Millennial America: Where Journalists are Clowns and Clowns are Journalists

Minor language alert for people who dislike accuracy in descriptive terms:

"Bishop Barron is too busy encouraging recommending culture war provocateurs like Peterson to his audience."

What Evangelizing Culture Looks Like
"Does Pope Francis know about all your lies, slander and racist anti-Semitic articles? I think ..."

Nice to get mail like this
"who the fuck cares about the Irish, they are all going to abort themselves out ..."

An Irish reader sends along a ..."
"Recent studies show that Trump voters don't feel disenfranchised, but 'disrespected'. It was not financial ..."

What a Time to Be Alive!

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Noah D

    Mark, please, I beg of you: is it possible to do something about the formatting? This is what this article looks like on the front page:

    Minor language alert for people who dislike accuracy in descriptive terms:The Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on FacebookThe Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on FacebookThe Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook …

  • Mark S.

    Well, just in case anyone at Patheos is taking feedback: I HATE the new format. Too hard to read and not at all user-friendly.

    • Thank you! I thought it was just me! But it is really not reader-friendly, especially if ur not sitting in front of a PC.

    • Barbara B.

      I didn’t want to complain, but I ‘m reading less than I was before the format change. I figured that click throughs generated income, so I didn’t complain. But I was very selective of what I clicked through to. I hate this format change, and hope they give it up!

  • “The moochocracy”

    Heh heh 🙂

  • Dan C

    “I’ve been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me out?” Hahahahahahaha!

    Jon Stewart speaks truth not well reflected in any media- religious media included.

    I received federally subsidized student loans to manage med school (it was such a treat getting 9-11% interest rates!). I have been grateful every day for this opportunity provided to me. It is a privilege to be a physician. I gladly and rapidly repaid my loans early so as to make opportunity available for others.

    The act of gratitude is from the individual receiving the gratuity, not the giver. The giver has one’s own set of duties and responsibilities and these are largely independent of the one receiving. The giver is to be grateful for giving, if one is not, then that is a problem with the giver, not the receiver. The receiver has to be grateful and humble for receiving the gift, if not, this is a problem with the recipient, and does not influence the giver’s responsibilities. Such is basic dynamics of the relationship of charity for the Christian.

    • After I got out of the Marines, the only way I could afford grad school was to go on the taxpayer dime: the GI Bill and the Illinois Veterans’ Grant. I too am very thankful for this government largesse.

      Republicans have got to seriousy re-think their “everyone who takes a government handout is a parasite” trope, especially when, as Steward adroitely pointed out, a whole lot of people benefit from government handouts, including Mitt “the 47 percent” Romney.

      • I don’t really consider that “on the taxpayers dime.” Those who volunteer for the military deserve everything they get. They are performing a service in defending our country and should be rewarded for it. Yes, technically, it’s on the “taxpayer dime”, but if there is anything the federal government SHOULD be doing, it’s national defense.

        • Dan C

          But it is on the tax payer’s dime. The GI Bill, in its varied forms came out as a Democratic party-sponsored benefit born of New Dealism after WW2.

          The GI Bill does not directly affect national defense.

          Prior to that, soldiers were not generously treated, especially prior to WW1.

          The GI Bill has less patrimony than other New Deal aspects.

      • The GI Bill is not charity. It is a recruiting inducement to fill the ranks. It is started out as a bid for social stability after WW II and at that point could have been argued to have a charitable component but ever since the draft was ended in the 1970s it’s pretty much a selling point for people entering the military. I don’t know the details fo the Illinois Veteran’s Grant so I won’t address that.

        Parasitism doesn’t happen when you take the handout. Parasitism happens when you turn down the first chance you get to remove yourself from the dole because the dole is a better deal (90% of the money for 0% of the work!). When taxpayers pay for ads to mock hard working hispanics who stay off the dole even though they qualify, that’s where the real anger at the welfare state comes from. Parasitism happens when you vote based on who is going to promise you a bigger check instead of who is going to set the field up for a better economy. Republicans need to tell their story better.

        • ivan_the_mad

          “Republicans need to tell their story better.” I don’t know, I find their current whoppers more than entertaining.

        • Dan C

          bill bannon, a conservative-leaning commenter on Catholic blogs (should his writings be accurately interpreted) seems to have correctly interpreted the Republican message (
          “It would help if the Democratic convention’s description of Romney/Ryan as “you’re on your own” was easily refutable. It’s not.”

          “You’re on your own.” Its not a Catholic philosophy, its the Republican message.

          • “You’re on your own.”

