Talk:The ½ Hour News Hour/Archive 1

Metacritic

Should the metacritic link be on the page? I mean, there's only 10 votes.. hardly a large enough group to be considered a real poll.

--cs302b

Metacritic isn't a "vote", it's an average of scores given by professional reviewers. Redxiv 10:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Webpage

Does anyone know why the show doesn't have a webpage yet?

Because no one really expects it to last that long. It just aired and it was soo unfunny and awful. --Cory Kohn 04:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're the one who's unfunny and awful? I just finished watching it, personally, I haven't laughed so much since... ever. I also had predicted the second I saw the commercial that the people it (the commercial) warned about would be wailing about it within seconds of it hitting the air. Let's pose this question: "Why did you not think it was funny?" (hint: it's got nothing to do with the quality of the show) Fiddlesoup 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked the show. It shows how it really does "take all kinds". But I honestly think you're in the minority. The BO joke didn't seem at all Alfred_E._Newman to you?Yeago 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that FoxNews has only ordered two of the episodes to be recorded and the reviews so far being abysmal, do you actually see this show being popular at all? Marokai 04:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody wanted this show to succeed more than me, and it's terrible. Factually bad. Kestrel 06:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's very strong of you to say.Yeago 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What of the Coulter "Bomb them all and convert them to christianity".. was that a joke? I mean, it seemed like self mocking "I once said that we should bomb them, you know, kill 'em.. mock their religion.. funny I said that, huh?" And the children's book section.. man, that went on for about 2 minutes too long.

cs302b

Well, this is Fiddlesoup, I just thought I'd check back, the article's as biased as ever. Glad to see Yeago found the time to throw in a baseless personal insult in his response to me. The answer to my question is that some people will invariably dislike certain things. Any time I hear a Democratic politician ramble on about something (in the presence of other Democrats, they don't seem so bad when they're alone and being interviewed on the news), or whenever I get into an arguement with an extreme liberal the things they say piss me off so much that it sometimes takes me hours to calm down. I tend to not show it, because screaming at someone telling them they're an imbecile is pointless. But, you know what? Not everything the Republicans do makes sense to me either, between no child left behind, mismanagement of the war, and inability to take a good, solid stance on immigration... I just think that, in general, their the lesser of two evils. As far as Coulter comment... Where on earth did that come from? Do you mean when she said "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." On Semptember 12, 2001? (the day after 9/11). Did I mention, that apparently she lost a good friend in those attacks? (source: one of her books; before you comment on that, I read many varied materials, I also read National Geographic, which can hardly be accused of having a conservative bias). People have strange ways of dealing with grief. Hey, Cindy Sheehan responded to her son's death by trampling on his grave (metaphorically speaking), basically attacking everything he stood for. Now, granted, Coulter has said she still believes that. I'd say that's 50% true and 50% her enjoying how much it annoys the "liberals" whom she so dearly loves to torment. As far as it goes with her, I'll have to quote my father "She's very logical. She's just not very rational." (the difference, in his meaning is that she tends to think things through and provide researched factual backup for what she says, but her decisions wouldn't make very good policy; btw, 'fact' here is 'something that can be proved true or false', not 'true'.) Now, I don't think that the show was perfect, I didn't really think the Lion Witch and wardrobe part was all that great, but it was one of the best shows I've seen in a while. 'In my opinion' the fact that it was so popular (high ratings) and yet you have few if any good reviews on the page speaks volumes about this site. 66.69.86.245 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to spend some of your energy digging up some reviews from more perspectives, we'd be glad to incorporate them into the article. Many of the current reviews are from the pilot, so there's definitely room for improvement. At the same time, please don't be disappointed that this article doesn't present your particular point of view as its tone. Your talking points are more or less those of one end of the spectrum: conservativism. The only thing missing was bringing up Bill Clinton for this, that, or the other. But there really are more vantage points than that.

As for everything else, this isn't really a political discussion forum. I don't think there's any concensus here about topics like Coulter (I honestly don't have much of an opinion about her). You seem to suggest that Wikipedia is a hive of liberalism but I really don't see that.Yeago 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It does have it's own website now: http://www.foxnews.com/halfhournewshour/index.html 66.68.208.245 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (JazzFrog66 not logged in)

Criticism

Yeago, regarding that criticism on being origional research.. do I need to go poll people on the street? or does every other post in this message board thread count?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=408348

Or how about common sense.. Spoof news show that is admittidly partisan on a cable news channel.

Yeah. I hear you about common sense. However, Wikipedia has been going through a witchhunt this past year over 'original research'. Basically, you're not allowed to just say ducks have bills. You need to cite a reputable source that says that ducks have bills.

Message board posts really don't work for this sort of thing. What you're looking for is a critical review from a popular, unbiased source. Could be a newspaper, could be a criticism magazine, could be a notable website. I can guarantee you that what you've put into the article will not last very long until you've done this sort of thing. Its a pain in the ass, but its the way things are.Yeago 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Update. As I was writing the above, someone removed your input due to no citation of sources. Toldja. =) If you have any further questions, please ask!Yeago 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, ok. I don't know too much on wiki new policy crap. Figured some common sense on that one wasn't too far out of line.

cs302b

About this original research. I've added some changes concerning Rush Limbaugh's link to the show, I don't know how i can give a reference link for something he said on his show, or the skits at the begining. I've left them without references and I'll leave it up to the more experience wikipedia editors weather or not to add references or remove the edits. Thanks. 4.179.45.9 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the edits (which unfortunately I don't know how to link to). The first revolved around what the opening skits for the first two episodes were parodying. We've only seen one pilot so far, and any relation to an FDR fireside chat was thin at best unless supported by an inside source. The other edit regarding the ratings of the second week of the pilot would be very notable, but we'd need a source. If can get a source (hint hint, person who knows how to use mediabistro) we would use just the rating and its rank, not the fact that Rush Limbaugh said it on his radio show). Mykll42 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found a link on mediabistro but it was a post and I'm not sure if the ratings are accurate. According to the link it WAS the highest rated show on cable that night... going up against the Oscars. I'll put this in the reception section with this link. [1] Mykll42 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to "The Onion," that is actually a post from a blog (called "The Hater") on "A.V. Club," which is a spinoff of "The Onion." Is this really a notable review? Eseymour 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hater is written by the staff of the AV Club. I would consider it notable, but it's not a review of the show, it's a review of the Youtube clip. I'm removing it. Mykll42 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeago

User 'Yeago's editing of this site appears to lean heavily in the vandalism / POV area (the show IS atrociously unfunny so far, but this guy's clearly a partisan hack) could someone with experience in 'bots' and whatnot possibly sanction the guy from further editing (check the history for proof). Thank'ya kindly.

