The Scrabbled: Making Fun of Each Other since '99

God, I hate the media so much. So, so, soooooooo goddamned much.

Whoah, you filled in the ????.

The only thing Kev loves is spite.

christina said:

Kevin said:

God, I hate the media so much. So, so, soooooooo goddamned much.

well let’s not generalize. jon stewart is the media and you love him i’m sure!

See, that’s the problem. He’s not the media. He’s a comedian and a talk show host. The fact that he’s closer to being what people traditionally think of as “the media” (or what the media should be) is less him being a journalist or whatever and more a massive failing on the part of like 95% of everyone else connected to tv news.

And for the record…..it’s true. I do love spite and I do love to hate.

Yeah, I’m actually with Christina on this one. Dude’s totally part of the media. If you’re broadcasting about non-fiction current-event-y type stuff, you’re media.

we can all agree that he isn’t a comedian too right?

Kevin said:

O.K. let me ask you both a question then: Would you consider that Tosh.0 dude “the media”? Would you consider Joel McHale from The Soup “the media”? Would you consider Joan and Melissa Rivers “the media”? Or any number of shows on VH1 or E or whatever that report on non-fiction, current events type stuff? If so then that’s a pretty broad definition of media and I guess I should say then that’s he’s not part of the “news media” and is part of the “entertainment media” which I still stand firm are 2 completely different things.

I’m in agreement here, and I do also want to point out (though it should be obvious) that Stewart has repeatedly said his show is not meant to be more than satire. I get where you wrong people are coming from, but you’re wrong.

The problem with “the media” (the “institution” that is “media”) is that it has lost its rigor. The media has now grown complacent and lax, so much so as to accept Fox News into its numbers. Fox News should be relegated to Daily Show status: nonfiction/current event-based entertainment, categorically not “News.” (Though I concede readily that they’re two different types of shows, and sadly Fox does not accept or even possibly know it’s satire/farce.)

I know this can quickly devolve into a conversation about historical bias and slant in news reporting, what with newspapers clearly defining their “approach” on their front pages, but contemporary broadcast news is typically worse.

In America, there’s a news channel specifically for you depending on your party affiliation. It’s that echo-chambery scariness that leads me to be skeptical at best (and condemning at worst) of mainstream media, let alone broadcast news. Then there are corporate-influence issues on the Whats and Hows of reporting and coverage because they’re all corporate-owned blah blah blah.

So yeah. There’s our shitty news, a far cry from the smoking-on-tv Edward R. Murrow-y days, and then there are the international news agencies. Maybe you can help me out here: I typically prefer the BBC coverage of the Americas because it’s more neutral, straight reporting. Is that only true because we’re not the UK? What I mean is are they only “good” at covering us relatively without bias because we’re not their primary concern, or are they just better at delivering more objective news?

Kev, I’m not sure how to answer your question, seeing as you answered it immediately after asking it…

Well, I think “the media” is a very broad term that covers several types of media — news media, tv media, print media, entertainment media, you hear all sorts of prefixes to the word and they’re all valid and they all interact to some degree in one way or another.

To compare The Soup to The Daily Show is a bit disingenuous because while both lampoon things on TV, The Soup isn’t making any inherent points, whereas the Daily Show typically is, albeit through spoofery (and it’s almost always “this is ridiculous”). Spoofs and parody have a long history in American politics and news media. The Daily Show is just the latest iteration.

Furthermore, most of The Daily Show’s interviews wouldn’t be out of place on 60 Minutes or Meet the Press. Sure, they get the occasional actor or fiction writer, but mostly they’re people involved in the political process or authors writing about something in current events.

So yeah, absolutely. They’re all media. But The Daily Show, in particular, is the media-est.

O.K. yeah, I can buy that on the non fiction spectrum that spans the other shows I mentioned, all the way to 60 minutes or NPR or whatever the most serious news outlet is, that the Daily show is closer to those than the other shows I threw out there. But it’s also not fully in that camp enough that condemning the news media requires that I also either condemn the Daily Show or that my blanket condemnation of “the news media” is somehow hypocritical.

Sorry, Sam. I don’t usually comment on people who agree with me because what else is there to be said beyond “They are right.”

Anyway…….What Sammy said. Right on.

John said:

Yeah, Sam, you suffer from being overly right and leaving nothing unsaid. You should do what me and Christina do and occasionally slip in something stupid and inflammatory now and then.

Hey, I’m stupid and inflamed too! Don’t leave me out.

I think that they are indeed better at it. On one hand I want to be snarky and say “Oh well of course they’re not American so they’re good at it.” but my understanding is that they have just as much rag journalism over there as well. I think the main difference is more how much legitimacy certain segments of the population give our rag journalism.

Just my guess, although I’d be curious to hear the several Scrabbled Brits or ex Brits to chime in.

Which is to say that even if they made it out of used toilet paper, it’d be a waste of used toilet paper.