Slashdot Mirror
Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire
BoldAC writes "Instead of plugging his new book, Jon Stewart tonight on CNN's Crossfire used his time to slam the media's coverage of the election. Although Stewart leans left, he attacked political shows and begged them: 'Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.' Is it time to really stop all the political games that both sides play? Torrent of the event is available." And another set of .torrent links.
the revolution will not be televised
fight the powers that be
Please Slashdot the torrent link so I can download it faster. Saying that hurts my brain. :(
I saw it on a public site (IFilm link off Fark). I can only assume that it's allowed to be distributed.
Is it time to really stop all the political games that both sides play?
Yes.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
video of it is also posted on ifilm
This is really hillarious, especially the fact that Stewart barely does anything funny at all, he's dead serious the whole time. Both the guys on Crossfire are trying to get him riled up and shut him down and they do an absolutely miserable job, and he ends up even calling the guy in the bowtie a dick!
Jon Stewart is my hero.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
After I saw the first debate, I chatted with friends for a while about getting a video of it. Granted, I should have just taped it myself, but I don't have a MythTV setup ready at our new house yet. I considered streamdumping the Washington Post's stream of the event, and that's what I did in the end. But it took ages - streamdumping typically operates at "1x", so this time it took an hour and a half. And anyone else who wanted it would have to do the same slow thing.
My question is, Where can one find political torrents? The debates and this Jon Stewart-on-Crossfire are good examples. Until I saw this on Slashdot, I had no idea where to get this, either. Is there a central repository for these kinds of things, or some other blog I should be reading for links?
|/usr/games/fortune
http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/video/
Meh.
This man is my hero. I heard a clip of it from the Randy Rhodes show on the way home last night, and this morning grabbed the torrent of the show (god, cut the commercials out of the video, man...).
He really did something respectable and the hosts, rather than actually discuss the opinion being given, felt they needed to make fun of him and dodge the issue since they couldn't provide a realistic response. It was like "ERR ERR DOES NOT COMPUTE RESPOND WITH JIBBERISH" and sparks came out of their neck. Just like XP.
BytesTemplar.com
Journalism standards have gone down the toilet. Kudos to Stewart for giving these folks a metaphorical kick to the nuts on live television -- wasn't a fan before, starting to become one now.
He's just so right; when a satirical news program on a minor cable channel meets or exceeds the journalistic bar in this country, to the point of winning awards and in many cases being the only news people will watch, you get an idea of just why things are so screwed and why so many people continue to buy into the two-party system. The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Except the puppies were Carlson and Begala and the boots were Truth, so it was cool.
Forgot to include that in the previous post. And because the previous link wasn't hyperlinked,
http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/video/
Meh.
I love Jon Stewart's wit. He is one funny dude. I am not an American and I still watch his show because of the cleverness of it. Oddly, he (and the others on the show) seems to be having a real effect on how the US elections are progressing. His unending assaults on the media coverage and their lack of gumption has created a huge following for his show. In the all-important 'young voter' demographic no less. While it is true that he leans left he lampoons what needs lampooning. He is not afraid. And he's friggin' funny.
More Jon Stewart for us all.
I heard he was on the Factor, alas I could not see it because I do not have the odious Fox Network in my country. Is there a torrent for that interview?
This does not mean the rights to distribute or redistribute exist. It onlymeans that eitehr iFilm or Fark have no right to distribute the piece or they got the rights from CNN but these rights do not transfer to you, the viewer. You can redistribute the link to iFilm where the video is hosted but nothing else.
STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
***
CARLSON: Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?
STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.
The coolest voice ever.
As opposed to the hoity-toity following that thinks they have a higher sense of humor because they don't enjoy his work...
Thanks for the lecture, Santa.
K5 Story
J0n 5t3w4r7 pwns j00 nubs!!!!111 OMGWTFBBQ!!
Yes, it's time to stop. The media plays for the largest audience, so alienating large numbers of people is bad. They need these numbers to attract advertisers and higher rates to have ads during these shows.
Two solutions still linger: Talk radio and satellite radio. Talk radio has low values for advertisers already, and satellite radio is already paid for by subscriptions. Imagine Jon Stewart without the bounds of Viacom or the need to placate to any audience the corporation wanted.
Jon, as good as he is, also wants to be big; he wants Dave Letterman's spot when he retires. GE controlling Conan at 11:35pm versus Viacom controlling Jon at 11:35pm, would it be tragic or a victory for political humor?
I just hope Jon can get his own talk show on radio, whether AM/FM or satellite, that can reach the masses without the fetters of a large corporation.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
I seem to be on some moderator's bad side today. All these troll mods.
Then again, I should know better than to post an opinion in YRO.
DS.
lol What now, get our politics from the Comedy Channel? ahahhahhaha
All your base are belong to Google.
Nice looking MP4 of it at Media Matters for America
I have issues with being called hoity-toity for liking Stewart. I consider myself more of a culturally snobbish liberal jackass :-) But thanks for asking...
Today is a good day to code.
Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind. I used to watch The Daily Show, but the show has become so one-sided it sickens me. It should sicken other views as well, regardless of which side you support. A political agenda has no place outside of an advertisement on television.
The thing that really made it great was that he (the comedian/satirist) showed that he can switch modes and they (blowhard pundits) were incapable of being anything but blowhard pundits. They seemed to be expecting a combination of fluff and easy target, and he was a truly concerned citizen. The bald guy seemed to realized that it was better to keep his mouth shut and let bowtie hang himself.
Have to remember that I actually have a TV and cable long enough to actually watch the Daily show...
I've followed the Daily Show for about 3 years now. As a New Zealander, I spotted it on CNN International at 5:30am on a Monday. It was a cobbled together clip show of that week on the Daily Show, often it would get pre-empted by George Bush choking on something and since the US feed would take over, it would never come back.
I just downloaded this clip off a forum and was incredibly surprised to be honest. Only the week prior, Jon played reasonably nice with Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor, as well as with O'Reilly on the Daily Show. I understand a fundamental difference in O'Reilly and in Crossfire though. With Crossfire, these two theatrical characters are meant to be embody the two sides to the social and political spectrum in America. Furthermore, rather than asking any important questions, both of them just pander to their guests based upon their political bias. They accept bullshit when it is slung at them and lap it up.
Although the point on Crossfire regarding Jon throwing softballs to John Kerry during their interview, Jon's assumption was that the real news media should be held to a higher standard than a comedy show that used to do parody news segments from the Weekly World News (During Kilborn's Daily Show era).
The hard questions aren't asked and if they are, you either get complete bullshit or you get offense. Take for example Stewart's lampooning of Zel Miller (sp?), the democratic senator that delivered the keynote address at the RNC. When interviewed by Russert, Miller took such offense to moving away from the republican talking points, or even questioning his use of metaphor and asking what it referred to, that he challenged Russert to a duel and stormed off the set.
Crossfire, to Jon, epitomised the pandering to the two-party system and their bag of dirty tricks. They are part of the system as opposed to part of the supposedly subjective media. Crossfire tried to hold Jon to a higher standard than the news media. Perhaps now that Stewart is popular, he does indeed have a duty to inform (That he has played down in many interviews)? People go to him for news, that he markets as a side-effect to the comedy.
Crossfire epitomises the passive media that has plagued the United States. Not just passive, but passively arrogant. Nasty little men who ask ridiculous questions and either cheer or smirk at the bollocks that is delivered to them. Jon does a better job and it isn't even his job, his job primarily is to make us laugh. It is a scary statement on the media in general, but perhaps with the legitimacy that he is being bestowed with, maybe, just maybe things can improve.
This is the fastest my torrent d/l speed has gone up.
/.!
Thank you
Here's where I sorta agree. Jon Stewart wants to be taken seriously, but when asked why he dosen't ask tough questions, he hides behind the "we're a comedy show" statement. And when he was prodded by the conservative guy, he resorted to personal attacks. He has a great show, and I watch him, but I also understand he is a shill for the Democratic Party, and I am okay with that.
Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
holy fuck, lol
All your base are belong to Google.
...was a lousy guest
...wouldn't let the hosts get a word in edgewise
...was unfunny, as expected
...was responsible for the most pointless interview evar
A credit to Jon Stewart.. he's a funny guy. But it really does say something about the current state of our media, when a satirical news show host is considered a political correspondant.
Although.. knowing the way my country works, I wouldn't be suprised if he becomes a governer, or the president, in less than 8 years. His running mate? Lewis Black.
They'd get my vote. We may as well have our kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.
Tucker Carlson's ego was the true guest of that episode of Crossfire, and it got shot down.
He's jealous that Stewart got to interview Kerry on his fake news show, and utterly devestated that Stewart would state that Carlson's not a true journalist. All in front of a live, studio audience.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Comedy Central used to have a show called Short Attention Span Theater, in that spirit, here's a summary of the show:
JS: You guys suck, you aren't real journalists, you're nothing but media whores out for attention.
Crossfire guys: Oh yeah!? Well when you had John Kerry on your show, all you asked him were these silly questions!
JS: My show is on after puppets making crank phone calls, yours is on CNN.
Crossfire guys: *insert more BS here*
JS: *insert more pnwage here*
This was awesome - they clearly were expecting a half-hour of comedy, and instead got someone who, for the first time, called them out on the damaging and irresponsible way in which the networks conduct themselves these days.
Then, when they tried to turn it around on him, all he had to do was remind them that his "journalism" is FAKE and that if people are actually using it as a source of genuine insight, what does that say about the state of journalism in this country?
Jon Stewart is a balls-out American Hero.
Every news show host is either liberal or conservative. On crossfire, they happen to have one of each. It's the facts of life, everyone picks a side. It's only difference from regular news shows is it makes jokes on it's news.
My favorite moment was when Stewart was making the point that although Crossfire tried to keep a serious profile, it's all just partison hackery theater:
STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie.
Jon Stewart is gold.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
I really couldn't care, personally. The content within (commercials and extra CNN crap that should have been deleted aside) transcends petty complaining about distribution 'rights' and copyright. We're not talking about some blockbuster movie being pirated. This is an important political piece that is reasonably important for the public to see.
And I'm sure your response will be "well, we can't have double standards blah blah blah". Just shut up. If you're that worried about precious IP rights being violated, chances are you're locked on a blind course and no amount of reason will penetrate.
I'm sure some day you'll make a fine criminal defense lawyer.
The interview linked below offers some insight into Stewart's views on the media, sans the cnn puppetry. http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=FA&showDate =30-Sep-2004&segNum=1&mediaPref=WM -WMV link, sorry /.ers
The interview starts out a bit lame, however progresses into an interesting dialog about the nature of politics and the media about halfway through..... well interesting for people into thinking and what not.
For those who've never seen the show, check out this hilarious Bush vs Bush clip from the Daily show.
I think the show is doing a great job of getting young people interested in political issues.
you'll notice it's a doggy dog world out there
I believe the phrase you wanted is "dog-eat-dog" not "doggy dog". The idea is that one dog will try to eat another dog when competition becomes fierce. Compare this with "doggy dog", which sounds like another name for a cute little puppy pup.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
When Carlson tried to act all indignant about Jon sucking up to Kerry, it was all over. With humor and sarcasm, Jon just blew him out of the water. Crossfire claims to be a "real" news show, but Jon exposed it for what it really is.
Its not that this is something new; what's so great is how he does it on their own show. People always have to suck up to these jack asses because they are either afraid to look bad (politicians) or want to be asked back (journalists and politicians).
The result is something more fake than The Daily Show, because it refuses to recognize the absurdity. Its all about shouting and mock-rage from people who care very little for the issue at hand, and are only looking for their "side" to win. The thought process seems to be, if my side did it, then its ok. If the other guy did it, it must be bad somehow.
Just watching begala and carlson stammer and stutter was great. Watching them try to get back on to "funny" topics was painful to watch as they were so obviously lost and out-gunned. Carlson, who prides himself on being so intelligent was reduced to saying "Be Funny". Jon shut him down on that too.
In the middle of it all, Begala and Carlson start whinng for a commercial break. Most likely because they had wet themselves in the previous 5 minutes and needed a change.
John Stewart rocks. mainstream news is crap these days. Ed Murrow is rolling in his god damn grave at the piss poor job the media is calling reporting.
Jon Stewart wants to be taken seriously
I disagree. I think he wants people to take democracy seriously (and off-air he uses what the influence he's got to that end), but I don't think his news show has any goal other than making people laugh.
The popularity of the show as a source of genuine news is merely an indicator of how far gone the "mainstream" media is.
So what would you call Chris Matthews? His "bias" really shifts quite a bit based on the issue.
Even if you're not a Stewart fan, you gotta give him credit for going on a popular show like Crossfire, and absolutely calling out the hosts and the rest of the media ON THEIR SHOW for being irresponsible journalists! Even more props for calling one of the hosts a "dick" on CNN. Gotta love when the Crossfire crew starts attacking the integrity of The Daily Show and Stewart immediately fires back that they're preceeded by a crank call program with puppets.
Regardless, I highly suggest anyone even remotely interested in politics and journalism read the transcript.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Perhaps now that Stewart is popular, he does indeed have a duty to inform (That he has played down in many interviews)? People go to him for news, that he markets as a side-effect to the comedy.
People who watch The Daily Show did better on a quiz about their political knowledge than people who watch any of the cable news shows - FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Doesn't that mean he's doing his duty to inform people?
Obviously you're a republican.
Yes, and I welcome you to (Score:-1, Schmuck).
We need more of this. How about a smart "comedian" goon squad to fight on our behalf? I'd like to see George Carlin on Crossfire. Or let's see Tucker argue with Henry Rollins (not really a comedian, but great for the job).
Someday a real rain is gonna come...
People have ALWAYS gotten some of their news from satire. Before the Daily Show, it was SNL. Before SNL it was movies. Before that, it was editorial cartoons.
Speak truth to power.
I've seen less and less of the Daily Show. That used to be my favorite late night television show. It was smart, intelligent, and funny as all hell. But with the 2004 election coverage, it's just become a forum to make fun of republicans.
He leans to the left, and that's fine. I lean to the right, but certainly not an abortion clinic bombing bible thumper. But my complaint of the show is the humor now has the tone of
Jon: "republicans are dumb!"
Crowd: "Hahaha woooo! yeaaahh! (clapping)"
The show has lost the intelligent humor it once did so well. I don't care that he's making fun of Bush, that's not the issue. The issue is that's they've gone from wit to republican bashing. Anyone can make fun of republicans and especially Bush, it's too easy. Though usually it's not based on fact, but liberal opinion.
I can't wait until after the elections when he can make fun of something else. Remember when they did the fake interview of Fabio? That was classic!
Do you actually watch The Daily Show? He does more for democracy by being taken funnily than all the real news outlets combined.
Many of us disagree with copyright, which would be more accurately called "censorprivilege". So why would we give a fuck? Illegal does not mean wrong.
/. is far from homogenous - for every MS astroturfer, there's at least one "without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary" hardcore hacker.
Remember
If you watched the video, he addresses this very point. Essentially, the daily show's first job is to entertain. Even as a liberal, I'd say that the daily show often times intentionally oversimplifies issues for comedic effect, sometimes at the cost of insight. However, it's a goddamn comedy show, and even WITH all these problems it still manages to be more insightful and honest than other shows.
And as far as Stewart lobbing Kerry softballs, Stewart often times cuts guests slack. O'Reilly was recently on and both O'Reilly and Stewart had a great time with absolutely no vitriolic discourse. He sometimes does that with his guests, and it's his prerogative. It's a goddamn comedy show.
Additionally, you can call Stewart a hypocrite all you want, but even if it were true, it doesn't mean that he's not right about this.
Photos.
Don't worry, I M2 all downmods as "Unfair" so the people who bring out the good can keep moderating, and the people who mod 0 to -1 Troll suffer.
But Slashdot is now a corporate site. I'm sure the OSwhatevertheyarenow lawyers care quite a bit.
"Mr. Burns, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"
Watch out! Someone is bringing out the tough questions!
This is not a sig.
A live torrent of the big file in a Slashdot story? What is this? Responsible journalism? ;)
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Stewart is not a journalist, he's a comedian.
His show is not about blasting comedians, it's about laughing at the really poor job that the media does.
He's been nice in interviews with republicans too, and he even was angry at his audience when they didn't pay proper respect to the republican guest.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Jon Stewart is constrained by the commercial format of his show in ways similar that Carlson et al. are constrained by the commercial formats of their shows. For e.g., Jon Stewart has to be funny.
The heart of the difference is that Carlson et al. are practitioners of the only profession which is explicitly protected in a constitutional amendment. Stewart is voicing a widely held criticism of commercial journalism: that commercial journalism is not adequately doing its job under the constitution.
It matters less whether a viewer shares this criticism than the question of whether journalists are obligated to make viewers aware of it.
For the same reason, I think it misses the point to denigrate a Comedy Channel program for its lack of balanced news coverage.
I'm laughing at clouds.
Wow. I wish there were Americans who were so well-informed about New Zealand's politics.
Or even Canada's, Jesus Christ. :/
I don't have cable or satellite, so will admit to not seeing either show before to my recollection.
With that said, I have read the transcript, and..well.... these people are professional whats? They all make these huge salaries for what? If ever there were some jobs that needed outsourcing.....I certainly wouldn't pay cash money to view this, it reinforces my observations on cable many moons ago when I had it then dropped it, you go from a few medium crappy channels and shows to a hundred (or more now I guess) medium crappy channels and shows. It read like nascar and world champeen rasslin for people who like to put down real nascar and world champeen rasslin, pot calling the kettle black. Is this the true state of excellence now in those genres of political journalism and political comedy?
We are DOOOOOOMED!
I read nothing journalistic or nothing funny in the piece, unless mildly slangish juvenile insults is considered the height of funniness now.
I've read better journalistic insight and much funnier stuff right here on slashdot, and that is on hardware review pieces at -1.
I like Jon Stewart and his daily show ... but in general I find American tv debates/discussions and os called 'critical' and investigative journalism a joke. You should watch some british tv stuff that made politicians walk out. They really bite them instead of playing that stupid left-right ping pong.
American politics has become too much of a show - and way to many countries imitate that. Is that the way our global democracies should be modelled after?!
I don't think so!
stupidity of those who try to degrade what he did on Crossfire.
You can't compare a satire show to something that's on CNN.
All your base are belong to Google.
I'd argue that Chief Scouts have done more for their societies than most, if not all, television political hacks.
Yes, Stewart only runs a comedy show, but if he is so serious about the media asking the candidates real questions, why did he make his Kerry interview so lame and softballish? He had the opportunity to really ask, not the set-up-and-trap-em type questions, but to make him say clearly all the things they want to avoid.
I guess he thought it was unfair when Bush obviously wasn't showing, or he was just afraid to scare off political guests. But I still think he could have been tougher. I tuned into that episode hoping to see Stewart using his unique position to cut through some of the bullshit, but he didn't even try.
So while I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, I do think that his treatment of Kerry really does undermine his point: comedy show or not.
Jesus, I don't know who this guy his, but I reckon the only vote he'd ever win is chief boy scout or something. Look around you buddy, and you'll notice it's a doggy dog world out there, and dems as well as reps will stoop as low as necessary to win whatever they have their eyes set upon. Welcome to the real world...
Well, let's see. We can sit on our ass making cute pithy little statements about 'doggy dogs' (what the fuck?) and say "Welp, that's just how it is. Nothing we can do about it. That's life. Welcome to the real world."
Or we can get up, go out there, and, gee, I dunno, maybe actually try and make an effort? Try to wake people up?
This is WHY our world sucks. People just give up and accept corruption and stupidity as givens and 'part of the process'. They become apathetic. And like Stewart said, this plays right into their strategy. They don't want people to pay attention. They want people to just kinda shrug and accept shit.
BytesTemplar.com
read the posts before you post
Normally I can't stand Crossfire mostly because of James Carvile. When someone answers his questions not to his liking ha immediately begins to shout him down and spout complete nonsense or straw man arguments. Jon Stewart nailed the problem with this show, and many other news programs like it, right on the head. Tucker Carlson didn't help the show when he tried to hold Jon Stewart to a higher standard, discounting the fact that Jon Stewart does comedy of the news and does not report the news directly. Surprisingly Paul Begala kept his trap shut for the most part and took the beating from Jon Stewart.
On a side note I thought John Kerry's recent appearances on Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Regis and Kelly were pathetic attempts to try to connect with average citizens and prove that he's not just a robot. Sorry John, you're still a robot and you just made an ass of yourself on these shows.
Also, thanks/. for posting links to this Crossfire episode. I spent last night at Bertucci's outside Fenway Park waiting to hear news of the fate of Game 3 of the ALCS. One TV had ESPN on it, the other CNN. Headline News briefly covered the show but as it was in a bar, there was only closed captioning so I missed most of what was said, and I was more concerned with the ESPN feed, I was upset I missed my chance to see Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson get tongue lashed on their own show.
I'm not surprised you don't remember it. It came out in 1993 and lasted just long enough for everyone to realize Stewart's lack of talent or insight.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
Is Jon Stewart turning into our generation's Neil Postman? Sure seems that way. It looked like Jon had an attack of conscience. It looked like he wanted to either yell or cry. Maybe he was ready for the jokes, pimping the book, etc and remembered how this show was going to play out: one guy giving out the DNC talking points, the other guy giving the RNC talking points, and Stewart making silly jokes about both. Like he said, he didn't want to be their monkey so he went into Neil Postman mode and attacked them on their newstainment bullshit. Its well deserved, not only because he attacked the newstainment format but because that show is especially bad in regards to politics. Its not right v left or any of that, its Democrat v. Republican talking points.