I've actually removed and blunted a lot of the very biting and obviously rhetorical statements against the show/conservatives. You really ought to explore my edits a bit more. I never injected the 'atrociously unfunny' phrase, and I even added the Washington Post quote which is very positive toward the show. Yeago 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrifically Unfunny?

I think that putting "Terrificallt unfunny Show" is abit harsh, seeing as the show hasn't aired yet.

Now that it has indeed "aired", even blatant conservatives (e.g. "The Young Turks") are sorely disappointed with the finished product... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJr0l3dr2Fc (yes, I know the 'Turks are blatant "liberals"; I was trying to be funny ... but seriously, their criticisms are just as valid as those expressed by others such as in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwCR4EyajBQ

Just thought I'd put it out there -- the idea was lame, but *sigh* so appears the execution of same. 68.149.190.31 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast/Crew

IMDB lists Brian Unger as a member of the cast, but I didn't include him because Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet notes that IMDB is probably not a reliable source in this case. Everyone else currently listed seemed to be verified by more reliable sources though. --Interiot 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Commercial

Could someone figure out the correct way that the paragraph on the commercial for the show should be formatted along with the link to the commercial listed in external links? It should be in references, no?

The Name

Has anyone noticed that the name of this show is a rip-off of that show "1/2 Hour Comedy Hour", which I think was on Comedy Central?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.224.13 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 February 2007

was on MTV way back when.

"The 1/2 Hour Comedy Hour"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.14.76 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 February 2007

Plus the name rips off the same idea as "This Hour Has 22 Minutes"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.120.98 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 16 February 2007

We definitely need to make a reference to the half hour comedy hour.

-Cs302b

That makes sense considering Jennifer Robertson at IMDb was in This Hour Has 22 Minutes at IMDb—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.14.76 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 February 2007

You were expecting something more ...original?Yeago 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

R'iiiiiiiiii'ght. So I'm supposed to believe that when FOXnews does a parody show obviously making fun of these various things, there "ripping so and so off", but when Al Franken rips off their slogan [Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them|"Fair and Balanced"] it's just 'satire'? Have fun with that double standard guys. Fiddlesoup 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To be truthful, I really hate both "sides" -- Both are full of idiots. A 2-party system is pretty corrupt. -me

Well, Fiddle, you do recognize that there is a difference, don't you? Franken was satirizing Fox News, which he thought was taking itself a mite too seriously—and perhaps making exaggerated claims on its own behalf. In contrast, if THHNH is attempting satire with its name, it's—what?—making fun of a show that's already making fun of itself? That doesn't make satirical sense.

It's like, if Franken labeled himself as having "talent on load from God." That would be a ripoff, since clearly Rush is using self-effacing humor with that line—using it satirically would just show that the right honorable Senatorial candidate from Minnesota didn't get the joke. Franken wouldn't use that, because (he feels) he's good enough, he's smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like him.--HughGRex 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, once again, just checking in. Obviously, I tend to lean to the right. But to clarify, I don't ignore problems on the right while attacking them on the left. I see many problems with the Republicans, and with many famous conservative personalities. Examples, Bush's "No Child Left Behind" doesn't make sense to me with firsthand experience working with disabled children at my high school; Ann Coulter often loses credibility imo when she resorts to those personal attacks (when I've taken the time to wade through them for factual statement, I find that, in my opinion, she makes some good points). If you want my opinion, Al Franken is a propagandist. If I were to resort to namecalling, "moron" "imbecile" and "fool" come to mind. However, my problem with him is he tells outright lies which he portrays as truth in order to defame people he disagrees with, and whenever someone calls him on it, he insults them and hides behind his "satire" shield. THAT, would irritate me no matter which side the person in question was on. For instance, his rant about Coulter's use of endnotes... He says that no one reads the endnotes, and so using endnotes, but not specifically stating the content of the note in the text, is deceptive. Well, first off, I read the endnotes, if I'm interested in what that note is about. Second, footnotes are impracticle for a book with 780 endnotes. I did some rough math on it, and I think, that if Coulter had used footnotes, many, if not all of the pages would be half text, half foot notes. While I'm on the subject of footnotes, calling an endnote a "footnote" isn't a 'lie', it's a 'mistake'. Honestly, while I think that Franken is absolutely unreasonable, I don't know if he ever makes any good points, because I don't have the time (or the patience) to wade through filth I don't agree with to discern good information. I also don't that Coulter is very reasonable (^ "logical, not rational"), but since I have a higher level of agreement with her general beliefs, I do have the time to wade through her filth because she's only levelling pointless insults against people I didn't particularly like to begin with. *While I'm thinking about it, a P.S. to something I said in a post higher up on the page, I often get into friendly debates with moderately liberal persons (in this case, those who do not foam at the mouth when talking about the war, bush, etc., but are still liberal, i.e. don't like Republicans, pro-abortion, anti-war, etc. though not always all at once), and those debates I enjoy. Fiddlesoup, btw. Oh, and to answer your not-quite-a-question, no, I don't really see a difference. But that's an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiddlesoup (talk • contribs)

A rip off relies on the audience having no knowledge of the original work. Satire works only when the audience does have knowledge of the original work.

Examples:

• • Someone reading Al Franken's book who had never seen Fox News or heard their slogan "Fair and Balanced" would not get the gag in his title. Someone who had knowledge of the first is more likely to get the reference and think the second is funny.
  • Someone who had never heard of "The Half Hour Comedy Hour" is more likely to find the title "The Half Hour News Hour" funny than someone with knowledge of the original. Someone who had seen the first is likely to think of the second as a rip off. -Armaced 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's patently absurd that you'd accuse something which is so obviously and blatantly a satirical or comedic parallel of being a "ripoff." Normally, when you rip something off, you don't re-use four of the five words of the title and furthermore reuse them in the exact same order; you come up with a similar but different enough sounding name that it's not obvious. Essentially, you're attempting to call the writers of the show and its entire audience so stupid that they can't see this "obvious rip off" for what it is, when in reality they do see it for what it is: a joke. You are the one who, and correct me if I'm wrong, are so keen to cast as many disparaging remarks onto this show as possible that you're willing to believe the incredibly far-fetched premise that the writers of THHNH somehow paralleled all of these other show names either without realizing it or in a deliberate attempt to cash in on the fame of these other shows despite the fact that most of these other shows' viewerships would probably find THHNH to be offensive the same way a conservative might find the Daily Show offensive. It's absurd, it's original research, it's irrelevant, and it shouldn't be in the article (and I'm glad it's not). --Pellucid 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow your statement, and I think you might be confusing me with someone else. I was simply pointing out that the name (just the name) of THHNH is a rip off of THHCH. The content of the show may very well be satirical, and any reference to The Daily Show is almost certainly satirical, but the name sounds like a rip-off to me in that it has nothing to do with "The Half Hour Comedy Hour". The joke in the name is kind of funny if you have never heard about the first show. If this show was making fun of "The Half Hour Comedy Hour" somehow, (the way Al Franken is making fun of Fox News by using their slogan) then the title might have been satirical. The comment you are responding to is my first edit on this page, so I am pretty sure you have me confused with someone else. -Armaced 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, pellucid. A bastion of civility. Turtlescrubber 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Longevity

Going to start a section about how long this unfunny turd of a show will last.

