File: 1565220470862.jpg (98.38 KB, 1000x679, 1000:679, main-qimg-dc93708bd0027609….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Can something be entertaining and/or comedic while also being an accurate and legitimate source of information?
I've discussed world events and political topics on the internet a few times, and I've occasionally tried to use clips from shows like "The Daily Show" and "Last Week Tonight" as a source and to illustrate my point in and entertaining way. But I've found that sometimes certain people will try to dismiss my usage of those kinds of clips or stories, claiming that those shows are comedy shows and therefore cannot and should not be taken seriously as sources of information. I disagree with this sentiment for a number of reasons.
The first being that these programs consistently offer the sources of their statistics and video clips they use within the program itself, so any dispute over the accuracy of the information already has other more "legitimate" sources from which it came. Shows like "Adam Ruins Everything" go to even greater lengths to back up and source all the claims they make. So trying to dismiss the information because it's being delivered by a certain program is not actually dismissing the information itself. It's a strawman argument. The program is just an easily digestible and vastly more entertaining way to deliver
that same information, but it doesn't negate the information itself for the program to be comedic. My second reason for disagreeing is because of the hypocritical nature of the claim. It seems to me we only run into this issue when it comes to world events and political issues. No one claims that programs like "Bill Nye The Science Guy" are not legitimate source of science information, or that any of the numerous shows on Discovery Channel are not legitimate sources of information because they uses comedy and skits to deliver their information. In my personal opinion, it's unfair to hold "news" to a different standard. And lastly, I disagree with the sentiment because studies over the past 10 years have show that people who watch programs like The Daily Show are just as informed as those who watch more traditional news stations like CNN and MSNBC, if not moreso. Here are a few examples. (https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
) It should also be noted that Fox News viewers consistently rank last in accurate knowledge of national and international affairs, meaning that shows like the Daily Show and Last Week Tonight are more
legitimate sources of accurate information than Fox News is.
What is your opinion on the matter?
File: 1565224792714.png (228.05 KB, 1280x854, 640:427, squirrel.png) ImgOps Google
>>1184>only run into this issue when it comes to world events and political issues
I would ask, do the people who dismiss your use of these shows have political sentiments that do not align with these shows?
>>1184>Can something be entertaining and/or comedic while also being an accurate and legitimate source of information?
Yes.>>1184>But I've found that sometimes certain people will try to dismiss my usage of those kinds of clips or stories, claiming that those shows are comedy shows and therefore cannot and should not be taken seriously as sources of information. I disagree with this sentiment for a number of reasons.
Depends on what you're citing them for. If it's specific data, e.g., "iatrogenic deaths outnumber deaths from firearms by an order of magnitude", you should cite the original source(s) of data if at all possible rather than the summary given in the TV show.>So trying to dismiss the information because it's being delivered by a certain program is not actually dismissing the information itself. It's a strawman argument.
Sounds more like an ad hominem than a strawman. But it might actually just be a request for the original source of the data, which is usually more detailed and nuanced than the summary presented on TV. Like, no serious researcher would cite a video of a conference presentation when they can cite the corresponding conference paper instead.>>1184>It should also be noted that Fox News viewers consistently rank last in accurate knowledge of national and international affairs
It should also be noted that the error bars in your OP pic for Fox News overlap with those of CNN, MSNBC, and others. >meaning that shows like the Daily Show and Last Week Tonight are more legitimate sources of accurate information than Fox News is.
No, it does not mean that, unless it was a randomized controlled trial, and even then it wouldn't even be single-blind so you'd need to be very careful about biases and effects similar to the placebo effect.
File: 1565225091867.jpg (25.64 KB, 480x268, 120:67, 4fbbf449eab8ea4c79000007-4….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Well, that's a tricky question.
Technically speaking, the shows don't have one political standing. They criticize both sides of political arguments. However, if one misbehaves more than the other, it can give the illusion of a bias. >>1188
Green is the amount of accurate information. Here is another graph that shows the same results. Fox News scores is still below CNN and MSNBC, and in this case, people who watch no news at all.
I'm not sure what you mean, could you please elaborate?
Both graphs show that, on average, viewers of Fox News have less accurate information that people who watch other news programs or no news at all. And this is sited in the OP.
>>1191>I'm not sure what you mean, could you please elaborate?
I don't know how else to say it. Are you familiar with the concept of statistical significance?>>1191>Both graphs show that, on average, viewers of Fox News have less accurate information that people who watch other news programs or no news at all.
It shows an estimate of the true population mean. It doesn't show a confidence interval of that estimate.
File: 1565226210953.png (880.55 KB, 1618x824, 809:412, force.png) ImgOps Google
>>1189>shows don't have one political standing
Well, I quickly pulled up the latest episode to get a sense for it, and the host did not seem to favor Republican ideas for preventing mass shootings. I don't know if something needs to be necessarily in line with the opposing political party to be bad evidence, it will be suspected as soon as it goes against Republican or Democrat ideas. (Which, as I think of it, is why I can both be a Nazi and a snowflake.)
If you mean The Daily Show, saying Noah or the show's staff "did not seem to favor Republican ideas for preventing mass shootings" is mischaracterizating what he was saying.
He was accusing those things being said by those specific politicians of being talking points to distract for the real issue. He's not unfavorable of "Republican ideas", he is out and out claiming that they aren't ideas. They are excuses. Whataboutism and distractions from actually having to talk about gun control.
