espreite: (Default)
[personal profile] espreite posting in [community profile] fakenews_srsbsns
Discussion thread banner


Sorry about not posting a discussion thread last week (was experiencing college exams for the first time). Seeing as yesterday was Independence Day in America, why not talk about how TDS/TCR deal with issues of nationalism and reporting on other countries? Or, you know, anything else that you feel like discussing!

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-06 05:10 pm (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
Interesting.

Although, one thing I noticed, and don't know how much this says about the staff- but the big gap between the amount of time that they've been there is ...a bit weird, honestly. Either they've been there for 10+ years, or they've been there less than three. There seems to be very few in between. I wonder why.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-06 07:34 pm (UTC)
erinptah: (Default)
From: [personal profile] erinptah
Are we looking at the same numbers? Of these 31 women, 11 of them have been there between three and ten years.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 12:03 am (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
Huh, guess I was wasn't counting right. Jezebel has posted a response to the response. Now I'm even more confused: http://jezebel.com/5580512/female-employees-of-the-daily-show-speak-out

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 01:32 am (UTC)
erinptah: (Default)
From: [personal profile] erinptah
...anything in particular you're confused about?

I mean, I don't have any special insight into this, but it seems fairly straightforward to me. The Jezebel article mixed "mentions of legit issues with female representation in comedy" with "broad assertions which do not apply to TDS", "scary anecdotes by female ex-staffers", "damning speculation", and "bad experiences of some women treated as universal." The women who work for TDS issued a collective "WTF? No." Jezebel has responded with probably the closest they're going to give to "We apologize for the misrepresentation."

All with a constant running sideshow of some people saying "Why is it so hard to talk about legit issues of female representation in comedy?", as if that's the only thing the original article said, and other people throwing out various tired excuses like "But maybe women just aren't funny!", as if they don't think it would be a problem if you took all the scary anecdotes and damning speculation at face value.

Now all that's left is for the blogosphere to finish its contest for which group of women (the disgruntled ex-staffers and speculating bloggers, or the happy current staffers) can get the most sexist insults thrown at them.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 01:48 am (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
But the point of the Jezebel article was on the lack of ON AIR correspondents, not just "TDS doesn't hire women". And the response from the women of TDS doesn't address that at all. And I also wonder on why they didn't have comment when they were originally asked for one.

So I am confused on why TDS chose not to comment on the main presence of the Jezebel article (which, yes, covered other things that they DID address) and why Jezebel let it drop (for now, at least).

Sadly, from before Jon's tenure, the Daily Show gained a reputation of an incredibly 'old boys club' and an incredibly sexist environment. And while I think the letter from the women staff was great at dispelling some of that, didn't do them any favors by simply brushing off the issues of former employees and labelling them "disgruntled".

Am I glad they wrote the letter? YES. Am I going to stop watching after 11 years? NO. Do I think this the fault of TDS alone? Heavens no. But there is a bigger issue here that haven't been addressed, and are going to be brought up again, and again.

So confused maybe isn't the right word. Slightly frustrated how quickly people seem to be ready to brush this aside might be better wording.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 02:35 am (UTC)
erinptah: (Default)
From: [personal profile] erinptah
I feel like I keep coming back to the second sentence of the Jezebel article: "And [TDS is] also a boys' club where women's contributions are often ignored and dismissed."

That's the thesis statement. It's not specific to the on-air talent. And it's supported throughout the article, not just by observations about the number of female correspondents, but by quotes about how you weren't allowed to enjoy yourself or be emotionally vulnerable backstage, speculation on "the dearth of women on staff, onscreen and off", and assertions like "it's hard not to conclude that" Olivia Munn was hired because she's hot.

The impression I get is that Jezebel is backing down because, in light of the response, they've realized that the original article went too far. Legit issues regarding representation of women in comedy notwithstanding.

