1. It isn’t true. Many more people grab news on CNN during the day than watch the Daily Show. A head to head competition between The Daily Show and say Anderson Cooper may be close, but as we know, Anderson ain’t the only source for “news” on CNN during the day. I’m willing to bet that The Daily Show ranks well behind all network news broadcasts, cable news stations, the Internet, newspapers and blogs in terms of primary source of news. Tens
(hundreds?) of millions of people get news, a million or so watch The Daily Show. Even if none of the DS viewers got news before the show, it would be a speck.

2. Seismic shift? Seriously man, you’re sounding like you write for the Times and are looking for a peg on which to hang a non-story.

3. John Kerry went on the DS because it would be a highly sympathetic audience, (as shown by their bashing of the Swift boaters prior to Kerry’s appearance) and the DS ratings are irrelevant to getting coverage for that appearance because it would get covered in the traditional media.

Let it stand, then, that the “People get their news from the Daily Show” theory is about as reliable as one of Chris Matthews’ bloviations on hardball.

1. I don’t see the nuance in pointing out the obvious. The point is that, in the column in question, Vowell’s entertainment vs. thoughtfulness about civics is there from the get-go. It doesn’t strike me as particularly provocative satire. If it does to some folks, I suspect it’s because American writing isn’t nearly as satirical as, say, British writing. (Check any of the Fleet Street papers on a regular basis and you’ll see how serene the New York Times is by comparison.)

If anything, I’m thinking that Vowell can offer a more nuanced perspective by offering more examples (such as the pro-Patriot Act commercial that aired) which points out (1) that the experience is on some level pernicious and complicated and (2) that this is a great example with how the media and its DVD box set tie-ins works with the American public as a form of consumerism/propaganda that we (and even Vowell) is accustomed to.

2. To elaborate on my claim that more people are getting their news from “The Daily Show,” have you not read any of the countless articles pointing out that “The Daily Show regularly trumps CNN in the ratings? If that doesn’t indicate a seismic shift, consider that John Kerry selected “The Daily Show” to respond to the Swift Boat charges. Not “60 Minutes,” not Larry King, not any of the major news sources.

3. I find it interesting that the defense for Vowell and TDS here is largely, “Well, it’s better than nohting.” This suggests that even those of us here (myself included) who enjoy Vowell and TDS have become so accustomed to being entertained that the idea of being informed in a sober matter about sober events is nearly an impossibility. I mean, outside of FAIR, nobody’s picketing the major news outlets for greater accountability.

As for the notion that people get their news from Stewart et al: Few probably do, given that even the Yahoo page where I get my e-mail has a handful of up-to-date news headlines, but if they do, so what? At least they’re getting it somewhere. Sure, ideally young people would read the NYTimes, watch the nightly news, etc. But in the absence of that, getting even a bit of news from otherwise-entertaining programs — with contextualization that, while juvenile, often strips away the spin to reveal the truth beneath — is better than nothing.

What is sad is that the Times can’t find someone who can be entertaining AND insightful. Come to think of it, in Vowell’s case, either trait would be an improvement.

I can’t tell you how many historians I know/read/work with manage to reduce the most compelling of current events into unreadable ruminations on agency, transnationalism, the subaltern, or whatever pomo platitude is currently in vogue. If Vowell leans too far toward the snarky in her political writing, at least she tries to convey — in clear, concise, easily understandable language — a living US history, the idea that our current situation is rooted in past events and policies (See, for example, her discussion of Iraq and the Spanish-American War/Phillippines in AV.)

That being said, to be honest, I haven’t been reading her NYT articles, but I doubt they can be much worse than David Brooks’ output.

Regarding The Daily Show and other satiric outlets for news, the problem to my mind isn’t that people take what they hear on DS to be news — ’cause, most of the time, it is. The problem is that the mainstream, non-satiric media has basically given up trying to report this administration’s policies with anything close to a critical eye. (Just look at Miller/Russert/Woodward in Plamegate, or compare the “journalistic” lack-of-outrage in the NSA coverage to the breathless Monica days.) So DS and Colbert is the best we’ve got right now — When the going gets absurd, the absurdists get going.

As Carolyn above points out, you need to know what’s going on to understand the satire, so they’re obviously being informed elsewhere. The cultural influence of these people is vastly overstated as well. The DS gets something like only a million and a half viewers a week. Miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

Let the entertainers entertain. With this post and your going on about The Office, it seems like you’ll only let yourself admit that something is okay as long as you can justify that it’s “serious” in its entertainment.

In short, lighten up dude.

And I am a fan of the Daily Show, which I think does a tremendous job of making Bush look like the ass he is. Their demographic slants very college-grad — remember in 2004, when Daily Show watchers knew more about the election than people who read the newspaper?

I think most people who like satire understand the satiricalness of it. Or maybe I hope.