Being for gun control isn't an inherently Democratic stance.
>>1197>claiming that they aren't ideas. >They are excuses
Well, I'm not going to talk about the gun issue directly.
But dismissing Shawn Hannity's solution, for example, will be read as political move. At least, I believe him to be one of the Republican thought-leaders.
Well if you mean this portion of the show starting at 4:22 of this clip, I don't see this as anti-Republican. It's disagreeing with Hannity, yes. But it's calling out the idea itself.
File: 1565268913236.jpeg (36.25 KB, 480x360, 4:3, 1688382.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>1184>this portion of the show
Yeah, that's what I watched. You are correct, Noah is not attacking Sean Hannity but his idea. (Of course, someone and their ideas are not wholly separate, but there are harsher and gentler approaches.)>>1197>mischaracterizating what he was saying
Hmm...I'll just ask for the sake of my understanding, is there something outside of more guns, more God, and more guards that republicans see as a solution?
I mean, I don't think I'm against entertainment mixed with news, which is part of what you're asking in OP. Maybe I'm just arguing otherwise the obvious, that no format will overcome the spirit of faction.
>>1195>I guess not?
I suggest you take the time to become familiar with it. It is hard to have a conversation about data without knowledge of fundamental statistical concepts.https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability>>1194>there is a lot more to criticize on the Republican side
You don't really expect Republican-leaning citizens to agree with that assessment, do you?
File: 1565296238798.jpg (35.27 KB, 600x375, 8:5, Glaceon.600.140942.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1205>Guns themselves are the only common element.
I'd say there's another common element: humans willing to commit mass murder. And they can do with things other than guns, such as IEDs.
If you're so knowledgeable about the topic, then you should be able to explain what you're trying to say in a simpler way. I even asked you if it was about the sample size. But if you're unwilling to do so, the statistics were not really the point of the OP. I just used it to illustrate the idea that something being considered a more "legitimate" source of information than another thing by some people does not automatically make that source more accurate or informative. >You don't really expect Republican-leaning citizens to agree with that assessment, do you?
No, but when they disagree with it, it's usually because of a fundamental disagreement over what is deserving of criticism, not that the Republicans are not doing what is being criticized.
I feel like that's not really relevant.
Like, for example, you wanted to lessen the amount of automobile accidents. It would be unproductive and silly to say "People die in other types of accidents too. Like construction workers." Ok, granted. Yes, people die in other ways than just auto accidents. But that usually has NOTHING to do with our attempts to lessen automobile accidents.
>>1205>topic for another thread>black text
Not sure that's a thread I want to make. Personally, I've got no solution, I just know a bunch of things people will fight to show aren't good solutions.
File: 1565315146191.jpg (128.2 KB, 760x800, 19:20, japan-shooting-deaths-tent….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
The relevancy is that it if you take away guns, then would-be terrorists will just use other things like home-made explosives. Like in Britain, how gun violence was replaced by knife violence.>>1211>>1212
We should emulate Japan to achieve a similarly low rate of gun deaths: More tentacle hentai!
You don't know that would be the case.
And even IF gun violence is replaced by "knife violence", it's very hard to kill 30 people in as many seconds with a knife. It's also much easier to subdue a person who is only armed with a knife.
File: 1565316049143.png (498.58 KB, 579x819, 193:273, 1529837627079.png) ImgOps Google
>>1214> It's also much easier to subdue a person who is only armed with a knife.
I disagree, unless if by "subdue" you mean "shoot" (with a gun or other long-ranged weapon). Knives are melee weapons. Once you're within striking range, a knife is just as deadly as a gun in the hands of someone who know how to wield a knife.>You don't know that would be the case.
It's plausible enough that you can't realistically say that it "not really relevant".>it's very hard to kill 30 people in as many seconds with a knife.
OK, but I think that terrorists (as opposed to street gangs) would opt for home-made explosives. And it's just as easy to kill lots of people with explosives as it is with firearms. Organized terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda use explosions. Lone-wolf nutjob terrorists seem to prefer firearms, probably mainly for psychological reasons like killing people up close and personal.
This thread isn't for discussing gun violence. I'm surprised there isn't a thread FOR that, but this isn't it.
If you wanna make a thread about that, we can continue this conversation, but a lot of what you are saying is speculating on things we don't know for certain would happen.
I had a feeling it was ad hominom. Especially since the person I link the video of Last Week Tonight to, he said he didn't even watch the video because he found John Oliver humor "just awful". That person was known for his ad hominon and dismissal of my points.
But I wanted to bring this topic up for the future here on /townhall/. Because there might come a time when a comedic clip cogently illustrates someone's point about a certain topic. And I didn't want that same thing to happen again.
In statistics, the null hypothesis
is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups. A result has statistical significance
when it is very unlikely to have occurred given the null hypothesis. More precisely, a study's defined significance level, denoted "α", is the probability of the study rejecting the null hypothesis, given that the null hypothesis were true; and the p-value of a result, p
, is the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme, given that the null hypothesis were true. The result is statistically significant, by the standards of the study, when p
tl;dr: A study's result might just be the result of random chance. Statistical significance is a way of quantifying this.>sample size
Using a sample size that is too small is certainly one way of failing to obtain statistical significance.