Jon Stewart's Influence

I am a huge fan of the Daily Show. I'll watch the show even if it's just a typical unhyped episode.
That said whenever there is a new Jon Stewart interview with either right-wing politicians, or political commentators, I will sit myself down and watch the entire thing, most likely more than once. There aren't as many of these instances are I would like, because with each one I watch I find myself more and more engaged in the rhetoric with which Jon openly criticizes and debates his opponents. I have 2 examples below, neither actually taking place on his show. The first is a famous appearance Jon made on CNN's crossfire, that was cancelled in response to his epic beat down of the pundits and the show's premise. The second is an interview from the 2004 election time period in which Bill O'Reilly questions the legitimacy of the Daily Show as a news operation. While reading Geoffrey Baym's essay on the show I instantly recognized all of his point on the significance of the show as a critical media satirical news show. No matter who Jon is speaking to, or debating, or arguing with he constantly hides behind the "fake" news banner. Which as a viewer I understand, because it is true, but also feel doesn't give the show enough credit.

I Think of Them as Friends

I found "I Think of Them as Friends"- Interpersonal Relationships in the Online Community by Nancy Baym to be a very interesting article on a couple different levels. This article discusses the people on R.A.T.S. (a soap opera discussion and opinion site) and how they interact with each other. So, you would think that a website filled with cat loving (it says it in the text!), soap opera watching women talking about their opinions of the show would be full of opposition, but it is surprisingly not so. They call oppositional language "flaming," and it is looked down upon in the R.A.T.S. community. Instead of resorting to "flaming," these women avoid confrontation. The do this by qualifying their opinions (like "I may be wrong but...), apologizing for disagreeing, and by framing their argument as non-offensive (as in "I think it's funny that..." or "No offense but..."). They also build interpersonal relationships online to avoid confrontation. They use each others names, partially agreeing with differing opinions, acknowledging other perspectives, and elaborating on their opinions to avoid confusion. But what I'm asking is "who cares?" My view is that you're never going to meet these people.

The weird thing is...they do meet each other. They send each other gifts and lend each other their cars when members from out of state are in town. Some of them consider each other their best friends! I find this so interesting that they initiated their entire relationship on the fact that they like the same soap opera. I can't imagine not seeing a person more than once a year and considering them your "best friend." I mean, I haven't seen my friends from high school and our friendships have already lessened. Maybe I'm just a skeptic, but I don't really believe in online dating or any of that nonsense. Maybe this is just a giant conglomeration of non-confrontational people, and that is why they get along so well.