            I guess I’m in the minority, but I am pining to hear that from our federal government (other than national defense and basic infrastructure that can’t be done at a lower level.)

            Solidarity AND subsidiarity. Not one or the other, both. We should help each other. We HAVE to help each other. I just don’t think the federal government is the best one to do it, for myriad reasons.

            The problem is that we are so conditioned to expect the federal government to take care of everything, that we can’t even imagine a more local, personal, community-uniting alternative.

            • Dan C

              I do not for a moment think that if private charity actually met the needs of the people who are poor (because poor people get cancer, and have children born with genetic anomalies, and need brain surgery too) that the public charitable institutions would continue for a minute longer.

              They don’t. When the Church needs to make budget cuts, service cuts are not equalized over all SES levels- be assured that programs affecting the poor are the first to go. Their churches were the first to close in the late 1980’s.

              We are still a Calvinist people and it takes struggle for American Catholics to exorcise that demonic imposition that we actually earned our position in life. Our Calvinism will assure that the minute the government can cut services to the poor, it will.

              • Regarding the idea that private charity doesn’t meet the needs of the poor:

                It never will, and we’ll never find out if it would, as long as the federal government is doing it. Mostly, folks say (rightly and wrongly), “That’s what I’m paying taxes for.”

                I’m not even saying it has to necessarily be private charity, though I think that is the best. The more locally it can be done, though, the better.

                • Dan C

                  So here is the rub: Red State Alabama, who poorly manages its block grant Medicaid subsidies, can’t deal at a local level with its poverty Nor can Red State Mississippi. They need federal infusions of cash to manage its poverty. Red States generally do get more poverty money from the government than they contribute to the pot.

                  What does one do about those regions for which local involvement can’t support decent high blood pressure screenings, much less care for the leukemics in their midst? If one started to make the judgement call- forget the screenings and heart disease work and just take care of the kids with cancer-well, that is rationing. And that freaked the conservatives out last time this was brought up.

                  I am all for getting the government out of charity. Well…anytime now…at times in the Church’s history, its charitable endeavors outmatched the Roman Empire’s charitable endeavors and supplanted them, causing the Empire jealousy. The Church will need more humiliating displacement from its attachment to cultural and temporal power before that will likely again occur.

                  The federal involvement is not minor, but in most cases for the biggest poverty programs, it is state-level enactments that determine the programs. (Unless it has to do with senior citizens who don’t trust local yahoos with their entitlements).

                • Will

                  I will support ending federal programs when churches, charities, and individuals can reasonably take care of the needs of those who cannot support themselves. Most local governments around here are cutting programs and have no “extra” money. Most of the churches and charities are having a hard time keeping up with the charitable demand even with the federal programs.

                  • Dan C

                    The Catholic Church in Philadelphia made cuts recently These cuts disproportionately affected the poor.

                    • Dan C

                      Charity is still “luxury.” This is not the era of Benedict’s of Nursia who will empty the monastery store rooms, excluding 5 loaves, and expect God will provide the monastery. Only Catholic Workers live that way.

                • Ted Seeber

                  Why do we have such short memories? We’ve done that experiment-1873-1929. It wasn’t very pretty.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              “other than national defense ”

              You statist little so-and-so. If ANYTHING was meant to be done at the lowest level by your founders, it was national defense. You’re supposed to own the weapons of war, and maintain your skills with them in the local community. And if you aren’t willing, you don’t deserve a nation.

              The US Army and Air Force would so shock your founders that they’d be calling for another revolution. As well as the tarring and feathering of your ilk.

        • Good post, TMLutas. To me, the GI Bill is basically a benefits package for the military. Otherwise, who in their right mind would join it? The salary sure ain’t attractive. Potential death or dismemberment in highly dubious wars sure ain’t attractive.

          • Dan C

            But it is still an “entitlement.” And such things are the points of discussion.

          • Ted Seeber

            The salary isn’t much, but the benefits are downright AWESOME.

        • Dan C

          And this is exactly what Jon Stewart is discussing. Here you use the clever word-shift of “charity” when discussing the benefits provided servicemen, but not the word “entitlement” which encompasses this benefit and is also the word that is used by Republicans in this debate.

          The ‘Entitlement State” is the concern, it is “the Entitlements” that are too many and expensive.

          The GI Bill is one of those entitlements and Jon Stewart points out that folks are arguing over those things which constitute “my justified entitlement” and those things which constitute “your moochocratic entitlement.”

          • I still disagree with that. The GI Bill, at least in our current environment, is, pretty transparently, an employment benefit in exchange for giving several years of your life to the military. Other entitlements cannot be construed as employment benefits. Of course, I share your disgust for the “entitlements” that big corporations get. That is many times worse than the entitlements that the poor get.

