Does The Daily Show have an agenda?

[Durandal]

I'm watching an Howard Dean interview Jon Stewart on CNBC right now, and Dean commented to Stewart that his show might not have a right or left agenda, but it has an agenda to sort of open people's eyes, especially the media. Stewart denies this and says that they're just trying to be funny, but if that stimulates a dialogue, that's nice too. But he maintains that the show's only goal is to be funny, and that they use the news as a context for their humor.

What does everyone else think here? Whether or not Stewart will admit it, I think The Daily Show is becoming a powerful political force, particularly among younger voters (under the ages of 25 and 30). It's becoming the more "hip" venue of news, and it's more neutral in its presentation than any of the major networks.

[The Kernel]

It is a powerful political force but I have yet to meet a conservative that takes the show all that seriously. Perhaps the most powerful factor about The Daily Show is not its ability to convert one side or the other, but in educating voters (ironic that a "fake" news show has the best chance of educating people) and actually getting them to take an interest in the political proccess.

[CaptainChewbacca]

It is a powerful political force but I have yet to meet a conservative that takes the show all that seriously. Perhaps the most powerful factor about The Daily Show is not its ability to convert one side or the other, but in educating voters (ironic that a "fake" news show has the best chance of educating people) and actually getting them to take an interest in the political proccess.

I'm a self-styled "ultra-conservative" and I respect Stewart's ability to get a good handle on an issue and make it acessible to the public. He's also a crackerjack interviewer. My feeling is he doesn't WANT to be a super-political person, because he just enjoys what he does.

[Mark S]

Whether he has an agenda or not, he sure isn't afraid to call a douche bag a douche bag.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Stewert's a smart man; he knows better than to have The Daily Show take a side.

That said, besides the funny side, I think they like to stick to the honest side.

[Xenophobe3691]

Whether he has an agenda or not, he sure isn't afraid to call a douche bag a douche bag.

That's what makes him so appealing to so many.

[Stormbringer]

Yeah, I think the show doesn't have too much of an interveiw. The 'fake news' parts of it basically are just parody gold and they're a lot of fun. I think they do their best their to take the piss out of everyone with out regards to partisan politics and generally it reflects what the real news is well. There's no big agenda there.

I do get the feeling that in the interveiws aren't as unbiased though. It seems to me that they make a bit more of an attempt to push and do a real, 'hard' interveiw when it's suits a liberal agenda. It's nothing major, I'd say overall it's not that big a deal but it's there.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Stewart and his cohorts are practically a media watchdog group with 2 hours a week to present on the newsmakers and the people reporting it. At the conventions Stewart doesn't interview delegate after delegate, he interviews Brockaw and the reporters, the correspondants go and interview bloggers. And he brings up important topics and criticises the hypocracy of government officials and rhetoric.

[Iceberg]

I do get the feeling that in the interveiws aren't as unbiased though. It seems to me that they make a bit more of an attempt to push and do a real, 'hard' interveiw when it's suits a liberal agenda. It's nothing major, I'd say overall it's not that big a deal but it's there.

I think it's the fact that nobody else is willing to throw the hard balls at conservatives. I'm really looking forward to the Clinton interview tonight.

[Pablo Sanchez]

What does everyone else think here? Whether or not Stewart will admit it, I think The Daily Show is becoming a powerful political force, particularly among younger voters (under the ages of 25 and 30). It's becoming the more "hip" venue of news, and it's more neutral in its presentation than any of the major networks.

I think the Daily Show is effective at what it does because it exists outside of the journalistic continuum. It isn't really a news show and the hosts aren't really newscasters (they're comedians, in fact), so they don't have the same concerns and blindspots as CNN. I think another part of it's appeal is the fact that it is a parody of an industry that has become bloated and alienated from most viewers.

[Darth Wong]

The Daily Show is necessary, because without them, there is no one to watch the watchmen.

Television journalists are simply not accustomed to being publicly questioned or criticized on their actions.

PS. And it's pretty funny to see all of the right-wingers whining that he's harder on the Right, when in fact he's only hard on bullshitters, and the Right just happens to be flinging more bullshit nowadays. They just blew an agent's cover in order to score political points after the DNC, for fuck's sake; it's a sad day when someone assumes that "fair" means "golden mean".

[Quadlok]

Yeah, I remember a while back they had Ann Coulter as the guest, and you could tell that Stewart was trying very hard to be civil as she spouted off these amazingly absurd and defamatory comments directed at the left. Whereas in a more recent interview with Micheal Moore, he didn't have any problem because Moore was bright enough not to act like a complete asshole towards the right.

Conservatives are, quite simply, bigger loudmouthed lying sons-of-bitches then Liberals, and are therefore better targets for comedy.

[Durandal]

I think 9/11 has brought the more extreme elements of the right out from the woodwork. They now have a rallying point, and since the right has always been more associated with hard-line Christians, you get all the self-righteous Bible-thumpers on that end. And those people have always been loudmouths for one reason or another.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Conservatives are, quite simply, bigger loudmouthed lying sons-of-bitches then Liberals, and are therefore better targets for comedy.

I don't think that's necessarily true, I think you're reducing two complex movements into buzzwords. Bible thumpers, the irresponsible super-rich, and the corporations are the problem, not conservatism itself. Since about the Reagan era the conservative platform has stopped being about caution and fiscal responsibility and started being all about unreasonable tax cuts, unfettered free market capitalism, and pleasing the social reactionaries. And don't forget Nixonesque dirty tricks and foreign policy initiatives that are the opposite of conservative.

The left isn't by any means free of those things--it's just that the Republican agenda in the 1970s was more easily corrupted by the forces of evil and has therefore caught the brunt of their money offensive.

[Quadlok]

Conservatives are, quite simply, bigger loudmouthed lying sons-of-bitches then Liberals, and are therefore better targets for comedy.

I don't think that's necessarily true, I think you're reducing two complex movements into buzzwords. Bible thumpers, the irresponsible super-rich, and the corporations are the problem, not conservatism itself. Since about the Reagan era the conservative platform has stopped being about caution and fiscal responsibility and started being all about unreasonable tax cuts, unfettered free market capitalism, and pleasing the social reactionaries. And don't forget Nixonesque dirty tricks and foreign policy initiatives that are the opposite of conservative.

The left isn't by any means free of those things--it's just that the Republican agenda in the 1970s was more easily corrupted by the forces of evil and has therefore caught the brunt of their money offensive.

Sorry, I guess I didn't use enough words. I was trying to imply that the left also has its share of assholes, but that the aren't as high profile as those on the right, a good example being eco-terrorists, who may be nuts and do plenty of stupid shit, but don't have talk shows and best selling books.

My oversimplification of conservatism was basicly just the same thing people like Coulter and Limbaugh do in regards to Liberalism. Neither view is correct, I admit. It can just seem like it to many people on both sides. And I agree with you about who should be blamed for the corruption of politics in this country.

[Darth Wong]

The Extreme Right has very large sources of two crucial elements:

1) Fanatics
2) Money

This is due to their ideology; their support for laissez-faire treatment of corporations virtually guarantees a steady stream of corporate donations and campaign assistance through whatever means are possible. And their support of religious extremist bullshit gives them a steady stream of fundamentalist nutcase recruits who are willing to work their asses off for the Righteous Cause.

These two elements enable them to spread their message more effectively to the masses, and because these two elements happen to represent the most objectionable aspects of conservatism, they also tend to make the Right look like a bunch of raving assholes.