As for why TDS didn't have a comment originally -- I don't know how many requests they get every day from bloggers looking for quotes, but I would not be surprised if it's a lot. I would, further, not be surprised if they say "we are unable to participate in this story" to 99.9% of these.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 05:40 am (UTC)
madeofstars: (Default)
From: [personal profile] madeofstars
I think I love you.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 05:42 am (UTC)
madeofstars: (Default)
From: [personal profile] madeofstars
Yep, I love you.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 01:19 pm (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
Well, as someone pointed out on the ONTD_P post, only about 1/4 of them were assistants, and the "Jon Stewart is our boyfriend" is extremely catty. Although they do point out some problems I had with the original letter, and Olivia Munn's attitude to questions about her hiring- She conveniently forgot that she's been basically brought in to replace Kristen Schaal in front of the camera. (And now she's going to NBC, so effectively they're down to 1 female correspondent, AGAIN.)

Sadly it seems both sides are now just derailing what have been a great frank discussion about how, even if a staff is %40 women, why are there only two in front of the camera, and rarely visible if at all.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 04:41 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] neonglitterati
Hmm the NBC thing was known when she was hired though. I read somewhere that they were going to have accommodate her and work around her super busy schedule. So we'll see her, but not as often as John O or the regular correspondents.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 04:46 pm (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
So basically she was hired so they could say they had more women correspondents without really having to worry about using them long term? ...That doesn't really make me feel any better. :/

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 05:01 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] neonglitterati
Well is she even officially "hired" yet? I thought she was going through the trail phase?

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 05:04 pm (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
She was listed as part of the "staff" for the women's letter, wasn't she?

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 05:25 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] neonglitterati
Dunno, but whenever I read about her it's "if she passes the trial phase..." That could have changed though.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 05:25 pm (UTC)
erinptah: (Default)
From: [personal profile] erinptah
Okay, hang on a second. Plenty of TDS correspondents have had other projects going on at the same time, as far back as Stephen being away for long stretches to do Strangers With Candy, and as recently as Sam and Jason working on a TV pilot last year. It shouldn't make Olivia any less of a correspondent to be doing the same thing.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 05:53 pm (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
But all of those jobs came long AFTER they were hired by the Daily Show. From what was described above, She was hired with full knowledge she would be rarely available for segments. There's a difference, and when talking about it in the context of visibility, a troubling one.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 08:37 pm (UTC)
erinptah: (Default)
From: [personal profile] erinptah
Are you sure that's true? I only cited those two examples off the top of my head; they're not necessarily representative, just the ones I happened to think of.

As for the rest...look, I just feel like this is going right back to the "yes, she's a woman and a POC, but she's The Wrong Kind Of Woman/POC" narrative, this time because she has other work somewhere else and will not be able to devote her full time to increasing the diversity quotient of TDS.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 10:07 pm (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
Stephen Colbert was hired on in 1997, two years before Strangers With Candy debuted in 1999.

And I'm having trouble following your logic here- when the discussion is about the visibility of women on a show, and they hire someone knowing full well that she won't be available for long periods of time to be on said show? Raises questions about the purpose of her hire. Particularly if she's being used as a way dismiss questions about said visibility.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 10:44 pm (UTC)
erinptah: (Default)
From: [personal profile] erinptah
Okay, so that takes care of the SWC example. That's still only two data points.

Uh, they hired her before this discussion started. It's not like Jezebel said "You don't have enough women" and TDS said "Oh yeah? Check it out, we'll hire another woman! That'll show you!" We're the ones who have been talking about diversity and visibility and what she means in that context. They just hired her, and their only stated purpose has been "we think she's funny."

