Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
Jesus Christ, wolford, Stewart does not tell you what to think. His raison d'etre is to point out the absurdities of politics and media. Colbert is not quite the same, because he's lampooning a specifically conservative phenomenon so it's a little more pointed.

I get some of my news from Stewart, but not very much (because I never watch it these days due to not having cable) and I still get it from other places. Neither The Daily Show nor the Colbert Report are anywhere near as your O'Reillys or whoever because of the simple fact that they don't veil their shows in seriousness, righteousness or opinion (except Colbert, but only sarcasically). Their shows don't tell you what to think. Their shows show you what you should be laughing at. Their shows are comedy.

Your ideas about Stewart and Colbert are obviously dictated either by ignorance or by political bias.

O'Reilly is not satire. I can't even imagine how you could say otherwise.
Well, I partially agree, but Colbert and Stewart have to be laughing from a particular stance, because that's how humour works; therefore, their particular political paradigm has to have an influence on the nature and implied content and context of their jokes. Sure, you can say that they don't present their show without some degree of self-awareness and tongue-in-cheek, but unless you believe a liberal stance is objective, of course there is opinion implicit in the way that what they say is funny, and it's understandable that this could be considered problematic if taken too seriously/ if it is assumed that their jokes have a degree of universality to them, and are not a product of their specific comedic positions.
I'd like to see the sort of news program Mr.E described; I don't understand why it is that there wouldn't be an audience for that (as one must assume given it's absence).