If Glenn Beck can't get good health care in America, who can?

headscratcher4 · 14th August 2009, 07:13 AM

http://gawker.com/5337306/glenn-beck...-he-was-for-it

A nice bit from the Daily Show. Once again, exposing hypocracy to humerous advantage. However, it begs the question: why is a comedy show the place to go to have the debate put into proper perspective as opposed to the so-called news channels? Anyway, I doubt anyone will be surprised that Beck was against our health care system before he was for it.

Pink Booties · 14th August 2009, 07:18 AM

Every five years or so, I take a good look at popular culture and wonder how in the world some of these idiots make a career for themselves and their idiotic, fact-starved views.

I can be stupid, I can shout, give me a teevee show and lots of money! I'll say the craziest **** I can think of and draw in lots of viewers.

"Did you hear Magnifico last night?"

"Yah. That guy's a regular Joe. I can identify with his anger."

Oliver · 14th August 2009, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

why is a comedy show the place to go to have the debate put into proper perspective as opposed to the so-called news channels?

Because if just 2 parties are ruling the country, it's easy for the media to go with one side and still have a huge amount of loyal viewers consuming your bias and aired advertisements.

Did anyone ever asked Mr. Stewart to get into the business of serious news on any network other than comedy central?

Darat · 14th August 2009, 07:19 AM

That was... well Jon Stewart summed it up best with his "wrrgggllleee".

Darat · 14th August 2009, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Magnifico2.0

Every five years or so, I take a good look at popular culture and wonder how in the world some of these idiots make a career for themselves and their idiotic, fact-starved views.

I can be stupid, I can shout, give me a teevee show and lots of money! I'll say the craziest **** I can think of and draw in lots of viewers.

"Did you hear Magnifico last night?"

"Yah. That guy's a regular Joe. I can identify with his anger."

Sadly you appear capable of using punctuation so you've ruled yourself out by being over qualified.

Francesca R · 14th August 2009, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

why is a comedy show the place to go to have the debate put into proper perspective as opposed to the so-called news channels?

I'm not getting the question . . .

Pink Booties · 14th August 2009, 07:26 AM

Doh gotta dumb, it down a. Little; now I,m ready

headscratcher4 · 14th August 2009, 07:30 AM

My point...badly made, I suppose...was that consistently Stewart and his team to comedic end, are able to expose hypocracy in a way that the major news networks avoid entirely. I'm thinking of Jim Cramer, for example, interviewd on MSNBC for his insights into the stock market when only Stewart exposed his erratic and often completely wrong analysis. Or, in this instance, Fox eats and breaths Glenn Beck blowing fire about the horrors of health care reform...but as Stewart alone points out, he's almost literally blowing smoke from his ass...given his opnion just 16 months ago.

Yes, it is comedy. No, it isn't news. However, Stewart provides more perspective and context for the news than do the alleged news channels. I suppose my question ultimately was rhetorical, I just find it sad that a comedy show is the source...as opposed to news gathering organizations.

Francesca R · 14th August 2009, 07:33 AM

My point, crassly made I suppose, was that resolving a comedy show from a US news channel needs the kind of kit that splits atoms.

Not serious of course. Why I've even been on CNBC myself. Naturally I love it.

headscratcher4 · 14th August 2009, 07:34 AM

Yeah? And I've been on the O'Reily Show...

God, I feel dirty.

Denver · 14th August 2009, 07:45 AM

I suppose a lot of it has to do with the normal news channels have an objective to report the news no matter how non-sensational, or un-entertaining. Whereas the Daily Show needs to be funny and entertaining. So while normal news must spend a lot of its time on grunge reporting, the Daily Show specifically spends its research and writing on satire and hilarity.

At least that's part of it. There are probably other reasons, like who owns what channel, hopes of getting interviews, maintaining good relationships with contacts, that keep normal news from being too caustic. Additionally, if normal news did reveal some hypocrisy like the Daily Show is wont to do, it would kind of be expected for normal news to follow-up on it, draining resources from its other news. Whereas the Daily Show is more free to drop it and move onto something else with no regrets and no expectations.

