Comments on: Well-informed slackers…

By: kold

kold — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:45:23 +0000

I like that, stoned slackers; I also like BoR-ing HeeHee You may steal that if you wanna. Nevertheless… Wanna see THE most efficacious, bellicose, avant-garde blog? “Step RITE up!!” yells the carnival barker. Â“We got yur oddest, freeksOnature hereÂ…Â”

By: MWS

MWS — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:47:36 +0000

Different types of humor appeal to different types of people. Political satire is obviously going to appeal to people with some interest in politics; these are more likely to be more educated and with a distinct position on the issues. I think there is a certain degree of self-selection here; people that watch the Daily Show like that kind of humor because they know enough about politics to find it funny.

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 05:53:06 +0000

I think you’re right, Dr. Cline. After having listened to the Daily Show’s “Democracy Inaction” book on CD this week, I laughed and laughed. But I also understood most of the jokes to begin with. People who aren’t interested in politics aren’t going to sit through that much political in-joking.

But that doesn’t mean that the audience *can’t* be stoned slackers. I knew quite a few folks in college who were a) stoned, b) slackers, and c) knew what was going on in politics.

I would compare it – obliquely – to the long-term fascination with Monty Python. The shows were a weird combination of dry humor, slapstick, and social commentary. But they appealed to an odd variety of people for those very reasons.

Plus, I think Jon Stewart’s potty mouth has something to do with it. (think Wonkette)

By: acline

acline — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:53:07 +0000

Charles… I went from the transcript. And, yes, he certainly could have been simply ribbing Stewart. He mentions the stoners a few times and even says he has the numbers to back it up (almost certainly ribbing). I suspect from the textual evidence that O’Reilly was being both humorous (in presentation) and serious (in intent). That is obviously my interpretation and could be completely wrong.

I’m certainly taking a swipe at O’Reilly–an easy target. But, in any case, he’s not the point here. What’s interesting is the contention that fans of The Daily Show are well informed. And I think I know one of the reasons.

By: Charles Knell

Charles Knell — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:31:54 +0000

If you heard the O’Reilly comment with your own ears, then you apparently heard something that AP didn’t (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/). According to this story, O’Reilly’s comment was a case of ribbing the guest and not meant to be taken as a serious accusation.

By: Charles Knell

Charles Knell — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:26:03 +0000

Two former actors became governor of California (one of whom later became a very popular President) and a former pro wrestler became governor of Minnesota (to the perpetual embarassment of Garrison Keilor). One former actor and dancer became a Senator from California and one former and future actor became a Senator from Tennessee (you can see him every week on Law & Order). You may not take them (or Bill O’Reilly) seriously, but a great many of your fellow citizens do.

By: Keith Sader

Keith Sader — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:15:57 +0000

You know I find it hard to take anything the former anchor of _Inside Edition_ says seriously.

By: acline

acline — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:19:24 +0000

O’Reilly’s comment says nothing about viewers. Of course people drink while watching a late-night comedy show I certainly do!

By: kai

kai — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:57:31 +0000

I read the transcript of Jon Stewart on OReilly, and one statement that stuck out (by OReilly, of course):

“Eighty-seven percent are intoxicated when they watch it [The Daily Show].”

Perhaps it’s true, if so, i’ve been missing out! But I’m skeptical and a quick internet search couldn’t confirm it. Anyway, it immediately reminded me of the ever-wise words of Homer Simpson:

“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.”