Not exactly NPOV there, is it?--Slapout 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone be sure to remove any edits to this article begun by the gutless-wonder up there... they're liable to be un-wikipedian, don't ya think?...

Holy shit, take a joke. LOL. ....exactly why this show is doomed to fail, conservatives have no sense of humor.

...no sense of humor? Find a libby who can carry a four-hour talk radio program and then we'll talk, eh?

So, you're saying that "Going to start a section about how long this unfunny turd of a show will last." is a joke? --205.174.143.2 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, did he intend to claim that not finding that "joke" funny is indicative of a lack of sense of humor? Pellucid 10:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good place to debate whether neutrality means being factual or just pandering to both sides, no matter how absurd. 24.186.215.182 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I loved the show. To be honest, in a case like this, it'd probably be best to just describe the show without inserting idiotic, not to mention childish, comments like "unfunny turd" (I haven't heard anyone say that since... like the 5th grade) The answer to my 'question' posed up there is "because you're not the target audience" (i.e. your political association causes you to dislike and lash out at anything like this; Note: Aimed at the people who seem to have denounced it as "unfunny" and predict it will have a short life, before it even aired.) Fiddlesoup 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the show actually isn't funny. I *am* a liberal, and i did laugh one or two times, but other times, i found the laugh of the audience to be manufactured and found the jokes forced, bordering on attacks instead of humor. In all fairness i don't see this show lasting. Marokai 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For FWIW, I'd caution the Daily Show fans and anti-Fox liberals not to celebrate this show's demise prematurely. A poorly performing pilot does not, in itself, doom the series. The pilot for Babylon 5, for e.g., flopped with critics and fans. Nonetheless, the series persisted, with critical acclaim, commercial success, and awards.

That said, however, THHNH's stated purpose effectively has it operating under a handicap. Think of it: does it really make sense to do political satire in America and not to focus on the president? That's akin to running a sports show which studiously avoids the Super Bowl and the World Series. Not only are they eschewing some of their most promising material; they'll also be leaving their customers wondering "WTF" when the show ignores a major presidential gaffe. I suppose it can be done, but…I'll believe it when I see it.--HughGRex 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Problems Already

"The clip, ostensibly from the show's premiere, appeared to be filmed before a studio audience, but relied heavily on a laugh track."

So what? Most TV shows rely on a laugh track. This is nothing more than a lame attempt by a leftist author to slam the show even before it's been aired. The Daily Show, before it had a studio audience, relied heavily on laughs by the crew. Does that minimize or prove The Daily Show is not funny? Ymous 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the quote more carefully. The author is suggesting that the show was filmed before a live studio audience, but that the audience was not laughing, so a laugh track had to be added. Whether or not that's actually the case is worthy of investigation. Most TV shows certainly do not rely on a laugh track, though Fox News' regular broadcast could certainly benefit from it. And the fact that someone was laughing on the set of The Daily Show even before there was an audience suggests something which cannot be applied to this abomination. Sofa King Tuesday, 2007-02-27 T 04:34 UTC

I agree completely. I am not a fan of FOX news, I am not a fan of George Bush or the Republican party, but the clip I saw was funny, and the tone of this article is in no way neutral. "...And a visual gag involving a parody of the Oprah Winfrey magazine O that was entitled "BO," which attempted levity by creating some kind of parallel between Obama's initials and a known American acronym for body odor." How is that neutral? That's an opinion not a fact. I found that gag very funny, personally.Chris murray86 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Most TV shows use a laughtrack Really? Maybe the brainless sitcoms you watch. Why don't you stop complaining about 'leftist slams' and go back to watching King of Queens? If you don't see it as notable (and unfortunate) that a comedy show resorted to a laugh track, there's very little we can talk about.

levity by creating some kind of parallel... I had some trouble decrpying what on earth they were going for, so I can sympathize with this line. Sure, 'some attempt at levity' is a bit cutting and NPOV.

I suspect the article will outgrow the overfocus on this promo so heavily. For now, its really all there is to talk about. Give it time. Yeago 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Friends? I've watched their special features, they explain their use of laughtrack (paraphrasing) 'sometimes the audience reaction is so big that it drowns out the dialogue, so, we cut it out an place in a laughtrack of the appropriate volume'. Even if you wanna call that show brainless, you can't really argue with the concept there: "Use of laugh track has very little to no relationship to the actual comedy of the show". Oh, by the way, the show is obviously aimed at people whose opinions lie on the right. So, we can probably assume that most of this childish criticism is "leftist slams", especially considering that based on the fact the comments were made before the show really ran, they seem to be attacking out of sheer hatred for any opinion that is not their own (I, personally, face this every day, liberals are a very vocal minority in my high school; minority I say, because on a political opinion test, out of a class of 30, only 3 tested in the "liberal" range, and 2 of those were "moderate liberals", very vocal, because they still somehow manage to flick off the president in simulcast; and that clas was a pretty good representation of what most of my classes are) Fiddlesoup 04:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're actually saying that they use the laughtrack because the audience laughs *too much*? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that? I just watched it and at times it was so easy to tell the laughter was manufactured or barely even there Marokai 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a convenient anecdote neccessary to reinforce his slant. The same as his high school class. I It is neccessary to try to look outside of your particular pocket of life and think about how universal the things you take as facts truly are. Or maybe not. Maybe we can live a perfectly comfortable life taking random anecdotes as the Big Picture.Yeago 07:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI - There was a studio audience during taping of the show [2]. I wasn't in the room with them, so I'm not sure if they were laughing or not. And yes, even with a studio audience, there were obviously laugh tracks inserted. --Fightingirish 15:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, at this point, I'm rather disapointed with this place, in general. At any rate, my point was not to reinforce any particular slant, but rather to point out that his insinuation that only 'brainless' shows use laughtracks was incorrect. I did not say that this applied to this show, but only that having a laugh track does not equate to not being funny, which is kindof a silly statement to make (for the reasons stated, since the show I mentioned could hardly be considered "unpopular"). My point was about the arguement, not the show. As for the other points about my class, considering where I live, liberals are in that case, a minority, which screams at a teacher for saying "God bless you" (the teacher later obligingly removed all such references from any of his day-to-day speech, yet the students still called him a "bigot" and other such insults behind his back). My point was, that in my general experience, the people who call themselves "liberal" have shown no restraint in attacking someone for daring to have religious beliefs (and in case you try to say it, no one was ever forced to do anything, he just said "God bless you"). Fiddlesoup 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion. I suppose that was a rather strong thing for me to say, but I suppose I'm inclined to think a laugh track is typically reserved for sitcom, where things are very rarely wildly funny (then again, that's just my experience/opinion).