            The point is, at some point, aid to the poor, for many, becomes a parasitic relationship rather than one that actually helps them get on their own two feet.

            Anyway, this will all be moot if our economy doesn’t stagger to its feet sometime soon. Whether because of ill-advised bailouts and funding of big corporations, or support of the increasing number of poor, our country is already close enough to see the oncoming cliff of bankruptcy and can’t afford to continue business as usual.

            • Dan C

              Aid to the poor, RARELY becomes a parasitic relationship.

              Reagan taught conservatives that, worse than Satan, is a mythical anti-Madonna creature that exists in Legion, called “the welfare momma.'”

              Such creatures are in reality rare.

              • ivan_the_mad

                Qauntify “RARELY”. Then provide citations.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                Lets quit ignoring the elephant in the room…

                These “parasites” in the republican imagination are the descendants of those “free” (in the economic sense for those who benefitted) laborers who built much of your nations wealth. If anybody has call to sit back and suck up wealth, I’d say it’s the children of men who never saw a dime for all that cotton.

                Now cue someone defending the peculiar institution because it had a great benefits package…

        • Elaine S.

          “I don’t know the details of the Illinois Veteran’s Grant”
          I do, because my husband finished a four-year degree with it. The grant allows any Illinois resident who is honorably discharged from the military to attend any state university in Illinois tuition free, up until they earn a bachelor’s degree. However, the grant is not actually a monetary grant — it’s a tuition waiver that tells the school, in effect, to eat the cost of the recipient’s tuition. Since the state has been slashing funding to universities in recent years, this means the schools have to keep raising tuition and fees for everyone else in order to make up the cost of covering these and other tuition waivers. Until recently, state legislators were allowed to hand out up to four such waivers (commonly but inaccurately dubbed “legislative scholarships”) every year to constituents — most of whom (surprise, surprise!) turned out to be children of friends or campaign donors.

          While I’m very grateful that my husband was able to use this benefit from his service in the first Gulf War, the fact is that tuition waivers simply force others to pay double or triple so that someone else can get a free ride. There needs to be some way of insuring that these benefits are properly funded.

          • Timbot2000

            Since Illinois is the brokest state in the Union, expect this benefit to vanish in the near future.

      • Ted Seeber

        The biggest Communist Institution in the United States is the US Military. All true communists should join this august institution. (I wonder if my spelling checker picked the wrong word there.)

  • I prefer seeing it as an age where journalists are clowns, and clowns are clowns with agendas.

    • Mark Shea

      Duh. Of course he has an agenda. His agenda is a making fun of crappy media coverage pretending to be news coverage. Excellent attempt at Bulverism.

      • Not Bulverism, just perspective.

        • Mark Shea

          No. Bulverism. Your “argument” in translation, is “I don’t like the facts he documented, so I will complain that he is biased”. That’s Bulverism. Since he is frank that he is biased, big whoop. The fact is, he’s a comedian, not a journalist. The fact is, FOX’s shitty Pravda imitation is supposed to be news but is instead documentably bullshit. What conservatives *should* be doing is trying to engage reality so as to deal with our problems. WHat they are actually doing is trying to lie as effectively as possible in order to manipulate and win. Libs do it too of course. But “they do it too!” is the logic of the playground, not of adults. If they don’t figure that out soon, they will lose, and deserve to. Which is a shame because Obama is a catastrophe. Stop making excuses for FOX’s shitty “journalism”.

          • And I merely point out that Stewart’s show is just as willing to selectively edit and twist in order to do the same thing. That’s all. To me, it’s no different than citing Rush Limbaugh criticizing other talk radio hosts for being biased and inaccurate. That Stewart and company run to hide behind the title ‘comedian’ doesn’t change what they do. I’m no fan of FOX, or any of the news outlets. But I consider Stewart merely an extension of the overall problem, not some independent analyst who is above it all. Sure he can be right. Being a full-time critic is easy. But the same criticisms turned back at him are just as right.

            Oh, and stop assuming that anyone who critiques your posts about politics or journalism is just a tribalist loyal to one side or the other. It doesn’t serve you well.

            • John

              Fortunately, ‘The Daily Show’ doesn’t really have to selectively edit. FOX News is an ongoing, 24/7, propaganda machine. It’s the Neo Con approach to TV. Have strong, vocal , and well armed (talking points) Republican/Libertarian hosts berate weak, and ineffectual “Democrats” like Juan Williams. He just calls them out on it. This segment may be the finest ever on the show, though.