I mean, Carlson is the guy who said this about Edwards: "he (Edwards) was a personal-injury lawyer specializing in Jacuzzi cases." He knew full well Edwards did a class action for a pool pump which was used in both public and private pools which hurt little kids, but as a GOP operative that's what he had to say, especially when their managers are trying to out-sleeze shows like O'Reily and the other pathetic offerings from Fox News and MSNBC. It was all too fake for Stewart so he just spent this invaluable time attacking the system. Any sane person would have done the same. Perhaps. I think most people would have been good little boys and girls and pimped their books and played nice. Stewart knows he doesn't need CNN to sell his book or to get ratings for his show, so he took a very risky chance to take a moral stand. Don't expect him to be on any other shows for a long time, unless this is the straw which breaks the corporate media's back, which I doubt it is. If anything, this is more like a Lenny Bruce monologue which was groundbreaking at the time, but wasn't an agent of change in itself for a long time after.
Its almost predictable. I think too many people see the Daily Show as a fake news comedy show. It actually is satire of the highest order. Jon and his writers are doing nothing but mocking every news show, every hackneyed local evening news anchor, every news magazine format, every soft news journalist, etc.
I thought the most interesting part of this exchange was the comment about Carlson's bow-tie. Stewart wasn't mocking him for his lack of fashion sense, he was justifying what he calls "theater." Why would a young man wear such an old fashioned article of clothing like that, if not for attention? If not for a "distinctive look." If not for "personality branding." etc. Carlson was denying his show is theater while in a costume. It was very poignant observation by Stewart and showed the absurdity of the entire spectacle.
Source
What difference does it make. Even the commercials are still in the video file.
www.samuraidreams.com - My Blog
www.samuraifiles.com - Get Some Videos Here
But Jon doesn't force his show to lean either way; he just has more cannon fodder from Republicans.
I remember after the first debate, Jon's show was live. When Kerry answered the first question, Jon began the "audience falling asleep" type of assault. Last I saw, Kerry was a Democrat, not a Republican.
But just look at the cannon fodder for him to play with on one side! We have Bush saying that the war in Iraq is successful and we're winning, and then we see BBC feeds showing that we're not safe at all. We have Republicans in front of cameras LYING, not exaggerating or misleading, flat out LYING, and then on-camera proof to retort.
Try as you may, it's not Republican bashing, it's finally getting truth to the people who want it. Even if it's biting commentary or satirical in nature, Stewart still isn't about destroying one side.
If you want to end "Republican Bashing", start by telling Republicans who get bashed that we can record things, and we can play them back. Lying will get people nowhere today.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Jon Stewart doesn't want to be taken seriously on TDS. He has explicitly stated this. He has all kinds of people on his show and asks them "soft-ball" questions. If he was such a shill for the Dems, why does he parody the Dems so hard and why isn't he tough on his conservative guests. He's had Kissinger on his show, Ralph Reed has been there at least twice. He's had all kinds of people on there. He's actually quite a moderate.
Tucker's only attack was this, it was insane. CNN trying to hold a fake news show to some sort of journalistic integrity? WTF?! Both of them avoided the questions Jon was asking and were evading the entire discussion. They got defensive and Tucker even tried to attack Jon with that integrity crap. Jon accused them of hosting political kabuki every day and not actually discussing the things that matter to him as a citizen.
My question is how can anyone get indignant about the Dixie Chicks while also taking Jon Stewart's funny show seriously? That was Jon's real point. Both taking partisan positions on meaningless crap while ignoring the real news and holding the system accountable for it. He called them hacks because they perpetuate the absurdity rather than saying it's absurd. It's Jon's job to perpetuate absurdity, not CNN's.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
But he's no where near being in G'nort's league.
how does one hide behind "the 'we're a comedy show" statement' when one is in fact, host of a comedy show? are you accusing jon stewart of doing his job?
>Don't worry, I M2 all downmods as "Unfair" so the people who bring out the good can keep moderating, and the people who mod 0 to -1 Troll suffer.
That's OK. I regularly M2 all downmods as "fair" just to cancel out people like you.
Isn't it kind of sad that Jon Stewarts show speaks to a broader audience than say FOX? I also find humor in that real news media are asking his opinion on things. It's almost like it's a real news show! It isn't right.
This is a red-herring intended to throw out some FUD to keep those interested from checking to see what the emperor's new clothes REALLY look like. More than likely the person who made this statement isn't interested in seeing the tricks stop. Some people out there are afflicted with a mental illness that makes them want to see their side win at any cost. I would say that the parent poster is just such a person.
Un-news
That was wonderful. Shows like crossfire aren't actual political debate, the guy on the left is a democrat shill and the guy on the right is a republican shill.
The guy on the right can never say something like, "hey, warmongering isn't a conservative value" or "You're not really being fiscally conservative, bush". They just repeat republican rhetoric.
Same with the guy on the left, who isn't actually on the left, but just a democrat hack.
Basically, both of them are just repeating their party's arguments, which leaves huge blind spots for us, the people. Until this changes we'll never end up with not voting for the lesser of two evils, and democrats will never be held responsible for their actions BY democrats, and republicans will never be held responsible by conservatives. Also, we'll never hear any real arguments but just stupid stuff like kerry and bush's vietnam service. Like John Stewart said, "I asked him.. but I didn't care". Or like the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story, which has nothing to do with anything.
The politicians don't care, becuase the only people they ever get in trouble with are the opposition, who's support they don't have anyway.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
"doggy dog world"
W.t.f. is that? Do you mean "dog eat dog"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Eat_Dog
Cool.
you realise you have now given me the perfect defense for breaking the GPL, committing murder, stealing from my neighbours, etc, by using your own arguments.
Thanks!
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Yes, I made up the copyright law. There is no such thing. Hey, I can't wait to see Slashdot not get a cease and desist notice!
Here's a correct version of my last post:
Stewart is not a journalist, he's a comedian.
His show is not about blasting politicians, it's about laughing at the really poor job that the media does.
He's been nice in interviews with republicans too, and he even was angry at his audience when they didn't pay proper respect to the republican guest.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
http://home.comcast.net/~chookiechooks/storage/10. 15.04.XFire.JonStewart.mp3
1 5.04.XFire.JonStewart.mp3
J onStewart.mp3
e r231.html
1 5.04.XFire.JonStewart.mov
w mv
t ml?id=1492305
. html
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wonk/CNN/10.
http://s91285765.onlinehome.us/du/10.15.04.XFire.
Video:
http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheat
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wonk/CNN/10.
http://www.wsu.edu/~drevil/jon-stewart-crossfire.
Also, here are some intersting news stories about it:
Jon Stewart Bitchslaps CNN's 'Crossfire' Show http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jh
Jon Stewart to Tucker Carlson: "You're a dick" http://www.alternet.org/election04/2004/10/002578
This guy was very, *very* good. Bone-shattering replies. Note that he had just one glitch at the very end, when the lady asked her question, allowing the crossfirers to terminate the show and go home with at least a pitiful shred of dignity.
Funny you should mention talk radio. When Reagan took away the Fairness Doctrine, AM radio became a right-wing hatefest and continues to stay that way. Limbaugh, Savage, et al. AM used to be the cheap way to get ears, but now its partisan as all get out. Previous to Reagan's decision, AM (all broadcast media for that matter) had to present both sides of the issue in a serious manner. We are reaping the loss of the FD today with today's uber-consolidated corporate media. Just look at Sinclair which is going to air a ridiculous "documentary" on John Kerry on the 21st in a shameless attempt to alter the election. That ain't information, that's disinformation. Meanwhile Michal Moore lost his PPV F911 spot.
Double standard? You're soaking in it.
The fairness doctrine actually gave us Fair and Balanced coverage. Today, Fair and Balanced is a smartass tagline of the most biased network on television.
The major media, which is TV, the big newspapers, and the so called news magazines, have become garbage. What they put out is closer to Rumor, Gossip, and Bullshit, than it is to hard news. They don't come close to facts because they slant everything one way or the other, which involves distortion of the facts. The NYT used to be a respected paper, until they started printing editorials on the front page as news. The rest are no better.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
no he does not want to be taken seriously. did you even watch the crossfire episode?
did you see the part where they asked him who he he would get the best material from as a professional comment? his response was yes, because my professional comic career is more important than being a citizen.
john stewart is, among other things, a citizen of the united states. he was invited as john stewart the comedian, but he came as john stewart the citizen. and the citizens of our country are being betrayed by the poor state of journalism in this country. and john stewart, citizen, addressed the media when he got the chance.
as far as his career on the daily show - sure, he amused himself (and many others) with his interview with kerry. and if you actually saw that, you'll see he was taking digs at the media as he does on every show.
regardless of who wins this election, john stewart the citizen (and all the rest of us) will still be given poor service by the media. and almost more important than this election, the media needs to change. journalism needs to serve the public interest.
it currently is not.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
In a weak defense of Zell Miller, from what I've heard the media and the Democratic Party both attack him for not 'fitting in'. Yes, I've seen some of the other footage of him besides the RNC speech, and yes, he's batshit insane, but I don't really think that gives anyone the right to attack him for going against the party's grain (er... Wasn't talking about you. Just people in general.).
When Russert was asking that question, it was pretty obvious that the 'sound byte' of the evening was now 'he's going to protect this country with spitballs'. And I would imagine Zell has had to deal with the media doing things like that for a long time. Not to mention he was already pissed off from making the speech.
If you spoke for however long on he did about how you felt the challenging presidential candidate wasn't fit to command the military, and you walked off stage and the first question asked of you was a stupid question that made it sound like Russert was either trying to take him out of context, trying to promote a sound byte, or just being an idiot (I mean seriously, 'Do you really think that John Kerry would protect the country using spitballs?' that's real journalism right there, folks).... I would imagine you'd be a bit angry, too.
Russert's question wasn't a 'hard question'. It was the first of a series of bashings on Zell Miller over the next week until the next 'in' thing to bash came up.
A 'hard question', if Russert had good fact checkers, would have been 'Mr. Miller, you mentioned Senator Kerry voted down X, Y, and Z weapons, but what about his voting on A, B, and C?' (I don't have any info right now on his voting record, nor do I feel like looking it up, but I think I read someplace that Kerry has supported a few weapons for the military in recent years).
Again, I don't really want to go into Zell and whether people like him or not (I did that night, just because it seemed like he actually had something to say, and didn't sugarcoat it. Of course over the following days I saw all the footage of him being eccentric, so that dulled my feelings for him a bit), but I did feel that he deserved defending for that comment.
Doesn't that mean he's doing his duty to inform people?
Course it doesn't necessarily mean that.
Here
and here
I hate to admit it but the parent post does have a point. He is merely pointing out the legal ramifications of posting a link to it. I believe Time-Warner will be well within their rights to ask Slashdot to take the link to the torrents down.
Does he also troll GOP stronghold "Slashdot"?
Maybe because he does his job with professionalism, as opposed to-- oh say anyone at CNN, FoxNews, or MSNBC (with the exception of Keith Olbermann)...
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
No, it exists because we have a voting system where the conservatives are so afraid the democrats will win, and the liberals so afraid the republicans win that they'll vote "safe" instead of "wasting their vote"
A situation EASILY fixed by approval voting.
Jerky Boys Reference rgarding parent: "If I didn't know any better son... I'd say that you're a regular JACKASS!!!!"
Un-news
Jon Stewart wants to be taken seriously? I don't know if you notice the translucent graphic on the lower right portion of your television set, but it's a logo for Comedy Central.
Comedy Central: The channel for people who want to be taken seriously.
The Economist is biased. They also report facts and put journalists on the ground who ask questions.
Mainstream US TV today, on the other hand, is a land of sound bites and photo opportunities. The "reporters" let themselves get spun like prayer wheels. Entertainment rules over substance. How much coverage have you seen of Kerry's health plan? Did you know that he has one?
Investigation has gone to the bottom of the media's priority list. Can you imagine any of today's blow-dried talking heads doing a show like Edward R. Murrow's spotlight on Joseph McCarthy? Why do we have to depend on bloggers to do investigative legwork?
The endless coverage of Monicagate was not conservative bias, it was flash over substance. Conservative bias might have dug up more serious abuses of power, like some suspicious IRS audits of conservative nonprofits. Liberal bias would have followed up the story that suddenly disappeared about the Iranians disinforming us about Iraqi WMD through Chalabi. Instead we see Irrelevant Hollywood Types For Kerry.
When I read biased reporting I feel like I've eaten something with flavor. I either like or dislike the flavor but I know I've gotten nutrition. Whenever I'm in the same room as TV news I feel like I'm being starved.
Oh, yeah, another pet peeve: why is election coverage about who's ahead, rather than who's going to do what in office?
Shouldn't this be in the "Political" group so that my filter catches it and doesn't display it?
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Goddamnit! Correlation does not yield causation!
Sorry, pet peeve.
By intellectually plowing them into the ground and kicking them in their weak kidneys like he did in Crossfire. The pundits are weak, their "journalism" is weak, their partisan angle is bullshit and he strips them naked in front of a TV audience. By simply having a better journalistic stance ( "What do do think about the vibrator story?" JS:"I Don't."), exposing the blended-in setting (JS: "How old are you?" "35" "And you wear a bow-tie") and requesting that they DEBATE not just chit-chat in a semi-aggressive way.
In every voting system people might be afraid that someone who they don't like might win, and in every voting system they might vote for his closest rival.
And easier still by voting for people you would like to be elected. What a crazy idea!
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
The republican party / administration is in a terrible state right now. Many former supporters are jumping ship due to the neocon takeover and the sheer incompetency of the bush administration. Add to this that recently two high level RNC members are guilty of voter registration fraud and we're looking at a party that deserves to be mocked because 1.) they're fucking up the country, and 2.) They're making such bad decisions.
Call me a partisan, but sometimes one group is severely wrong.
Let's count some conservatives who have jumped ship over the current administration shall we?
1.) The Economist Magazine
2.) The Cato Institute
3.) Former Bush 41 national security adviser and family friend Brent Scowcroft
4.) Andrew Sullivan
Now let's add groups that have condemned this administration
1.) 698 Security Scholars
2.) Economists Against Bush Tax Plan several Nobel laureates among them
3.) Business School Professors (including many at Bush's Alma Matter)
The conservative party has shown itself to be anything BUT conservative. Ask uber conservative pat buchanan who will tell you the party was hijacked by the neocons who didn't really have much favor until the current administration. Reagan and Bush I didn't really like them even.
I think that you're mistaking conservatism for the republican party, which has become incompetent and simply not conservative on anything but social issues. But even there, the current admin is so inept they can't formulate functioning policy (see the pork that is "Faith Based Initiatives").
And dont' talk about Zell Miller, a man famous for switching sides, and who, quite frankly, is an idiot.
Remember the job of the media is to report what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING, not "RNC says DNC says". The Daily Show is the only thing on the air right now actually doing this.
Photos.
CNN is not liberal, and you know it. To an uninformed person it might seem like it, because they are compared to Fox "news". Both CNN and Fox are, however, piss poor compared to a real TV news system; BBC.
America isn't polarized, it's a big mess of folks right in the middle.
The folks on Crossfire represent their opinions as wholesome American values and the other side represents evil.
Seriously, do you think most Americans think it's right to out a CIA agent for any reason? And Begala ("Politics is show business for ugly people"). These people aren't interested in improving America, they're interested in improving ratings.
Stewart's biggest point is that they don't get paid for coming to consensus on difficult issues and getting both sides to talk instructively on issues. Crossfire is about baiting the other side, spin, and gotchas. It's theater, not debate.
You saw that after the first debate when Stewart interviewed Rudy Giuliani in "Spin-Alley". Jon tried to ask the Mayor about Bush's uneven performance at the debate. Giuliani kept spouting embarrassing spin. It was awful, transparent, and crass. CNN paid attention too. By the second debate, Jeff Greenfield (on CNN) said he didn't like cutting to "spin alley" for instant reaction. By the third presidential debate, CNN toned down the spin to the campaign chairs (which didn't embarrass themselves) and Judy Woodruff talking about spin alley.
Tucker Carlson obviously thought that Stewart would be funny and even tried to divert him to talk about O'Reilly. Stewart kept on the theme that CNN should inform not entertain.
The Daily Show wouldn't be half as interesting and popular if the "News Media" did its job and skewed political spin (read lies) when they saw it. But they won't, because they're part of the party (wink wink nudge nudge). You won't see John King exposing the president's BS because his career is linked to how well he gets along with the White House. So the 'real newsmen' are stifled and the commentators like Carlson, O'Reilly, Begala, and Carville get to do whatever they want, just as long as they stay 'on the reservation' of their political backers. Gross.
It's the movie Network, for real. I wouldn't have be surprised if Jon Stewart yelled "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore".
My father is a blogger.
Bill Clinton smoked pot in his younger years. George Bush did coke in college.
When Clinton was running for office, the conservative pundits all jumped on him for doing drugs and breaking the law. The liberal pundits all replied by saying "Hey, that was a long time ago and he was just experimenting. Besides what's the big deal?"
When Bush was running for office, the liberal pundits all jumped on him for doing drugs and breaking the law. The conservative pundits all replied by saying "Hey, that was a long time ago and he was just experimenting. Besides what's the big deal?"
In all of this hypocracy and mess lurks an important issue. Is it ok for someone who broke the law, to be the Chief Executive in charge of enforcing those very laws they broke? Does the serious of the offense play a part?
But no, Crossfire type shows allow their guests to shout at one another about the "other guy" being wrong while at the same time avoiding the actual issue altogether.
Here is what I got out of this "interview" ... The Daily Show may use half-truths to entertain, but shows like Crossfire use half-truths to inform! Don't you see a problem with this?
Maybe John doesn't understand the thought process at CNN. The content on CNN isn't there to inform their viewers, it's there to make Time Warner money. So I guess that would make both Crossfire and The Daily Show comedy shows.
This is a fantastic interview that I heard both on the radio when it aired and then later on NPR. If you forward to around 11 minutes into the broadcast (IIRC) you'll hear a hilarious clip of Stewart making a complete ass out of a Republican trying to explain how they decided Kerry is the #1 most liberal in Congress. A classic!
Wow, you're stupid...
that's the point! state of our media is that bad, don't you get it?
I'm not a regular Crossfire viewer, but... Is that first commecial break ALWAYS around 3 to 4 minutes? Is this a normal thing, or were they scrambling to try and "soften the blow" from a "rouge" interviewee?
*dons tin foil hat*
People who watch The Daily Show did better on a quiz about their political knowledge than people who watch any of the cable news shows - FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Doesn't that mean he's doing his duty to inform people?
No, it means that people who watch The Daily Show are better informed, not that they GOT better informed BY WATCHING The Daily Show.
On a side note I thought John Kerry's recent appearances on Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Regis and Kelly were pathetic attempts to try to connect with average citizens and prove that he's not just a robot. Sorry John, you're still a robot and you just made an ass of yourself on these shows.
You're still a robot? What the hell does that mean?!
Oh... you're one of *those* people... try voting in the issued for once.
It's not Stewart's job to ask significant questions on his comedy show.
And hell, at least Kerry had the balls to show up on The Daily Show. We'll never see commander bunnypants sitting next to Stewart while he's still in office.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
I'm not a regular viewer of TDS, but I've always been a fan since Jon Stewart took over; now I know why. Definitely (and by far) the funniest smart guy, IMHO.
I think Stewart is always funny and made a few good points, but his argument would be stronger if he didn't fit right into the system he is criticizing.
Also, to be fair, he is attacking the weakest of the journalists out there. Tucker Carlson is like CNN's version of Alan Colmes, only for the Right. It would be interesting to see Stewart try to mess with O'Reilly or Hannity, which I doubt he'll ever do.
The Daily Show does not even get 2 million viewers. It does not have a huge following.
...anyone who claims to have "issues" with anything _is_ hoity-toity. ;)
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
For a very interesting and more serious interview with Jon Stewart, head to this NPR interview:
y Id=4054791
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
Great interview, plenty of laughs, but also a truly inspiring take on the media circus overall.
I thought it was Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball that was challenged to the duel.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Proper respect to ANY politician is earned; not deserved.
I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
It was Chris Matthew's that he made the duel remark to, not Tim Russert. It wasn't exactly a word for word challenge, but something along the lines of "I wish we still lived in an age where men could challenge other men to a duel."
I just watched the torrented file and I'd read the transcript last night.
John Stewart was funny and he ripped on them but he has a case of the Entertainer that believes his own press.
Of course Crossfire is entertainment, so are all the other ones, I think the best show for dealing with politics is the McLaughlin Group.
John Stewart had a bit too much of the underinformed rightous anger that entertainers get and I think it comes from people sucking up to them all the time.
It's kind of boring.
Because he's making valid points. If Hitler or Charles Manson were on the show making valid points, we'd take that seriously as well. You're terrible at trolling.
I agree however BBC has its share of spin as well so the absolutely best is to view unedited broadcasts for example directly from the public parts of UN security council sessions (BBC showed some of those), however I've found over time that CNN (europe) actually shows far more unedited broadcasts from US politics than BBC (stuff like the state of the union address, press conferences etc.).
It's priceless to be able to base ones own opinions directly on what a person or group said rather than what someone else thinks they said. Also it's priceless for discovering which way different media tends to spin. Nothing beats straight from the horses mouth.