As for your outspoken liberals, I'm definitely not going to defend some hateful screed on their part. But if you bring that up as though to say there is not just as much irrationality and open disgust on the other side, I must disagree. There are nuts everywhere, man. Extending the situation in your high school to society at large is just not reasonable--the overzealous nut at your school does not represent 50% of America.

To counter your observation: In my experience, people who call themselves "conservative" show no restraint in attacking someone, while also preaching their strong religious beliefs.Yeago 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that most TV comedies use a laugh track, but: 1) there's been a trend away from canned laughter, with shows like The Simpsons, Scrubs, The Office, and several others surviving quite well without it; and 2) perhaps more to the point, The Daily Show, which THHNH is competing with, eschews the canned laughter. So it is probably notable (certainly, several commentators and reviewers have mentioned it) for that reason.--HughGRex 11:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Very few cartoon shows have laugh tracks. Please remember that certain forms of comedy almost necessitate a laugh track because those forms of comedy don't expect loud laughs or expect the laughter to be drowning in volume. Take the television series Red Dwarf, for example. Despite being a very funny show, it was produced with a laugh track because much of the humor was surreal or bizarre and could not evoke appropriate laughter from an audience (the flow of the humor was such that they would laugh too much, too long, and too loudly or take amusement but not laugh at all). Humans are group thinkers as much as we like to deny it, and we like to have audio cues to laugh to make sure we won't be laughing alone. This is why, for example, most people laugh louder when others laugh with them. They later produced some "extended cuts" of Red Dwarf episodes without the laugh tracks, and I found the lack of them bizarre; it put me off and I laughed less. Now, I'm not saying that THHNH was hilarious (I thought it was pretty bad), but specifically noting that it used a laugh track is unnecessary unless we want to do so on every article for every other show that used one. Pellucid 10:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Irony?

Does anyone else think it's strange that this is a "Daily Show for conservatives?" I mean, that implies the Daily Show is "for liberals," but the Daily Show is only like 60/40 making fun of conservatives (which makes sense, since the President is a Republican), and it makes fun of liberals much better than this slop. Is there a NPOV way of making that observation? Also, does FOX News still claim not to be openly conservative, considering it's airing this "comedy" show obviously designed more to be partisan than to be funny (unless, that is, it was written by and for 12 year olds)? I ask merely for information/advice, since I'm pretty sure those aren't encyclopedic observations and I can't think of a way to reasonably add them to the article proper. Mycroft7 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Its the contention of Fox News and the show's creator that the Daily Show represents and caters to the left. I certainly disagree, but this is simply their heartful assumption. This show was born as a response to this (mistaken, IMHO) assumption. Therefore its notable. The sentiment of your response, however, definitely deserves attention in the article, and its not hard to find an example of the Daily Show coming down on John Kerry, the ineffectiveness of the Democratic party, or praising McCain.Yeago 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Finding and using such an example could border on Original Research. Better would be to find a noted critic or analyst who made that point, and to quote or paraphrase them. Such an approach conforms to NPOV as long as the quote is representative of a POV which has some cred (i.e., if it's not just some crank on a 2 AM TV show). Such a quote does show up in the three reviews already linked from this article. For instance, The Boston Globe:

All in all, "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" makes you appreciate what Jon Stewart and his writers are able to do, day after day. And it also makes you understand a crucial difference between the two fake newscasts. Whether or not you think liberal bias bleeds into "The Daily Show," Stewart's target isn't conservatives, per se. It's the pompousness of traditional news shows, the hypocrisy of government officials, the absurdity of the Washington political dance. For all of his famed snarkiness, Stewart isn't a know-it-all, sneering from on high. He's a stand-in for the viewer, throwing up his hands.

or the Post:

Despite constant, unrelenting protestations that "the media" are controlled by liberals, conservatism has hardly been absent from recent popular humor. For years, a major contributor to "Update," and the author of "SNL's" "cold open" sketch, was a conservative Republican, James Downey. The outrageous puppet movie "Team America" used many Hollywood liberals as literal targets, blowing them to proverbial kingdom come.

or Slate:

It happens that such folks would have done better to tune in to the recent episode of The Daily Show that found Jon Stewart goofing on the campaign songs of various Democratic candidates. The fact-based setup found John Edwards bounding across a blue-draped dais to "Our Country," John Mellencamp's populist jingle/Chevy anthem. The Daily Show then presented us with Obama at the same event, rescoring things so that he walked to the podium to the chorus of "Jesus Christ Superstar"—a more incisive joke on Obama-mania and political theater than the News Hour's whole bit. For a kicker, they juxtaposed footage of Hillary with some vixenly bars from Kelis: "My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard … .

An ambitious editor might be able to use one or more of the above quotes to make the point that you're describing.--HughGRex 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was careful to say 'the sentiment' should be included. =). Not the outright text. Thanks for digging these up!Yeago 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reception changes

I just did an overhaul of the reception section.[3] I added several new references, and reorganized the ones that were already there.

I have no doubt that someone will note that all the links I added were highly critical of the show. Well... that's because the show has pretty much bombed. I'd love to see the "not everyone thought it was shit" line get a few more sources on it, but my search (using Google News) turned up largely negative reviews. So be it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have any information on the ratings? --Slapout 22:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1.5 million people, which is higher than anyone expected, apparently, just under Daily Show and a little above Colbert. This article also has Rush's response to critics, which more or less amount to "we had to do this a month back, so we couldn't do anything as topical as we'd have liked". I'm not a fan of Rush or this show, but the guy's got a point. The show might do better if it's picked up. 76.186.133.90 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Forgot the link! [4] --76.186.133.90 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Comparisons

What does Stephen Colbert have to do with this show? Colbert is a liberal who makes fun of "conservative" opinion shows. This show is a fake news show with a conservative bent.--JML

   Stephen Colbert portrays a consevative, I thought. I did not think he made fun of conservatives, only religion.

Arodfan 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he portrays a conservative in a satirical manner.--JML

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE NPOV ????!!!

"Reception to The 1/2 Hour News Hour by most publications has expectedly been largely, negative by the large majority of media critics that generally praise anti-conservative comedy. The following are examples of the predictable negative response from the left leaning media, with one or two cherry picked critiques from conservative sources:". THIS is NPOV ? COME ON! Stone cairn 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The material you're complaining about was added very recently by an anonymous editor; repaired, the article is very even-handed. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree -- perhaps I did bare a little too much tooth earlier. Stone cairn 05:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd Episode

I edited when the second episode is to be aired to March 4th. Tonight was intended to be a reairing of the 1st episode.Mykll42 06:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Critical response: currently a weak section

This just aired last night on Fox News's UK stream and it was pretty terrible. It's hard to do successful satire when the president and the last 12 years of Congress are both off limits. Over here, we tend to satirise whoever's in political office a little more, and it works better.