Also, btw, a lot of what we hear from Glen Beck comes from his writers (his web site says that Stu (his on-air sidekick) is his producer and chief writer). From his web site: "Beck's production company, Mercury Radio Arts, produces or co-produces his radio, TV, live events, publishing and digital media projects. Founded in 2002, Mercury has a full time staff of 20 employees and is based in New York, NY." So overall, Beck seems more of a product than anything else.

Tricky · 14th August 2009, 09:51 AM

That was a hilarious bit. (My favorite part was when Stewart said something like, "It is a sad commentary on medical care in this country that eighteen months after having surgery to repair a hole in his rectum, Glen Beck is still talking out of it.") But I think you see this kind of thing on The Daily Show rather than on news channels is because they have different goals. The writers and researchers on TDS are trying to find funny stuff, and what could be funnier than a person saying one thing then saying the opposite thing. True, with Beck it isn't too hard, like when he said Obama hated white people and then denied that he was saying Obama hated white people in the same show. It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.

But it takes some dedication to go back through Becks history to come up with something so devastatingly hypocritical as Beck's reversal of opinion on US health care. Only a show like The Daily Show has the dedication and staff to do such research in such a short time. Real news shows must spend time gathering news, something TDS doesn't have to do. Hell, even 60 Minutes has a whole week to put a segment together.

But that's why I love The Daily Show. It is hilarious, well-researched and topical. It's also more balanced than a lot of people think. The second half of the segment was about Democratic ex-Governor Blagojevich making a fool out of himself. Stewart makes fun of stupid political figures. If one side provides more fodder than the other, that's hardly his fault.

ETA: Of course, the real reason that Beck reversed his position on health care is this: When he was against US health care, he was working for CNN. When he was calling it "the best system in the world", he was working for Fox. You think he uses a teleprompter?

dudalb · 14th August 2009, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

My point...badly made, I suppose...was that consistently Stewart and his team to comedic end, are able to expose hypocracy in a way that the major news networks avoid entirely. I'm thinking of Jim Cramer, for example, interviewd on MSNBC for his insights into the stock market when only Stewart exposed his erratic and often completely wrong analysis. Or, in this instance, Fox eats and breaths Glenn Beck blowing fire about the horrors of health care reform...but as Stewart alone points out, he's almost literally blowing smoke from his ass...given his opnion just 16 months ago.

Yes, it is comedy. No, it isn't news. However, Stewart provides more perspective and context for the news than do the alleged news channels. I suppose my question ultimately was rhetorical, I just find it sad that a comedy show is the source...as opposed to news gathering organizations.

I liked Jim Kramer's bit in "Iron Man" but I would not take his finiancial advice in a million years.

Earthborn · 14th August 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

However, it begs the question: why is a comedy show the place to go to have the debate put into proper perspective as opposed to the so-called news channels?

Because the world is absurd. Satire is the only way to make sense of it.

DavidJames · 14th August 2009, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

My point...badly made, I suppose...was that consistently Stewart and his team to comedic end, are able to expose hypocracy in a way that the major news networks avoid entirely. I'm thinking of Jim Cramer, for example, interviewd on MSNBC for his insights into the stock market when only Stewart exposed his erratic and often completely wrong analysis. Or, in this instance, Fox eats and breaths Glenn Beck blowing fire about the horrors of health care reform...but as Stewart alone points out, he's almost literally blowing smoke from his ass...given his opnion just 16 months ago.

Yes, it is comedy. No, it isn't news. However, Stewart provides more perspective and context for the news than do the alleged news channels. I suppose my question ultimately was rhetorical, I just find it sad that a comedy show is the source...as opposed to news gathering organizations.

Many news shows feel being non-biased and neutral means simply showing both sides of an issue. Never mind if one side is supported by facts and other just made up stuff. They are scared if they point that out, the side that supports the made up stuff will cry and complain about networks bias.

They are taking the path of least resistance.

Bob Klase · 14th August 2009, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

Yes, it is comedy. No, it isn't news.

I disagree. It's can be (and often is) both.

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

However, Stewart provides more perspective and context for the news than do the alleged news channels.

Which is the main reason it's often both. Although anyone who relies on Stewart for all their news is not too bright, the same could be said about anyone who relies on a single source for all their news whether it's FOX, MSNBC or any other source.