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
hahaha
I want to label this +5 funny just for all the "doggy dog" trashing comments.
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein
Um, let's take a reality check here.
Look, Stewart's show isn't about tough questions. It's about cracking jokes and having fun. That's his job there. If he started asking any politician tough questions he'd be out on his ass, sooner or later. It's comedy. It's not supposed to be real. It's like complaining that Readers Digest "Humor in Uniform" doesn't get into the realities of the war in Iraq, or that "Spy vs Spy" isn't as detailed as "Smiley's People".
His point, which nobody addressed, is that there's all this time and energy wasted on crap that is just irrelevant. What was most of that transcript about? Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, and he seems to have mixed feelings about it. Well, geeze, is anyone surprised? You gotta expect he's going to be touchy about it sometimes, and able to deal with it other times. He's human.
Or let's look at the National Guard. The spin that's going on there is crazy. There's no reason to attack Bush about his service in the National Guard... we know that he had a troubled youth, with a lot of irresponsible behaviour. You either accept that he grew out of it, or you don't. You look for signs that he's learned from his mistakes... in fact that's something that's worth asking: what did he learn from that time. I'd like to know that.
Or the whole Swift Boat melodrama. Whether Kerry exaggerated his role or not, it's a fact that he asked to go to Vietnam, and he volunteered for hazardous duty. If it turns out that he wasn't as courageous as he wants you to think, if his motivations were mixed, he still had more backbone than someone who took a slot in the National Guard.
I could go on and on, but Stewart's right, the media is asking stupid questions and letting the candidates deflect them into concentrating on stupid issues far far too often... and paying attention to real problems far too infrequently. Really, they should ignore what either candidate says about the other. Treat is as a "hot tip" for something to investigate, at the most. They should ignore anything the candidate says about their own character... of course they're going to try and say good things about themselves. Instead, look for the things the candidates aren't talking about or what they're talking about they aren't explaining. Because that's where the real skeletons are going to be buried.
Since you are posting AC we can't really take anything you say too seriously. But I'll address the point. Copyright law (as addled as it currently is) should be upheld. But, what about YOU personally? If one of the right wing pundits was on the Al Franken show and ripped him a new one, would you be so quick to point out the copyright issue? I would say that it's doubtful that you would since you probably have no interest in seeing any kind of real balance in the news media. So... decloak and let's have a little more of a real discussion about this.
Un-news
Perhaps people make the determination that the world isn't worth saving, since it's so pathetically corrupt, stupid and full of nasty people.
Why bother?
CNN is not a liberal news network, even if it once was. http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040104.shtml http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101304.shtml http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082404.shtml They consistently pander to the right wing to try to get their market share back.
"How is this man -- who has never worked outside of comedy -- going to critique actual journalists, and get taken seriously?"
By pointing out that his comedy show has more credibility than their "news" show? At least, that's how he *did* it.
The only reason that we Canadians are paying this much attention is cause there is no hockey ...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
YOU DIRECT LINKED!
It's up to the reader to download or not.
No wonder you posted anon - you show a lack of knowledge of how bittorrent works and what constitutes distribution. Read up, then post.
Surprisingly Paul Begala kept his trap shut for the most part and took the beating from Jon Stewart.
I put it down to him thinking "this guy's a liberal hack like me, he's only trying to pretend to be fair"...
On a side note I thought John Kerry's recent appearances on Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Regis and Kelly were pathetic attempts to try to connect with average citizens and prove that he's not just a robot. Sorry John, you're still a robot and you just made an ass of yourself on these shows.
I'd have to say the debates sank the "ZOMG KERRY == ROBOT!" absurdity.
The state of journalism today is an absolute embarassment. It's all about being servants to the powerful, not comforting the powerless and watching the powerful.
Stewart is concerned about TV news - he parodies it. If the media looked at the funhouse mirror, they might think about what they're doing. He came on to talk seriously about them.
I don't think that "tough questions" was the focus of what Stewart was saying - just that shouting head journalism was hurting America. There is a line between infotainment and disinfotainment, but I'll definitely agree that neither one is truly informative.
IMHO, the primary problem with modern US journalism - and this ties into shouting heads - is that no one is willing to say that X is true. The media would much rather say "Well, the Republicans say X, the Democrats say Y", and then punt their responsibilities.
Some people watch the daily show for news because they like to be infotained; other people realize the layers of BS caking the mainstream media. Me, I don't rely on the US media to tell me what color the sky is. (Although I do have to recommend this article on the faith-based presidentcy.
It's by that bastion of the truth that brought us Judith Miller, Whitewater, and Wen Ho Lee. What was that about the Daily Show being pathetic?
Those guys didn't even seem to realize how much Jon Stewart was playing them for the straight man. Oh my.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I'm not at all surprised by this. I've been listening to the audiobook version of the book A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction. At one point Stewart starts talking about the media and it suddenly becomes a very impassioned rant against them. He sounds as frustrated and pissed off as any of us when we watch the shit we get for political news/commentary these days.
I think Stewart is doing a great job at being a watchdog, but he's only one man and a show. We need more people demanding higher standards and loudly complaining about the status quo.
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
Of course they would be within their rights to, but it would likely take a week to make it happen, after which point, ostensibly, no one will be downloading anymore. The torrent links will be useless by then. In any case, If slashdot removed the links at that time, no harm would be done here, since the link to the transcript remains. So, ultimately it's a moot point as I see it. A cease-and-desist has no "legal ramifications" if it's complied with, and it has no practical ramifications if compliance doesn't change anything.
PS If you don't want to download it, just read the transcript.
So, let me get this right. ... so informed, complete sentences, ... spellings good, well thought out remarks.
:-)
Everyone here seems to have watched the clip?
Everyone seems, well,
I'm so ashamed.
~hylas
I'll tell you why I care. I paid for a subscription (in fact, I'll tell you the next story is about Farscape, you can check the time of this message vs. that story). So, if Slashdot gets sued, guess where my subscription money gets spent? Yes, on legal defense. Sorry, I don't find it appropriate for me or other subscribers to have our money wasted that way when it's something that could easily be avoided with a bit of common sense. Oh, and I have trouble taking anyone with "Trolling" in their username seriously, so I guess we're even.
You're missing the point. Crossfire has hosts that are liberal or conservative in name only, but are really just party operatives and spin doctors. The closest thing there is on CNN to someone who is conservative and yet independent of the Republican party is Lou Dobbs. MSNBC has Chris Matthews, who is a moderate (not a liberal), and seems slightly more independent of either party.
Incidentally, there is a wide spectrum out there in American Politics. If you only believe in Liberal/Conservative, or worse, that Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative, you're doing yourself a huge disservice, and turning important matters into a team sport.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Watching this interview, I almost wanted to cry with him. Here is a guy who is actually bringing good points to the table, and bowtie boy is asking trite questions like "Are you this funny at home, do you lecture everybody, etc etc". I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point. As soon as things get interesting and THEY get in the hot seat, they start the insults and quick cut to commericial. Meanwhile, Jon Stewart is desperately trying to hold onto the audience that is connecting with him.
Kudos to Jon Stewart. Even though I don't agree with his political views, I support him in his efforts.
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
Don't forget the context of the quote. For whatever reason, Chirs couldn't wait for Zell to answer the question, so Chris was doing his thing and talking (yelling?) over the Senator each time he tried to answer Chris' question. Zell finally got pissed off and made his comment. I think Zell was ready for Chris since Chris had just thrown Michelle Malkin off his show, a day or two previous, after Michelle wouldn't agree with Chris that "self inflicted" = "shot himself".
NPR also offers Real streams, which tend to be more non-Windows friendly. Here's the one for this show:
t e=30-Sep-2004&segNum=1&NPRMediaPref=RM
http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.html?prgCode=FA&showDa
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Yes, that's why all the bittorrent sites that started a couple years ago are still up. Oh wait, they're not. They got shut down.
Ask significant questions and you'll get the same scripted answers.
There was no real point in asking those questions, as Kerry has nothing to answer for except his plans for the next four years. The media in general has done a pretty solid job of covering that, and the response is the same.
What would Jon achieve by asking those same questions? It would be of 0 entertainment value. Case in point was when Kerry was on Letterman. It was a boring interview, except for a few parts where he had funny jabs at the President, and his Top 10 list.
Interestingly, Jon asking those simple questions highlighted one important thing about Kerry - he can't answer simple questions simply. "Would that it were so."
If journalists and reporters actually sought facts and investigated public figures fairly and accurately regardless of figure's Party affiliation, well, just about every politician in office would be wiped out, and...
Huh...
Wait a minute... why is that a problem again?
--- Ban humanity.
I think in Zell's case it was more about the question wasn't allowed to be answered. Chris Matthew simply wouldn't let Zell answer the question. Each time Zell started to answer Chris would talk or yell over his answer, since that's Chris' style. Finally Zell got pissed off and left. Can't say that I blame him. Why stick around for that kind of abuse?
It's Jon's job to perpetuate absurdity, not CNN's.
No, it's Jon's job to point out the absurdity of the system in a funny way, which he does successfully.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
> > Don't worry, I M2 all downmods as "Unfair" so the people who bring out the good can keep moderating, and the people who mod 0 to -1 Troll suffer.
> That's OK. I regularly M2 all downmods as "fair" just to cancel out people like you.
I regularly M2 all downmods as "fair" but I also M2 all upmods as "unfair" (and all funny as "unfunny") to make the canceling effect even stronger. (Posting as AC because I don't want to revert my moderation of grandparent).
Oh, and one more thing: having 4-digit uid I get five mod points every second day and I use all of them to downmod trolls. All of them. But usually I use Overrated mods so no M2 for you, suckers! He he he!
It's a feature of the electoral system. It can't be avoided without fundamental change to a more representative (proportional) voting system.
In a winner take all system, it is the side which splits it's vote which loses, this means that if you vote for anyone else but the *main* party with similar views you actually increase the chance of the diametrically opposed party winning. If you want someone with your general views to win an election you should vote for the *main* party candidate but volunteer your time to an opposing spoiler party candidate (Nader, Perot etc) who will reduce your opposition's votes.
To solve this problem the electoral system needs to be replaced with a proportional system which allocates representatives in proportion to the percentage of the popular vote, not on a win/lose basis. This guarantees that if you vote for a party it increases the representation, i.e. the number of seats held in congress or the senate.
When voting for an individual post, like president obviously proportionality is impossible, but an electoral systems which allow voters to rank candidates will produce a more preferred result than the existing system and remove the divide and conquer effect of "spoiler" candidates thereby giving *them* a better chance.
There are a number of proportional representation systems with various advantages and disadvantages so I'm not going to discuss them here.
You can find more information here:
http://www.fairvote.org/
Deleted
did you see the part where they asked him who he he would get the best material from as a professional comment? his response was yes, because my professional comic career is more important than being a citizen.
Please check your sarcasm meter. It appears to be broken.
Wow. Way to miss the fucking point. Jon's admitting he can't do the heavy lifting -- all he can do is make fun of shit. But he's intelligent enough to know that the people who can do the heavy lifting aren't.
I wouldn't guarentee It's made me all that well informed about New Zealand's politics, but when it became obvious to me that the U.S. media were getting absorbed by a few massively corporate owners, I started bookmarking overseas internet news sources for comparison. They can be real eye openers. Even Americans who don't speak any languages save English can use these:
World News Network in Berlin (English feed) -
http://www.worldnews.com/
News from Oz -
http://www.news.com.au/
The Moscow Times (English Feed) -
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/indexes/01.html
And a fine source for Americans who wish they were more informed about New Zealand's politics -
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
Anyone who knows of particular systemic biases from any of these sites, please post the URLs of their competition.
Who is John Cabal?
Nope, your wrong.
Pie, A magical delicetessant!
Ok grammar nazis tear it up :).
their->there in several different places..arggh
I prefer to think of it, not as a corrupt election versus a noncorrupt election; but instead, as a peaceful attempt at change of power versus a violent attempt at change of power.
As real actual MAJOR power is actually at stake, I think keeping the violence and fraud to a minimum is the best that can be achieved. Only where what is at stake is small can keeping squeeky clean to the rules be enforced. Also, do we really want a President who would rather lose than bend a rule? No, we want a winner! The world champion at victories. Not someone with the best excuse for losing.
First: Thanks for the torrent link. I gobbled that up as soon as I saw it. Secondly: Why isnt this on the /. politics page? I tried looking for this, but it wasnt there. Not political enough?
Thirdly: Jon Stewart. Bless his heart. He really tried to grill those guys on their lack of integrity and their ignorance of their duty to call people on the crap they have done. I think Jon brought a sense of reality to that show that probably wont be allowed to be there again [are you even allowed to call someone a dick on CNN?]. I think Jon is right, and he is trying to call people on a higher moral standard that somehow, the media has forgotten. This pre-dates 9/11 imo, it only got MASSIVELY worse after 9/11. /rant on
Why is it, when people do wrong in politics, its never truly scrutinized in a critical fashion as it should be. Our political leaders should not be held to the mere levels of the common [sheep] citizen, but should exemplify a higher standard. Yes, they are human, but they are supposedly human representatitives. They are supposed to support and express an ideal. Instead, at one point you had the PRESIDENT receiving sexual favors with his intern, you have another president who went to WAR, killing 100's of his own troops, and 1000's of the citizens of the invaded country, based on false intelligence [that apparently, on paper w/o fact checking is good enough to go to war], and the entire time spinning everything for political gain. People's lives should NEVER be a tool for political gain!. And these presidents should be exemplifing the ideal representative. I dont know about you, but a quality I want in a leader of my country is moral standards. If he isnt able to be that way, then he has NO REASON to be a rep for me or my country. The leader of a country has to LEAD ... not just "be one of the boys". Thats BS that we, the people, have tolerated for far too long imo.
This is but just a tad taste of the amount of crap that is going on out there, that the media covers, but never criticizes, and that is what Stewart was hoping the Crossfire people could answer for him. Why? Why repeat the same political machine and rhetoric that the political parties engage in? Why not actually tell these people that they are wrong? Its all part of a Marxist thought i bet. If you do something to piss the 'boss' off, he wont invite you to any more press conferences. The Party's have the media right where they want the media, as lapdogs and agenda toters.
I hope Jon goes onto every show he can, and call every single one of those supposed reporters a phone, a shill, and if need be, a dick. /clap
Good showing Jon! /rant off
The point is the Daily Show isn't real news. They explicitly sell themselves as not real. They are a satirical talk show, basically. That's what Comedy Central wants they are, after all, the comedy channel. I tune in when I want something that makes me laugh. That is the reason Time Warner has them, to make people laugh. As Stewart noted, he is often preceeded by Crank Yankers, and often followed by South Park. It's a humour show, in the same vein as Leno or Letterman, who also poke fun at current events and have guests. Their particular twist is as a fake news show.
CNN on the other hand, is Time Warner's news channel, the Cable News Network. They were, to the best of my knowledge, the first 24-hour news network. All news, all the time, with localized versions throught the world. They sell themselves as a very serious news organization, dedicated to news and nothing else. Their tagline from their website is "CNN: The most trusted name in news." Crossfire in particular claims to be "debating the issues that impact your life."
So Stewart is perfectly in the right to rag on these guys from CNN. They are on the news network, they have a responsibility to do news. Stewart is on the comedy channel, he has a responsibility to make people laugh.
You don't have to do something to be able to claim that those doing it aren't doing a good job. You can send back food at a resturant that's bad even if you aren't a chef and you can critique the government even if you aren't a politician.
Stewart isn't a news man, he's a comedian, but that doesn't mean he can't criticize problems in the news media. However when they then try to pretend like those problems are his, he's right in pointing out that he's NOT in news. Being on TV doesn't mean you are in news or have some journalistic responsibility. I don't want the South Park characters doing investigative reporting, I want them making dick and fart jokes.
However just because he is a comedian and does satire on his show, doesn't mean he isn't also an intelligent human, who has opinions that he can express.
Not a liberal? I'd agree in only one respect. He's still a stong Roman Catholic, so he'll break with his party on certain issues, but don't confuse that with being independent of the party. You don't become a speech writer for Pres Jimmy Carter and a top aide for Tip O'Neil by being independent of the party.
How the hell is this 40% flamebait? Grow up, mods.
The role of journalist is not strictly to provide a window of truth, but to empower those without power. Journalism, done properly, challenges those who hold power and penetrate the shields held up by those who want to keep all the power for themselves.
As a journalist, you represent the public. You need to fight for access and return to the public what you learn. This is what Stewart is saying. It doesn't matter who you support, what matters is that you get the information that the public can digest.
Power, however, doesn't just mean government. It is also corporate. Companies and organizations can put out press releases all day long. They have the ability to lobby, which the public does not - and by organizations, I mean more than corporations. The NRA and the ACLU lobby just as capably as Monsanto or Microsoft. Journalism's job is to support the little guy.
This is the drummer beating in opposition to complaints that the press is too liberal. It has to be liberal, although it doesn't have to be partisan. It attracts liberal-leaning personalities, those who want to stand up for the common man in the face of financial and ruling interests. The reason so much press is so atrocious today is because so much of the press has been absorbed by those very financial interests. Who does AOL Time Warner serve? I'll give you a hint, and it starts with "stockholders", not "public".
Anybody who wants journalists to serve people rather than interests needs to abhor two things: media conglomeration and government secrecy. One of the Bush administration's very first acts was to limit the release of Presidential records, of the past and the present. It's appalling.
Bill Moyers recently gave a speech discussing these issues. Here are a few choice quotes:
What's important for the journalist is not how close you are to power but how close you are to reality....
The job of trying to tell the truth about people whose job it is to hide the truth is almost as complicated and difficult as trying to hide it in the first place. Unless you're willing to fight and refight the same battles until you go blue in the face, drive the people you work with nuts going over every last detail to make certain you've got it right, and then take hit after unfair hit accusing you of "bias", or these days even a point of view, there's no use even trying....
I am reminded of the answer the veteran journalist Richard Reeves gave when asked by a college student to define "real news." "Real news," said Richard Reeves "is the news you and I need to keep our freedoms."...
One study reports that the number of crime stories on the network news tripled over six years. Another reports that in fifty-five markets in thirty-five states, local news was dominated by crime and violence, triviality and celebrity. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, reporting on the front pages of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, on the ABC, CBS, and NBC Nightly news programs, and on Time and Newsweek, showed that from l977 to l997 the number of stories about government dropped from one in three to one in five, while the number of stories about celebrities rose from one in every fifty stories to one in every fourteen. What difference does it make? Well, its government that can pick our pockets, slap us into jail, run a highway through our back yard, or send us to war. Knowing what government does is "the news we need to keep our freedoms."...
"A journalist tries to get the facts right," tries to get "as close as possible to the verifiable truth" - not to help one side win or lose but "to inspire public discussion." Neutrality, he concludes, is not a core principle of journalism, "but the commitment to facts, to public consideration, and to inde
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
rouge = red in french
rogue = what you were going for
No, it suggests:
Now, I do believe John Stewart is doing this job. But I'm not going to say this quiz is ironclad proof.
I can't think of anywhere else to post this but just to let you know I agree with you in a way. Unfortunately mine isn't as intelectually stimulating as yours but I tried. There is still one major problem I'm seeing with this whole Stewart deal. I am pretty much to the right, but I still watch his show. Not to get news, just for a laugh. I get a kick out of the correspondents (the fedex guy and such). The part I think I'm having the biggest problem with is seeing where the thrashing everyone else has seen but me has come in. He does a parody that makes fun of the media and how messed up it is. That's great for a funny relief from the norm. However, I have always believed in leading by example. The singlehanded largest way and I think the only meaningful way he could have come on that show and insult them was if he were to come on and point out how he has a competitive REAL news program that doesn't lean one way or the other (dreaming I know). Making fun of the media with your own show doesn't help the situation in any form to me. Granted I'm still going to watch his show, but I can't see this objectively as him "Tearing them a new one." He doesn't do any better of a job at news reporting then them. Sure it is a comedy show on comedy central, but then don't come onto another show and tell them how they are messing up at something you can't do yourself successfully. He tried before, it didn't work.
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, but the Internet Archive has the debates, along with plenty of other political stuff. See the Election 2004 video collection. The third debate isn't up yet, but, for instance, the second one is available in MPEG-4 streaming, MPEG-1, or MPEG-2 formats.
Also, they have the older SIGGRAPH Electronic Theater stuff. Pardon me while I binge.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
FUCK YES!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Lots of people have forgotten why they even started voting Republican in the first place and have become dumb enough to think that anything Republicans do must necessarily be conservative just because they are the "conservative party."
But look who the main Republican candidate is... GWB. He *is* conservative. So while you may like aspects of the Republican ideology, as I do, you're basically saying, "Republicans can be centrists too, we're not all nut jobs -- you can vote for us too!" (you could easily make the same arguments about the Democrats).
Yet the primary Republican candidate *is* a nut job, who's record over the past four years has hardly inspired confidence in his "leadership". Do you honestly think people "forgot" why they voted Republican? Or do you think it's people like me who look at the Bush Administration and feel nothing but disgust, since his "leadership" has, for the very first time in my life, made me ashamed to be an American. I was willing to give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt when he came into power, and I didn't particularly like him (or Gore either). But whatever credibility the current administration had was squandered long ago.
Stewart is right: his job will be much harder if Kerry is elected because the absurdity of the current administration is prime material for humor.
