If you can't beat 'em...

One week after Samizdat defends our beloved Daily Show, along comes... The Half-Hour News Hour. We could link to the TV blogs that have clips, but we care about our readers. We couldn't, in good conscience, directly link you to such a devastatingly painful teaser clip. You'll have to google it.

In a nutshell, The Half-Hour News Hour is a Fox News production. After months of the channel's talking heads trying to marginalize the Daily Show / Colbert Report phenomenon, Fox News has taken a different tack: Let's make our own Daily Show!

After viewing the preview clip leaked to the Internets, we at Samizdat would like to point out a few things:

• Linking a Marion Barry reference to Barack Obama is many levels of bad writing. For one, few people under 25 really remember who Barry was. The only reason to use it seems to be, "Let's find another black politician who was in a cocaine scandal!"
• In other words, it's usually a bad idea to make your reliance on his skin color, for humor, so transparent.
• Oh, yeah, ditto on the "BO" thing. Wow. What is this, the seventh grade?
• I understand that Fox News is a conservative bastion. And I understand that this was pitched as a Daily Show for conservatives. But, so far, the show looks more like an attempt to disguise slinging mud at non-conservative folks as satire.
• Yes, there is a difference.
• While we're on the topic, there is a difference between "not conservative" and "liberal." Conservative/Liberal is not an either/or proposition. Shows like the Daily Show recognize this.
• Laugh tracks are bad news, folks. While the spattering of audience laughs may have been real, the canned laughter in the segment piece was... well, it made a painful piece torturous.
• Then again, the producer (Joel Surnow) is the same guy behind 24. Maybe torture is the show's intent.
• The hosts? A reality/game-show host and a TV actress whose been on Best Week Ever. Not to dig on working actors, but... We're not exactly talking about the gold standard, here.
• Oh, and apparently Brian Unger is a correspondent. Yes, the same guy who left during the Daily Show's transition to Jon Stewart.
• Finally... what's with the name? I realize Fox News viewers would never dream of watching Canadian TV. But, couldn't you come up with a name that wasn't ripped-off from a popular Canadian news parody show (This Hour Has 22 Minutes)?

Oh, BG News, Why Dost Thou Hate the Daily Show?

And why doesn't anyone in your newsroom know enough to double-check the spelling of Jon Stewart's name?

Anyway, while ranting about a columnist's current excuse for a column, Friend of the Show Jeff (the God of Biscuits) mentioned this column, an older treatise whose title is, "John Stewart contributing to voter apathy."

And now, for my response:

Before we go over loaded terms (such as "indoctrinated"), the ill-advised attempt to define Stewart's humor, or the fact that his name is spelled "Jon," let's look at what reality says about youth voter apathy.

According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, the under-30 vote was up. Sharply, from the 2002 mid-term. Estimates measure this upward trend in terms of 2 million more voters, and a 4% jump (20 to 24) in eligible voter turnout.

Are these the same youth voters who are "indoctrinated" by the Daily Show's negativity? And while we're at it, let's remember the loaded value of that word: despite what it means, the last few years have seen "indoctrinate" turn into a way of saying: Your thoughts are wrong, because they're different than mine! Stop listening to other people on TV or in the classroom! Listen to the ones I agree with!

I guess a new word was needed. Methinks that "liberal" got worn out by abuse and overuse.

As for Jon (no "h") indoctrinating viewers, well, what's he indoctrinating them with? Is he a "savvy and astute political satirist," or is he the guy you turn to for "a good fart joke?" As a former Opinon and Page 3 editor, I find these two to be very different comedic approaches.

Or, is it that the author wants it both ways? He can't dismiss its effect on popular culture (Fox News tried, failed). But he does want to marginalize the show's content. The problem comes from the proof. One can say the show is lowbrow humor, but I can then point to a beautifully-produced segment where John Oliver (with the "h") describes the ad campaign from "existential vacuum that is today's Democratic Party."

This is a show of fart jokes?

Even then, the author states, "but if I am looking for unbiased, factual reporting, his show is not exactly the best source of information."

Funny. That was the topic of a paper presented at the Popular Culture Association's 2005 conference: "Faking the News: Journalism’s Response to The Daily Show," by Lauren Feldman. In summary, the paper examined the phenomenon of bias and the Daily Show. That is, because the Daily Show wears its intentions on its sleeves, viewers find it to be a less-biased source than "real" news.

Really, this isn't surprising. CNN is owned by media-overlord Time Warner, and everybody "knows" it's liberal. Fox News is on a crusade to paint (MS)NBC with the same brush. And Rupert Murdoch mentioned this past week, in Switzerland, that he tried to use Fox News to set the nation's agenda to be in favor of the President's Iraq plan.

With such shining paragons of "unbiased," is it any wonder that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have become such important fixtures in the media?

Oh, and in case I haven't said it yet... Jon Stewart is spelled without the "h".