John Stewart On Fox News

[bwh27]

Misinformed and least informed/uninformed are not the same thing - the polls that Politico cited to rate Stewart's comments as false tested news viewer's knowledge of things like how many branches of government are there? Being misinformed is to believe that the health care legislation creates death panels (in a recent example) and the polls that have tested by that metric have rated Fox viewers as the most misinformed, whether you consider them as biased polls or not he wasn't making that up. Borderline crazy? Just seemed frustrated to me with the cyclical questions Wallace was asking. I'm also not sure what hate has to do with it? I'm extremely critical of United States foreign policy and can become impassioned discussing it but I don't "hate" anyone in government at all, on the contrary I respect most of them that I disagree with. Stewart gets in heated debates with Bill O'Reilly but he doesn't hate him, in fact they get along well off camera. Can you be specific as to what you found "hateful"?

---

[UGLY]

Well, I was wrong we apparently don't agree as much as I thought. The ratings argument is like the sophisticated version of hip-hop fans responding to any criticism of awful rappers like 50 Cent, etc with "you just hatin' 'cause he makin' more money than you and he sell the most records!" Does the fact that they have more viewers have significance? As Stewart points out, from a business model perspective it absolutely does, Fox News' success has had a big influence on the development of other news programs - IMO mostly in a bad way. But Fox does plenty to merit being discredited that has nothing to do with their ratings. Again, you're drawing a false equivalency with the Bush-Obama comparison - it's true that the left wing criticized W just as much as the right wing criticizes Obama today and fringe people spread ridiculous lies like W's responsibility for 9/11, Obama being a Kenyan-born terrorist sympathizer, etc However, FOX News (including their "news people") has been consistently and deliberately dishonest which is not the same as just "showing the conservative side." I don't think there are many good journalists on network television left, but FOX's supposed news people (not Hannity, O'Reilly, etc) have been consistently found to tell lies which just doesn't happen nearly as often with the non-opinion people on other networks. If you want to chalk that up to just the liberal media being jealous of FOX's ratings no matter who does the poll then we're never going to find much common ground. That's analogous with people dismissing outright the fact that 97% of climatologists confirm the existence of global warming simply because scientists tend to be liberals - the implication being that until 100% of all scientists agree then I'm going to let my political ideology determine what evidence I pay attention to.

Stewart should not be taken seriously as a journalist, sure, but you don't take his arguments seriously in this interview? He wiped the floor with Chris Wallace in my opinion.

I believe it is a fact that the other news agencies have it in their best interest to attempt to discredit fox news in order to build their own brand. I dont watch the fox cable news, I only watch fox news sunday which I believe is the best sunday news program on television, while watching fox cable news other than the opinion people I dont believe I have heard an outright lie. Its funny you bring up global warming, because I dont know a lot of people who are saying the earth isnt experiencing climate change they only question whether or not it is man made and there are plenty of reputable scientist who believe it is not. The left did lie forever about Bush's service record and I am not a supporter of bush.

The fact is and wallace today provided some evidence that polls that were supposed to be based on knowledge had opinion questions in them and if you gave the wrong opinion then you were considered misinformed, that is a false premise for a fact based poll no matter how you cut it.Chris Wallace Fires Back at Jon Stewart: 'I Guess the Joke Is on' Him (Video) - Hollywood Reporter

---

I also just looked at a poll by the university of maryland and some of the questions asked I have never heard a fox news person say so I dont know where they would have gotten the idea for some of the answers.

[bwh27]

You've never heard a Fox person say those things yet you don't watch fox cable news.... For the record, I agree with you that Fox News Sunday is a very good Sunday show, maybe the best although I personally prefer Fareed Zakaria's GPS.

I really wasn't trying to score a point with the global warming reference, just using it as an analogy to make my argument. Since you engaged though I shall respond. I understand the debate, however if you read what I specifically wrote I'm referring to climatologists, in other words the scientists whose opinion on climate change would be most relevant. It is true that 97% believe global warming is man made and it's 90% of all scientists: Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN
That's a pretty striking consensus, you could argue it's not a slam dunk and that we still need to determine with further certainty whether humans contribute to global warming. That sort of skepticism on its own is fine, though I don't identify with it. What I was referring to are people who dismiss outright the fact that a high percentage of scientists and especially climatologists believe humans influence global warming just because they perceive most scientists to be liberal - this sort of logic is essentially incapable of being convinced no matter how high the percentage is at least from my perspective of discussing it with people. You don't fall into this camp, I understand that, but thought I should clarify what I'm talking about.
It's not true that there are plenty of reputable climatologists that believe humans don't influence global warming as in almost all instances their research and writing on the matter hasn't gone through the peer-review process. I'll concede that there are some scientists very respected in the field who are skeptics, they just haven't usually received their reputation through climate study, it's in a completely different area of science. Instead of respected scientists determining the narrative for skeptics though, it is usually people like Bjorn Lomborg who is not a scientist and it still baffles me how much of an influence he has given he has no relevant credentials.
As for the cost effectiveness of a specific plan like Cap-and-Trade well that's a much more complicated debate and a more worthy discussion in my opinion - but probably not worth diverging off on this thread about it now.

[Schlottke]

Can you be specific as to what you found "hateful"?

His tone and the look on his face when he said it...

YouTube - ‪Jon Stewart - Fox viewers misinformed‬‏

[quinn14]

I watch Fox news in the mornings with Gretchan. It is just news. I don't think they spin anything because if a guy robbed a bank, he robbed it no matter which show you're watching. Right now I am about sick and tired of the Casey Anthony trial because it seems to be all I hear. But I'll bet that's how it is on MSNBC and CNN too.

[bwh27]

His tone and the look on his face when he said it...