I don't understand why you feel the need to promote "the party"; tying yourself to a party only closes you off from the other side. Don't vote the party, vote the candidate; you'll be a more effective citizen.
John McCain. They started picked on McCain several years ago, might have been the 2000 election, and McCain took it in stride. Since then, he's been a favourite of theirs. I remember them ambushing him on the campaign trail and asking a question from Trivial Persuit while his wife desperatly tried not ot fall down laughing.
That's just what they do, poke fun at current events. Sure, they could have asked McCain a real question there, but then isn't that the purpose of all the real reporters that were standing around them?
I think the problem is that for some reason, people seem to take the Daily Show too seriously (mostly those that don't like it) and think it's supposed to be a real news show. Nope, it's a talk show, just like Leno or Letterman. Even has the same format basically. Starts out with host poking fun at current events, moves on to feature entertainment, finishes with guests. The Daily Show just uses a news program as it's format, rather than the classical talk show.
Stewart is concerned about TV news - he parodies it. If the media looked at the funhouse mirror, they might think about what they're doing. He came on to talk seriously about them.
I think this is part of the problem. People mistake opinion-based editorial shows for "news". I'll agree that the op-ed "entertainment" shows are consuming more time on the alleged "news" channels these days, but there are plenty of "hard news" shows and segments on all the major media outlets, both 24x7, and not. Talking about whether or not you think they're "doing their jobs" is really an exercise in futility, because depending on a person's politics, they're going to have varying degrees of disagreement on this. People who think Indymedia is "news", or believe that a 757 didn't really crash into the Pentagon, or who think that the US went to war in Iraq exclusively because of things like ties to the Saudi royal family, greed, and Halliburton will no doubt think that the conventional "news" is not doing its job.
I don't think that "tough questions" was the focus of what Stewart was saying - just that shouting head journalism was hurting America. There is a line between infotainment and disinfotainment, but I'll definitely agree that neither one is truly informative.
Agreed.
But this goes back to what I was just saying: Crossfire is not "journalism". It's not a real news show. It's entertainment. I don't care if some people "present" it as news; it's really not. And to be accurate, it's not that black and white...sure, it's partially journalism, but it's not a straight news show. And there ARE still straight news shows out there.
IMHO, the primary problem with modern US journalism - and this ties into shouting heads - is that no one is willing to say that X is true. The media would much rather say "Well, the Republicans say X, the Democrats say Y", and then punt their responsibilities.
This is where you're getting into dangerous territory. The news does in fact do analysis; they're not only just mouthpieces for the parties. Yes, yes, they're "part of the system" to an extent and all that, but you say "punt their responsibilities"...to me, that implies that you believe there is some universal "truth" that the media should be exposing...forgive me if that's not what you mean. But some people think what the media should be "exposing" are merely opinions, and based in philosophical ideals, not in "fact". There are a lot of people who think the US should or should not be doing various things for all manner of reasons. There are extremely good and bad arguments on both sides of just about every issue. (Just so that I'm not beating around the bush here: the "liberal" or "progressive" side of the argument isn't always the only "correct" or "enlightened" one.)
Some people watch the daily show for news because they like to be infotained; other people realize the layers of BS caking the mainstream media. Me, I don't rely on the US media to tell me what color the sky is. (Although I do have to recommend this article on the faith-based presidentcy.
Agree with the first part of your sentiment. Then you start to get a little cynical implying that the US media is nothing but lies, and then come back full circle to recommending an article - no doubt because you agree with, or want to believe, its contents. See the problem here?
And as an aside, I'm well aware of this fantasy that people seem to have about so-called "dominionists" wanting to take over the US and turn it into some wacko Christian fundamentalist theocracy and that the US is on an honest-to-God (no pun intended) Christian Crusade in the middle east. Yes, people who think along these lines exist. No, it's not Bush. So Bush is a religious man and has a controversial initiative to give money to organizations that happen to be b
Learn the difference between "your" and "you're" and we'll talk.
How is this man -- who has never worked outside of comedy -- going to critique actual journalists, and get taken seriously?
Stewart can watch the "actual" journalists just as you can: as a talking head in their native environment.
His point is that they claim to be journalists yet at the end of the programs he comes away with a bad taste in his mouth; he, like many of the viewers, feel like they've been taken for a ride and if anything have ended up more confused. Issues that could've been discussed or examined were not, but rather people just spouted off spin/party lines. That's not discussion, it's a live-action campaign ad.
He's telling the "actual" journalists that they're not doing the job that they claim they're doing. I stopped watching the programs in question for that exact reason; that is the problem Stewart is trying to address.
After watching one of these programs, do you think to yourself, "Wow, I'm really glad I watched that program... the commentary was insightful, the moderators asked tough questions, and when the guests dodged those questions the moderators went after them."
Stewart knows full well that American political reporting in the mass media is a rigged game, with no real attention paid to REAL ISSUES, such as why America is the only industrialized country to not have universal healthcare, and why countries in Europe that were ON THEIR ASSES after WW2 are now able to afford their citizens a standard of living that most Americans can dream of, such as 30 or more days off a year, and healthcare paid for by taxes (so that even the poorest person can walk in and get healthcare), and longterm welfare when needed for ALL citizens, not just mothers, and longterm unemployment lasting into years if needed.
These are the real issues that are never addressed on shows such as Crossfire. And does Stewart address these issues on Crossfire? Does he talk about how all Canadians have healthcare, but not all Americans? Does he talk about how America is run like some kind of captive consumer livestock ranch for the benefit of corporate investors? No.
He is a tease who takes advantage of the fact that many American know that something is quite wrong with the way the political media operates, but he does not deliver on the exposing of that media--he just teases us. Why? Well, just like all the other media talking heads, he is not on our side--he is rich!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
...the fattest .torrent ever (well, I'm my experience, anyway)! And the first time the /.ing a file has lead to a faster DL time.
CARLSON: ::Fire 3:: ::Reflect::
STEWART:
CARLSON: "Crap!" (looses 5000 HP)
After watching what happened, I'm not surpised by the outcome.
... it happens here too even on the CBC (publicly funded network).
The hosts asked John a question and then when he was making a point which contradicts CNN's opinion, interrupted him and basically spun the answer in a way to favor the network. They would also break to commericial.
This is what hurts political coverage because its the exact same thing that goes on in debates. The mediator, interviewer or reporter basically help the politician answer the question. Either by filling up the blanks through followup questions (helping the politician veer his answer) or simply cutting the question short when the politician has problems answering the question.
As a Canadian, this isn't exclusive to the American networks
But look who the main Republican candidate is... GWB. He *is* conservative.
He is socially conservative on issues like abortion and religion, that's it.
He promotes gross fiscal irresponsibility and ballooning debt. That's not conservative.
He promotes nation building and continual warfare. That's not conservative.
He has supported erosion of civil liberties and violations of due process against American citizens. That's not conservative.
He supports what is effectively amnesty for illegal aliens. That's not conservative.
He supports corporate welfare through huge increases in agriculture subsidies. That's not conservative.
In general he supports expansion of government power, especially that of the executive branch. That's not conservative.
Don't vote the party, vote the candidate; you'll be a more effective citizen.
I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I'm voting for Badnarik. Bush doesn't reflect what I hold to be conservative.
http://www.imagevenue.com/my.php?loc=web2/&image=8 6a87_jon-stewart-lewis-black.jpg
Ethics do not necessarily match up with law.
Stop trolling and think.
We are moving more and more rapidly toward a post-intellectual property society. There are going to be lots of people who don't like it, but the fact remains that it's coming and no amount of legislation is going to fix it.
+++ATH0
More proof of mod abuse going on here.
Did anyone hear that pay-per-view pulled Micheal Moore's movie and yet a 'non-biased' broadcasting company is playing a 'anti-kerry' movie on 67 channels? If any of you caught Leno last night you'll see Moore offered his movie for free to that same 'un-biased' company. When they don't take it, it will just show how un-biased media is in the US. Glad I'm a canadian! But I am a little scared of Bush being in power for another 4years...
No, this is
Come on guys... I am downloading from the tracker at 8k/s and uploading at 32k/s.
RESEED!!!
... he called Tucker Carlson a dick. It was right when they were cutting to commercial. I was pleasantly surprised to see him still sitting at the table when they came back.
... and a chick spreading her legs.
Wonder if CNN will get any complaints about that.
"What about the children!"
On a side note, while Crossfire was on, so was Oprah, and there was this chick spreading her legs on the stage acting all seductive and moving very erotic.
"What about the children!"
I was torn between Jon Stewart and a chick spreading her legs.
Jon Stewart
The chick won.
his response was yes, because my professional comic career is more important than being a citizen.
His response was what we call in the entertainment industry, "sarcasm."
Methinks you need more irony in your diet.
First step, for you: think for yourself instead of whipping out terms out of your (or, as in this case, somebody else's) ass.
If you didn't hear what Jon Stuart was saying, then you need to pick up the book on Listening 101.
He was on the show to tell both sides to calm down the rhetoric and talk issues. Clearly you didn't read the transcript or watch the clip; please do so before you spout off again.
He clearly says, "You guys (left and right) should be debating", and not indulging in staged theater (a-la pro wrestling). He is begging them to take the "N" in CNN (which stands for NEWS) seriously and try to inform the people, instead of just spouting their party lines back and forth.
Read the transcript. And when done reading it, READ IT AGAIN. And put down that other crap you've been reading.
And finally: get out of your mom's basement. There is a whole world out there, you know.
There's more to news than just information. I'm not from the US, but I've watched Crossfire a few times, as well as the Daily Show (once live, several torrents).
The humourists can be right or left- it doesn't matter. Their job is that of the court jester, ensuring that the elites' perception of reality always stays in touch with that of the little guy.
I know several people in the US that are very upset about the state of politics- and it can be incredibly frustrating to watch talking heads take seriously obvious spin (WMDs, Kyoto would be bad for the economy, tax breaks are good for the economy, etc.. etc...). Judging from the turn out at elections, American democracy is one of the sickest in the world.
Having someone say out loud what many people are thinking privately is a good thing. If you don't have an outlet, you'll just end up with more conspiracy nuts that note important (real) discrepancies and imagine some dark plot against them. It's not health for people on a personal / mental level, and it's not healthy for the public discourse.
The jesters keep things real- you need them right now. The mainstream shows like Crossfire maintain an illusion that the two party system is not broken, pretending to inform when they merely repeat spin.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
I hope we can agree that when a significant chunk of the country believes something that is provably not true, the media is not doing its job. 44% of Americans believe that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis - don't you agree that shows an inarguable problem?
There are things that are debatable, and should be debated - not shouted. There are other things that are just true, and the media should slap down people who try to assert that black is white, up is down, etc.
If people had a foundation in common facts - the economy is doing X, the war in Iraq is going Y - then it's possible to have a reasoned debate about issues. However, if people in this country live in different fact worlds depending on where (or whether!) they get their news, debate is unpossible.
I hate to break it to you, but the New York Times is not some conservative propaganda mouthpiece.
Well, if they aren't a conservative propaganda mouthpiece, why do they unquestioningly repeat conservative propaganda?
They do other things as well, and they're no Wall Street Journal editorial page, but the liberal/conservative "bias" in the media is trivial. The real media biases are laziness and greed.
Look at "anonymous sources" That's not journalism, and that's definitely not freedom of information.
There are complicated issues going on - and the choice is more complicated than "leave them alone" or "invade Iraq, give the money to Halliburton, and hire Republicans to rebuild it". The first rule of holes is to stop digging once you're in one!
I think if you look, you'll find that freedom of the things you mention are in short supply in Iraq. Faith-based science and faith-based foreign policy are no substitute for a well-informed public, and I argue that it is impossible for that public to be well-informed by the American media today.
You, sir, are a class-A moron.
The reason so many people are cheering Jon Stuart is because he voiced what they've been trying to say for a long time. The average Joe (or Jane) stands a higher chance of climbing Mt. Everest than being invited on Crossfire.
JS got invited (partly because of his book, and partly because he has often criticized Crossfire as sympotmatic of the media corruption), and he took the opportunity to make a sincere plea for change. This was about all he could do. And he did a mighty fine job shooting down those two monkeys.
Anybody else would have been the goody-2-shoes and just bent over for the anal exam. JS took a stand for what he believes is in the best interest of the country, which is honest, open, informative political discourse. He should be applauded, and I do applaud him.
Is he perfect? No. Is he God?? No! But he did a pretty good job of voicing the peoples' concerns on this topic. Just see the amount of applause he got (and I'm sure it wasn't the "APPLAUSE" sign going off, because it was CNN's show, not his).
Debate 1 (Xvid-692MB)
Debate 2 (WMV-477MB)
Debate 3 (Xvid-700MB)
VP Debate (169MB)
No, that's not it at all. John Stewart was not protesting the fact that the people on Crossfire have two opposing viewpoints, he wasn't saying that they shouldn't have viewpoints or that they shouldn't argue. He was saying that their positions were not intellectually honest... he said that he would be fine with honest, intelligent debate, but he compared their method of "debating" with professional wrestling. He accused them of just mouthing the party line, and doing theater, rather than honestly trying to approach the truth from their respective viewpoints. Personally, I would also say that dualism is flawed, in that the world is too complicated to be considered in binary terms. I, for instance, am a Libertarian, and I don't think that either of the two Crossfire viewpoints represent me. My critiques come from a different perspective. The Nolan chart isn't perfect, but it does show that there is more than just Left and Right to consider when you're thinking about the political positions of different people.
Free Speech, Free Software, Free Culture
Get them while they're hot.
:)
And believe me, they're hot. 1.91TB of downloads since last night. 25315 total downloads. Amazing. Stewart has really hit a chord.
Make sure and host the file a bit when you're done. My outbound DSL line has been maxed out since last night.
What I thought was most interesting was the audience reaction shots showing that the vast majority of them were in complete agreement with Stewart.
Was this a Crossfire audience or a Daily Show Audience? It seemed to be an audience in complete agreement that Crossfire is not a news show but a theatre act akin to the Roman Coliseum: watch some poor schmuck disembowled, and yesterday it was Tucker Carlson.
If you'll recall, this was at the time when 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' was at the height of its attack--probably the dirtiest political attack in a Presidential campaign in decades. That's what the question "How are you holding up?" was about--the real question was already out there, and frankly, SBVFT does not deserve the dignity of being named. Stewart usually just tries to get guests to talk, regardless of which side they're on. He goes as easy on the Republicans as on the Democrats, and sometimes I think he goes too easily on the spin doctors and partisans. The only time he jumps down someone's throat is when they make a claim which is obviously false, like the guy who had just published a book in favour of the invasion of Iraq based on the very arguments that had just been disproven. And the fact is, the Republicans of late have done this a lot more than the Democrats.
CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.
Shameful. You know what it is - they knew, both of those fucks knew - that he was right. They had to appeal to distraction tactics and wait him out. I'd be surprised if Stewart ever gets air on a non-Comedy Central station again. He hit them at the core of what is really going on, and they'll never forgive him for it.
-Vendal Thornheart
not sure which ones you've used, but there's still plenty around
When you use humor to express your views, you never have to defend yourself. After all, "It was only a joke." I find people who bring humor into a serious conversation cowardly.
Through history, have things been any different with media and spin?
I assert the only thing that's changed is the method of delivery.
ex. the media of the day spreading the rumor that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist when he was a deist.
ex. the way the media had to be spun (and unspun) by Lincoln on civil war issues in order for the public to fully support it.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Sure, like this one and this one and this one, right?
+++ATH0
First off I'm a big Jon Stewart fan. I've read his most recent book and used to listen to his stand up a lot. Did jon stewart catch Begowa and Carlson off guard. Absolutely. Of course the format of their show is that they attack and they ask the questions so of course they are off guard when their show and themselves became the topic of attack. Although Jon Stewart defended himself well against attacks from Carlson, Stewart did not form strong arguments himself against cross fire: at least not in this interview. Yes he called the show theatre over and over again but what did this mean? He started to have an interesting point about politicos using disingenuous arguments because the ends justified the means but he didn't develop this point and certainly didn't even hint why this was cross fires fault. In the end when he was asked if cross fire was "too easy" on its guests he said no that's not it and then sort of stared off and mumbled a bit. To be fair he wasn't given much opportunity to develop his points. A good interview where he does develop his points is here at freshair.
Really my big problem with the crossfire interview is that when you go on the show as a guest you are agreeing to be the topic of debate. If you want to attack the crossfire guys the venue to do that is to have the hosts interviewed on a different show. How much of a point are you making when you catch people off guard who aren't intending to be asked questions. Let them prepare to defend them selves and have them interviewed to see if crossfire can be defended.
Although Stewart leans left, he attacked political shows and begged them
Shouldn't that be Because?
...you forgot to mention the fact that, even though the link was posted on the front page of /. , it actually made it go faster.
this day is one for the books.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
Excellent post, first off. It is easy to forget that an antagonistic system is necessary. Republicans and Democrats can't agree all the time, otherwise the government moves too quickly in one direction and you get things like the Patriot Act. In effect the two party system would become a one party system.
I want the Republicans to call the Democrats on over-spending, higher taxes, and big government. And I want the Democrats to remind the Republicans that we have civil liberties and that you can't rely on amoral institutions like corporations to always do the right thing.
What I really want is for both parties to remember their positions on those things. Instead, both parties think the answer to problems is to form new government agencies and programs. The Democrats add more taxes, the Republicans make a show of not doing that, but don't slow down the spending either. So the choices are: take home a smaller paycheck, or live with a government that is constantly in debt.
So I think Stewart definitely led with his weakest argument, though perhaps more to bring a little levity in before getting into his reason for being there. If Begala and Carlson started to agree with each other all the time, not only would the show go off the air, but the canary would be singing about our government.
That said, I think he has valid points. At heart, I don't doubt that Crossfire is as much about entertainment as it is about news or politics. Really all news programs are about entertainment. People watch the news in hours when they aren't working; they want to know what is going on, but they don't want to hear Harvard professors presenting long, nuanced arguments.
I guess, in trying to address his weakest argument, I'm forming my own weakest argument. Can we hold the media accountable when they are only giving us what we ask for? The answer I guess, is a dialectic one: the media is giving the people what they want, but the people should be demanding more and the media should be giving the people more, even if they don't demand it.
Which gets into what I think are Stewart's better arguments. Nobody can deny that the political campaigns are major marketing machines with tightly controlled messages. The news media most often reports on the strategies of the campaigns rather than analyzing or presenting information on their actual positions. Political reporting is turning into sports reporting: We can expect Kerry to come on strong on this, because Bush said something on that.
What about what they said? What are the ramifications of the policies they are espousing? We don't get a lot of insight into that, we mostly get reports on what the other side says are the ramifications. Reporting doesn't mean finding out information any more, it means being a mouthpiece for both sides. And Fox News isn't even doing THAT anymore.
There have been many reports that the White House Press Corp is heavily under the thumb of Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. If reporters don't ask the right questions, they aren't heard from that much, if at all. Some may even be asked to leave. I don't really count the Democrats as immune from this. I doubt that the Democrats really want to answer the hard questions either. I expect they will also purposely avoid questions they don't like.
The truth is, the news media has let the American public down. The fact that Stewart is a trusted source of news at all is alarming. He is there to entertain and is very clear about that. Stewart notes that "[t]he show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." He is on Comedy Central for Bob's sake! I think the show is popular because people recognize the satire of the media that it represents and they trust that more than the 'serious' news outlets.
Begala and Carlson attacked Stewart for not attacking Kerry, and I think Stewart's defense is perfect: it is not his job to do that. It's Begala and Carlson's job, and they don't really do it. They address the surface. If
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
Crossfire-20041015-John_Stewart.avi
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
So yes, I agree we've got problems, regardless, if that many people think, for whatever reason, that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. But those people must never have watched the news or read, or at least comprehended, any article about 9/11 in the days, weeks, and months following the attacks, because the fact that they were almost all Saudis was, and is, no secret.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822.3
Interesting sig. I think you may mean Mr. Spock, unless the advice comes from Baby and Child Care .
Wow, good trolling. I can't help but respond :-)
The Daily Show is the most watched news program in the 18-25 demographic, but that doesn't mean that's where they get their news.
The Daily Show is satire, and it is not Jon Stewart's role to ask tough questions. Unfortunately for him, what started as a comedy program has become the only television news show that is still respected by anyone in my large circle of friends.
It is respected not because they ask the hard hitting questions or even because it's good journalism. It's respected because they use humor to highlight the sheer depressing nature of the current state of our political system and the media.
Because Jon Stewart so effectively exposes the BS of the system, he gains respect from the people that watch his show. I have been a fan of the Daily Show since Craig Killborn started the thing "When news breaks, we fix it!" Even when Jon Stewart took over, it wasn't a political show. As the media completely de-evolved into spewing talking points right around 9/11/01: the jokes started to become more and more relevant and the Daily Show slowly but surely became the only place where the sheer incredible stupidness of it all was, and continues to be, pointed out.
TVTorrents = Hosted in Sweden
Suprnova = Based somewhere in Eastern Europe with lots of mirrors (because they get taken down)
Torrentreactor = Hosted in Austria
http://www.torrents.co.uk/ doesn't resolve for me
Slashdot, however, is hosted in the United States.
My issue was people going off over how great this was, when he can take selected opportunities to do exactly what he is claiming they should be doing himself. This is not an issue of CNN vs Comedy Central. If he really cares that much - and I have no doubt that he does - he could have asked Kerry these things he so desperately wants Crossfire (and other shows like it), of all things, to ask. But he didn't. And if Tucker Carlson was deflecting, he was deflecting just as much. It's "absolutely" ok for him to essentially coddle a candidate he's got on his show just because he's on Comedy Central? If these are his concerns, he should stand up for them.