It looked to me like they put right-wing totems Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in the first sketch only so that Fox viewers could know whether to agree with its excruciatingly obvious political slant. (I believe this tactic is known as "closed captioning for the hard of thinking".) Worth seeing whether they bother doing a second edition, but this being Fox, they'll insist that it's "first and fair" despite all evidence to the contrary.

Don't start speculating about what you don't know. Rush Limbaugh always mentions on his show how he is friends with the 24 writers. The 24 writers are the creators of the 1/2 Hour News Hour. Now why do you think Rush was in the first sketch? -JML

All barbs aside, I think this article would benefit from a more focused look at the critical response. At the moment, it seems a bit plus/minus throughout. Could we agree that there ought to be a separation in this respect? Positive reviews could all go in one section subheading, whilst negative reviews could go in another.

Is that a fair suggestion? Stevecov 12:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I had made such a division a few days ago but the revert tornado destroyed it.Yeago 14:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, be careful. A lot of the reviews are just reviews of the 2 minute clips leaked onto Youtube. There are comparatively few reviews of the show as a whole. I would welcome any reviews from established television reviewers. I see that Bob Ceska's review was removed, presumably because he's a blogger. I guess that means we'll be looking at old media reviews of the show. I haven't seen many mainstream reviews that have gone above a tepid response. Mykll42 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the slate quote because it referred to the Youtube clip only. Everything else there appears to be about the show's premiere episode.Mykll42 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the line about the reception generally being negative. That could be considered POV and original research. Mykll42 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are bulleting nine negative reviews necessary? There are plenty of critics out there -- can we filter for the most illustrative reviews? Rephrased, I knew the ninth review would say after I read the third one. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 14:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Videos and links

A WP:Admin wants to remove the links to the videos. Where was the original video 'leaked'? If anyone could dig that up, that'd be great.Yeago 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It was leaked on to Youtube to generate buzz. Just keep the link to the Slate article and let their embedded video suffice if we're antsy about copyright. Mykll42 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Yeago - the parody of the show is not relevant to the show and is a youtube link. That is being removed in good faith. Please don't restore it. Mykll42 23:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Libertas/Liberty Film Festival/Ratings

I'm not really good at editing pages yet, so I thought I'd posts these links here for you guys to look into. The show was first premiered at Liberty Film Festival, where it was first seen by Fox who later picked it up. Liberty Film Festival has a blog called Libertas that takes a conservative look at film. They exclusively previewed and reviewed both of the two pilots before they aired and I believe their opinion should be articulated on this page; they had a very postive reaction to the show. Including their review will help bring a more balanced POV to this page; especially in light of the leftist slant this page already takes. Also, the second link shows the Nielsen ratings from the first episode and and shows that it beat Colbert and fell just short of beating Stewart. This is relevant information for this page. Thanks.Jordancda 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[5] [6]

The rating itself is relevant, but I would say that comparing it to a show on a different timeslot on a different day is relevant. I'll check out the reviews. Also, if you have a problem with the POV, which we've been very careful about (removing reviews from blogs or about the clips instead of the show), please, at least don't call it leftist. That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Mykll42 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That's a conservative blog. We removed links to blog reviews because they are not a reputable source for reviews (I disagree about that, personally, but not my call). Blogs are also not a reputable source for cable ratings. The site you gave linked to another site www.seraphicpress.com which linked to a San Francisco chronicle article which was published before the show aired. The SF Chronicle, a reliable source, did not provide the ratings information. I don't know where the ratings information came from. Can't print it without a source. Mykll42 03:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are better and unopinionated links to the viewer numbers (first run and rerun). [7][8]. On the page they just call the show "Half". Gdo01 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good link for the total viewership. I moved this section to the bottom where new content is supposed to go so people can find it. Mykll42 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mykll42 - thanks for looking into the links I posted. Like I said, I didn't want to just start editing when I don't really know the rules. Thanks Gdo01 for researching the ratings and getting a source for that.Jordancda 23:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(Lack of) NPOV

I'm a liberal (if that matters). I know I should be happy that this article has an anti-conservative bias, but you know what? It's just plain unfair. There has had to have been someone in the media that gave the show a positive review. As it stands the article's implied consensus is, "The 1/2 Hour News Hour is The Daily Show for conservatives and it sux." I have a sincere doubt that NO ONE who watched the show liked it. Take a page from the networks, folks, look for more sources so you can be Fair and Balanced. Indiawilliams 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post, a paper not known for its conservative bias, gave the show a decent review and we have it linked. We also include the positive ratings figures (without noting that it was being counterprogrammed against the Oscars (which is why no one was watching cable). The truth is, there are far more negative reviews in the MSM than there are positive reviews and to keep them balanced for balances sake would end up being unbalancing, if you follow me. Some may argue that this is the result of the MSM having a liberal bias, though I would say it has to do with having a pro-funny bias. But, for balance's sake, I will link to the Miami Herald article which is the only other MSM review which wasn't really bad. OK... the metacritic link is broken and I can't find it in the archives. Metacritic said the reviewer gave it a six if any one else can find it. If we could include blogs, there would be more positive reviews, but there would also be more negatives. Maybe you could help us find some? Mykll42 02:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By this logic, the factual statement "Mussolini's Italy did more to protect the Jews than France ever did" would also be ignored in favor of the widely-reported but provably incorrect opposite perspective. Yes, reviews are largely negative, but that doesn't make those negative reviews any more relevant than the positive ones. Furthermore, I see a lot of liberal editors essentially saying "conservative news citations don't count. Only liberal and moderate news citations do." I'm not saying we should even out the reviews completely, but there are surely a lot more positive or neutral reviews for this show than are being represented here. Pellucid 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are "surely a lot more positive or neutral reviews for this show than are being represented here," then you should be able to find them easily. Use Mr. Google, see what you can find, and come back with the citations! That would be far better than simply asserting your widely held belief that there must be a bunch of positive reviews. Wikipedia is not the place for faith-based editing.--HughGRex 10:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not have noticed, but I didn't edit anything in that section. Ergo, I have not engaged in any faith-based editing. Pellucid 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cancellation

Please don't put anything up about cancellation without a source. The show's fate is apparently still up in the air (I can't find anything) but if it doesn't go on, it would not be a cancellation. These two episodes were just pilots. The temptation to make a joke about the show being cancelled 3/4 of the way through the second episode is strong, but inappropriate. Seriously, why was it only 22 minutes long (minus commercials)? Mykll42 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Picked Up

Mediabistro[9] just reported that FOX has picked up the show for 13 episodes; it will remain in its current time slot. Anyone have a corroborating source? 198.187.233.40 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perceived Liberal Bias of TDS / Colbert