              I’ve seen Stewart take down other arguments in the past, but this nearly 11 minute take down is priceless. Stewart, like George Carlin before him, can take apart an opposing argument.

              • And yet, selectively edit it does. My problem with this is that they aren’t journalists. They are pundits. If FOX, MSNBC, and other media outlets are filled with people who are pundits disguised as journalists, so Stewart, Colbert, Maher and others are pundits disguised as comedians. But pundits nonetheless.
                Again, being a critic of others is easy. It’s the one talent that defines modern America. But TDS is what it is, and it does what it does with the same reasoning, and sometimes the same tactics, that it so proudly condemns in others (especially FOX naturally).

              • Rosemarie


                Juan Williams and the other Liberal commentators on Fox News are not weak and ineffectual. They hold their own just fine against the Conservative, Libertarian and Independent commentators on that channel. And yes, the Daily Show does selectively edit their clips of Fox News and other news channels, presenting them out-of-context in rapid-fire succession. That may be comedy but it’s not journalism and it scares me that some people actually think they can get “real news” from the Daily Show. *Real* news is scarce enough in the MSM, let alone in that parody of the MSM.

                • Hezekiah Garrett

                  “it scares me that some people actually think they can get “real news” from the Daily Show.”

                  C’mon Rosemarie, name names!

    • Dan C

      He can have an agenda. And be correct too. Which he is.

      • Scott W.

        Exactly. All it means when someone has an agenda, is that you should spend more time putting his premises under the microscope. If they check out, then one needs to be fair and at least say, “Well, I think this guy is a stopped clock, but in this case, it is one of the times of day he is right.”

        And I agree with Sean. Not all government money is parasitic even if I wouldn’t have chosen the democratizing of college education education as an example.

        • The democratizing of college education, unfortunately, is leading to a higher education bubble that may end up just as destructive as the housing bubble. It’s not directly parasitic but has parasitic elements to it (look at the recent explosion in non-teaching administrative staff for example). And since the debt is non-dischargeable, we’re reintroducing debt peonage into American law. That’s a really bad development.

        • Dan C

          College education entitlements have been the focus of Republican budget-cutting lasers since the boom years of GW Bush. The argument goes to why should “good, hard-working Red State farmers support some inner city kid to get a liberal indoctrination at some urban/NE college?” The thought is that this is the task of private donors or the individual pursuing the education.

          Another argument against the “democratization” of higher education is that it cheapens the value of the degrees by allowing more to possess them.

          I disagree, and think that society has a collective need for higher educated humans. But that is my bias.

          • Blog Goliard

            If there were more actual education going on in higher education, I’d be inclined to agree with you.

            But as things actually are? Well, as “The Incredibles” would have stated it: If everyone has a degree, then no one does.

            • Dan C

              “If there were more actual education going on in higher education, I’d be inclined to agree with you.”

              This is silliness. Science and math and engineering are very well taught. Philosophy is very well taught at colleges I have seen.

              Such a dismissal of a line of thought disrespects the fact that evidence is to the contrary.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              “If everyone has a degree, then no one does.”

              Well, at least you recognise that your degree has absolutely nothing to do with your education and skill set, and is instead a pass into the world of the elite.

              Because if you believe your degree reflects in anyway your actual education, then the above quote is demonstrably the stupidest comment here.

              And since you’re probably going to feel insulted by that little bit of truth telling, I am sorry I don’t have a more constructive way to express that. I put my efforts into education, not getting a degree.

      • He mocks others (especially FOX naturally) because of doing things that his show does as well. Or do we assume that his show’s portrayals of those who don’t support certain key issues are accurate because the clips he shows and references clearly point out the facts? My problem is, he has agendas, and does the same thing to promote those agendas that he goes after others (especially FOX naturally) for doing. Are agendas a problem? Not particularly. But I’m mindful of the fact that Stewart and company have them, and that they do the same thing they mock others for in advancing them.

        • Mark Shea

          Sorry, Dave, but you denied it was Bulverism to wave away Stewart’s devastating documentation of FOX’s ridiculous propaganda by merely saying Stewart is biased. That’s exactly what Bulverism is: the attempt to claim that so long as you impugn somebody’s motives, you’ve refuted their facts. Stewart doesn’t even *try* to pretend he unbiased. But his satire is devastating because it’s right on the money. Fox advertises itself under the slogan “fair and balanced”. They lie.

          So. by the way, does MSNBC.