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 10:52 pm (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
This is by far NOT the first time this issue has come up with the Daily Show. It's just the first time they've responded as such.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 07:16 pm (UTC)
duckgirlie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] duckgirlie
Is Schaal gone? That sucks.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 09:53 pm (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
She hasn't been on camera for over a year.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 09:58 pm (UTC)
duckgirlie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] duckgirlie
Dang. I love her.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-11 07:12 am (UTC)
aybara_max: (Geek (rachel))
From: [personal profile] aybara_max
It's only just now been over a year, I remember because I was at the last show where she did a segment on 7/1/09, and it was only her 2nd of 2009. I do not remember how she was listed on the credits in 2008 (her first year, when she did 5 segments all year), but I have only ever heard of her described as a "contributor" like Lewis Black or John Hodgman, rather than a regular correspondent, so I don't think Munn has necessarily been hired to replace Schaal on camera (if anything I'd say she's there temporarily to fill in while Sam is pregnant/eventually on maternity leave, but they seem to like putting Sam on screen while pregnant so that doesn't match up)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-11 07:22 am (UTC)
jesidres: allow me to explain through interpretive Dance (Default)
From: [personal profile] jesidres
When Schaal came on, she was definitely described as a correspondent (and got a fair amount of wank as well when she was announced). But you are right, she is now listed as a contributor, according to Wikipedia (although the letter from the female staff lists her as a correspondent.). So I have to wonder what's she's considered by the production as a whole.

You may be right on the Sam front, while they do like to use her while she's pregnant, Munn may well have been brought in as a possible replacement for her while she's on maternity leave.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-11 07:40 am (UTC)
erinptah: (Default)
From: [personal profile] erinptah
Kristen has been referred to as Senior Woman Correspondent, like Demetri is Senior Youth Correspondent, but both of them have very specific roles (only one role, no field pieces, no green-screen pieces, they don't show up in full-team segments like the election, etc.), which is what I think of when I think "contributor". Olivia's three pieces so far: two green-screen bits, one of which was full-team, and one field piece. That puts her squarely in the "correspondent" category.

They didn't hire a Temporary Woman Correspondent the last two times Sam was pregnant. I can't imagine them suddenly changing their policy when it's worked out fine before.

And, come on, Olivia's segments so far would not have worked as Sam segments. One of them involved playing her off of Sam, and another got great mileage out of her new Youngest Correspondent status. I can't see them working as Kristen segments, either, even if she did suddenly decide to switch from contributor to correspondent. Just because these people are female doesn't mean they're interchangeable, and so far the show is acting like it understands that.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-06 07:36 pm (UTC)
erinptah: (Default)
From: [personal profile] erinptah
Dear 40% of the Daily Show staff:

ILU.

Love,
Me, viewer, 5 years

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 01:57 am (UTC)
willwrite_fortea: ("hey! I'm talking to you" [Keith])
From: [personal profile] willwrite_fortea
while I applaud the response and go yay there are funny women and funny men working together & respecting each other, I also see no problem with asking:

'Hey why not have more funny, smart ladies on screen too? Then any viewer can see a manifestation of funny women contributing to the show'

that's my two cents, anyway

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 10:04 pm (UTC)
ceilidh_ann: Made by erin-icons of LJ. (QI Stephen Fry)
From: [personal profile] ceilidh_ann
Personally I'm still a bit pissy at Jon turning the sexism accusations into a punchline instead of responding to it first but this entire decable is turning into a slinging match.

I'll just state what I said on another place - I would love to see more on air talent on TDS, just like I would like to see more on air female talent in all of late night (we can't just leave it all to Chelsea Handler. Does Wanda Sykes still have her show? She's amazing), just like I would like to see more female comedians getting attention in the mainstream and more women in media full stop. I think Jezebel made a viable point - there is a serious lack of on air female talent on TDS. That doesn't make the show sexist, it's a universal problem across all of entertainment.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 10:07 pm (UTC)
duckgirlie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] duckgirlie
As far as I know, Wanda's show's been canceled.

And I have... issues with Chelsea Handler.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 10:09 pm (UTC)
ceilidh_ann: Made by erin-icons of LJ. (QI Jimmy Carr)
From: [personal profile] ceilidh_ann
I see Fox doing another bang up job.

I don't mind her but I don't watch her show regularly. For a show on E! it's not bad. But the fact that she's the only woman on late night is pretty bad.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-07-07 10:17 pm (UTC)
duckgirlie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] duckgirlie
I think about 80% of the time she's fine, but she does use homophobic humour, and not in a pointed, satirical way, just in a casual 'oh, you're so gay' kind of way. I know in general she's pretty good on gay issues, but still.

Profile

Fake News, Serious Business

April 2012

S M T W T F S
123 4567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags