356
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Daily Show host blasts media for treating the "most mundane bulls**t" as "Earth-shattering"

Comedian Jon Stewart on Monday launched into a fiery rant aimed at the media coverage of former President Donald Trump's hush money trial in the latest episode of "The Daily Show."

Stewart spent a portion of Monday's segment lambasting media outlets for their coverage of Trump's criminal trial unfolding in Manhattan, in which prosecutors have alleged that he falsified business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.

“This trial will obviously be a test of the fairness of the American legal system, but it’s also a test of the media’s ability to cover Donald Trump in a responsible way. A task they have acknowledged they’ve performed poorly in the past,” Stewart said before showing a montage of clips from notable outlets like CNN and MSNBC acknowledging that they need to give less obsessive attention to the former president's every antic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 57 points 6 months ago

At the same time, his leaving was also a success story in itself. He had all the money he ever needed in life, he was at the top of his game except just was exhausted working that continual grind, and was feeling his age so unlike e.g. any member of Congress, decided to voluntarily relinquish his power in order to create room for new people to step up, while he went on to blaze entirely new pioneer territory outside of mainstream TV, which was quite a risk even for someone like him. Wow... what a class act! 😍

[-] ryper@lemmy.ca 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And now that he's back he's only working Mondays, so he's got less risk of exhaustion and new people still get the rest of the week.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 11 points 6 months ago

Unfortunately it's only slated to last until the election results... though this is one time that I hope things do not go as planned!:-P

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Yeah, seems like a win-win. I remember someone joking with Oliver about how he only does it once a week or something. I like the rotating host thing - when they have people that are not just substituting BEING LOUD for being funny or insightful. Having John for one day of the week and letting others take the helm other days is a nice blend.

Jordan Klepper needs a LOT more air time. He had his own show for like a hot minute and it was great but maybe it just didn't have the numbers so it didn't last long.

Also - where the heck is Samantha Bee and her husband these days?

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 months ago

Just that the new people that should have stepped up where mere shadows of Jon, unfortunately

[-] rigatti@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

John Oliver stepped up, although not on the Daily Show itself. I'm always excited to have something new ruined for me every week.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 2 points 6 months ago

Afaict he is the last "investigative journalist" left in America, though he is biased himself, yet who else comes close that amount of depth?

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

There are loads of investigative journalists they just don't have the audience size these satirists have.

Propublica does insane work. PBS Frontline as well. Amanapour. Many stories break from the likes of WaPo as well.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah, and CGP Grey, Ian Danskin's Innuendo Studios, I enjoy the Crash Course series though more classes than topical, and Kurzgesagt is amazing though has their own type of bias.

But if I want to know something about e.g. Boeing or train derailments or a deep dive into student loans, or something I did not even know that I wanted to know about e.g. the current status of ethical farming wrt chocolate, or food delivery apps, he has it all covered. So it is not only the depth that is fascinating, but the width and breadth of coverage as well (both wrt a single video and moreover the number of those total).

Unfortunately it mixes in opinion and interpretation directly integrated alongside the delivery of the facts. So it is funny (juvenile), informative (truly!), and overbearing all at once, and seems designed to leave you feeling more informed than you actually are upon watching.:-(

Still, they offer so very many videos on so very many topics, and I have never seen anything these days that comes close - e.g. their Boeing video describes more in 10 of its 30 minutes than a typical TV "documentary" these days (at least, of the type my mother watches), and then it goes on to cover essentially what a full length feature film documentary would cover, all in something digestible while eating a lunch (or two). And I respect that so much - that takes effort and skill that is hard to match.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 9 points 6 months ago

Tbf, those are some big shoes to try to fill:-) (I mean, not like, literally... but you know what I mean!)

[-] IHawkMike@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Yep. I appreciate and respect Trevor and all of the other hosts, but it just wasn't the same.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 6 points 6 months ago

Trevor's standup specials are all really good, both before and after he came to America. He has a strong act, talking about his personal life and responses to that.

But he wasn't as good a fit in a team environment talking about mainstream American matters, except ironically when the show was "over" for the day and he talked more in his personal voice again. I strongly hope to see him land somewhere else where I can enjoy him again - I'd definitely keep following his comedy specials.

Though nothing compares to Jon Stewart being back in the saddle again!!! 🎉 🤩

this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
356 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3416 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS