Not terribly surprising, actually:

[url]http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html[/url]

Highlights [QUOTE] [B]It's no joke: IU study finds The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to be as substantive as network news[/B]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Oct. 4, 2006

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Which would you think has more substantive news coverage -- traditional broadcast network newscasts or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart?

Would you believe the answer is neither?

...

"It is clearly a humor show, first and foremost," [Asst. Prof. Julia R.] Fox said of Stewart's program. "But there is some substance on there, and in some cases, like John Edwards announcing his candidacy, the news is made on the show. You have real newsmakers coming on, and yes, sometimes the banter and questions get a little silly, but there is also substantive dialogue going on ? It's a legitimate source of news."

Most people have little direct contact with politicians and get most of their political information from the media. Given the growing number of young voters who say they look to The Daily Show to meet their political information needs, Fox thought it was important to see whether the program did so.

She and two graduate students at IU -- Glory Koloen and Volkan Sahin -- analyzed coverage of the 2004 national political conventions and the first presidential debate by the networks and Stewart's program. They examined broadcast nightly newscasts on July 26-30, Aug. 30-31 and Sept. 1-3 in 2004. Similarly, they studied episodes of The Daily Show on July 27-30, Aug. 31 and Sept. 1-3 in 2004.

...

Not surprisingly, a second-by-second analysis of The Daily Show's audio and visual content found considerably more humor than substance -- Stewart himself has insisted that he is a comedian and not a journalist. A similar analysis of network coverage found considerably more hype than substance in broadcast newscasts. Examples of such hype included references to polls, political endorsements and photo opportunities.

"Interestingly, the average amounts of video and audio substance in the broadcast network news stories were not significantly different than the average amounts of visual and audio substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart stories about the presidential election," she wrote in the paper.

"It should be noted that the broadcast network news stories about the presidential election were significantly shorter, on average, than were The Daily Show with Jon Stewart stories," she added. "The argument could be made that while the amount of substance per story was not significantly different, the proportion of each story devoted to substance was greater in the network news stories ... On the other hand, the proportion of stories per half hour program devoted to the election campaign was greater in The Daily Show."

...

"In an absolute sense, we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available." [/QUOTE]

I have a feeling this isn't going to make sightless very happy...

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

well, the only real news is in the paper anyway. NYT and wash post have 100,000 words on a good news day typical TV broadcast has 3,600

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

doesnt affect me. i have to read and watch what i do for my job, and i do a damn fine job. if people are stupid enough to use the daily show for news as opposed to comedy, its their fault. i hope they enjoy working for the highway department. there is roadkill everyday.

my comment on the daily show stems from the fact that i was a HUGE fan of the show until john stewart made it a political show.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

[QUOTE=thesightless;385728]if people are stupid enough to use the daily show for news as opposed to comedy, its their fault.[/QUOTE]

I don't read this as cheerleading for the Daily Show as much chastising network news for filling their shows with fluff...

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

[quote=thesightless;385728]doesnt affect me. i have to read and watch what i do for my job, and i do a damn fine job. if people are stupid enough to use the daily show for news as opposed to comedy, its their fault. i hope they enjoy working for the highway department. there is roadkill everyday.

my comment on the daily show stems from the fact that i was a HUGE fan of the show until john stewart made it a political show.[/quote]

I understand your sentiment, but he's actually questioning the validity and information that the news media provides. In other words, he's taking the grasp from the baby-boomer politicians and trying to feed it to the youth so that they question the government.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

there is one guy ... he has been asking questions for a long time ... Noam Chomsky.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

yes indeed...he has been for a while now and hes been saying some true shit..

chompsky has some questionable endevours but he is definately one of the worlds few great thinkers...he may be over rated by some, non the less much of the work iv been exposed to of his really does strike a note...and i would certainly take what he has to say seriously enough to give it a good read... im surprised no one pointed him out by the way..nice one for that

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

[QUOTE=toasty;387520]I don't read this as cheerleading for the Daily Show as much chastising network news for filling their shows with fluff...[/QUOTE] Agreed.

As for Chomsky, he seems to suffer from the typical disease that many on the left have, that is that he, like many liberals, ignore or distort facts that do not conform to the point they are trying to make. While I respect and believe in many of his bigger claims, such as the propaganda model and the media, it pisses me off to no end that he ruins his claims by skewering the proof, which really isn't necessary. I've done some decent personal investigations of a number of his claims and base my opinion on that research.