          • No Mark, I was merely pointing out that these clowns aren’t journalists any more than FOX or MSNBC are journalists. Those ‘clowns’ are pundits disguised as journalists. Stewart and his brand of ‘clowns’ are merely pundits disguised as comedians. Both hiding behind their titles of choice to cover up the fact that, in the end, they’re all part of the same hypocrisy.

            • Mark Shea

              I realize they aren’t really journalists. That’s why the show is called “fake news”. My point, however, is that it’s ridiculous that you get more actual information about reality from Stewart than from the Minitrue hacks of the FOX Noise Machine. Just as there is not moral symmetry between satirists and murderers, so there is not moral symmetry between a comic who makes no pretense of having no agenda and hacks who *do* pretend to be “fair and balanced” while delivery lies as news. So stop making excuses for them.

              I’ll let him explain it:

              • In all that I agree, except for the fact that Stewart and company are now clearly pundits in their own write (get it), rather than merely comedians with a nod toward current events. Yes, there was a time when a comedian commenting on the state of things was nothing other than a comedian commenting on the state of things, even if the comedy had some truth. But these fellows are every bit pundits and contributors to political and social causes, and no longer deserve – at least IMHO – the protective armor of ‘I’m just a humble comedian.’ And because they are willing to do the same thing that those other shows they lampoon do, to me they’re no different, or no better. Otherwise, yeah, I get what you’re saying.

                • John

                  Dave, one of the core problems in our media today is that they ask a question, and accept the answer as fact. It’s done for a number of reasons, most of which is that the media want access to these political/government figures. If they ask a question, with a tough follow up they may lose that access.

                  One of the great things that is happening in this country now is thanks to folks like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher – fact checking. Calling bullshit, bullshit.

                  Fortunately, there have been a number of instances where it looks like the media are starting to ask the tough follow up. That is a great thing to see. To minimize what Stewart does, minimizes the ability to get the truth.

                  Here’s Soledad O’Brien asking tough follow ups, and using facts on John Sununu.


                  This was just this morning. Watch how Charlie Rose doesn’t let Dan Senor off the hook. What will Romney do…not what he thinks Obama didn’t do.


                  • Actually, the problem isn’t that they don’t ask the tough questions. It’s that they selectively ask tough questions to some, and let others off the hook. That Stewart, Colbert, and Maher are somehow the wardens of true journalism and fair critiques is my issue. No they aren’t. They are as selective and willing to twist things as those they lampoon.

                    The point is, they’re also guilty of the same thing for which they mock the news channels. And they are no more willing to admit it. In some ways, they are merely television versions of what Rush Limbaugh always was: non-journalists who sit outside the ring and critique the press for what it is, but then try to dodge the obvious by hiding under ‘we’re just entertainer’ covers.

                    • John

                      Disagree. Dave, to get to the real truth, or “core of bullshit mountain”, is the goal. For centuries we’ve turned to “comedians” to tell the truth. The greatest humor comes from ‘the truth’. It makes you uncomfortable. It makes you laugh. Mark Twain was incredible at it, and he passed it down to other generations. Carlin, Stewart. They are the new seeds that fell from that tree. Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a huckster, a peddler of half truths and falsehoods. A shill. He sells his tea. Peddles gold. Sells his newsletters. Sells subscriptions to his videos, books and other propaganda. On the air, he distributes fear to an older audience afraid of change.

                      Stewart is not Rush Limbaugh. Stewart broke down a relentless effort to paint Romney’s 47% comment as something completely different from reality. That it was righteous. He called out the media (and we should use the term media loosely with FOX or MSNBC) for peddling falsehoods from Bullshit Mountain, and Asshole Cove.



                    • Mark Shea

                      And again I say, nobody is claiming that Stewart et al are “the wardens of true journalism”. I’m saying that those who are supposed to be such wardens aren’t doing the job and it’s hilarious and ironic that comedians do a better job of what those guys should be doing. It is dumb to complain that people who neither claim to be, nor have any duty to be, “fair and balanced journalists” are biased. It is even dumber to excuse the people who do claim to be and have a duty to be “fair and balanced” by immediately saying of their comedic critics, “They’re biased.” Duh. They’re comedians. FOX is (supposed to be) “journalists”. What they in fact are is hacks and frauds, claiming to be “fair and balanced”.

                    • John, that’s fine, and that can be why Stewart or Limbaugh or the like can have their part to play. But they are what they are, and in our modern polarized age, they tend to be as party line as the media they lampoon. It’s real simple. They’re not journalists, nor should they be labeled as such. But they are pundits. That they use comedy to make their points doesn’t make them any less the pundits. And that goes for Stewart, or Maher, or Limbaugh, or anyone. They are what they are. Anderson Cooper or Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart, they are the same, they simply use different mediums to attempt to advance their particular agendas, and they all rush to hide behind this or that job title when the heat is applied.

