. Mark Buehner’s comment above more or less has it.

    I recall a similar passage in Al Franken’s book on Rush Limbaugh back in the ’90s. The pseudo-statistical conclusion was that his listeners were the least knowledgeable about a given subject. This was a revelatory point for me, until I grew up and realized that “knowledgeable” was probably there defined as “in agreement with provocative statements which were literally true or could be tenuously held true by the pollster.”

    Political “Fact”ism: the pinnacle of science.

    The most famous current example is, of course, the Death Panels, which are a (a) a mathematical certainty under Obamacare and (b) “untrue” and the product of “misinformation.” This is just another example of winning the argument by declaring that there isn’t one.

  44. Please don’t take sides in the left vs right media slapfest. Reason’s value is as an independent 3rd way kind of source of information. As soon as you start playing their game then you’ll be alienating people who lean in one direction or the other.

  45. 300 plus comments, among such well-informed and intelligent folk, yet nobody knows the difference–or even notices that there is a difference–between “uninformed” and “misinformed.” I can’t be sure that Stewart’s claim is correct–only one of the five surveys I’ve followed attempts to measure actual misinformation (or disinformation). They’re all measuring the simple distinction between informed and uninformed. If you can’t name your senator, you’re uninformed. It’s easy to write questions that measure this, though both uninformed and misinformed people are adept at disguising or rationalizing their ‘beliefs’ when the premises are under the microscope.

    This thread is an excellent example of the phenomenon.


  46. The problem with these sorts of polls are that they often sneak in some very questionable “knowledge” into the test. For instance, last year there was a similar survey that asked people whether Obamacare would reduce the deficit, and the “right” answer was yes according to the graders, even though it was no according to anyone with half a brain.

  47. Funny how Politifact is only “as full of shit” as Jon Stewart when Master Rand is the topic of Politifact’s work?

    Reasonites must shoot Politifact staffers when God Ron’s endless excrement appears as False on its website.

  48. Remember, Jon Stewart is ‘a comedian’. He doesn’t have to get his facts straight.

  49. Remember, Jon Stewart is ‘a comedian’. He doesn’t have to get his facts straight.

  50. Stewart is a typical liberal. He lies because his world view does not make common sense.

  51. God, did anybody actually read the PolitiFact story?

    As much as I respect Nick, he’s cherrypicking quotes and misrepresenting the studies.

    He makes it sound like the second pull quote is from the 2007 poll. It’s not. It’s from the 2008 poll.

    In the 2007 poll, the O’Reilly Factor was three points behind the Daily Show at 51 and 54 percent, respectively. None of the other Fox shows came as close as the O’Reilly Factor.

    In addition, looking at the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, “On these questions, Fox clearly did the worst among the major news outlets. The ‘misperception rate’ for Fox was 45 percent. The highest for other news outlets was CBS News at 36 percent; those with lower ‘misperception rates’ included CNN, ABC, NBC, the print media and NPR/PBS, which was lowest at 11 percent.”

    In addition, there was a study commissioned by World Public Opinion at the University of Maryland that found Fox viewers *were* very misinformed about basic facts. PolitiFact didn’t include it because it received “fierce counterattacks”. After having read said counterattacks, they were basically partisan hack jobs. If PolitiFact had actually included that study, it’s pretty clear that while Fox News Viewers might not *always* be the most misinformed, they are more misinformed than the viewers of any other network.

  52. First time to this blog. I’ve read some ugly political discussions elsewhere(and left a Beatles gear group over same, believe it or not).

    Kudos to the posters here — it’s the most witty, balanced and low-hate discussion of a hot-button topic I’ve come across. It’s been refreshing and downright encouraging. Thanks!

  53. “”Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers?” Stewart asked Wallace. “The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”

    It’s amazing how Fox News leaves even prominent, supposedly sophisticated liberals sputtering, incoherent conspiracy nuts.

  54. its funny because they found morons at Becks rally too…all this proved is that you can edit video real well…good job…

  55. There are kinds of brand products in our store,such as jordan shoes,christian louboutin high heels,ugg boots,ed hardy t shirt or brand handbag.All these fashionable products with excellent quality and reasonable price.If you buy more,we also can give you free shipping.Our goal is to provide good products to meet our customer’s satisfaction!
    discount men jacket
    discount mens clothes

  56. Actually Politifact was wrong……..isinformed
    “What Stewart obviously meant?and what I mean?is that when it comes to politicized, contested issues where the facts have been made murky due to political biases, it is Fox viewers who are the most likely to believe incorrect things?to fall prey to misinformation. A quintessential example of such an issue is global warming, or whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or was collaborating with Al Qaeda. There are many, many others.”