It also pisses me off that he claims since he's an American citizen and lives here that he only has standing to criticize our government, yet he'll do it by publishing a column in a paper in Dubai...that's what I call a hypocrite.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

(applause)

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

im sure hes printed lots of papers in the states...much of it is criticized and de ligitimized by his harsh critics...and that one thing i found a bit unique ofr him..his critics really are crazy mofo's..as in im sure they have substantial arguments its just they seem just as hell bent on proving him wrong as he supposidly is hell bent on his 'leftist' traditions... l abelling him wont help...he doesnt belong to some community which has a set agenda....and i dont think its right to do so...

his arguments are usually philosophical in nature (atleast the ones iv been exposed to) and he uses theory more than questionable evidence...if you agree that he makes some real claims and that they could be argued sucessfully why draw the line or drop out when you hear some non factual 'skewed' information...

no one will give evidence that is completely unbiased or unmotivated....so scientist no philosopher so sociologist..no body...i do agree as i did mention that there are some things that are questionable and perhaps he can be a bit over rated sometimes, but in no way does that undermine his intellectual capabilities and his ability to see and conceptualize something that perhaps is more difficult to do so for others...

the only reason why i would want chompsky to write for my dubai based paper would be so that i can get a legitimate western intellectual to further reinforce my claims about what the u.s policy and occupation and all that other good stuff is about..according to somebody who is an american and has been for a while...his writing in coherent and easy to understand...

and i cant see why you would call him a traitor...dubai is like one of the top most modern and jet set places in the "middle east"...dood theres chicks in bikinis and ferraris and booze flowing from everywhere...i dont know the nature of the article and regardless of it....there is no reason why a grown ass man with grown ass thoughts cant write a grown ass paper for someone who wants it (sure the dubai paper may have a set agenda but i doubt very much that chompsy wrote in accordance to that agenda , it could be used to reinforce some of the beliefs and ideas being forwarded but im positive he expressed his own)...why does that make him a traitor..because he didnt lie or 'protect' the country that gives him citizenship's interests....

when you cant look proudly at your own country and what its actions and people are doing...why does that suddenly make you unpatriotic...just cuz you dont jump on the bandwagon and you have the courage to stand up and say hay..i dont think that right...

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

I think you're misunderstanding a number of things that I said before.

First, I am not one of those harsh critics, in fact I'm quite the opposite. As I said above, I very much respect the man's intellect and I support and agree with many of his theories. I agree with his propaganda model, I agree with his claims of US double standards, I agree with his theories on slave wages.

The point is that I continue to read much of his writings til today...but I do read them with an open mind because sometimes he is prone to shaping the facts or only dealing with those facts that support his opinion. For such an intellect, with many valid opinions, to misrepresent facts to support his claims undermines the very trust you place in him in the first place.

While I take the time to seperate the true facts from the false ones, many others don't and merely take the man at face value. This leads to many people using his misrepresented or false facts to preach his very valid theories and this undermines the very credibility one needs to assert such theories.

Bottom line, there are enough true facts out there that support his theories that he could rely on and he is incredibly intelligent, so what is the need to rely on false facts? He's too smart for that.

Second, I didn't say that his publishing a column (which is a monthly or bi-monthly column, not just a one time thing) in a Dubai paper made him a traitor, but I did say it made him a hypocrite.

Let me also say that I'm also quite familiar with how modernized Dubai itself is (as I have many friends who have worked there and one living there at the moment), but let's be honest the United Arab Emirates as a whole isn't an example of modernity at all, nor is most of the middle east region.

Why I call him a hypocrite is because he finds it acceptable to criticize the US from a foreign country, but would never criticize the foreign government of the same country he is publishing in. So he has standing to criticize the US from a distance, but no standing to criticize that distant goverment...this is hypocrisy to me.

So in following Chomsky's own principle of equal application of standards...If I'm to apply standards to the US, why would I not apply those same standards to other countries? Also, would Chomsky be able to write a column in that very same paper that was critical of the UAE or it's government? This is hypocrisy.

and lastly, I criticize my government constantly...believe me, I'm far from a fan of Bush (and for that matter I wasn't a fan of Clinton's either). I hate the two party system and believe this country has done it's fair share of bad. While all the same time appreciating that I live in a country where we have some of the greatest freedoms in the world (albeit they're slowly disappearing). I agree that that doesn't make anyone unpatriotic, in fact quite the opposite. It is because we can criticize our government and our country that makes us the patriotic and proud Amercians that we are.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

'naom bitches too often about the effects of things he has no clue on. while he understands the [B]social impact[/B] of things like economics and war, he has zero credibility regarding economics or warfare. his profession is linguistics. the study of language, he is not an expert on the economic model nor its causes or foudning. yet he thinks he does. his views on people, are ususally right there, but i have read his work and the man is so off on some of the things he says. he claims to be a leader of the social policy movement, again, i ask, how? where is your experience?

this man has said in writing, that pol pot's actions were admirable, he supports communism, he calls america the land of 4 year dicatorships, has said no one should get involved in darfur, and criticizes the US for the patriot act in a saudi paper.... umm naom, go read some of the saudi laws before you crtique a land whose laws ensure freedom on all issues as long as you dont perpetrate harm, fraud, or violence against another person.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

yah you guys are right...no buts about about it... i think i missed the point when i read your post rubby...im all for your concept of patriotism... but about him criticizing thepatriot act and not çritisizing the saudi govt is not hypocritical...why do you want to compare the two govts laws and policys or whatevr...saudi is a kingdom it makes no bones about it....america is supposed to be the elite modern cutting edge leader in all that is democratic and free and 'for the people'..puting human rights first and safeguarding its people and the world...

the patriot act is the absloute opposite of exatcly what america is suposed to stand for..