I put in the line about the "perceived liberal bias of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report." The word "perceived" is consistently taken out or replaced with "overwhelming" or "obvious" and it's starting to get a little irritating. Joel Surnow perceives a liberal bias in those shows, which is why he created the 1/2HNH which is why it is relevant at all. Whether or not there actually is one is POV and Original Research. If you see that change made, please refer to this talk section. Mykll42 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Folks - "perceived" is value neutral, it means something someone sees. "Supposed" is not, it casts doubt. "Obvious" is not, as it states an opinion as fact. Surnow saw a bias in the comedy shows and produced a show in response. It's cited. If you use a value loaded word it becomes NPOV AND original research.Mykll42 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Widely alleged" is not POV; a large number of people have alleged that there is a liberal bias in the media. "Perceived" is actually more POV because it implies that there actually is no bias and that it is simply something that some people perceive. Furthermore, saying "perceived liberal bias in the media" is like saying "perceived cruelty of the Holocaust." Yeah, it's technically POV...the same way that saying "the ocean is blue" is POV (well actually I think it's a bit green! And technically it's actually clear!). I thought that my edit was more than fair in that it highlighted that it's only an allegation and not a provable fact, but that it is a widely-held belief and not the "perception" of just one guy. Pellucid 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Widely perceived" among whom? If you can cite a poll which shows that a large percentage of the population views the two shows as having a liberal bias, then go for it. Until you can provide us with such a citation, I think "widely perceived" is POV. "Perceived" is not POV. There's no connotation of incorrectness with the word. I'm sorry, but your attempt at a compromise doesn't work for me. In IMHO, "perceived liberal bias" is perfectly NPoV and needs no compromise.--HughGRex 11:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus you neglected to mention the other part of the discussion. The only thing that makes it relevant at all is that Surnow perceived it. Not you or anyone else. He perceived it so he made the show. Changing it to "his perceived liberal bias" would be relevant but THAT would be POV. Mykll42 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true. It's relevant that a large percentage of people perceived it because it would not have been produced without an audience to cater to. Many people were calling for a conservative Daily Show before it was even in production. There are many polls that indicate that people believe that the media has a liberal bias: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29906) It would be awfully hard to find a poll specifically about the bias of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report because anyone who doesn't think those shows have a liberal bias is necessarily blind, deaf, and dumb. It's simply a fact akin to the fact that there is gravity or the fact that the sun is very hot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pellucid (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 March 2007

That is a WONDERFUL exmple. If it's crazy hot outside and I need to find some shade it's not because the sun is hot. It's because I perceive the sun is hot. The sun is always hot, even when it's cold outside. Ya dig? Mykll42 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, as far as I can tell, you just absolutely destroyed your own argument. Come again? Pellucid 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, one can have a successful TV show with a small minority of the American public as fans. Assuming nobody watched it twice, the pilot was seen by less than 1% of the American population. Those are Lyndon Larouche numbers.

In any event, you haven't found a poll which supports your POV. From the fact that you cite World Net Daily, a right-wing "news" website, to your recitation of POV "facts," you've made it abundantly clear that, to paraphrase Willy the Shakes, "the bias is not in your stars, but in yourself."--HughGRex 10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So right-wing news doesn't count as news? Even if it cites a study that it did not perform itself? Which one of us is the one who has the bias, again? Because it's not me. Pellucid 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WND isn't really a news website. It's an inflammatory website which cherry-picks news items and gives them headlines as red meat for its true believers. If you cited the Wall Street Journal, surely a conservative paper, I'd have no beef with it.--HughGRex 10:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But WND isn't the source of the poll. I used it as a source that CITES the poll. Furthermore, your incredible bias against WND doesn't make its stories any less true. Just because it specifically seeks out news that conservatives want to hear does NOT make the stories it writes any less factual or valid. If you can find some evidence that the article in question is misleading or untruthful, feel free to post that evidence as a counter-claim. Pellucid 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WND is notorious for imparting spin to news items. Since WND is only giving brief excerpts from the Rasmussen poll, it's a secondary source of dubious trustworthiness.--HughGRex 10:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream media is also notorious for imparting spin to its news items. Pellucid 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In the context of this article, it doesn't matter whether or not TDS has a liberal slant. What matters is Surnow's perception of it. He says it quite clearly in every interview and press release about the show, why he created it. If you would like to add that TDS has been accused of a liberal slant, and can back it up with a reliable source, feel free to do so on The Daily Show's page. As for the metaphor, it works like this. People don't say, "The sun is hot, I'm going to get a drink." They say, "I feel hot, I'm going to get a drink." The sun's heat is not important, the perception of that heat is.Mykll42 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stick to the relevance argument rather than the perception argument. You have a much better case there. But honestly, not saying that THHNH was created as a direct response to widespread demand for a "conservative Daily Show" is like neglecting to mention that the League of Nations was created as a direct response to widespread demand for a multinational alliance that would help prevent another World War. Even if it didn't prevent another World War and even if TDS or the Colbert Report isn't liberal, it is the reason it was created. Pellucid 06:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that nobody's willing to put up a source of the "widespread demand". Simply saying it existed, while likely, is personal research IMO. -76.186.133.90 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to say it was widely demanded, I wanted to say that the very real liberal bias of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report is widely alleged. Pellucid 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So: show the basis for saying that it's "widely alleged." A poll which purports to show that "the media" has a liberal bias says nothing about TDS and Colbert.

I'm sure this is frustrating for you, operating against a bunch of people who just can't see the "obvious" liberal bias, but you simply haven't proven your case.--HughGRex 10:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I went to google and typed in "'liberal bias' proof." To me, the fact that the first 100 or so hits are all articles on major news networks allegedly "debunking" the liberal bias is proof that the media is liberal. Asking me to prove that the media has a liberal bias is like asking me to prove that the desert is dry. It's obvious to those of us who are capable of viewing it from an objective standpoint, but to people who have always lived there, it just feels normal. Pellucid 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a compelling argument. The beauty of it is, it also works in the opposite direction: if you'd found that the first 100 or so hits were all articles on major news networks allegedly "proving" the liberal bias, you'd be able to claim that that also proved your point! Heads you win, tails the rest of the world loses!

Not at all. If all of the links were supposedly proving liberal bias, I'd have to consider that the media was incredibly conservative. When the first 100 links are liberal links, doesn't that just feel a little biased to you overall? Pellucid 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Which Google were you using? When I searched on "'liberal bias' proof," the first hit was from Conservapedia! Several other hits from the first ten were conservative websites, such as the Liberal-Bias Message Board and the Media Research Center. I don't think you've proved anything here.--HughGRex 10:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Google.com. The Conservapedia link does not relate to the mainstream media, a message board is not the media, and neither is a "media research center." You can't really use non-mainstream media sources as evidence as to the bias or lack thereof of the mainstream media. Pellucid 10:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm having some difficulty replicating your research. At first, you only said "the first 100 hits," which was easily refuted. Now, you're saying that you examined only the first 100 mainstream media hits. Well, considering that only about 1 in ten hits from the above search comes from anything that might be regarded as the "mainstream media," you'd have to do a lot of clicking to get to 100 hits. Among the first hits that I found from such a search (ignoring blogs and other websites not associated with the mainstream media), one Fox News article appeared among the first half-dozen links, which would seem to refute your statement. (Among the Top Ten is also a National Review piece.)