YouTube - ‪Jon Stewart - Fox viewers misinformed‬‏

Fair enough, I just don't think interpreting someone's tone/facial expression during a contentious debate as being hateful is anywhere close to an objective process. It's surprisingly strongly worded, but again that seems more due to frustration than anything else given the context of the whole interview. Hate is a very strong word and just because someone is angry or impassioned does not mean you can conclude they are being hateful based on a facial expression (unless you're Cal Lightman). I mean, who is he being hateful toward? Chris Wallace? The allegedly misinformed Fox viewers? It's perfectly legitimate to vehemently disagree with Stewart but you seem to be dismissing/simplifying his ideology which is in fact more nuanced by calling it hateful. As was previously pointed out, he gets very frustrated with MSNBC's biased pundits as well and though he picks on Fox more hate just doesn't seem to enter into it.

[UGLY]

You've never heard a Fox person say those things yet you don't watch fox cable news.... For the record, I agree with you that Fox News Sunday is a very good Sunday show, maybe the best although I personally prefer Fareed Zakaria's GPS.

I really wasn't trying to score a point with the global warming reference, just using it as an analogy to make my argument. Since you engaged though I shall respond. I understand the debate, however if you read what I specifically wrote I'm referring to climatologists, in other words the scientists whose opinion on climate change would be most relevant. It is true that 97% believe global warming is man made and it's 90% of all scientists: Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN
That's a pretty striking consensus, you could argue it's not a slam dunk and that we still need to determine with further certainty whether humans contribute to global warming. That sort of skepticism on its own is fine, though I don't identify with it. What I was referring to are people who dismiss outright the fact that a high percentage of scientists and especially climatologists believe humans influence global warming just because they perceive most scientists to be liberal - this sort of logic is essentially incapable of being convinced no matter how high the percentage is at least from my perspective of discussing it with people. You don't fall into this camp, I understand that, but thought I should clarify what I'm talking about.
It's not true that there are plenty of reputable climatologists that believe humans don't influence global warming as in almost all instances their research and writing on the matter hasn't gone through the peer-review process. I'll concede that there are some scientists very respected in the field who are skeptics, they just haven't usually received their reputation through climate study, it's in a completely different area of science. Instead of respected scientists determining the narrative for skeptics though, it is usually people like Bjorn Lomborg who is not a scientist and it still baffles me how much of an influence he has given he has no relevant credentials.
As for the cost effectiveness of a specific plan like Cap-and-Trade well that's a much more complicated debate and a more worthy discussion in my opinion - but probably not worth diverging off on this thread about it now.

I watch fox news sunday and I have on occasion watched some fox cable news and I have never heard such statements, that is not to say they have not been said but I suspect that the persons saying such things are wing nuts like Beck.

As for you global warming stats I believe that you are correct but there are reputable scientists like Dr. William Happer of Princeton who believe that current worry about global warming is hysteria.

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn?t thinking.?

? George S. Patton

[bwh27]

Happer is a reputable scientist for his work in nuclear physics though, not climate study. This article suggests he's really not that respected by other experts in the field (including ideologically conservative scientist Kerry Emmanuel whom the article is about), he's respected by conservatives in congress and other skeptics: Kerry Emanuel calls Climategate “the latest in a series of coordinated, politically motivated attacks that represent an aggravated assault on scholarship? | ThinkProgress

The problem with that Patton quote in the context of this issue is that the trend among politicians has been inverse to the trend among scientists. For example, in the late 90s Republicans and Democrats both equally accepted human influence on global warming but since then it has become a political football. Over the last decade, the evidence has piled up supporting not only the fact that humans play a large role in global warming but more importantly the extreme repercussions of taking no action - yet Republicans can rarely be elected to office if they come out strongly in support of climate science despite many of them supporting it when the evidence wasn't as extensive. I don't think that the percentage of climatologists who accept that position is nearly as significant as the quality of scholarship. If you're more inclined to listen to Michael Crichton or Bjorn Lomborg (both of whom have more influence in sowing doubt regarding global warming than almost any of the 97% climatologists that support it despite having no credentials) just because there's such a strong consensus and that's suspicious then I don't think you're looking into the issue specifically enough. That may be presumptuous of me, and maybe you've looked into it a lot, but read the IPCC reports (which are deliberately conservative yet still conclude the dire threat posed by man-made global warming) and compare them with skeptical scholarship - and it's pretty clear, at least to me, that skeptics have less and less of a leg to stand on. As the evidence continues to pile up, you can see many of them gradually giving up ground - so for example denying global warming exists at all, then saying it exists but human have zero influence, then humans have an influence but we cant do anything, etc And I'm talking about single individuals who were supposedly experts in the first place. It's also the case that many of the small stable of prominent skeptics that Republican congressmen recruit to testify on their behalf frequently have financial ties to corporations that benefit from delaying climate action. I'm sure that some pro-climate change scientists might stand to gain financially from shifts in the economy away from carbon emissions too, but that 97% of climatologists number and the consistent quality and breadth of their scholarship make it unlikely that they're just all self-interested.
Too long of a rant there considering the thread was started about Fox, so apologies for that.

[UGLY]

Here is the point about CLimate change, it happens, has happened and will always happen whether or not we are here or not, that is an indisputable fact. Whether or not climate change is man made is unknown or at the least how much man has affected the climate is unknown, the world has gone through far more extreme changes in its history before man could possibly have been to blame. At one time all scientist thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. There is room in the debate for multiple opinions and views of the data. I think scientist absolutely stand to make money if they side with man made climate change because it is an issue that the government wants to fund.

Either way fox is not as bad as people think but to a majority who subscribe to a liberal media it looks terrible.