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

[QUOTE=thesightless;388555]'naom bitches too often about the effects of things he has no clue on. while he understands the [B]social impact[/B] of things like economics and war, he has zero credibility regarding economics or warfare. his profession is linguistics. the study of language, he is not an expert on the economic model nor its causes or foudning. yet he thinks he does. his views on people, are ususally right there, but i have read his work and the man is so off on some of the things he says. he claims to be a leader of the social policy movement, again, i ask, how? where is your experience?

this man has said in writing, that pol pot's actions were admirable, he supports communism, he calls america the land of 4 year dicatorships, has said no one should get involved in darfur, and criticizes the US for the patriot act in a saudi paper.... umm naom, go read some of the saudi laws before you crtique a land whose laws ensure freedom on all issues as long as you dont perpetrate harm, fraud, or violence against another person.[/QUOTE] I hate this critique of chomsky. So what if he's a linguistics expert? Half of the politicians who fuckin vote on these laws have even less credibilty, experience or knowledge than he does, but it's ok for them to speak out about it with an air of authority?

Following that line of reason, why do any of us speaking in this forum or in many other forums have any credibility in speaking about these matters?

Sorry, but that is about the same as Bush's henchmen's character attacks on everyone who disagrees with this administration. Pure childish and illogical attacks on the merits of who is saying it, rather than debating the merits of what is actually being said.

As for the second half of that, I agree with much of what you said there. His principles have led him to many illogical conclusions. He throws his support behind ideologies regardless of the manner that those who believe in them have pursued them. Ironically, he suffers from the same misconception as the Bush administration, the ends do not justify the means. I understand that Chomsky believes in a form of socialism, but that doesn't justify the manner in which communism tried to enforce it.

His belief in self-determination of states at all costs is a bit dated. Proof of that is the extent to which Afghanistan was allowed to disintigrate to become a terrorist training ground. When the self-determination of a state starts to have effects that cross it's borders and threaten the rest of the world, the world most certainly has the right to intervene.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

As for the Patriot Act, be careful of this warning (given by one of our president's and unfortunately I can't remember the exact wording, but paraphrasing) that in a time of war it becomes essential to sacrifice some personal liberties, just be careful that you don't go too far to distort our character as a free country. The Patriot Act, in my opinion, clearly goes over that line.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

if ya hate that opinion on him, tell him to stick with the human element and stop talking like he is alan greenspan. like i said, his observations on society tend to be right there, but his means of expressing and backing these views are so far off the scale it only making more people who blindly follow him far less schooled on the subjects.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

[QUOTE=thesightless;388630]if ya hate that opinion on him, tell him to stick with the human element and stop talking like he is alan greenspan. like i said, his observations on society tend to be right there, but his means of expressing and backing these views are so far off the scale it only making more people who blindly follow him far less schooled on the subjects.[/QUOTE] Do you mean kinda like our president and how hussein is connected to Sept. 11?

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

hey, you and me had this convo b4. and i think my opinion was anyone who believed it was linked to 911 should be dragged out and beaten.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

I know we have and agree on it, but as Bush himself said but a month ago "The hardest thing about my job is tying Iraq and 9/11 together." Is that not intentionally and maliciously misleading people in a way worse than any harm that Chomsky could ever cause? Why is Chomsky made the pariah when we have a president who doesn't just speak the rhetoric, but acts on it? Isn't that worse?

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

b/c in 2 years, hopefully we will have mccain or someone not named hillary. and GW will be in the records and his economics will still be here. we can say goodbye to him and hang on to the few great things he did.

chompsky is the pariah because he thinks he is an expert and writes malicious shit about the country that has educated him, given him a job, and more. we could simply act like iran or his newofund buddy in bahrain and raid his house a night and lock him up never to be seen. but we dont, we fight for everything he enjoys and he has a problem with that for some reason.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

Now we've come full circle again to saying the same thing. As I said earlier, my issue with Chomsky was his use of his criticism of the US to blindly justify other countries/terrorist groups activities without ever looking at what those countries/groups are actually doing. He also rarely looks at the cost of our freedoms and just takes them for granted. Agreed.

Re: Study: Daily Show as substantive as network news

we need a chatroom on this fucking thing. i hate refreshing.