                    • Hezekiah Garrett

                      Having watched Stewart go after the Dems every bit as vociferously, including Obama himself, I have to wonder why you’re trying to get the mountain even higher.

                      And Stewart’s claim to be a comedian is, well, a fact. When people ask me why I didn’t administer pain relief to their loved one, I fall back on the fact that I am an EMT, not a physician.

                      Apparently, I’m full of shit and should have stopped at the corner for a hit of heroin to stave off grandma’s neuralgia. And not hide behind my job title.

    • Al

      The interesting thing about FoxNews is all teh evul Roger Ailes did is
      1. Watch the MSM and their obvious left-of-center bias, selective editing, & sins of omission in print and network television.
      2. Copy that strategy, get money from teh evul Rupert Murdoch
      3. Implement strategy with a center right perspective. “Shampoo, Rinse, Repeat”
      4. Watch the Liberals go nuts, even though “teh Libruls” where the ones that “Got Cute” with the public’s trust in the first place.. way back when they invented this strategy… Read longtime CBS News Journalist Bernie Goldberg’s Insider Whistle-blowing Blow by Blow account in his great book “Bias – A CBS Insider Account on how the media distort the news”

      If people don’t like it….my answer is….”So what”?…..I’m not saying it is a good thing but…”Guess What”? the political right gets to defend itself using what minimal, and it is minimal compared to the overall influence of the MSM, media influence resources they have as well. If people have a problem with that my suggestion is why not accuse & attack the root cause of the trouble in the first place and ask them?
      Stewart’s faux courage in exposing the spin at Fox News as if this is something scandalous and new that the public should be informed of ridiculous….

      I have “0” sympathy for liberals who complain about fox news…wondering out loud on how such a thing could have been allowed to form and come into being? Who came up with such a dastardly idea? I dunno…Ask Walter Cronkite?

      P.S The only reason I think the leftiest elite really hate it…probably has to do with how “Ham-Fisted” Fox News approach to their biased reporting is….vs the more careful and craftsman like artform the MSM newsoutlets have perfected over the years in doing it.

      • Matt Talbot

        While I would agree that a majority of mainstream media skews “left” (if by that you mean cultural rather than economic and imperial issues) I disagree that Fox is a counter balance to that.
        Fox is, and was founded as, a partisan political operation. Its whole purpose in existing is to explicitly sell hard-right ideology. The New York Times (say) displays (usually fairly subtle) bias in favor of the kind of “left-leaning” stuff that poses not the slightest threat to the powers-that-be — the “God-Guns-and-Gays” stuff — but in doing so it merely reflects the biases of its cultural set rather than showing any particular commitment to actively selling an explicitly political agenda.

        • Al


          :head nods slowly..wide eyed: Your +3 gauntlets of nuance power are indeed powerful in coloring the motives and intentions of the new York times and the entire left wing msm as merely reflective and thus innocent and true…..versus the intentional political operative sinister motivations of Teh fox news! I will counter by rolling for a counter spell “disbelieve” ….whatta you know! A “natural” I win…..sorry Matt I ain’t buying your hooker with a heart of gold routine on their motivations of the msm especially the new York times…..sell nano splicing discernment points somewhere else

          • Matt Talbot

            Sorry for trying to make distinctions between things, Al. I’ll remember to be strident and simplistic in the future.


            • Al

              By all means make distinctions…except apply them evenly…you explain away left wing msm bias as the product of reflections and good intentions and then you paint a more sinister simplistic motive to right wing media….integrity man….consistency of ethic and application please

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        IOW, the right in this country is just as duplicitious and dishonorable as the left?

        Good of you to recognise that, Al.

        • Al

          Yes but I must correct you….i think liberals are much better at corruption and employing utilitarianism on demand for their causes….the right, like china, just copies that kind of innovation…the don’t lay awake at night dreaming it up as much

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            So the left are innovators and the right is intellectually bankrupt? I admire your bracing honesty.

            • Al


          • Hezekiah Garrett

            BTW, since I made no claims about efficiency, competence or effort, I dont for the life of me see what you are correcting.

  • The problem is that government loans & grants for education are only subsidizing Academia. Without subsidies college costs would be much lower. Someone who wanted an education would still be able to get one – perhaps over a longer timeframe or by working part-time (good old fashioned ways) but the pricetag would be lower because government involvement only makes academia another interest group – and like all interest groups – one that supports Democrats.

    • Will

      That sounds good but is it true? What is your source?