YES, he did a good job of voicing concerns, but he's targeting pundits and op-ed shows. You shouldn't be watching Hardball and Crossfire for "news". They're not news shows. What's "hurting America" is that people don't realize that, and they have tuned out from ALL news completely. It's easy to ignore the op-ed shows and still get news. People just refuse to do it, or don't care enough to.
Free, but you've got to open an itunes account, including telling them your CC details etc. Plus, if your location is not the US, it won't work...
...accidentally tab-selected Post Anonymously and then hit return.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Jon totally destroyed Clinton a show a few months ago when he was doing his little "kiss on the lips" interview with Dan Rather. I'm paraphrasing, but...
(From the clip)Clinton: "If there hadn't been someone like Star hanging around, I would've admitted my mistake, told the American people, and said, 'Here's what happened.'"
Stewart: "I'll say this: Clinton's integrity is at it's highest with the situation is at it's most hypothetical."
Fact is, Bush and his administration are lying. Fact is, Stewart is pissed because Clinton was called out for a blowjob, and Bush doesn't get called out for the wrongful deaths of 13,000 Iraqi civilians, thousand of Afghan civilians, and just over a thousand of our men and women in uniform, and God knows how many who will come back without limbs.
What good is revenging 3,000 civilian lives when the response causes the deaths of five times that many? When will we realize that our lives are no more precious that those of people in other countries?
Being courageous has nothing to do with calling death "collateral damage." You would all feel differently if it were your wife and child under the rubble.
I hate to tell you this, but I wasn't trolling. I'm 100% dead serious, and wasn't looking to "troll" responses out of people, especially since what I just said is bound to be unpopular.
The Daily Show is the most watched news program in the 18-25 demographic, but that doesn't mean that's where they get their news.
Ok...and then:
The Daily Show is satire, and it is not Jon Stewart's role to ask tough questions. Unfortunately for him, what started as a comedy program has become the only television news show that is still respected by anyone in my large circle of friends.
Ok, didn't you just completely contradict yourself there? Or are you saying people still get their news elsewhere also, but they only "respect" The Daily Show?
It is respected not because they ask the hard hitting questions or even because it's good journalism. It's respected because they use humor to highlight the sheer depressing nature of the current state of our political system and the media.
Because Jon Stewart so effectively exposes the BS of the system, he gains respect from the people that watch his show. I have been a fan of the Daily Show since Craig Killborn started the thing "When news breaks, we fix it!" Even when Jon Stewart took over, it wasn't a political show. As the media completely de-evolved into spewing talking points right around 9/11/01: the jokes started to become more and more relevant and the Daily Show slowly but surely became the only place where the sheer incredible stupidness of it all was, and continues to be, pointed out.
Yes, yes, I agree with all this! The Daily Show points out the stupidness of it all. And it's funny because it's true. And I'm not saying a lot of people don't agree with that sentiment, correctly. What I'm saying is that if it's SO DAMNED IMPORTANT, he has had clear opportunities to DO IT HIMSELF, which he has passed on, whether it is "his role" or not. Ignoring that point is foolish; that's all I'm saying.
As for people getting their news from The Daily Show... First it is an indictment of the news. When the popular news is so uninteresting/uninforming/partisan that people simply avoid watching it, that is, at least partly, the news organization's fault. Secondly, The Daily Show is actually quite informative, accurate, and perhaps most importantly, incisive. That aspect in particular seems missing from the news media at large. I mean, the show WON A PEABODY for chrissakes. Frankly, if I have the choice of an uninformed voter getting news from FoxNews or from The Daily Show, I would much prefer the latter. For all the complaint about its left-leanings, it tends to very accurate (while Fox with their right-right-right leanings has been documented to not be accurate). Thirdly, yes there *are* places to get decent news...they just require a lot of extra effort relative to flipping on CNN. That is the problem...those motivated enough will always be able to parse the crap and find the useful information, it is the vast majority that is not that concerns me. While one solution is to somehow, magically, instill that level of interest in the political journalism field in the populace, I'd rather the major news outlets start acting more like responsible news outlets and feed the masses a useful set of information.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
This may, possibly, have something to do with prefacing your remarks with a tacit invitation to flamewar?
Actually, this is rather the point Jon Stewart was trying to make. Modern news/talk/interview programs very seldom engage in the actual debate that is so important to a functional political process. Shows like Crossfire epitomize the problem. In lieu of debate, one sees screaming heads parroting party-line talking points and engaging in as much intellectual dishonesty and name-calling as they think they can get away with.
If you get past the fact that Jon Stewart leans to the left and actually listen to what he said, you might find that you agree with him--he genuinely seems to believe in vigorous, honest debate, and he rightly calls the partisan hacks on Crossfire on their own lack of depth, substance, or independent thought.
~Idarubicin
I liked how Begala washed over the bulge question. A liberal, ready to punce, but won't go after the obvious issue of something on the back of a Republican's back during 3 debates. There is protection there beyond what we can know.
Whether or not the sites are up or down, please recognize the difference between linking to copyrighted content and hosting it. Plus, your assertion that 'they got shut down' is just a guess, and a poor one at that.
Many of the sites that were put up when Bittorrent was 'hot and new' were hobby sites. There are plenty of trackers from days of yore out there that are not maintained, or got taken down for many other reasons: cost, space, school accounts, ect. A Google search is all that is necessary to show that. I'm sure you can point to several that were 'shut down', and I can point to a pile that are still up and running.
Is linking to copyrighted content infringement? No. Is downloading it without the permission of the copyright holder infringement? Yes.
The morality of the decision is left as an exercise for the reader.
Jeesus are you a moron. Ding!
Do you really think throwing words like "Dialectism" and "Dualism" is going to impress anybody? Just because you can quote something from a PolSci book (or wherever), it doesn't mean you are talking sense. Ding!
First step, for you: think for yourself instead of whipping out terms out of your (or, as in this case, somebody else's) ass. Ding!
If you didn't hear what Jon Stuart was saying, then you need to pick up the book on Listening 101. Ding!
. Clearly you didn't read the transcript or watch the clip; please do so before you spout off again. Ding!
Read the transcript. And when done reading it, READ IT AGAIN. And put down that other crap you've been reading. Ding!
And finally: get out of your mom's basement. There is a whole world out there, you know. Ding!
Wheew... 9/10 on the flame scale. Ok here's the two sentences of your whole post that weren't personal attacks.
He was on the show to tell both sides to calm down the rhetoric and talk issues.He clearly says, "You guys (left and right) should be debating", and not indulging in staged theater (a-la pro wrestling).
Here's the transcript by the way: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf. 01.html
Ok let's use the power of grep on it to read the whole interview from the stewart perspective:
STEWART: Meanwhile, the president's challenger was also in New York, also facing some difficult questions.
STEWART: It's like Nerf CROSSFIRE.
STEWART: Thank you.
STEWART: Thank you very much. That was very kind of you to say.
STEWART: The two of you? Can't we just -- say something nice about John Kerry right now.
STEWART: And something about President Bush.
STEWART: Why do you argue, the two of you?
STEWART: I hate to see it.
STEWART: Let me ask you a question.
STEWART: All right.
STEWART: Is he the best? I thought Lincoln was good.
STEWART: Is he the best the Democrats can do?
STEWART: I had always thought, in a democracy -- and, again, I don't know -- I've only lived in this country -- that there's a process. They call them primaries.
STEWART: And they don't always go with the best, but they go with whoever won. So is he the best? According to the process.
STEWART: The most impressive?
STEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive.
STEWART: I enjoyed his way of speaking.
STEWART: Or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass" or...
STEWART: Will jump on it.
STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.
STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say...
STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.
STEWART: Stop.
STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.
STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...
STEWART: The people -- not well.
STEWART: But you can sleep at night.
STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.
STEWART: Something valuable?
STEWART: I would like to hear it.
STEWART: Yes.
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.
STEWART: If that's your goal.
STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.
STEWART: Right.
STEWART: Well, we have civilized discourse.
STEWART: Yes.
STEWART: Yes.
STEWART: Yes.
STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.
STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.
ST
What a relief! That means the neo-cons and their finger puppet have done absolutely nothing to hurt their credibility.
It was Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson (bowtie guy) hosting the show. Sometimes they use Robert Novak and James Carville, though.
;-)
Remember these names
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Try... the fact that there was NO conclusive evidence that there was forgery involved with those memos that DIDN'T come from people with a pro-Bush stance?
One trick that Karl Rove pulled for a race early in his career was to print up a ton of fliers with a horribly defamatory attack upon his *own* candidate's family. Then his campaign distributed them to houses in the middle of the night. When it becomes a story, Rove blames the other candidate's campaign for dirty tricks.
As others have noted using one source, a comedian at that, for news is arguably worse than not reading the news at all.
/., google, cnn, harpers, christian science monitor, etc are just some of the sources of information available.
I find Mr. Stewart entertaining, sometimes insightful and always timely but he is just one small source of information in an ever expanding array of mediums.
Calling Mr. Stewart a hero would be equilavent to worhsipping beevus and butthead. Mr. Stewart may be funny and, more importantly, he may be right but that his is luxury, not yours. Just because you listen to a smart man doesn't make you smart. Wisdom is gained not from one master but from many.
What Mr. Stewart was commenting on was the whole system. As an outsider to polticial news he has a unique position. Popular enough to say what he feels but knowing he must always tap dance for the kids. Kinda like having a clown at the birthday party deliver an anti-drug message. The kiddies are not there to hear the antidrug message they are there to see the clown.
I would give serious consideration to re-evaluting your current world view. I would encourage your friends to do the same or someday we may all wake up and find that discourse, political and otherwise, has fallen to the lowest level. No longer will we care what the news is as long as it is told with a snide and a cynical smirk
Perhaps it already is too late.
Regards
Joe Smooth
At first, there was talk among the press of simply ignoring "photo ops" as not newsworthy. But the press caved in. That was the beginning of the end of political reporting.
Today, Bush's press conferences are scripted. Ari Fletcher, the White House press secretary, tells Bush which reporters to call on. Some, although not all, of the reporters ask only planted questions. The whole process is controlled by the White House, not the press.
The overall effect is that there is no moment left in American politics when the President has to answer hostile questions. Even in the recent debates, that was avoided. Read the rules.
Stewart had a simple point, but they never let him flush it out. It was that these guys argue back and forth about the little crap like war records and "flip-flopping" that the campaign strategists *want* them to argue about. John seemed to be pleading with them to get real and start arguing about things that both sides are trying to play down, like exact specifics on budgetary (neither sides' line up) and exact specifics on the environment.
Instead the Crossfire guys fill the crucial role of disecting every little thing either candidate says, which leads both sides to avoid saying anything of substance. Bush said the war on terrorism can't be won and people jumped on him. He was right! You can never eradicate every terrorist, you can only bring the level down to a tolerable level ("tolerable" is a subjective point I know). As Bruce Scheier has pointed out, our tolerable level of car accident deaths in the US is 40k/year. So rather than discuss "winning" the war rationally and maybe try and think out loud about what he meant, Kerry's backers ran to twist and exploit it, and Bush's backers ran to do damage control.
So instead of heeding or even listening to his pleas, they interrupted him incessantly and the right-wing dork in the bow-tie was even insulting. BTW, is it me or does the right-wing take criticism exceedingly poorly?
I agree with you, but would someone please...please tell Randi Rhodes to STOP BEING ON MY SIDE!!!!
That woman is one homeopathic peppered rice-ball away from guest-hosting Art Bell.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Anyone have this in QuickTime .mov or MPEG1?
What I wouldn't give for mod points right now. Well said, good sir.
People living in big cities (the bulk of our population) tend to be Democratic.
e nt _to_the_United_States_Constitution
If representation is allocated based upon how many people support you, the Democrats will usually win.
So look for lots of resistance from Republicans and any state with a low population density.
Personally, I'd like to go back to the ORIGINAL plan. The one from 1776.
The President is the one who gets the most votes. The Vice-President is the one who comes in second. Here's the reference.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Twelfth_Amendm
I checked IMDB and I can't find the serious news show that Jon Stewart tried before. If you can supply the name of it, I'm certainly willing to give you the point on that one.
In any case, I think it is perfectly valid for Stewart to take the news outlets to task for not doing their job. Having now see the show (my previous post was after reading the transcript), I agree that he didn't really rip them a new one, though I think he scored some points. He is a citizen of this country and a viewer of the program. He is entitled to his opinion and happens to have the renown to espouse it in a very public forum.
Every time I see a post like this, I am reminded about the book the Diamond Age by Stephenson. In that book, the leader of the Victorian enclave defends their way of life. He states that the biggest sin in the 20th and 21st centuries was hypocrisy.
He points out that hypocrisy isn't necessarily the worst evil. We never live in the best of all possible worlds, but we always strive to make it better. Just because we don't live to our ideals doesn't mean the ideals are bad or that we shouldn't try to be better.
How many people buy CD's from RIAA members even when they condemn the RIAA on this site? The truth is, even if the policies of that organization are bad, some of their members do put out good music. The rules say that if we want to listen to that music, we have to pay for it. So we may not like the RIAA, but until we change the music business, we should live by their rules when we want their music. If we can get their music in another way that we prefer more (iTunes, etc.), then we should do that.
By your argument, you can't post your opinion on Jon Stewart or Crossfire because, as far as I know, you've never done a comedy show OR a news program. Slashdot would certainly get quiet and less interesting to read if that were true.
I don't agree with your post, but I'm glad you posted it since it gave me an outlet to think about these issues and respond. I would be more interested in your opinion on whether you think Stewart's criticisms are valid. By which I mean, is the media doing their job or are they hurting America? Let's talk about what substance there was in his points, rather than his authority to make them.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
I'm a big fan of Jon's, too, and was quite impressed when he had Bush's campaign manager on the show a few nights ago and was cordial and professional to the guy (looking at my giant Kerry/Edwards sign in the front yard as I type this). Jon's done some pretty neat (good) things since the last election, and this time around, it's been no different. But 5 minutes into this clip, 'goddamn. somebody should have said this long ago' was all i could think before being rendered speechless by the guy's insight and honesty. Kinda almost makes you proud to be an American again...
It's a pity I only ever got the transcript, but I have to say that Jon's performance was impressive.
;) I pity da fool who don't vote for Mr. T!
I love the part where, when asked which candidate would give the best fodder if elected president, he said "Mr. T."
Damnit, now I need some Mr. T for president bumper stickers
But if you're worried about a Manchurian Candidate option ... don't you think those evil other countries could find some American-born patsy?
They already did and he's already President.
Bush has been a wet dream for Osama Bin Laden. Lets OBL get away, turns the focus to Iraq where he deposes an 'apostate' gov't that OBL loathed, lets the country descend into anarchy, guaranteeing that an islamic fundamentalist gov't will rise in its place, supports Palestinian statehood, gets US troops out of Saudi Arabia and inflames the muslims of the world into hatred against the US.
Bush couldn't have carried out Bin Laden's agenda any better.
That's a really great analysis. It reminds me a little of the idea (and I'm probably not articulating this correctly), that we can't truly understand the universe because we exist inside it and we think in terms of it.
So to see Stewart's points in the manner you've presented shows that his points aren't really a lot deeper than what you normally get on Crossfire. It also shows that he is as much a creature of media as Begala and Carlson are. Perhaps this is as high a critique as we can expect to get from the medium.
Is there a way that we can appreciate and understand Begala and Carlson's views than the format they are currently using? Does that make Crossfire a futile exercise? I wish I had an answer to those questions myself.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
I got this from someone on Fark, but I certainly can believe it. The "smarter" people that watched the Daily Show only got an average of 3.6 of the following six questions right about the presidential election:
Who favors allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market?
Who urges Congress to extend the federal law banning assault weapons?
John Kerry says that he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts on those making how much money: Over 50 thousand a year, Over 100 thousand a year, Over 200 thousand a year, Over 500,000 a year?
Who is a former prosecutor?
Who favors making the recent tax cuts permanent?
Who wants to make it easier for labor unions to organize?
I'm sorry - but it's pretty goddamned sad what it says about this country when the "most informed" audience on cable television can only get combined average of 3.6 of the above questions right. I'm thinking of buying a boat and moving to the middle of the Pacific ocean.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
There are other media than television. He said that the Daily Show is the only television news show still respected by his friend. This still leaves many news sources, including the Internet, newspapers, public radio, etc.
At any rate, if Stewart is making people think, if only by dint of making (sometimes slightly ridiculous, but usually hilarious) comments, then he's doing a lot more than most people. Sure, some people just turn him off, and some people just laugh without thinking, but some people end up trying to figure *why* what he just said was so important, or else how they can shoot it down (when he annoys them).
A year or so (maybe 2?) ago, a very conservative author came on. He'd written some partisan puff piece, the sort of thing Michael Moore writes. He obviously believed in what he wrote and wasn't a slick spinmaster, and he was getting visibly upset when the audience was reacting poorly to what he was saying (Daily Show audience is generally liberal), but Jon kept everything under control, calmed down the audience, and made a point of respecting what the guy had to say and keeping everything amiable. Thats what he does really well - a lot of other shows, ones on CNN included, would have gone the easy route and just poked fun at the guy till he blew up or stormed off.
It's not his job to be "hardball". And he's less "soft" than he is "polite and considerate". It's the Daily Show, not How Fast Can We Piss Off The Nutjob, which would be a better name for Crossfire. So what the Crossfire guys were calling him on was his interview technique in general, which is polite and non-confrontational. Which is fine. If Bush had the balls to show up on the Daily Show he'd get the same treatment.
A shill for the Democratic Party? Well, maybe. I don't really know much about his personal politics other than that he leans liberal. He doesn't shirk from making fun of Democratic buffoonery, though, and takes glee in showing up the left lunatic fringe. If he's a shill he's either a terrible one or a really, really good one.
The whole point here is what other people have said - how incredibly sad is it that a major show on CNN can't stand up to the Daily Show? They have to resort to attacking his methodology? What's wrong with that? They couldn't get past the fact that he won't "stick it" to Kerry. It's not his job to stick it to Kerry. It's his job to bring the Funny. CNN should be the one sticking it to Kerry, AND to Bush, and CNN fails that miserably. The fact that Daily Show gets so much attention as a news show is part of how ridiculous the media is right now - it shouldn't even be a question.
Shouldn't you be sucking Scotty's dick right now?
I'm pretty sure that the present Republicans are responsible for the most over-spending and big government we've ever seen, and I know my taxes have gone up.
I keep wondering when the people who identify with Republicans are going to wake up and say, "WTF? When did I become a Democrat?"
People have been saying Crossfire is a "popular" show on these boards. This is the first time I've seen the show, since I turned off CNN which I used to religously watch about 2 years ago when they started to compete w/ the idicoy that is FoX News. Anyways, I wonder if this is they're most popular episode ever, (if there we could tell how many people have watched it on iFilm, from the torrent, private servers, IM->IM transfers, etc). I'd expect this the show that most people have ever watched of crossfire, beating out any future shows, even if they had Bush or Kerry on.
I find it pretty funny that most people don't realize that Tucker Carlson is not, in fact, a GOP mouthpiece. He is a self-proclaimed libertarian who, on multiple times, has criticized the Bush administration. There seems to be this weird occurance sweeping the Internet, where you are considered anti-establishment if you are a libertarian. The fact of the matter is, if a famous libertarian like Tucker Carlson can be considered the mouthpiece of the GOP and attacked on that basis, how exactly can you libertarians maintain your holier-than-thou attitude if you share his beliefs?
People seem to love modding me down for pointing out their stupidity and arrogance...
Considering that he's a comedian, that's good.
the two party partisan hack system we have. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make it better. But Stewart's not helping.
He tried though. He called them on their bullshit, he asked them to stop, nicely. He begged them to stop. They won't stop, but he tried.
I don't care if his show is on Comedy Central followed by puppets making crank phone calls, he's nothing more than a hypocrite if he can't even ask those "tough questions" himself when given the chance.
So, you're asking "Why didn't the funny man act like a professional reporter?" Really?
That is why.
He's not a partisan hack, he's not part of the republican strategy of attack against Kerry. That's not his role.
Why would he attack his guest with "though" questions? If you have someone over to your house, do you ask them "though" questions? Or do you prefer to be a good host and greet them with civilised discourse?
The newsguy was basically asking "why aren't you doing our job better than us" and he was saying "because its not MY job". Its not. How could you hold it against him that he isn't doing someone else's job (Bow-tie boy's job is to throw put downs at people in the form of questions) for them?
You can't take the sky from me...
Your point doesn't resolve for me. Is Slashdot hosting the file?
A number of posts here have belittled "The Daily Show" as being lightweight since is ostensibly a comedy show. However a recent study showed that TDS viewers are on average better educated and much better informed about current events "than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news".
It may be a "comedy" show, but Jon Stewart is angry because all these "news" shows pretend to do hard journalism and be informative, when it's clear that more often than not they are confusing the issue. He is angry because you must watch a "fake" news show in order to get real facts. He is absolutely correct: shows like Crossfire and "The Factor" do a huge disservice to the citizens of this country. The Daily Show is proof you can be entertaining and informative, whereas Crossfire and others only aspire to be entertaining.
--
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
That Jon experienced the same scene with his parents when he was young.
