John Stewart on Fox News Lies: This is Hilarious!

[Revoltingest]

News media is suppose to be self-regulating here. It is legal for them to lie.

Our job is to listen to all the lies/distortions/facts/opinions/arguments from various sources, weigh them, & incorporate what makes sense.
We aren't very good at this job (but of course, I am), but I don't trust government to be any better. Consider the PRC & N Korea.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Our job is to listen to all the lies/distortions/facts/opinions/arguments from various sources, weigh them, & incorporate what makes sense.
We aren't very good at this job (but of course, I am), but I don't trust government to be any better. Consider the PRC & N Korea.

You know what they say: Caveat emptor

 

[Sunstone]

News media is suppose to be self-regulating here. It is legal for them to lie.

Some of the media appear to be more apt to take advantage of that fact than others of the media. According to many studies, Fox would seem the worse of the lot. That is, there are -- not one, but several -- scientific studies demonstrating that Fox viewers are more poorly informed than the viewers of other mainstream media. Of course, Fox viewers will tell you that everyone is equally biased, which just goes to show you how out of touch with fact they can be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some of the media appear to be more apt to take advantage of that fact than others of the media. According to many studies, Fox would seem the worse of the lot.

Having watched a bit of both Fox & MSNBC, I put my money on the latter as being more at odds with facts.
But our individual biases make such judgements unreliable, eh?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Having watched a bit of both Fox & MSNBC, I put my money on the latter as being more at odds with facts.
But our individual biases make such judgements unreliable, eh?

Ok. I am Missouri. Show me.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

News media is suppose to be self-regulating here. It is legal for them to lie.

It is not legal for any one to lie for advantage in the uk. However children and the insane are not called on it.

A minister lost his seat during the last parliament, and banned from standing by the court, because he had lied about his opponent during the previous election.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok. I am Missouri. Show me.

What's to show?
My impressions are what they are.

 

[Tyler Durne]

Go ahead and provide some examples.

I don't have to provide any examples since I don't trust neither of them or favor one over another. I am just trying to figure out based on what does one news source lies and other doesn't? do you decide based on whose views you favor?

 

[Sunstone]

I don't have to provide any examples...

Sorry, but I think your story is without anything more than the barest evidence in support of it, and that's the real reason you don't want to provide even one example, let alone a weight of them.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Other news sources don't lie? including John Stewart?

LOL, your politics are in big trouble if you consider Jon Stewart a "news" source. Also, can you show us an example where he lied?

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL, your politics are in big trouble if you consider Jon Stewart a "news" source. Also, can you show us an example where he lied?

Not a Stewart watcher here, but I suggest a way to examine him.
The best liars craft carefully culled truths, ie, they prevaricate.
Are his barbs balanced among the various political parties?
This is where I see most falsehoods appearing with Fox, MSNBC, NYT, etc.
A good example was coverage of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky.
Matt Drudge was excoriated by leftish media for exposing facts which they were covering up.
By proffering no falsehood, they lied in a most effective way.
Their silence on Kennedy's dalliances was even more deafening. (Geeze, what an over-used cliche, eh?)

 

[Tyler Durne]

Sorry, but I think your story is without anything more than the barest evidence in support of it, and that's the real reason you don't want to provide even one example, let alone a weight of them.

Oooh, did you get your training in Iran or something? taking half of my response and commenting on it? not a nice thing to do, kind of childish.

 

[Sunstone]

Oooh, did you get your training in Iran or something? taking half of my response and commenting on it? not a nice thing to do, kind of childish.

Well, that certainly wins the debate. Meanwhile, I can't help but notice that you still have not provided any evidence for your claims.

 

[Tyler Durne]

LOL, your politics are in big trouble if you consider Jon Stewart a "news" source. Also, can you show us an example where he lied?

News source? he might call him self a comedian but his views and the way he presents them do and can influence the viewers.

As I said before, I am not the one who is saying one is lying the other is saying the truth.
It is you who is choosing one over the other.

 

[Tyler Durne]

Well, that certainly wins the debate. Meanwhile, I can't help but notice that you still have not provided any evidence for your claims.

I didn't make any claims, re-read my post.

 

[Sunstone]

Other news sources don't lie? including John Stewart?

I didn't make any claims, re-read my post.

You're right. You didn't make any claims.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

News source? he might call him self a comedian but his views and the way he presents them do and can influence the viewers.

That may be so, it still doesn't make him a news source. He is not presenting the news, he is satirizing the news which is already presented by other news sources.

Movies can and do influence people and form their worldview, doesn't make them a replacement for a parent.

As I said before, I am not the one who is saying one is lying the other is saying the truth.
It is you who is choosing one over the other.

No, that is not right. You basically implied that Jon Stewart lies when you said " Other news sources don't lie? including John Stewart?"

Also, I asked you for an example where you think he lied. As you can see from the OP, there is clear indication that Fox News lied.

I don't understand how "Oh yeah? Well, you suck too!" is a mature response.

 

[Revoltingest]

That may be so, it still doesn't make him a news source. He is not presenting the news, he is satirizing the news which is already presented by other news sources.

A stronger argument is that he is a news source, but shouldn't be.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Not a Stewart watcher here, but I suggest a way to examine him.
The best liars craft carefully culled truths, ie, they prevaricate.
Are his barbs balanced among the various political parties?

I would say yes. It is just that republicans have more comedic value, but I can remember thousands of times when Stewart was equally satirical of the democrats too.

This is where I see most falsehoods appearing with Fox, MSNBC, NYT, etc.

True, which is why I don't get my news from those sources.

A good example was coverage of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky.
Matt Drudge was excoriated by leftish media for exposing facts which they were covering up.
By proffering no falsehood, they lied in a most effective way.
Their silence on Kennedy's dalliances was even more deafening. (Geeze, what an over-used cliche, eh?)

I was not old enough to really pay attention to the Lewinsky scandal and the internal media politics therein, but you may be right.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

A stronger argument is that he is a news source, but shouldn't be.

Yup. People should get their news elsewhere and come to Stewart for comedic takes on the news.

It is hardly his fault that he makes his shows so entertaining and thought-provoking at the same time.