  57. my consensus is to sell my hockey stick to Al Qaeda who will use it as a WMD…
    but, then again, i could be misinformed due to likelihood i easily fall prey to murky facts…

  58. What Stewart and others are missing — perhaps due to their own biases — is that Fox viewers tend to be less well-informed on Democratic talking points and more likely to believe incorrect information that bolsters existing conservative/libertarian beliefs (like Marky Mark’s examples, above.)

    Similarly, viewers of left-leaning shows are more likely to be misinformed about conservative/libertarian talking points and more likely to believe incorrect information that bolsters existing liberal beliefs.

    So, if a foundation or research group chooses to poll people on left-leaning talking points, either unconsciously or deliberately, people who watch liberal shows will give the “right” answers. No surprise there.

    Marky Mark, you make a good point about issues where facts are murky due to political biases. But it works both ways. For example, ask people if the climate researchers at Penn State and the East Anglia Climate Research Unit were found to have manipulated global warming data. Ask if leading Democrats believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs before the Iraq war. Ask if Saddam Hussein provided financial support to Palestinian terrorists. The answer to all those (narrow) questions is absolutely, provably “yes.” But the liberal-show viewers will be more likely to get them wrong because of their existing biases.

    1. Indy,

      Thankfully, the Randians have no existing biases. All is well in Paulsville.

    2. Actually as a lib i could have told you the right answer to those (minus the financial support issue to which i would have had to say i dont know since i have not done research on that topic) I think a bigger issue is that Fox has a conservative Bias…this is a fact…MSNBC has a liberal bias…CNN is pretty moderate but still can have bias either way…go outside the USA for your news you will find more REAL information and REAL journalism…

  59. OK, to summarize this thread:

    1. Monty Python and The Holy Grail sucks, but is better than the other Monty Python crap.

    2. Most people, epsecially the ones who disagree with me, are either misinformed or uninformed.

  60. This is a seriously depressing conversation going on right here.

    Reason is like a Taco Bell. When I go there, I’m thinking, “Mmm-mm. This should be good.” When I leave, I’m sick to my stomach.

    You’re just a little club of circle-jerking know-nothings, so let me break it down for you. The controversy over PolitiFact’s rating of Stewart comes from this:
    – Although, there are studies which show that Fox viewers are about average at identifying major political figures and issues, Stewart was referring to the many other studies showing Fox viewers believe demonstrably wrong things about those people and issues (e.g., “Who is president?” “Obama.” “Where was he born?” “Kenya.”).

    In fact, for Fox viewers to really get the full effect of the network’s propaganda, it’s kind of necessary for them to be aware of the major players (to be invested in the story, they have to know who the heroes and villains are), so it’s no surprise that they do OK on the simple questions. Ask them about factual matters related to WMD in Irag or the details on health care reform, however, and you’ll find that their minds are full of craziness that perfectly matches the Fox narrative.

    1. Who passed the gas?

  61. Sorry. This article is happy horseshit. Complete balderdash. More sinisterly, Propaganda.

    “The University of Maryland study, called “Misinformation and the 2010 Election,” looked at “variations in misinformation by exposure to news sources,” among other things, and specifically newspapers and news magazines (in print and online), network TV news broadcasts, NPR and PBS, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.

    The study found that daily Fox News viewers, regardless of political party, were “significantly” more likely than non-viewers to erroneously believe…” a variety of erroneous concepts. This from a recent news story.
    That may be where Jon Stewart was getting his information.
    This present piece must be straight out of Fox News.

  62. You just have to call bullshit on Stewart for making an argument with a poll as its basis. It’s not only fallacious, it’s also misuse of the poll, from which you can draw support for no conclusion other than “which population voted for which phraseology”. Contrary to sneering liberals’ hopes, it will require further study to finally link cable news preferences with IQ and mean GRE scores.

  63. See, even Stewart says that I’m the smartest in the room. So, I’m right and you’re wrong therefore; I get to make all the decisions.

  64. Oh fuck Politifact. What do you know about this random website and it’s credentials to form such an opinion?

    Excerpt from post:
    (note: Politifact is itself sometimes as full of shit as Daily Show Stewart is this time around).

    This post is about as misinformed as full of shit Fox news.

  65. It really just depends on who’s idea of informed you are…

    And it’s 2011 give me polls a little more current than 2007-2008 if you expect me to swoon.

  66. Uh, weren’t nearly half of Fox viewers skeptical of Obama’s citizenship? Or was that just republicans in general? Is there a difference?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.