When I did my Google search, I showed my work. Would you be so kind as to do the same? That is, if you found that the first 100 mainstream media hits were all debunking the Tale of the Liberal Media, would you please list them in the order in which they appeared during your Google search? Better still, could you please relate your data to the public perception of TDS and Colbert? Thank you so much.--HughGRex 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not speaking literally. Most of the first hundred are liberal, and almost all mainstream media sources in the first 100 are supposedly debunking liberal bias. Obviously not all of the first 100 are mainstream media or liberal, just the majority. Pellucid 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I see that you were not using the word, "proof," literally, either.--HughGRex 09:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not proof of bias of TDS and the Colbert Report, but a new poll was released by Zogby International that shows that you are in the vast minority in your belief that the media does not have a liberal bias. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pellucid (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 March 2007

Interesting poll. Ummm...when did I state my "belief that the media does not have a liberal bias?" I'm hoping that you'll begin engaging in fact-based discussion.--HughGRex 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the cool thing: I think you actually believe your logic. If you're capable of that manner of convolution, you are impressive indeed. Thank you so much for bringing us a window into your unique point of POV.--HughGRex 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it to a liberal to start throwing personal attacks around. Pellucid 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And thank you Hugh for bringing us a window into your unique internet-argument-warrior complex. You gain 10 clever-points for using Usenet humor. Unfortunately, the conversation loses 100 civil points. Beh, who needs them. Consensus is nice and all, but its just a word. Isn't that right? Insulting others isn't necessarily more fun than keeping legitimate discussion afloat, it just requires less effort.Yeago 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While I may disagree with Pellucid here, we're supposed to assume good faith. What any of us believes should be irrelevant. We should be focusing on what we can source. --76.186.133.90 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I apologize to Pellucid. My sarcasm was gratuitous.--HughGRex 10:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable source -- and, frankly, that stuns me -- you're not proving your case at all. Furthermore, insisting that you are objective while we are not is probably not the best approach. --76.186.133.90 15:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's moreso that I'm too lazy to find a reliable source. If I did, chances are you guys would just shout it down anyway, so it's a waste of my time. Pellucid 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pellucid, please. You'll note that I reminded someone else to assume good faith with regards to you. --76.186.133.90 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm just very used to dealing with unreasonable people and tend to assume that most people I have a disagreement with will be unreasonable about it. When I have the time, I'll look for a source, as I said below. Pellucid 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us try a different tactic. Let us grant you your assumption that a liberal bias did exist on TDS. Surnow saw it, I didn't. That's why Surnow produced the show and I did not. My entire point is that the word perceived lets us remain value neutral. "Perceived" does not indicate the presence or absence of bias, it works both ways. Oh, and that WND citation mentions nothing about TDS or Colbert. Right wing blogs are omitted for the same reason left wing blogs are omitted for reviews. I went through a dozen PAGES on google looking for positive reviews of the show. I found the washington post review and I found a reference to the milwaukee review which I guess was removed from their site. I consistently remove the header that the reviews were largely negative because I figure people can read from the source. Mykll42 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the proportion of negative to positive reviews. I just feel like "perceived" is a slightly loaded word, and that "alleged" is more neutral. Pellucid 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" indicates that there is no bias or that bias has not been proven. Mykll42 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, "perceived" still feels about as loaded as alleged. Both trivialize the position in one way or another. Pellucid 02:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How!? I perceive that my desk is messy. Guess what? It is messy! Mykll42 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that my particular connotation of that word is abnormal. At some point I'll try to find some evidence that the perception was widespread, but at this point I think that the use of the word is appropriate and that I picked up an abnormal connotation for it somewhere along the line. Pellucid 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem if we say that the creator is the one alleging liberal media bias? --76.186.133.90 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This has gone way beyond the discussion of the article, guys. I have made my case for "perceived" being value neutral as opposed to the pro-bias "obvious" and the anti-bias "alleged." I now remove myself from the bickering discussion. Mykll42 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say its a little late to exit this discussion without being petty. Better late than never. Good for you.Yeago 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Says the man who was so petty he had to leave me an insult in private message form. Give me a second while I roll my eyes. -- Pellucid 03:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it from "perceived liberal bias" to "liberal perspective." I agree that perceived is a value-neutral word, but it is weak wording. Like the great point made above, would Wikipedia use the phrase "perceived cruelty of the Holocaust?" Let's face it, the holocaust was evil, and Jon Stewart is a self-proclaimed liberal. Furthermore, the word bias does not belong. Bias is when opinion masquerades as news, but it is an inappropriate word for comedy. Comedy, unlike news, is allowed to have an opinion.KeithCu 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First, what is your source for a quote wherein Stewart proclaims himself to be a liberal?