      I wonder about the for-profit colleges and universities. I saw something somewhere (sorry no source) that indicated their drop-out rate was high and student loan amount owed was higher than public and private colleges and universities.

      • Ted Seeber

        One thing that is common in for-profit schools, especially vocational schools, is the price is set exactly at the maximum financial aid loan amount. I noticed this when I was unemployed for two years back in 2001-2003, and it was a strong indicator to me that additional training to get a job and certifications are largely a scam against the federal government.

      • jolly

        Tuition rate increases are 1.5 to 2 x the rate of inflation. One source below:

      • Timbot2000

        The for-profit colleges are still subsidized by the same loans and grants as the other schools, so the same inflationary pressures and lack of market pricing mechanisms apply. By way of history, in the 50’s and 60’s it was very common for students, even of Ivy League universities, to earn enough money at summer jobs to pay for the entire academic year. I know of no means for a young person to earn that sort of money today in the space of 3 months within the allowable scope of the law.

        • I did that in the 1980’s, plus had enough left over to have some reasonable fun during the year besides. Of course, it was a pedestrian state school, rather than the Ivy League, but still. In order to earn enough money to pay for the entire academic year now, even at a state school, you’d have to enter the World Series of Poker, or qualify for the U.S. Open or something.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            Well you know, Dave, if degrees were affordable, we’d all have one, and then what would Blog Goliar lord over us unwashed peons?

    • Andy

      The raise in tuition is not driven by faculty salaries – it is driven by the need for dorms to have cable, internet access in every room, by the need to have gyms with state of the art equipment, by administrators being paid exorbitant salaries – in other words colleges have adopted the business model, cater to the appearances and pay the managers lots and don’t worry about the product being long-lasting. As a college faculty member I only wish that my salary was going up at a rate faster than inflation. The salaries in higher ed or skewed because the medical faculty and engineering faculty are paid extremely high rates, while many of the sciences, liberal arts and social sciences are paid poorly by comparison.

  • Hezekiah Garrett

    I shall believe republican claims of fealty to the US Constitution when they show some indication of disbanding our standing army.

    We all know what the founders meant, and forming a new army every 2 yrs aint it.

    An honourably discharged US sailor.

  • “It is dumb to complain that people who neither claim to be, nor have any duty to be, “fair and balanced journalists” are biased.”

    I complain that people who are every bit the pundit that Karl Rove or James Carville are, hide behind the title of comedian when it is clear that, if they aren’t journalists, they are definitely on the ideological payroll. And the same goes for Limbaugh and his kind, too. They’re all the same to me. All part of the same industry. To me, it’s dumb to think of them as only comedians or clowns, when it’s obvious they are so much more.

    • Jamie R

      What’s an ideological payroll?

      • They’re all the same in other words, all doing the same thing, even when they blast other media folks for doing what they do. All part of the same shop.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      Maybe whats truly dumb is thinking it evident that they are so much more.

      • Yeah, and the sad thing is how many out there appeal to them as if they are more. To me, Stewart or Limbaugh, they’re all the same.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          To paraphrase the pharmacist to Mr. Wojohowitz, “If it makes you so sad, why do you do it so much?”

          • I don’t. I merely point out to those who do.

      • BTW, you said you’ve seen Stewart go after Obama or Dems, and so have I. I’ve also heard Limbaugh go after Bush/Romney/Republicans. That they sometimes call a spade a spade doesn’t mean they’re anything other than what they are. Sometimes accurate. I’ve heard Limbaugh nail the MSM over things with every bit the truth that Stewart does. But they’re pundits who don the apparel of comedian/entertainer to dodge the responsibility for what they do. Truth be told, of the bunch, Limbaugh is the more honest, since he admits what he is: a partisan conservative advocate using his show to advance conservatism (as he defines it). That, at least, is honest.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Pundit has a meaning, Dave.

          What field of expertise does Stewart claim? Limbaugh?

          Stewart is a comedian, Limbaugh is a demagogue. Neither is a pundit.

          If it would help, I’ll save up some cash and forward you a decent dictionary through Mark.

          • Yes, pundit has meaning. They are pundits, they are also demagogues, of a different sort. They make commentary, appealing to the sympathies of their fans, Stewart as much as Limbaugh. Stewart simply has a staff of writers and a show on Comedy Central. Still the same, commenting on the current state of affairs in their own right. I’m sorry that Stewart and company have pioneered a new approach, just as Limbaugh did 20 years ago, and it seems to have caught some folks off guard who expect a pundit today to look just like they did back when Archie Bunker and Hawkeye Pierce were all the rage. Or it hasn’t, since strangely enough just about everyone getting on me in this thread is more or less saying I’m right. Go figure. But if you’re trying to suggest that Stewart is just some old comedian out to make people laugh with no other real agenda, then perhaps you should keep the money and buy a dictionary all your own to look up the various meanings for the word thick. 🙂

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              Oh, you’re confusion lies in what a comedian is? By your definition, Lenny Bruce was a pundit.