I'm guessing Begala was Mom, and Carlson was Dad.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
See 2600. Linking can be a crime now.
What good is revenging 3,000 civilian lives when the response causes the deaths of five times that many? When will we realize that our lives are no more precious that those of people in other countries?
First off, I don't believe this. This is just the "rational" that I've heard.
Killing those people will make the world safer (and the US is part of the world) because it "stabilize" the mid-east. A "stable" mid-east is, in theory, more likely to adopt a Western-style democractic government. And terrorists tend to come from countries without a Western-style democracy. (The current terrorist threat. I'm not talking about Weathermen or so on.)
Therefore, it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed (we rarely kill innocent civilians, but we do tend to get "supporters" or the "human shields" of our enemies). In the end, it will all be worth the sacrifice (not our's, their's) because everyone will be safer.
Listen to Bush and Co talk about it. It doesn't matter how many "insurgents" are killed (actually, killing more is a "good thing" (tm)) or "supporters" or "terrorists" or "foreign fighters". All that matters is that any violent opposition is eradicated.
In theory, if we kill enough people who violently oppose us, then the majority of the people who are left will support us and implement a Western-style democratic government.
In practice, people are related to other people and have friends. We cannot kill the "bad" people without alienating segments of the "good" people who support us. Which turns them into "bad" people (whom we must kill). Which turns more "good" people into "bad" people (again with the killing).
His point was that he was not critiquing "actual journalists".
Nice try, though.
The Columbia School of Journalism has been running a great media crit blog called Campaign Desk which spends much time decrying print and TV journalists who only engage in "he said / he said" reporting. It's not bias to report unpleasant facts. That's supposed to be a reporter's fucking job. But journalists have been cowed in this nation due to claims of bias and ownership consolidation, so they've fallen back to reporting the barest minimum of facts in order to reduce the risk of claims of bias by readers and viewers. That the public from both sides of the political spectrum not only accepts, but demands this from their journalists only furthers the feedback loop. Stewart is right, this isn't journalism and it is hurting the American public. Sometimes people have to face unpleasant facts, and it's the journalist's job to report those facts. Take that away and you have factless reporting - which is pretty much what we see today.
When claims of bias drown out factual reporting, the very notion of an "incontrovertible fact" disappears along with it. Do we really wish to live in a society where "facts" have been replaced by "opinion"?
John Stewart would not launch into such a diatribe if the Crossfire folks were guests on his show -- its a different forum
An example of this is his interview with Bill O'Reilly on the Daily Show (available online at the comedy channel site). I've surfed through the O'Reilly show, but rarely stopped because he I always got the impression that he was being a jerk to his guests. Stewart poked at him a little bit, but in a very non-confrontational way, and seemed genuinely interested in hearing what the guy had to say. His follow up questions were actually relevant to what O'Reilly had said. He was interested to the point that when his audience started to make noise in response to a comment from O'Reilly, he gave them an annoyed sideways look and wave, like "leave him alone you guys, this is really interesting and I want to hear it". He showed real respect and empathy, even if he might disagree with the guy's politics.
If political "debate" shows were like this (people actually responding to what each other said), they might actually be worth watching. As it is, most of them seem like they talk at, over, and past each other and are often abusive to their guests.
I end up finding self-appointed pundits on message boards that are mostly dedicated to other topics much more interesting. You can calibrate the people, they generally respect each other because they have something in common that brought them there, and are more likely to actually respond coherently. They may or may not be full of BS, but at least you get a conversation.
I think there are some valid underlying reasons for a satirical news program to be more objective and honest than "real" news. In Russia a well-known liberal journalist Victor Shenderovich (Shender.Ru, Russian-only) does a weekly satirical news program Syrok (before it was a similar one called Itogo). This is an outlet that can be used to say anything that the journalist wants (including the truth) and this being a satirical program he is not responsible for anything other than the rating - he doesn't have to uphold the "party line". If it was a "real" news program, he (or his boss) would get a phone call quickly - the same is probably true about the USA and Jon Stewart as well.
Here are the topics from the October 8 issue (BTW, currently the main Russian theme is how to provoke terror and then fight it to shift the attention from other issues - Russian political life is a carbon copy of America in 2001-2002, it's really amazing far the similarities go). Anyway:
- A People's Artist (a honors title) Aristarkh Livanov was annoyed by his neighbours singing caraoke at 4AM, so he decided to establish the "All-Russian public movement "Russia-Antiterror"". Among the stated goals is to create a national network of house committies that will keep tabs on people from other regions, former felons or amoral people. The movement got support from president Putin (held their convention in the hotel "Russia" in Moscow, got one of the president's advisors there, etc.)
- He gives some news about Pumane - a guy, who started to testify about the latest terrorist bombing, but was raped and "accidentally" strangled with a shower hose... Amazing what goes for humour in Russia nowdays...
- Refers to an article in one of the newspapers about a possibility that Duma will pass a law that the presumption of innocence may be cancelled for terrorism and corruption suspects.
- The Fund for Support of "United Russia" (a pocket party for the regime) suggested to issue photo IDs for all Moscow schoolchildren. The pilot tests were run in 4 schools already. The cards include a phone number of the nearest offices of "United Russia" on the back...
- Talks about some ass-licking by Egor Stroev - former chairman of Federal Counsil (upper chamber of parliament), who recently begged Putin to strengthen the government and not allow the country to collapse.
- The head of the Central Election Committee said that sunset provisions are needed if we are to cancel the elections of governors. He said 10 years should be ok. (Recently president Putin decided that it would be a great idea to cancel direct election of regional [state] governors - all to fight terrorism, but against the consitution, of course).
- In Chechnya a newly elected president was inaugurated. The location was kept in secret until the last moment. Former president - Maskhadov - is wanted by the Russian government (10 million dollar bounty), but the clan of the new one (Kadyrov) could not manage to catch him just yet.
- "Commersant" newspaper (main business newspaper) writes that people presidential administration are not even trying to hide the fact that they are fighting over the assets of UKOS - a large oil company, kind of "captured" by the government recently.
- The Supreme Court declined to give compensations to the victims of October 2002 terrorist act in Moscow.
- Incidentally, the statue of Themis on the Russian Supreme Court building is missing a blindfold.
- In Vladimirskaya oblast the deputies of regional parlament declined to ratify the new coat of arms of the region proposed by the Prosecutor's office. The coat of arms contained traditional golden leopard in a crown holding a silver cross in a right arm, but also crossed hammer and sickle.
- 3 months ago the government of Belgorodskaya oblast started a campaign against swearing. Several lecture halls were opened, plays organised, a leaflet was published and a competition for anti-swearing slogans was held. One of the winning entries was "Today swearing - tomo
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Are just so much moden kabuki - overblown, overly loud, exagerrated, scripted, and simply interpreting things for us that in this case, we should have heard somewhere else under more truthful conditions. In pre-massmedia Japan it was amusing and useful. Here it's barely amusing. Even the debates aren't debates, though in 3, Bush simply started talking out to Kerry at one point, answering him directly outside the rules (another reason to think there was a wire).
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
"Although Stewart leans left, he attacked political shows and begged them: 'Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.'" ...What the hell place does "Although Stewart leans left" have in this sentence?
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
transcription @ cnn
Rewind 30 years. I assume the vast majority of Americans received their news from the Big Three national news broadcasts and their local news. Cable TV and the Internet had not yet revolutionized the way we access information. If you wanted "hard news" on TV back then, you had to watch something dry as a bone, like the Macneill Leherer Report on PBS.
Cable TV news came along and started watering shit down. Look at the TV news playing field of today: flashy graphics and dramatic music, sound bites, Shepherd Smith, Crossfire, The Daily Show, Bill Mahr. News analysis is not an extreme sport, yet all the networks treat it as such. They have had to dumb down their content in order to appeal to a wider demographic.
By nature, news analysis is boring, analytical, academic stuff. And now, instead of having a large, possibly underinformed populace like we had 30 years ago, we now have a gigantic, misinformed populace who expects TV news to be as exciting as the latest episode of Survivor.
I've never seen Tucker on Crossfire, only on his PBS show "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered." I really enjoy PBS news shows as they are the only ones left in the nation. I made myself watch Tucker's show a couple times just because I thought it'd be a balance to the left-leanings of Bill Moyers, who I really enjoy watching. Rather than being a counter at all, "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered" consisted of Tucker sitting there asking his conservative guests softball questions only slightly better than "So Mr. Conservative, would you please list all the ways you are right and your opponents are wrong?" or "Mr. Conservative, in your opinion, are liberals evil or just dumb?" And then Tucker would just lean forward, smile and nod with each sentence and gaze lovingly at his guest. Naturally, I didn't think much of Tucker because of that show. Reading that transcript and seeing how easily Stewart (never seen his show either-no cable) made a total fool out of Tucker just confirmed my opinion that Tucker's just a party hack unable to really think for himself.
Totally different issue: Does Tucker have that hideous pastel paint smeared all over his face like he does on Unflitered or does he have a competent makeup artist on Crossfire?
I like that idea- I hate both parties equally. Sure, I hate the Republicans more right now, but that's because they're the ones that have been screwing things up more recently. The problem is that the candidates are creatures of their parties. John McCain used to seem to be a respectable man who had his owm mind. I wanted to vote for him. I've since seen that he's just as much a party hack as the rest of them.
Both parties suck. They're both about big government. Do you prefer your oppression in the Social Services/PC flavor or the current Police State flavor? As long as they're our only choices government is going to get more and more intrusive, with each flavor getting worse every 4-8 years.
I'd vote for Badnarik too, but the Police State flavor is starting to gag me. I need an unworkable health care plan for a while. I can't afford to vote for a real candidate. The lesser of two evils is just a matter of degree, but I need even that small a reduction.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Did you know Iraq documents were found detailing Saddam's funding of Palestinean terror groups? Do you consider Bush "dumb" (it's apparently become the conventional wisdom in the media now)?
Did you know Bush is up in all of the major polls? No, but you sure did know when Kerry was having a "post-debate surge" after the first one. Polls are conducted on a daily basis and averaged with the past three days. On one day, Kerry was up by three points--that got reported everywhere. The next day when it went down to a tie again, nobody reported it.
Did you know the Duelfer report says there aren't any WMDs? Of course you do, it was everywhere. But did you actually read anything on the other half of the 1,000 page document which detailed the bribing of UN officials, France, Russia, and others and even buying weapons which are in use now against US troops? Did you read about how France was one who was owed the most money by the Saddam regime, and surprise surprise, was the most opposed to going to war? No, because the media wanted to shove "no WMDs" down your throat, something we already know anyway.
It goes both ways. However, over 80% of journalists report themselves as Democrats or liberals, and I think a little thing called the "Dan Rather Memogate" controversy should have clued you in as to how things go. Mary Mapes even put the memo source in touch with the Kerry campaign!
Now, our system isn't the best either. It has its problems, but at least we have about 5 legitimate parties across the country, and with the "minority goverment" that the Liberals (that is an actual party name) have right now, they to comprimise to get things passed. For those who don't know, everything our Prime Minister puts to the house to vote on, if its not passed by the majority, that is the end of our gov't. It's considered a vote of non-confidence, and we have another round of national elections. So it makes for flexible government, and something more representative of the countries views as a whole...
Anyways... I think Jon Stewart is dead on with his scorn of the crap on CNN and on american political tv in general. I watch a lot of political TV, and after these debates... on all the news channels, I only found one program ON FRICKING PBS that actually discussed the feasability and the logic behind the bush and kerry health care plans. They actually had people on who broke down and explained legit problems with health care in the states. They didn't start with "ten million less people have health care than they did 4 years ago" and respond with "all kerry is going to tax you even more". And actual logical break down of the pros and cons of each of their plans from people in the health care industry. Not some RNC and DNC tools debating who's the liar and who's daughter is a lesbian.
Like christ, all I hear after the last debate is that John Kerry mentioned Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian... DO WE CARE?!!!??? Ya, that affects me. How about the war, how about the economy, health care, education... No, no, no, all we're hearing about is this lesbian. What?
I don't get it.
Yes quite a troll. Most folks ar of the opinion that JS is the only thing that saved TDS from dying an early and painful death. It's a rare case of a reverse shark jump.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Or a whisper campaign against Alabama state supreme court justice Mark Kennedy, who was unjustly smeared as a peadophile:
There's plenty more stories to read. all of which would make any honest person want to puke. Republicans only damage their own credibility by supporting this crap on the national stage. At some point these tactics will backfire and the GOP will wind up badly damaged as a result. JMO. --M
I read the transcript and I didn't see John Stewart actually say anything.
The transcript are worthless, you need to hear the sarcasm and see the smirks.
SO what he wants everyone to agree?
He says about 3 or 4 times that he would love to see a real debate show instead of a party-line spin-spewing show. Seriously, I'm gonna give you credit of the doupt on the fact that the transcript really didn't do this justice. Get the video and see for yourself.
As for your long monologue about dualists and dialectists, its irrelevant, since you're arguing on something you did not fully understand.
a left-wing Noam Chomsky echo chamber
And, you disagree with Mr. Chomsky because he's left wing? That's nice...
You can't take the sky from me...
Now I am going to get pummled by Mods I know :) I see my comments go up and down from +4 to +0 in the course of a single hour as Slashdot is overwhelminingly a left-wing Noam Chomsky echo chamber but here goes:
Don't blame others for your faults and do not attempt to catagorize people you've never communicated with.
I read the transcript and I didn't see John Stewart actually say anything.
He said that the "debate" shows were useless as far as actual news or discussion or debate. He said that such shows were tools of the political parties and did nothing to inform their audience. He said that their shows were pure entertainment.
Knock of the "Dialectical" and "Dualism" crap. Both are wrong. The fact is that every single person in the US has his/her own viewpoint and values and so forth. In the end, it comes down to how to spend a limited amount of money/time/people on all the different goals of all the different people.
This evolved from the Judeo-Christian idea of origional sin. That we are not perfect. That we will never be absolutely perfect though we can strive to perfection. The political process for a dualist is a constant war of ideas, compromise and experimentation, moving more slowly toward a better political organization.
Great, whatever. Why does anyone care what this mythical idiot thinks?
If you ask 100 random people to rank 100 goals in order of priority/importance/value, you'll get 100 different answers.
How to attain the goal is not know to a dualist, he realizes that much debate, experimentation and examination of details must occur before things improve.
That's great if there are only two people to be considered. There is no "right" or "wrong". There are only goals and the means by which you attempt to achieve those goals.
The dialecticist on the other hand is far more arrogant believing he can put together the whole solution and all that remains is to push aside the debaters and doubters and implement his vision.
Pay close attention to current politics. Do you see that happening a lot? I thought so.
Yet it seems that you favour your "Dualism" approach.
Here's some advice. Pull yourself out of the crap you learned in Philosophy 101 and look around the world today. Talk to people. LISTEN to people.
Stewart was presenting his beliefs on that show. One of his beliefs is that their show was of a specific format, when it should have been of a different format. He stated that point and illustrated that point very well.
It can play everything except maybe WMV9 and RealMedia, and it's free, open source: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
You are saying that to criticize someone, not only do you have to be in the same field as they are, but you also have to be better than them? Otherwise, your criticism isn't "meaningful"?
[Jon Stewart] doesn't do any better of a job at news reporting then them.
Yes, he does. He only has 10 minutes or so, but what he covers in that ten minutes he reports on better than any "real" news channel does in 24 hours. And you know why?
He isn't afraid to show someone is a liar. Bill O'Reilly and others like to throw that term around and call people liars, but Jon Stewart actually shows the goods.
He's honest. I don't think I've ever seen them take someone out of context or try to misrepresent what someone said. They make fun of gaffes and satirize people's positions, but they are intellectually honest (or at least more so than the news channels).
He gives context. When Bush talks about nation building, they run a "debate" between what Bush said in 2000 about not nation building and what he is saying now. That is what the media is supposed to do: they are supposed to provide context, to be our memory, to NOT let things fall into the memory hole.
He is brief. He doesn't have to fill 24 hours so he doesn't try to drag things out and make stories out of nothing. He can't even fit in everything he wants to get to, so he has to cut it down to its very essence.
He filters. I don't have time to listen to everything every Kerry or Bush flack has to say and I certainly don't have time to check if it is true. He incisively cuts to the heart of the issues, offers some biting criticism, or deadpan incredulity that perfectly summarizes the situation.
Viewers of The Daily Show, despite it being a comedic, media satire program whose lead-in is a show about puppets making crank phone calls, are better informed than anyone getting their news from newspapers, network news, or cable news!!! And Jon's point is that that is sad. It is sad that his show, a comedy show satirizing the media, is a better news show than any actual news show. It is proof that the media is not living up to its responsibility of furthering the public debate and the exchange of information. Instead, they are drastically decreasing the signal to noise ratio. In fact, after watching the news, you will be LESS INFORMED!
I see my comments go up and down from +4 to +0 in the course of a single hour as Slashdot is overwhelminingly a left-wing Noam Chomsky echo chamber but here goes:
Hahahaha...good one. Slashdot, where anything you write in favor of progressive ideals will be modded down into limbo, is left wing. Very funny.
Actually there was a court case about this. Anything broadcast over the open airwaves can be freely recorded and copyied. Thus, it's perfectly legal to record songs off the radio and TV shows off broadcast television.
I don't know what this "fake news" is. Maybe Americans aren't use to satire or maybe this is the mainstream media's reaction to the power of satire. But Jon Stewart - from my perspective - continues this long line of satire tradition. The fact that the Crossfire team can't understand this just shows how right Stawart was.
In fact the whole waste of space that Crossfire is was demonstrated by their attack on why Stewart didn't ask Kerry any hard questions. Talk about lissing the point.
Ciao
This was the first time that I've seen Jon, and he reminds me of Zappa, as social commentator thought-to-be-buffoon.
My one criticism of Stewart is that we have to endure at least ten minutes of ads during the Daily Show, leaving a scant ~19 - 20 minutes of show.
Then again, what else does comedy central have to make money? Puppets making prank calls?
They might be within their legal rights to ask that people sharing the FILE take it down, but not that Slashdot take down the link to the torrent. A link is just an address.
While the people who watch the daily show did better on a quiz about political knowledge, the people who watch the daily show are also more likely to have a college degree from a 4 year institution.
While John Stewart might be doing great in his job to inform, his audience might just be more receptive to understand or getting other information elsewhere. All things being equal, you would be right. But there is almost always something else to be taken into consideration.
CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.
STEWART: You need to go to one
Best...line...ever...
i'm aware that it's sarcasm. i didn't think i needed to point that out. did you even read my post? who did i say showed up - the comic or the citizen.
sheesh.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Fine, if you want to take that angle, at least clean it up. Do we really need:
STEWART: Yes.
STEWART: Yes.
STEWART: Yes.
?
Let's actually clean it up for real, and turn it into a coherent thought:
STEWART: I would love to see a debate show. To do a debate would be great. But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate. It's not honest. What you do is partisan hackery.
STEWART: You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.
Clearer now? Makes a lot more sense than just grepping the transcript. Stewart's position is that Crossfire has an opportunity to really grill guests, and not just toe the party line - and more than the opportunity, they have the moral duty, being on CNN. However, they don't, they just repeat the Democrat/Republican talking points and argue and it's fun and all but it doesn't help anything or answer any questions.
Well I think that Stewart's problem is that he doesn't really believe that the positions that Begala and especially Carlson hold are actually sincere.
No, I believe you're wrong. Begala and Carlson are quite sincere about their beliefs and Stewart knows this. However, two men shouting back and forth at each other without listening to each other accomplishes nothing - that's why it's partisan hackery and not a debate show. If it were truly a debate, they would listen to each other, figure out facts, and then work towards conclusions from those facts. Instead, they ignore facts (both sides) and argue about the conclusions, which is no way to handle any sort of debate.
-T
Sure, provided that it's the Democrats that are responsible for those things... For the past 25 years, Republicans have been behind every increase in the size of government, while Democrats have been fiscally conservative, arguing for balancing the budget and paying off the debt.
-T
between maximizing profits and collecting enough to pay the bills.
gewg_
Here is my list of the most interesting torrents -- all three presidential debates and key Daily Shows.
I am currently seeding the three debate torrents.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Actually, Zel challenged Chris Matthews to a duel. Russert mostly does Meet the Press, Matthews is the talking head behind "Hardball" (with Chris Matthews). Quite a spectacle when I saw it live. Zel didn't storm off the set, but he was quite belligerant for the remainder of the interview.
As for Stewart, he's playing a tricky position extremely well. The show somehow mixes satire into a combination of the Tonight Show and your cable news networks. Unlike other satires like theOnion, the Daily Show gets access to personalities in the flesh. Stewart walks a fine line between the soft interviews like Good Morning America or the Today show and generally guest unfriendly shows like Hardball. When he's percieved as a soft interviewer, he falls back on the "Its a comedy show" line. I saw the Kerry interview, and I have to agree with the Crossfire folks, I don't recall any difficult questions posed to Kerry. That said, Stewart does an immaculate job as a comedian, even on a bipartisan hackery news show.
I'm not sure whether the controversy is manufactured or what. If it is, expect an irreverant bit spoofing Crossfire with stupid gimmicks like a guy with a bowtie that SPINS when someone comes back with a hard rebuttal. Actually, I'd enjoy that.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
He promotes gross fiscal irresponsibility and ballooning debt. That's not conservative.
He promotes nation building and continual warfare. That's not conservative.
