Jon Stewart Named Most Trusted In News



Now that Walter Cronkite passed, Time decided to ask Americans who their most trusted newsperson was. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of Jon Stewart.

It's a sad statement that the most trusted name in news is actually a comedian. I'm not sure if it speaks badly about Americans in general or about the state of our news media.

http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html Via Good Magazine

Comments (50)

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

I would just like to say that to regard Jon Stewart as a News Anchor Man is total bull, He himself even has said "I am NOT a News Broadcaster I am a Comedian." end of quote. So this is not about who is the most trusted name in News because Jon Stewart is not a News Broadcaster so for him to get the recognition is a joke in it's self. He does not give you the news he just jokes about what has already been given by most trusted names in America. He is pretending to be a News Anchor man. Is America really this dense or lost it's head? For one I was never asked who is my most trusted name in News. He does not give you News he jokes about what we have already heard about. You people really are dumb. What he talks about is nothing new. He just makes light of it. Because he is a Comedian.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
"I think people find a guy who doesn't swallow any bullshit..."

Well that isn't true. Stewart believes 9/11 was a done purely by Arabs... when those of us who don't swallow BS know that factions of US government possibly along with Mossad did the job.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Sorry guys but this poll is 100% worthless. Both the sampling and the question design are hopelessly flawed. Jon Stewart is not the most trusted name in news. For details see: http://is.gd/2h7Np
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It's the media.

The international poll also voted in favor of Stewart.

And I am sure that if a larger scale poll was to be made, the results would be the same.

Why?

Most networks are just trying to entertain, instead of deliver news.

And networks like Fox are too busy with their sensationalist propaganda trying to bash on the current majority and everything they do, even the things Obama does right they manage to find a negative angle.

It's not news anymore, it's marketing.

Sadly, the only show that seems to be delivering actual news is The Daily Show. Even with the humour twist it's more newsworthy than anything else out there.

Shocking, but true.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I agree with most of the other posters; the mainstream media has basically devolved into putting on as many talking heads from extreme viewpoints as possible and letting them yell over each other while the station takes one side or the other. They all have. They report fluff stories and don't demand accuracy nor are they seriously critical of anything within our government.

The reason John Stewart won is he deserves it, largely because - despite the admitted left-leaning of the show - TDS calls politicians, and other major figures from the news networks when they contradict themselves or blatantly lie. If a comedy show can do that, you'd think a real news outlet could, too - but they don't and won't.

As a side note, while being viewed as a "left" show I can honestly say if you give them a shot, they are an equal opportunity critic. Many times they've landed on the Democrats, Obama and "left" news networks for melodrama and bull; the main reason is - weather anyone reading this likes to hear it or not - that they attack the right more is GOP and right-leaning programs tend to contradict themselves, lie and ignore proven facts far, far more than anyone else. Thus they open themselves to more attacks; it's not that both sides are perfect but the "right" seems way, way more brazen about it, willing to completely change their story interview to interview. Nothing more than that.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I remember reading a well known 70's book (no I don't remember, although I only read it a few years ago) about the brain where it alleged that restored sight was cruel in older persons as the brain could only recognise new images in terms of old stored images and this created cognitive dissonance which led to insanity.

Yeah it was probably shyte.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I met a woman a few years back who'd been born blind and gained sight for the first time in her early 40s. She told me that some things were perfectly and immediately recognizable to her, like human faces, and that other things - mostly colors and random objects - were more confusing. She said it took her a couple of years to get "vase" into her head when she looked at one.

She was most confused by colors because to her they seemed so arbitrary. I wish I'd had a week to talk to her. I never found out what her dreams were like before she could see!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I read a book about Mike May, who was blinded during an accident as a toddler and who regained sight as an adult. It's a pretty great read: http://www.amazon.com/Crashing-Through-Story-Adventure-Dared/dp/1400063353
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Reminds me of an Iranian film I'm still trying to see. It is called "The Willow Tree" and it's about a man born congenitally blind. He learns his world through touch and becomes extremely fond of the willow tree. An operation restores his sight and he begins to evaluate the world according to how he sees. People he knows now have appearances, but with great costs, the man begins evaluating them on their beauty and his attitudes toward them change accordingly. What's worse, is he now finds the willow tree to be an ugly tree. The short-story is that everything this man valued becomes devalued or cast into the world of vision for re-evaluation.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Molyneaux's question dealt with something slightly (but significantly) different. Unlike the children in this experiment, Molyneaux's hypothetical person has been acquainted with these objects since birth (but, of course, by touch alone.) The question was whether or not this person, on receiving their sight, would be able to "..know which is the Globe and which the Cube" by sight alone - without any touch-acquaintance at the time of the test. Of the three tests given the children, only the third test approaches Molyneaux's sense modality question and that's where the childrens' performance plummeted. The article didn't say whether or not, during the third test, the children were able to touch-and-see the shape or just touch the shape before it was removed from them and they were required to use sight alone. ("After feeling a shape [feeling only?], the children did only slightly better than chance at identifying it by sight alone.") Does anyone know?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"Jon Stewart Named Most Trusted In News"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More