              I’m done. I’ll let you get back to admiring your Patton portrait in your Old Glory pajamas.

              • You’re right Hez, Jon’s just a down home honest comedian who only wants to make people laugh. Any notion that he’s trying to accomplish anything else but make people laugh is pure illusion. Uh huh. Right. Oh, and I love how you speak in fluent generalizations. It adds so much to the credibility of your arguments.

                By the way, Bruce was seen as a comedian and a social critic. It’s actually possible to be more than one thing at the same time. How ’bout that. Maybe Stewart can be a comedian and a pundit at the same time. You just never know.

                • Hezekiah Garrett

                  “You’re right Hez, Jon’s just a down home honest comedian who only wants to make people laugh. ”

                  I’m not wasting my time with the dishonest. You confirm all my greatest prejudices about your people.

                  • Andy, Bad Person

                    Finally, you admit it.

                  • My people? Who are my people? You know absolutely nothing about me. For instance, and this goes to Mark as well, I seldom have the time to watch news anymore. But when I do, I drink Dos Equis. No, when I do, I watch CNN, and sometimes CBS in the morning. I’ll tune into FOX or MSNBC or the others, just to see what they are really saying, not what critics say they are saying. That’s how I’ve caught Stewart doing as Rosemarie said above, editing clips to make it seem worse than it already was (regarding FOX that is). Which is why I say Stewart and his brand are all part of the same hypocrisy, and I wouldn’t give a nod to them before giving one to Limbaugh, who is basically the same thing, except at least he admits it. So that’s that. My people? Geeesh.

                  • By the way oh open one, I never said Stewart didn’t claim to be a comedian. I’m saying that he, like Maher, hides behind the term to attempt to cover what he obviously does. Apparently with some folks, it works like a charm.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          So about that hit of heroin? Should I do my job, or try to do Dan C’s, since so many people seem to expect it of me?

  • Stephen

    This is in response to all of the above.
    All Fox is doing is Spinning a bad moment for romney the same way CBS, NBC,ABC, and MSNBC do for Obama. You expected something else? There is no news anymore. you all probably believe that the attack in Lybia was caused by the movie? Yes fox is full of pundits. So is every other “News” org. It is however the only one that leans right. how is it the Univision was the only outfit to actually press obama with real questions. Tell me you are not all this naive? romney is not a great guy and happens to be a terrible campaigner but tell me one thing, one single thing that obama has done to deserve a vote. I respect mark for choosing not to play the game, and I may do the same.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      Yeah, this comment thread was loaded with folks itching to vote for Obama.

      Why don’t you fry up another kitten and quit trying to stampede the ignorant?

      • Andy, Bad Person

        Do you think you could get through a single sub-thread without impugning the motives of those with whom you disagree?

    • John

      Please check out the latest blog on Scientific American, as it relates to global warming misinformation. Fox News does much more than shade the truth in favor of Republicans. As to Dave and his ‘pundit’ argument. The segment of Jon Stewart took apart a series of falsehoods with multiple clips and proof. Selectively editing would mean what you get from Rush Limbaugh…which is a clip of Obama saying he believes in redistribution without playing the full clip and putting it in context. It is why to this day I hear clips from Reverend Wright out of context. All we get is ‘God Damn America’ from one sermon. What is the context? It doesn’t matter. Why the goal was accomplished…Obama is bad. So, apply some context my friends. It separates you from being a social critic or a partisan hack. By falsely equating what Jon Stewart does with Rush Limbaugh is a false equivalence. He has his ideology, but rarely, if ever, demagogues it, as Limbaugh does daily.

      The MSM put the 47percent comments in context. Saying that they were at a fundraiser, and playing the full clip. The problem lies in the fact that Fox, et al, do not want context. They were spinning that story as hard as I’ve ever seen, changing the story by the minute. To top it off, they pulled out a 14 year old clip as the cherry on top. It was a weak and ineffectual argument. Stewart called it out. But, some of us here don’t want to accept that, as we want to discuss some alleged media imbalance. It is an ad hominum argument, and it doesn’t hold water. Because the information comes from a source you don’t like, doesn’t mean the argument is incorrect.