He has supported erosion of civil liberties and violations of due process against American citizens. That's not conservative.
He supports what is effectively amnesty for illegal aliens. That's not conservative.
He supports corporate welfare through huge increases in agriculture subsidies. That's not conservative.
In general he supports expansion of government power, especially that of the executive branch. That's not conservative.
It isn't liberal either. Nor libertarian, green, independent, or any other party I can think of.
If the polls can be believed then, in lockstep, Republicans agree with Bush policy and direction.
If it isn't conservative then what is it?
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is a good start.
For no-holds-barred expose' nothing touches NOW with Bill Moyers--stuff no other video broadcast outlet will air (e.g., Michael Powell & the FCC. ABC mentioned it momentarily--once--at 3:30AM).
gewg_
Not going to bother modding you down; just want to point out that you really, really didn't get it.
Stewart wasn't pushing a dialectical approach at all. He was launching a scathing attack on the approach that Crossfire takes to issues: attempting to reduce them to oversimplified generalizations, as "the left view" and "the right view". Neither side's commentator attempts to present a well-constructed or thoughtful argument, merely to attack the issue from a hamfisted, generalized trajectory.
Stewart's show attempts to do some degree of analysis, even if it is a satirical or ironic analysis. The point he was raising, with Begala and Carlson, was that there is no analysis whatsoever in Crossfire, nor in most media.
And that is a disservice to the people.
Ahhh. Another self-centered mental midget then. No wonder you subscribe to Slashdot. You should look at my earliest JEs as they explain why my name is Trolling4Dollars. Here's a clue: I am not a troll. An another clue: I think most Republicans who are focused on money (ie. "dollars") ARE trolls. I'll leave it to you to put that all together. Then you'll see why my name is so entertaining to a lot of people. :)
Un-news
It made no sense. They essentially call Stewart a failed journalist because his questions weren't 'tough' enough, and then when he makes solid points about how much they fucking suck at being responsible journalists, they ignore it because he's suddenly not a journalist, just some dumb comedian who isn't being funny enough and whose opinion isn't important.
How is this man -- who has never worked outside of comedy -- going to critique actual journalists, and get taken seriously? Ask Lenny Bruce. Or Bill Hicks. Or George Carlin. Or even David Cross. Just don't ask Gallagher. Give me intelligent, insightful comedy over "partison hackery" any day.
I'm glad Jon did what he did. He could have been trying to sell his books, but the points he made are not often made in the media. But your right about people getting what they want in regards to entertainment. Nobody has really demands the media Jon talks about, and so Cross-fire is the way it is because thats what the people want. Aside from some money that he could possibly make, his message was very positive. And sure, America could be far "better" than other countries because of the media content, but regardless, America is still in for some trouble you can admit, and I think everyone should agree with Jon that you should be VERY critical about politics...
Welcome to the new American media folks. Where the Discovery Channel has become the Motorcycle Channel, the news channels are theater, and the Daily Show on Comedy Central is our best source of news.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
What United States case gives you the right to re-distribute freely? Cite it.
Contact http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?7 CNN Crossfire and let them know how you feel.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
I don't know if you noticed, but on the bottom of the screen CNN's "news crawl" was reporting the usual celebri-journalism: I saw one item about Sandra Bullock's lawsuit and another about Martha Stewart.
The unintended irony is priceless.
Daily Show is not dumbed down, it doesn't have laugh tracks to let you know where the jokes are, it makes you think, and is hysterical to boot. If you don't get the jokes or need someone to tell you who's the 'bad' and 'good' guy you watch O'Reilly, not Daily Show. If you like good satire and good jokes, some subtle some much less so, and funny commentary on the state of affairs in the USA and the world, you watch the Daily Show.
make world, not war
Or is any anti-Bush comment no matter how offtopic always modded up?
One of the reasons I love The Economist is that it's clear what their viewpoints are, but they still are willing to grant points to the "other side" when they have good points. In contrast, a lot of US biased news sources are merely partisan: they praise everything their side says and slam everything the other side says. To a Democrat, nothing Bush says can possibly be good, and the first thing they try to do is to figure out how to spin it negatively; same for the Republicans and how they view Kerry.
The Economist, meanwhile, is unapologetically for free trade, but has no problems with admitting problems free trade agreements have had, negative effects of free trade, and so on. They have a viewpoint on how to best solve problems, but they are willing to investigate flaws and difficulties that viewpoint presents, because that's, after all, the only way to actually fix them.
To take a concrete example, they actually favored the war in Iraq, and still think it was a good idea, but their coverage has also included quite a bit of criticism of it.
Crossfire, on the other hand, has a team sports mentality where the "right" must always defend what their side says and attack what the other side says, and the same for the "left". Bah.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Catch 22. Who's going to have the balls to break the cycle, eh? ;)
BytesTemplar.com
Q. How do you know (Swift Boat Veteran) John O'Neil is lying?
A. His lips are moving.
Obviously a man with an agenda--and no honor.
gewg_
No, you, sir, are a class-A moron.
So many people have been complaining about shows like Crossfire? Not in my circle. We all agree that there are many choices for news, political commentray, debate, satire etc. That is the beauty of the system. It's free. If I had a good idea, met the right people, and had the ambition, there's a good chance I could get a show on the air, or a magazine, etc. If not me then someone else. When there are 1500 channels, anyone might be able to get a TV show. The point is that we aren't forced to watch the same shows over and over again. They are competing for our eyeballs. That's a good thing.
I don't watch Crossfire. I used to when it was the only "debate" show. Now I rely on the blogs to challenge ideologies and hold our leaders and the media accountable. I still enjoy a good firey exchange on Fox every now and then. But expecting TV to be an complete and objective source of information is a bit like expecting Krispy Kreme to offer a balanced and nutritious meal. That misconception is what people should be angry about. Not these talking heads battling for ratings.
In case anyone hasn't seen it yet
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
... while all the blogger pundits get lathered up about Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, everyone misses the minor detail that Rowe appeared before a grad jury yesterday to testify in the Valerie Plame probe.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
But it still manages some of the best news analysis in all of television. On a comedy show. I'm glad to have it, I watch it religiously. But it seems to me that the news programs should be doing seriously at least a little of what The Daily Show does in jest.
It's not like people won't watch it, why it's not there in greater proportion is anyone's guess.
Just looking at the contents on Suprnova makes me immediately think that this stuff has got to be pirated. The other torrent link in the article also looks suspicious too. Do either of these torrents include Creative Commons licenses? I doubt it.
I'd love to download these torrents to see the show, but I'm not sure I should, though saying so on slashdot makes me wonder if I should post as AC.
Is slashdot, as opposed to individual posters on slashdot, actually linking to clearly pirated content? Could this be a legal problem for OSTG?
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
"JS got invited (partly because of his book, and partly because he has often criticized Crossfire as sympotmatic of the media corruption), and he took the opportunity to make a sincere plea for change. This was about all he could do. And he did a mighty fine job shooting down those two monkeys. "
Jon Stewart got invited because Crossfire(CNN) and The Daily Show(COM) are owned by the same company, Time Warner. His book is being published by Warner Books. This appearance was an ADVERTISEMENT, just like when 60-minutes has an author from a book that a Viacom-company is publishing.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Well, actually not the torrent, but the file that is torrented is some bizarre format, that doesn't play. Don't waste your time downloading.
I don't respond to AC's.
Too bad CNN isn't broadcast on open airwaves ;) It's cable television
--
Power to the Peaceful
So the next time a (concerned) waiter walks up to Kerry's table in a restaurant, he should say, "Senator! I am supposed to take your order, but won't. Instead, I will ask you these questions that have been bothering me: x, y, z..." ??
Were you dropped as a child? Repeatedly?? Because your failure to understand something so basic as "the job" has me quite confounded. Maybe it is because you're at a University and the critical-thinking neurons haven't germinated yet (or have been killed by the copious quantities of PBRs being quaffed). In any case, as someone once said, dude, if you have to ask, you'll never know.
It seems that many people are not aware that a large part of the audience for any show that is not a hit sitcom is actually paid to be there.
I predict that the company that owns Comedy Central will apply the pressure necessary to oust Stewart if he becomes too "powerful".
In the Ghetto Part XI
Reza unfastened the tape that secured the diaper around Marticock's waist. A gag reflex gripped her stomach as the powerful stench of Marticock's hour-old feces assaulted her nostrils. As Reza wrestled with the baby's kicking legs, the fat hanging from her arms rippled and quivered. Reza tried to hold back a cough as her stomach squeezed around the massive lunch she had just eaten. The attempt was futile and Reza coughed and choked simultaneously, causing a large wad of mucus to land on Marticock's face. Marticock clumsily wiped away the mucus with his waving arm and licked it off his hand.
Reza turned Marticock over on the changing table, so that he layed on his stomach. His bottom was smeared with brown goo, which had Vlad's semen mixed in with it. Reza's mouth watered at the sight of the milky white fluid. Her sexual desire burned so strongly within her, that it blinded her to Marticock's feces-smeared butt and all she could see were the love juices of her beloved Vlad, who sat farting in the living room of the double-wide. Reza's mouth watered.
It had been so long since Vlad had shot a load into her multi-chinned mouth. Her jowls quivered like the giant hanging testicles of a prized race-horse. Reza longed to once again partake of the fruits of Vlad's testes; she became entranced; the room melted away; marticock dissolved. The perimeter of her vision narrowed until all she could see was the thick white fluid. Reza lowered her face to Marticock's ass and began to lick the stale semen. It's cold saltiness made her mouth come alive. As she devoured more and more of the fluid, she began to lick more vigorously, until Marticock's ass had been licked clean.
That was just enough to whet her appetite. Reza flipped Marticock over onto his back and took his genitals into her stench-ridden mouth. She sucked on his scrotum and tiny penis all at once. Marticock gurgled with a satisfaction he could not begin to comprehend. Reza was so enchanted by her tender moment with her son, she did not hear the heavy thuds making their way down the center of the double-wide.
Marticock's bedroom door, paper-thin as the walls, flung open and Vlad stood at the entrance wearing his stained t-shirt and yellowed white briefs. Vlad farted with rage, "what in the hell do you think you're doing to my son, you fat cunt?"
A burst of gas was ejected from Reza's bowel by the tensing of her colonic nerves, "I, I..."
Vlad's face reddened and the vein in his temple began to throb, "I told you Marticock is MINE!"
Reza covered her face with her massive arms as Vlad stormed over to her. He raised a massive hairy fist and brought it down upon the quivering tub of lard, "I'll teach you to screw with my Marticock!"
"My Marticock," Vlad yelled, as he repeatedly beat the elephantine woman, "My Marticock!"
"My... Marti... COCK!"
Reza crumpled into a bawling heap on the dirty carpet of the double wide. As she lay shaking and crying, Vlad pulled his thimble-sized penis through the opening in the front of his briefs. He massaged his penis until it was hard and then plunged it into Marticock's ass, which was wet with Reza's saliva.
"Awwwwww, yeah," Vlad gasped.
So when talking shit to other news show he can be "Guy with most relible news show" but when someone points out a valid flaw he gets to become "Guy with fake news show who has no standards".
He has to raise his standards because if he does not, everything coming out of his mouth pertaining to fakeness on news shows is irrelivant bullshit.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
In the Ghetto Part XIV
Vlad was in trouble. His unemployment was due to expire soon and he had not even bothered looking for a job. He had pinned his hopes on his internet business taking off, but in the several months it had been operating, he had actually spent more than he made from it. Vlad just didn't understand how this was possible. Everything he had read on the internet indicated that pornography was a great way to make big money. Not only did he have the widest selection of porn he could find, he also had the most original, using his own pictures of his precious time with Marticock and he had even managed to sneak some pictures of Reza masturbating with a watermelon in the shower. He decided to check the stats on the admin page of his porn site.
Vlad loaded the page and typed in the username, "freeporn" then the password, "freeporn". Vlad's jaw dropped. One thousand downloads in one hour and he hadn't brought in one penny. A bubble of rage swelled within Vlad's gut and escaped noisily through his anus. Vlad wiped away the sweat that was condensing on his brow and decided he would put the fear of God into the thieves that had perpetrated this upon him. Vlad clicked his way to kuro5hin.org and brought up the "New Diary" form.
* * *
Subject: KEEP IT UP!
To all of you BACKSTABBERS that are FUCKING me out of FREE porn: I WILL find YOU and I WILL DEAL with YOU! Once I find out HOW and WHO, I will be PAYING you a little visit. Have you ever seen Charlies Angels? THAT'S the style of MARTIAL ARTZ I practice. YOU will be getting a FREE LESSON in how fast 400 pounds of VLAD can MOVE!
* * *
Satisfied that this would scare even the most insidious of elements, Vlad posted the diary. He farted with satisfaction and shut down his computer. It looked like Vlad would have to go out job hunting. The very thought of it made the skin on his back crawl, but he had to do something. Reza couldn't breast feed Marticock forever and Vlad needed Marticock healthy, since Marticock's ass was the only good thing left in Vlad's miserable life. Vlad grabbed a cold Budweiser from the refrigerator and picked up his toolbox on the way out the door.
The Chevy van had been up on blocks for several months now. Vlad would have to get it running if he was going to find a job. Vlad sighed heavily and dejectedly walked over to the van. The oil plug was laying in the grass underneath the van; Vlad had to drain the oil one night when he ran out of vaseline to use on Marticock. Vlad also remembered, in his drunken haze, that the battery was dead on the van and he hadn't been able to figure out how to recharge it. His cousin had lent him a battery charger. Vlad walked over to a crumbling wooden box that sat next to the door of the double-wide. He fished out a can of two-cycle oil and the battery charger.
Vlad screwed the oil plug back into the pan and dumped the can of two-cycle oil into the block. He was already panting and sweating from all the exertion, but he still had to charge the battery. Vlad tried to remember the instructions that his cousin had described. Hesitantly, Vlad removed two of the spark plug cables on the van - one on each end of the engine. He placed one of the alligator clamps on one spark plug and the other clamp on the other spark plug. Vlad couldn't see anything happening so he banged on the engine with his hammer, then noticed an electrical cord attached to the battery charger.
"Aha!" Vlad thought. He took the plug and shoved it into an outlet attached to the outside of the double-wide. A great arc of blue energy rose from the engine of the Chevy van and crackled high in the air. The energy bolt vanished as all the lights in the neighborhood went out.
Vlad was exhausted. He disconnected the battery charger and tossed it in the back of the van. He guzzled the remainder of his beer and dropped the can on the driveway before returning to the double-wide for another Budweiser.
Since you obviously didn't see it, try reading the transcript. Zell Miller was angry the entire time and Chris Matthews was a dick as usual. What did Zell expect? Chris tried to get him to admit that the spitballs comment was a bit of rhetorical excess comparable to a Democrat accusing a Republican of wanting to starve children or close schools and Zell just couldn't understand his point. It certainly isn't a reason to wish you could challenge someone to a duel.
The threat isn't until much further in the interview. As someone who saw it, it was pretty pathetic.If the MEDIA had a motivation for leaving Nader off, it would be because Bush v. Kerry would be a lot more interesting than Bush v. Kerry v. Nader. You forget the public's limited attention span and lack of focus. They can barely pay attention to 3 issues, much less 5 issues discussed by 3 candidates in a format that would have to last longer. The MEDIA's motivation for leaving Nader off (actually the MEDIA doesn't decide who gets to debate so your whole premise is flawed) would be ratings.
And as you pointed out, Nader hurt the Democrats a lot more than Republicans in the last election. The corporations and MEDIA would want Nader on because Bush's re-election would be much more of a boon to them than Kerry's (whose positions are much closer to Nader's than Bush's are).
How can you write that? You just argued for 6 paragrahs or so how the media severs themselves, and at the end you write how it's all a media-politician conspiricy.
Hmm, maybe there is some residual tin-foil left in your hat.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
"Even the commercials are still in the video file."
So we're really doing them a favor by giving them a wider audience, right?
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
I should have said, "Jeesus, you're a fuckin' moron".
Wheew... 9/10 on the flame scale.
Post stupid stuff, get flamed to a crisp. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
OK, coming to the gem you just coughed up.
What does grepping Stewart's remarks have to do with anything? Are you trying to impress us with your "l33t g43pp1ng skillz" ?? Instead of wasting everyone's bandwidth, why not just post what your point is?
The answer: you have no point. You just read about these magical words "dialectism" and "dualism" somewhere, and you want to run around using them, like a 2-year old who just learnt a new word. Jeez man, grow up!
And I'll humor you some by actually pretending you had a point with this 'search for "true" POV' bullshit. The answer: read the transcript again, and try to friggin' understand what he's trying to say. Just like you didn't understand "dialectism" and "dualism", you are not understanding what Stewart is saying.
Here, I'll spell it out for ya in simple terms. Stewart isn't looking for a "truth"; he was telling Begala and Carlson that they, the so-called "debate" show on the Cable NEWS Network, should be doing a better job of asking questions and should be listening to what the other side has to say. They should be listening, so that they can then ask further, probing questions. And also concede the other side's points when they should be.
He is asking for a civilized debate-based show, instead of the pro-wrestling format "theater" they have going on there. And he's asking that, because Crossfire claims to be a debate-type show. It is not at all, and just consists of lefties and righties spouting off their party lines, not listening to the other side.
I always thought in a democracy.. Now again I have only lived in this country.
Brilliant! Did anyone catch that beautiful line?
http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831/
Neo-conservatives desperately want people to believe politics is always a disagreement of two opinions.
In actuality, facts (knowledge that can be proven through the scientific method) are just as often a part of polictical discussions as opinions are.
It has been the neo-conservative agenda since the birth of the movement to change the political discussion so that provable facts are treated with no more respect or validity than a statement of opinion or belief.
As a result, at the extremes of the discussion, we have situations like Creationism being taught as a science. But we also have situations like the complete lack any evidence of WoMD in Iraq being displayed as a partisan talking point. The demonstratable lack of WoMD is not an opinion. It's a fact backed by evidence of countless investigators attempts to find them. Bush said US national security was under an imminent threat by the Saddam Hussein government from WoMD. There were no WoMD. If there was no WoMD, there is no imminent threat to US national security by Saddam Hussein. That means that the reasons given by Bush for invading Iraq were false. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.
Political discourse in the US is on the verge of critical failure due to the neo-con agenda of treating facts and fact-based evidence having no greater weight or relevance than someone's statement of opinion.
I think your post has the highest density of logical fallacies in recent memory. Just because Kerry refuses to be interviewed by someone does not make that person a better journalist. Does this reasoning extend to every newspaper that GWB refuses to read? Not that they do any better than Crossfire, natch.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Canadian health care gets more or less the same results that American and other rich countries do.
How's that "terrible"? What do you think American health care would look like if we spent 40% *less* than we do?
If you want a good interview of Jon Stewart lambasting the press, watch how he tells off Howard Kurtz in his November 2, 2002 interview on "Reliable Sources". Now I'd like a video of that.
Insanity.
were set in a monarchy for precisely this reason. The authors (Niven and Pournelle) wanted to explore a future where the rulers concentrated more on doing the job than they did on getting the job. A child born to the throne, the idea went, can be trained from a young age on how to do it well. (Assuming the society as a whole is still functioning properly, not gotten corrupt or decadent, etc.)
"Do we 'believe' in a monarchy? Not necessarily," they wrote in a later essay. "Do we believe it's /possible/? Damn straight."
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Congradulations on bein' a sore loser, ya loser!
There's no reason to attack Bush about his service in the National Guard
A poor man's son would have been sent to Vietnam immediately upon being AWOL from the Alabama Air National Guard.
If his absence had been as long as Bush's, he would have been called a deserter in time of war and would have done a stretch in Leavenworth.
If it turns out that [Kerry] wasn't as courageous as he wants you to think
Witnesses have to recommend you for medals with written testimony specifying the details of your valor.
On October 14, ABC Nightline did a report on the incident.
They went to the location of the action and asked the locals what happened.
The locals said 20 Viet Cong put up a hell of a fight.
**My own view** Whether or not Kerry was the one to kill the guy with the grenade launcher, gathering it up kept it from being used against his guys by a live commie.
gewg_
Haven't heard of that one. Some linkage would be good...
I think he should have said that the "softball" questions on his show was merely a satire of the type of questions asked by real news shows. At least that's how I take it when I see Stewart interview politicians and he asks obsured questions like "so, how are you adjusting to life on the campaign trail?" (not an actual quote but just an example). The fact that politicians don't mind going on his show because they know he's not going to ask any difficult questions is simply a furthering of the satire in my mind. In the crossfire interview one of the hosts gets upset that he didn't ask kerry any tough questions - Stewart should have just said "now you know how I feel when I watch crossfire." Its a satirical news show!! You should experience an exaggerated version of what Stewart feels when he watches the source he is satiring.
I didnt even have time to read the comments on /. before the d/l finish. I was downloading at 125 kb on cable and never even received an upload request.
I regularly watch the daily show as well as conentional news channels and I tend to remember what stewart says as opposed to what the major media outlets say.
I've never been a politician. I guess I have no basis to criticize them either.
What you're describing can be understood as a defection in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. In a quest for quality and diversity of opinion and approach, there is a mass defection of The News (stereotype, exceptions exist) from the consumer. Those are the two prisoners: The News and You, the punishment is Lowest Common Denominator programming.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Here's what I submitted on the feedback page. Maybe they'll bite.
