'Daily Show' Wins Second Peabody Award

Apparently, yesterday Jon Stewart's 'The Daily Show' won it's second Peabody Award for coverage of the 2004 elections (they had already won one back in 2001).

The George Foster Peabody awards are given for broadcasting excellence in both news and entertainment and are given by the University of Georgia. Apparently these awards are very prestigious envied by many in the media (Bill O'rielly even lied about receiving one to try and boost his credibility)

Taken from the Peabody Award website, they write of the winner:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Indecision 2004
Comedy Central
Through the momentous weeks of the 2004 Presidential Campaigns, Jon Stewart and cohorts provided the kind of cathartic satire that deflates pomposity on an equal opportunity basis. Somehow this sharp commentary made the real issues more important than ever.

It is at this point that the cable & mainstream news media should be embarrassed that not only was the Daily Show (a self described "fake" news show) more deserving of an award than they were, but that critics and viewers now recognize the Daily Show as a show that presents the news in a more factual and honest manner.

god bless john stewart!!!

sometimes it takes a mammoth sized parody to bring a point across.
and shame on every other news organisation for not doing their goddamn job!

yeah ... I think he's funny ...

Daily Show kicks ass.

Actually the fact that they do real news and make fun it is golden...there's so much in news today that is so absurd that it's nice to tune in to the daily show and laugh at the world with them..

I watched the 2004 election with the daily show and jon stewart summed up my feelings to a tee after Bush won "it's time to move to Canada"
amen jon amen

I like the show, and watch it every day that it is on...

BUt I can't help but feel that Jon Stewart is getting a
little to full of himself.

He continuous barbs against the rest of the tv news
channels may be deserved, but they are getting tiresome,
especially since he hasn't done anything to "fix" things.

For example, he generally has the same old guests as the
others have on, like that intolerable Thomas Friedman
of two days ago, and what's more, when on, he doesn't ask
them any tougher questions as the other channels' shows
so. Seems to be there is an element of hypocrisy there.

Cool.

Best, most honest news source in the world.

i loved it when he squared off against that ignorabt right wing nut chris tukcer. He said to a Canadain offical "go back to dogsleds" For crying out load you need to go over 3500 km to see those!

That "Crossfire" appearance was nice.

But he was a hypocrite in attacking them for not asking tough
questions when he himself barely said a word when he had
Kerry on.

And though he is a d***, Stewart didn't have to call Tucker one
on live air.

I'm glad he did, though.

John isn't a hypocrite IMO. His show is satire.. it's light hearted for the most part, he never pretends to ask tough questions or be a valid news source. His show is a joke, and I've never seen him claim it to be otherwise. When he went onto a serious news show, he got serious. Makes sense to me.

I don't know what his name is, but I like that guy who does the strange interviews.

Me likey lotty.

The Daily Shows is the only "news" show I watch. I get more news from watching 15 minutes of The Daily Show than watching hours of Fox News, CNN etc.

the daily sucks anymore .. it is all about complaining about politics-- and not the normal complaining they use to do - but it is just plain whining..tsk

Originally posted by Morning_Glory
the daily sucks anymore .. it is all about complaining about politics-- and not the normal complaining they use to do - but it is just plain whining..tsk

Today's definition of irony: Complaining about something that complains.

Originally posted by King Burger
That "Crossfire" appearance was nice.

But he was a hypocrite in attacking them for not asking tough
questions when he himself barely said a word when he had
Kerry on.

And though he is a d***, Stewart didn't have to call Tucker one
on live air.

You do get the point of the Daily show as opposed to the point of ACTUAL news programming don't you? Were you even listening to the points he was making during his crossfire appearance?

I know what he was saying.

But consider this point:

If he's nothing but a satirical comedy program who doesn't have
to ask any serious questions, then why have any serious guests
on at all? Just stick with entertainers.

But he does have serious guests.

And not only does hje have serious guests on, he talks to them
(most of the time) seriously, and asks them (most of the time)
serious questions!

Therefore, his Crossfire protests that he's only a comedian and is
not obligated to ask serious questions are invalid. He does ask
serious questions, but, as I said above, he's questions are no more
intelligent and insightful and knowledgable than those asked by the
other "legitimate" anchors.

Take his interviews with Thomas Friedman. Just like all the other
achors, he just sits there swallowing the crap that Friedman freeds
him on the Middle East.

And as far as the John Kerry interview is concerned. Why didn't he
ask any serious tough questions? As I've just pointed out, he does
have serious guests, and he does ask them serious (though still
ignorant) questions, so why not Kerry?

Besides, presidential candidates are so difficult to come by for
non-mainstream news organizations, that Stewart had atleast some
obligation to ask questions that are not asked by the mainstream
media. But he hardly asked any serious questions.

Admit it, the guy was and is a hypocrite in many (though not all) of
his criticisms of the major news organizations.

He asks serious questions? Maybe one or two that highlight the reason the person is on his show (which is usually to advertise a book or movie), but for the most part he doesn't take anyone too serious.

He does ask serious questions about the topic at hand. he
may ask them in a humorous way, but he does nevertheless.

When he interviewed Kenneth Pollack, who wrote a book on
Iran, he asked him on Iran and his book. He didn't ask him
]about sports and tv and other goofy questions, with a few
serious ones here and there. Mostly it was abou the book
and Iran, with some funny side-comments here and there.

Oh, and guess what? The questions he asked Pollack (like
those he asks other serious guests) were just as vacuous
and ignorant as those that the other network hosts ask
Pollack.

But that's just it, he came on the Daily Show to plug his book, not to get into a heated political debate..

People don't look to the Daily Show for serious journalism or debates, but they do look at Crossfire for such things. It doesn't matter if he has serious guests or not, if the rest of his show is satirical and he asks his questions in a humorous way it's all comedy, not serious.