Second, even if he is a self-proclaimed liberal, it does not follow that The Daily Show has a "liberal perspective." Sure, the show focuses on the George W. Bush administration, but that's what political satire does in the US—it focuses on the president. Stewart takes shots at Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Pelosi, et. al., as well as prominent Republicans. I'm changing it to "perceived liberal perspective," because you have not made your case; you've only stated your opinion.--HughGRex 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was about to look up quotes that demonstrated that Jon Stewart is a liberal, although anyone who watches that show should be able to discern it, but then I realized it wouldn't be sufficient. You think that because he criticizes liberals that is somehow evidence that he doesn't have a liberal perspective? I criticize conservatives, yet I am still a conservative and have a conservative perspective.KeithCu 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I searched for Jon Stewart liberal in google and found a number of relevant hits, like this one: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,1582009,00.html. Here is a quote: "He makes no secret of his liberal leanings." I found another quote from rolling stone making the same point: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors, "Though the shows clearly have a liberal bent, Stewart claims that they are emotional but apolitical." KeithCu 01:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if there is scant evidence of Stewart's personal position (AHEM, not his show's), you have generalized the issue to include god-knows-who, just as all conservative conspiracy theorists have attempted to do. You do better than most to attempt to soften the language from 'bias' to 'perspective' but simply because it has leanings doesn't mean it is the same beast of punditry which you (and this show) subscribes to.Yeago 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You call these quotes scant evidence? They speak directly to the issue at hand, and in no uncertain terms. I found two quotes without even looking hard. I'd find more if I thought it was relevant and necessary. Furthermore, it says "the show has a liberal bent" which directly refutes your statement that he is a liberal, but not his show. Furthermore, he IS the show, so your attempt at a distinction is irrelevant. You seem to not be making logical arguments, only personal attacks, which is childish. I find that saying "liberal perspective" not a harsh characterization of TDS so I don't know why you can't just let it be.KeithCu 03:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "liberal perspective" is clearly original research unless a proper citation is found. Turtlescrubber 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I stopped attempting to usefully communicate with pundits many years ago. Everything against their perspective is chalked up as 'illogical' and ever since Bill Cosby they can't walk away from an argument without framing the other side as 'childish'. You're predictable to the point that I can more or less paraphrase your responses for another 3 rounds. There is no use in saying it has a 'liberal perspective' because it is rarely friendly to the likes of John Kerry, Hillary, etc. They run a very centered show and the fact that you don't see really tells me all I need to know about you.Yeago 04:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would you remove a reference tag without discussion? Do you not understand the whole reference original research relationship? Turtlescrubber 12:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its unverifiable politically motivated conjecture. This is not even the forum for this debate, it needs to be moved to The Daily Show.Yeago 13:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is "unverifiable politically motivated conjecture". Why would you remove the tag and not the sentence itself? Take a look at my new change. Turtlescrubber 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Woops.Yeago 16:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have included two quotes just a few sentences above. Before you request the fact, then quickly remove the request, maybe you could weigh in on the evidence I have provided.KeithCu 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with "perceived liberal bias". It perfectly and verifiably sums up the situation.Yeago 16:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you could read my writing above, and respond to it, before you say that. For example, that the bias charge better applies to news than to comedy, and therefore not a good word, and that perceived is weak wording.KeithCu 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: this show is enough proof that the bias charge can apply to news or comedy. "Perceived is weak wording" AKA "perceived doesn't strongly convey my stunted viewpoint".Yeago 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Perceived liberal bias" still needs to be properly cited as it is also original research. Perceived by whom?Turtlescrubber 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous articles dedicated to the topic of media bias. Moreover, this article contains (or used to contain) a quote by the producer alleging the bias. This solution was obviously too simple and made too much sense to be allowed to live. Then every conservative on the internet wanted to change "perceived liberal bias" into "indefiatiably-true, undeniable, Limbaugh-said-so, Great Liberal Heist-Conspiracy propaganda". Regardless of whether there is bias or not, that bias is perceived is undeniable and well chronicled. Quit the word dance.Yeago 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not playing the "word dance". You must be thinking of someone else. This needs to be sourced. If sourcing won't stay in the article then maybe we should think about a version of the intro that doesn't contain "liberal bias". Just to reiterate, unsourced original research will not be allowed to stay in the article but this could be easily sourced or an alternative version could be introduced. Turtlescrubber 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeago thinks bias is perceived, but that it doesn't exist. Interesting. Yeago, it would be better for us all if you were to quite the constant and irrelevant personal attacks. It mostly just wastes our time, having to skim past it to get to the real points. I am happy to source that the perspective is liberal. Do my references above seem acceptable?KeithCu 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The bias exists depending on who you ask which is why perceived works fine. Some believe it does exist; others, not.Yeago 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Turtleman, I like your solution to just remove the phrase outright. There is really no reason this issue needs to be dealt here, its been a magnet for vandals and an utter waste of discussion (this talk page makes me want to puke). All of these people attempting to inject their biases into this article should take their issue up with The Daily Show, etc. It is not appropriate to attempt to settle the score of liberal media bias in this article. Or, at least be consistent and bring your heartfelt sentiments there as well.

As for a source, as I said the producer of the show said once had a perfectly fine quote where he gave his perception of liberal media bias. Unfortunately vandals on all sides have removed everything sane from this article. I requested that this article be protected from new users a week ago only to be turned down. This article desperately needs it if it is to maintain any coherence but the Wiki-elite didn't seem to think so, so here we are.Yeago 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IT DID WELL!!!

If you read about the reviews you can see the liberal bias in newspapers. If you read about you can also see it did well, and a lot of people watched it.

Which is what makes the "liberal media bias" argument so gosh darn useful. Whenever anyone says anything that conservatives disagree with, it's "liberal media bias." Whenever conservatives say anything liberals disagree with, it's "telling it like it is." Funny how that works. Mykll42 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what liberal media bias is about. I don't think this show was very good myself, but most of the reviews I've seen for it are grossly unfair. It's at least as funny as half of the incredibly crappy sitcoms currently on the air, and yet it received such ridiculous reviews as ONE out of ten. This was not "Henry Kissinger Reads the Dictionary," but if you read the reviews for it you'd think it was about as good. Liberal media bias definitely exists; the only people who don't think it exists are people who are as left or further left than the media is. Pellucid 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I did rate it a 1 out of 10, and would give similar ratings on any number of other shows. As comedy, it was weak. As satire, it apparently was deliberately crippled so that it wouldn't mock the people in power. As a conservative version of the Daily Show, it was an absolute failure: the Daily Show was far more effective at mocking the same subjects for the same reasons. I wanted it to succeed. It failed on every count that I can conceive. I hope that it does better from here, but I hold no such illusions. -76.186.133.90 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone who rates it a 1 out of 10 hasn't ever watched an episode of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and tried to imagine it without the commentary. There are FAR worse shows that have aired and are still airing. If there are worse shows and 1 is the minimum rating, then it by default cannot be a 1. No, it's NOT good, but it's not 1 out of 10 bad. It's more like 3.5 out of 10 bad. Pellucid 08:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pellucid, you just described how I felt about the show perfectly. It did feel like MST3K without commentary. Thank you. --76.186.133.90 15:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Manos: The Hands of Fate. I rest my case. Pellucid 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's hilarious in and of itself. Unintentionally, I'll grant you, but it's still more entertaining than this show was. -76.186.133.90 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when MST3K isn't doing it, it's not. Did you watch the entirety of both shows? It had about two or three moments that made me chuckle (no "el oh el" moments, though). That's better than one out of ten. Pellucid 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

...while we're getting WAY off subject here, I must point out that the Manos entry kind of affirms my statement. According to that, the director and cast left the theater early due to embarassment from the laughter. As for the shows, I saw as much as I could stand. I'd initially written them off as humorless writers trying to do edgy, but Limbaugh's response to the cricisms of the show was reasoned and insightful (two words I'd never even considered using with regard to Limbaugh before). I won't deny that others might've fired off minimum reviews due to some sort of bias, but I also think the show set itself up for that by comparing itself to the Daily Show out of the gates. I think that the show's creators may have been gunning for negative publicity here, especially given the tepid material. If so, it worked in their favor. For my part, I hope that they branch out to mocking conservatives who have it coming (yes, I did get Ann Caulter's self-depreciating joke in the second episode), and get funnier with time. --76.186.133.90 13:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor note. I finally registered, and I'm the above user. --San Diablo 14:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)