godix wrote:x_rex30 wrote:That's why I enjoy watching John Stewart a lot more because he lets people talk and he can actually have good debates.
WTF are you on? That has happened exactly once that I know of. He doesn't run a debate show, he'd be the first to tell you it's a liberal leaning political parody show and if you're getting your facts solely from him then you're pretty fucking stupid.
He is generally far funnier than anyone at Fox though. Although the closer the election comes the dumber Stewart seems to be getting so perhaps at this point O'Reilly is funnier.
As a total side note, it's
JON Stewart.
Well I can say the same about The O'Reilly Factor. At the end of the show he can be serious in his discussions and will let people talk, unlike O'Reilly.
Did I spell O'Reilly right? If not you can correct me to make some form of point that you are right over me because I didn't spell something right.
Also I don't get my facts from him as I'VE SAID in other threads I love research. I don't believe what is told to me I research it.. but I can say some of the things on the show I can find more valid than fallacies on foxnews.
I can say PEOPLE who rely on information on the tv and especially fox news are pretty fucking stupid but would I be completely right about that? Am I smarter than everyone who doesn't do the research themselves and believe things based on what they want to follow and only base things on what they hear?
Colbert interrupts his guests as part of the show. He is suppose to be making fun of O'Reilly.
On JON Stewart I've seen people on the far right go on and he waits patiently for them to speak.
OH WAIT!! I have something good. May not be true as I don't just blindly believing studies as fact but I try to research to see how BS it might be.
"The University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. The extent of Americans misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. Looking at the misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their "primary news source" incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more --- 17% --- of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet. Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was "working closely with al Queda," similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression."
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003
Godix, I didn't know you attacked others spelling to help support your feelings of them being wrong. Kinda lame.
Edit: and I can get examples of jon stewart letting people talk, like even some from over a year ago letting major republican groups that come on his show.. for example I've seen the show on tv many times when john mcain shows up and he lets him talk with maybe little interruption, especially if you compare some democrat coming on O'Reilly's show. At least if I compare it to The O'reilly factor, you can actually hear the other side bringing important issues, not jokes to the show. Or do politicians come mainly to bring jokes? Yeah they have jokes but they bring serious issues.
Ah here we go. Typed in Mccain and jon stewart on google and found this.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/2 ... aily-show/
Here I see, Jon Stewart letting mccain getting his points across, Jon Stewart not yelling and talking with around the same tone of voice, jon not calling him an idiot or other names because of jon mccains views. and very serious discussing, no?
dwchang wrote:Anybody who gets their facts from COMEDY CENTRAL and think they're 'fair and balanced' is retarded, misinformed and biased.
I would say the same thing towards you if you thought O'Reilly was fair and balanced in comparison. I don't get my facts from TV though I get it through a ton of research that even looks at contradicting evidence. I see it a trait that people wouldn't even look at contradicting evidence that is presented to them. I just gobble it up and even look for legitimacy in it. Do you do that? Do you know anyone else that does that? I think it's a rarity that folks can actually look at contradicting evidence in depth. It's like they have some sort of fear that they were wrong about something.. I don't know exactly what they fear and can't quite put my finger on it.
I have a challenge. A compare and contrast challenge. Get me the best sources you can to show that fox news especially bill'O are better than debates at the end of The Daily Show and especially ones that show fair and balance. I honestly people who rely on fox news are f'ing morons but I could be wrong. If you want to see if you can outsmart me and show that I'm wrong for trusting Jon Stewart towards the end of the show VS O'Reilly, I'll admit I was completely wrong for feeling I can get more legitimacy out of a comedy show than the non biased O'Reilly factor. And I'll give myself a very negative black and white title. Or you can give me one and I'll accept it.
And GO!