-
I commend CNN for having Jon Stewart on the Crossfire program on Friday. Though one or two of his comments may have gone slightly overboard, Paul and Tucker handled the situation well. The fact that he was allowed to get across his (very astute) points reflects highly on CNN's journalism principles.
I have long felt that there was an untapped market for a real, genuine, non-partisan debate show, much like what Jon was clamoring for, where issues could be discussed outside of the rhetoric and "spin", by legitimate experts in the relevant fields, rather than politicians beholden to the electorate's opinion. I think we all know your major competitor won't be bringing the public such open discourse. I hope that CNN can.
Sincerely,
Jeremy M. Dolan
Chicago resident and CNN viewer
I'd suggest Stuff, in addition to the Herald.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/
Sovereignty is something that we're supposed to hold dear. Why? For example, if capital punishment were banned in China, and we still practiced it here, they couldn't invade our country legally under the guise if liberating us. It keeps smaller countries (Poland) safe from larger countries (Germany or Russia).
Iraq's people had the responsibility to free themselves. We only get involved when it suits us militarily or for resources. If we really cared about saving lives, Africa would be a more effective continent to start on.
I agree 100%
--- "End Of Line" - MCP
In the Ghetto Part XV
Vlad's three chins quivered with delight as he tossed another prozac into his mouth. The pills were doing very little to relieve Vlad's boredom. He sat on the orange couch in his underwear and continued to stare at the flickering images emitted by the television. Vlad was so numbed by the prozac that he didn't notice the clattering of the front door as Reza wallowed into the double-wide.
"Good news, Vladdie-Pop!"
Vlad drooled as he grunted.
"I took all of your empty beer cans I found laying on the floor and sold them! Look! I got twenty dollars!"
A new life sprang into Vlad's eyes, "let's celebrate, you fat fuck!"
Reza beamed as she nodded, "yes!"
One-by-one the neighbors closed their windows and shut their blinds as the Chevy van banged and chugged slowly down the street. Occasionally, a child would peer out from between the blinds and point and laugh at the primer-colored van as it spewed smoke out of the tailpipe.
Vlad had managed to get the van running, but only barely. Even though he had the gas pedal pushed to the floor, the van would only go 30 miles per hour. Once in a while, the van would lunge forward with a great, momentary burst of speed - just enough force to knock some part from the engine and then it would settle back down to its slow pace. Vlad thought this was good though, as it would give him an excuse for being late for work if he ever did find a job.
Eventually, the van completed the 10 mile journey to the movie theater and Vlad parked in a nice handicapped spot. He fiddled with the door handle until it gave way and the door opened and Reza, carrying Marticock, joined him in front of the theater.
"Yeah. I've been wanting to see this," Vlad exclaimed excitedly.
"Look Vlad," Reza pointed to the billboard, "Fried Green Tomatoes 2 is playing!"
Vlad farted, "we're gonna see Blade 3 and you're gonna like it, you fat tub of shit!"
Reza sighed, "yes dear."
The line at the box office was long, but Vlad and Reza and Marticock eventually got their tickets and were seated in the theater only minutes after the movie had started.
Vlad sat his extra-large popcorn and extra-large Coke in the seat next to him. He unzipped his pants and fished out his stiffened penis. He took Marticock from Reza and sat him on his lap, so that his penis penetrated Marticock's anus. Vlad grunted loudly and was admonished with several "shhhhhh" sounds from the audience.
Reza noticed that Vlad was molesting Marticock right there in front of her and began to sob loudly. Vlad paid no attention as Wesley Snipes flashed onto the movie screen, "Yeah! That's what I'm talkin' about Jigabro!" He yelled.
Marticock, his anus irritated and bleeding, began to cry. Vlad tried to soothe him by thrusting his penis in and out of Marticock's anus. It was to no avail. Several audience members began to throw popcorn at the Lockwoods. Some even shot ice at them through straws. But Vlad paid no attention, as he cheered on his hero, screaming with pleasure and farting with excitement.
Eventually, the movie ended and Vlad and Reza, carrying Marticock again, left the building among a large crowd. Vlad, still having visions of Wesley Snipes, was incompetently immitating several of the martial arts moves he had seen in the film when a scrawny black teenager walked up to him, "say, you fat white motherfucker, what's yo' problem anyway? Didn't yo' mamma teach you any manners?"
Vlad's face became flushed with rage, "did you see the martial arts in that movie? THAT'S the style of martial arts I practice."
Vlad bent his legs and brought his arms up in a blocking position, "You're gonna get one free lesson, punk."
With one swift jab and a loud crack, Vlad was flailing on the ground like a turtle that had been turned upside-down, "wha.... where am I."
Reza screamed with terror, "Vladdie-Pop are you OK?" As she knelt to tend to Vlad's bleeding nose, her f
In the Ghetto Part X
The orange vinyl of the couch stuck to Vlad's pale, massive leg as he guzzled another beer. Vlad had "made" the couch from the back seat of his Chevy van after the bank had repossessed most of his belongings. The seat was not needed on the van anyway, since it had been up on blocks in the front yard for the better part of a year. Vlad farted and enjoyed the unique sound of the vinyl flapping against his fattened leg due to the vibration of the escaping gasses. The couch was the only seating in the living room of the double-wide and so Reza was usually consigned to the floor. Vlad never let her sit next to him, claiming that his massive gut "needed to breathe".
Reza sat on the stained yellow carpet wearing a see-through purple gown. She sat with her legs spread open, exposing her red, infected vagina. The massive flaps of flesh that were her labia hung from her crotch and melted into a heap on the floor, still stretched and bruised from her attempt to reinsert Marticock into her womb. Various milky and pungent substances oozed from the massive black hole onto the floor to create a sticky white puddle. Carter, the Lockwood's dog, mosied over to the puddle and lapped it up as Reza belched up a portion of the evening's meal.
Vlad dug his fingernails deep into the flesh surrounding his anus and scratched heartily, oblivious to the tiny details of Lockwood life that were playing out around him. His meditations were, however, interrupted by a banging on the loosened screen door of the double-wide. A pang of excitement shot through Vlad's bowel and expressed itself as a thunderous burst of flatulence. He tried to leap up from the couch, but the hold of gravity upon his massive body slowed him significantly. Eventually Vlad made it to his feet and trudged to the door. He opened it to an extremely large man, with a flabby gut hanging all the way down to his knees.
"Poppa!"
"Hey, Vladdie," the gruff voice chortled, "give me some sugar, son..."
Vlad melted into the massive, hairy arms and inhaled deeply to savor the comforting scent of week-old sweat. Poppa rubbed Vlad's back with his dirt- encrusted hands, massaging his way down to Vlad's butt. He took one cheek in each hand and squeezed passionately. Vlad moaned with pleasure and placed his lips firmly on his father's. Vlad partially opened his mouth, and stuck his tongue out, past his missing teeth and into his fathers mouth.
Vlad could taste the residue of tobacco his father had been chewing and this excited him even more. He moved his hands down his father's back and into the back of his pants. Vlad carressed his father's bare ass, exploring each pock and wrinkle with his fingers and massaging his anus. Vlad's penis swiftly snapped to its full 1 inch of attention as he explored the moist, tight anus of his father.
"Vlad! What about me, damnit, " Reza screamed.
Vlad pulled away from his father and shook his head, "oh yeah, follow me, Poppa."
Reza smiled with a glimmer of hope which was quickly smothered as Vlad walked uncaringly past her, followed by Poppa. Reza began to sob uncontrollably then screamed loudly as Poppa stepped on her bruised labia. She rolled over onto her massive stomach and cried and screamed as she pounded the dirty floor of the double-wide.
Vlad motioned his father to Marticock's room, "I figure we can start out with me in Marticock's ass and you in mine," Vlad said eagerly.
"Now wait a minute, son! I want a piece of that tight little ass too!"
Vlad's eyes brightened with hope, "does that mean you're gonna let me in the back door this time, Poppa?"
Poppa smiled and patted Vlad on the back, "you betcha, son. I've been lookin' forward to this for a loooong time. Three generations of Lockwood, doin' it the Lockwood way!"
Vlad farted with excitement.
Two years ago, also on CNN: ...
...
/ rs .00.html)
KURTZ: So you don't, you're not confusing yourself with a quote, "real journalist"?
STEWART: No. You guys are...
KURTZ: You're just making fun...
STEWART: You guys are confusing yourselves with real journalists.
(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/02
Try getting VLC (Videolan) it is a free/open source (GPL) video player that I use to play *ALL* of my video files (mpg, divx, avi, xvid, mov, ogm).
I downloaded the torrent and it plays with VLC, and I have divx and xvid installed which may also make a difference.
He said "dick" on crossfire.....that was awesome.
Intelligent?
Yet by voting for Badnarik you are supporting Bush (albeit indirectly). One less vote for Kerry brings Bush one step closer to having a second term. Things would be different if our election process was sane (at least something like instant runoff) but people like you are the ones who are going to re-elect Bush. Ironic considering he is not your favorite candidate, isn't it?
Kerry is a robot? Really? Do you mean he is not made out of flesh and blood? Or do you mean you hate his guts so you'll grab whatever insult comes in handy and slam him with it? If the latter why do you hate him so much? Did you ever meet him?
evil is as evil does
You can soak in the video at DailyRecycler.com: Stewart on CNN
Awesome.
I don't think Kerry "hates" Bush per se, I'd just say that he, like most people with brains, has come to realize that Bush is not qualified for the office he currently holds. As for "not liking Kerry" and being "Anybody But Bush", I think Stewart dealt with that when he responded to the fact that the process selected Kerry, who while maybe not really "the best guy", was the guy selected by the process and is worth supporting as such.
But people have been making political observations for as long as there have been performers. Since most artists are creative, (and thus are inclined to naturally align their lives with the production and distribution rather than the self-serving consumption of energy), their political observations tend to be critical of whichever mini-black hole happens to be leading their nation.
Keep in mind, the "News" guys at the tops of the corporate broadcasting structures are all millionaires. They may have started out on the right path, but to have been allowed to get the top, they will first have been subverted into believing in the state.
Stewart is nothing new. But he's also pulling his punches, I suspect, in order to stay alive. Some Elephants make their own Uzis.
-FL
Ok, didn't you just completely contradict yourself there? Or are you saying people still get their news elsewhere also, but they only "respect" The Daily Show?
No for the first, Yes! for the second. In other words, they (and I) don't respect any other television news show. We don't get one bit of our daily news input from television.
News from the Internet, biting and brilliant comedic satire of the whole mess from The Daily Show. It is an incredibly fine line for a show to be both satire and news, but The Daily Show pulls it off. For the Daily Show to remain as good as it is, it can't cross that line into "real" journalism.
In other words, just because they run an incredibly well written and popular comedy show, doesn't mean that they have to start asking the hard hitting questions that the real news shows should be asking.
Perhaps you've heard of it? Larger land area than the US. Much closer (politically) to England than the states, and generally uses the British spellings. Not where I live now, but that is where the different spelling comes from. Unless you mean the mistakes, which are a combination of lack of typing skill, lack of care in correcting them, and dyslexia.
If the only way to be "unbiased" is to refuse to take a position on anything that is contested, even when there's a mountain of evidence for the position, well, I'd rather be biased!
Well said. Almost invariably someone who claims that an opponent's view in an argument is invalid because it is "biased" does not have any evidence of their own to stand on. It would be refreshing every once in a while to hear someone complain about their opponent being biased and then present facts along with their reasoned interpretation on their meaning.
I can't remember the last time I saw something like that happen.
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
I really think he doesn't want to be a leader and informer of people, he just wants to poke fun at current events and make money doing it. When he started on the Daily Show, that's all it was. It didn't have a very large viewership, and they were mostly Comedy Central regulars. It was just all for fun. Well as he began to improve the show, and as normal news went more to shit, the viewership exploded and many people are now putting real faith in the reporting there.
I honestly think he doesn't want that, and is saddened by it. He wants the news networks to do real news, while he goofs around about it. He doesn't want people hinging their opinion on the word of a commedian playing on a joke news show. He wants to entertain, not inform.
That's a fine stance to have. People shouldn't be required to be leaders if they don't want to. It doesn't make him a hypocrite or less of a person or anything. He is what he wants to be and makes no bones about what that is. He's just trying to get the real news to step up so that people don't try and make him something he isn't.
Can someone please explain how I use this bit torrent thing? I'm on a Linux machine, and I have root access, if need be. Is this the only way I can get a copy of the .avi for this Stewart Crossfire video?
If I can get it elsewhere, where would that be
No, I'm serious, the US has attitudes that are culturally much different that that of Europe. In particular, the US learned different lessons from the last century of history. For example, "Patriotism" and "Nationalism" got really bad names in Europe because of WWI and WWII and their apparent causes. Europeans became deeply suspicious of them for that reason, but USians found those attributes a good thing, because it helped them WIN those wars. I guess I'm saying that it's not the the US gets so much different information, (ignorance, FUD, etc) but that USians seem to view it with a much different perspective than the rest of the world.
I'm not sure that it is wrong or right. It just is.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
The video ran for 20 minutes, with commercials. They only took two (more like 1 1/2) questions from the crowd. It seems someone didn't like what he was saying.
Some people are complaining about the commercials in the video. I say keep them. They really show the absurdity of the whole situation (Anderson Cooper: News Anchor, Jeopardy Champion). This video is historical as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully it's something we'll look back on with disgust and regret; 10 years from now after legislation regulates the size and consolidation of media companies and breaks breaks up Knight-Ridder, Gannet, News Corp., and Time-Warner's news divisions.
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
It wasn't Tim Russert it was Chris Mathews on the show Hardball that Zel Miller wished he could challenge to a duel before abruptly ending the interview. Or did he do that to Tim Russert as well?
Ok, lets take these one by one He promotes gross fiscal irresponsibility and ballooning debt. That's not conservative. Balloning the debt for what though. Thats just a gross generalization. And you certainly can't blame Bush for all the pork in the budget (no line item veto). He promotes nation building and continual warfare. That's not conservative.> You aren't addressing the issue here, just making a broad statement again. Is it ever "conservative" to go to war? When is it liberal to go to war? How would YOU define conservative and liberal? He has supported erosion of civil liberties and violations of due process against American citizens. That's not conservative. Again, which civil liberties violations? He supports what is effectively amnesty for illegal aliens. That's not conservative. No, you have that one plainly wrong. What Bush is doing is trying to make it so that illegals DON'T HAVE TO BE illegal if they want to come to the US and work. He's trying to make it easy for them to have a legal, documented guest worker status. He isn't going to wave his wand and make them all citizens, or let undocumented people that are here off the hook, he wants them to be required to document themselves. He supports corporate welfare through huge increases in agriculture subsidies. That's not conservative. AGREED :)
I guess my problem with your statements is mostly that they are vague generalizations without any real specifics. You don't really define your terms. That makes it real hard for me to agree with anything you have said.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Now I am going to get pummled by Mods I know :)
Typical right wing extremist pseudo victimhood.
Their is a dualism between political theory and practice and the dialectcist wants to resolve this by creating an ideologically pure government.
You don't seem to mind the push for a one party theocracy in the USA.
OK, the Daily Show is funny and many people (in the 18-25 age group, the group which I belong to) apparently or supposedly get their news on American politics. Well, most of the real, non hurtful, as Jon Stewart put it, news presented on CNN or Fox can be found on the news ticker at bottom of the screen. And of course, you can get the the same information on the Daily Show, although with a satirical twist or on CNN with a "theatrical" twist, but either way you get the jist of the what is going on in the world of politics.
On Crossfire, Jon Stewart is attacking CNN and the hosts by accusing the them of failing in their duty as a new outlet. From what I can see, Stewart is asking the news networks to be more like the news ticker and less theater. Ok, I admit it's not as simple as that. Now, my problem is: What is the maintream media's duty? In world where freedom of speech has a primordial importance, who can define what that duty is? We can present basically anything, although nothing shown is directly from journalism's own "volition". Most of it is what the newsmakers (as in the people the media reports on) want them to show and it's working. Although Stewart hasn't said what mainstream media should be, he sure has shown what he thinks it should not be.
The hosts of Crossfire argued that Stewart's show isn't much different from theirs in the partisanship perspective. Now, Stewart says in his defence that the Daily Show comes after a show about puppets who make prank phone calls and that his duty is not the same as that of news outlets (whatever that duty may be). If it weren't for the fact (not sure if it is) that many many people get their news from his show, I would agree. But, since many do, would it be reasonable to think that he also has the same responsibililty as CNN, beyond being funny? This responsibility was, in a way, shoved upon him, since the Daily Show does not proclaim itself as being a source for news.
Ok, this post is getting long and I'm rambling, so I'm going to end it here. You know what? Jon Stewart is successful in his duty. He went on Crossfire and told the world what he thought. And Daily Show's satire is more informative (even though it doesn't have to be) than CNN, so yeah, Jon is right, the mainstream media is in a pretty sad situation if some late night talk show on Comedy Central is better.
One, the word militia doesn't mean today what it ment then. It was literally all able bodied citizens. Many of the founders opposed the creation of a permanent army because they feared that it would be used for "domestic purposes."
Secondly, as to the "why was it included" statement. If they HAD ment to restrict the right to bear arms to a specific group, then why say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Why not say the right of the militia, or the right of the military? And why would they put this in the bill of rights? The BoR is specifically ment to enumerate the rights of individuals and limit the power of the federal government over them. Your interpretation would put the 2nd ammendment totally out of character with the rest of the BoR. If the right is not for individuals, then who is it for, and why did they feel the need to enumerate it? Were they afraid that someone was going to take the military's weapons away from them?
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Sure, ad revenue pays for the show.
www.samuraidreams.com - My Blog
www.samuraifiles.com - Get Some Videos Here
So wait. CNN is only liberal IF a person is uninformed? is that like only idiots vote for Bush?
(1) Fiscal responsibility - working off the debt. The Democrats were supposed to tax big and spend big. The Republicans were supposed to tax lite and spend lite. The current administration wants to tax lite and spend big.
(2) Isolationism and a general dislike in tampering with other countries.
(3) Individual rights. The right to bear arms is one place where GWB still fits here. But the Patriot Act isn't.
(4) Kick the foreigners out of the country
(5) Cut welfare of all types as much as possible
(6) Small efficient government
Maybe you aren't very old, but the Republican party doesn't really represent the ideals it once did only a few decades ago. Current Libertarians seem to be closer to what Republicans used to be.
I looked at your link to dialectical and the different definitions are contradictory. This explains how you can lump Ayn Rand in with turds like Marx and Hegel who were divorced from reality.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Anything broadcast over the open airwaves can be freely recorded and copyied.
Not if you don't have the express written consent of Major League Baseball it isn't.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
Veering off-topic, I solve this one by buying used CDs. The RIAA's members will never see a penny from me so long as they're pushing jackbooted copyright legislation and filing suits against fans.
I don't think that TDS is a smart show exactly, rather I think Jon Stewart is trying to educate us (in his own way) what is (or should be) basic political knowledge - his method is just a little different. I think it is definately one of the most effectively educational shows about politics and the American political system, but that is partly due to the fact that many other news sources are so uninformative.
We want to think The Daily Show is a smart show because we want to think of ourselves as smart for watching it. Why do you think think everyone here is jumping in to brag (in so many words) that they watch it and adore it?
Jonathan B.
This situation reminded me a lot of this story I read when I was younger. It was a bleak and dismal future, one where the government controlled people's thoughts and could erase memories at will. One man broke free, and took over a news station in an attempt to tell the others and free them. He was executed on live television, while his parents watched. A few moments later, his parents were sad, but could not remember why.
That's how I see what just happened. The sadness - the desperation - in his voice haunts me. His message was one that I've wanted to scream from the rooftops since I became aware. He got his chance, and he was ignored and dismissed with sidetracking comments and commercial breaks. Did you hear when he started begging them to stop? I'll be honest - it brought me to tears. To see someone expose the very heart of what oppresses us - and to see his message cut down and ignored by cheap distraction techniques.
If you're out there listening Jon, thanks for trying. Those of us that are awake appreciate it more than you may ever know.
-Vendal Thornheart
I apologize for my anal retentive capabilities, but it's so small and so irksome to me:
:(
cost, space, school accounts, ect.
If "ect." was not a typo, you must correct your knowledge! It is supposed to be "etc.," an abbreviation for "et cetera" which means "and the rest" or "and the others" (if I remember correctly, it's been years since I took Latin).
This goes for anyone else who also uses "ect."
It makes me want to stab people in the foot. With a rusty spoon.
is a FVCKING DICKHEAD.
"Balloning the debt for what though. Thats just a gross generalization. And you certainly can't blame Bush for all the pork in the budget (no line item veto)."
So what-I don't think they support a ballooning debt even IF it is for a good cause? He also has a veto. And his signature is on the document. So, overall, he must agree with it, right? He could shut the government down-it would hurt his approval rating but if he REALLY felt it was important why wouldn't he? Oh, since you are big on specifics, list the pork in the budget.... One person's pork is another's vital project....
"He promotes nation building and continual warfare. That's not conservative.> You aren't addressing the issue here, just making a broad statement again. Is it ever "conservative" to go to war? When is it liberal to go to war? How would YOU define conservative and liberal?"
And you are changing the subject. My impression of "conservative" values is isolationism. Don't attack anyone that hasn't attacked you. We are about one for two on that issue....
"Again, which civil liberties violations?"
Umm, like it matters? Conservatives say they want small government and government out of people's lives. If you violate "civil liberties" which I would interpret as at least the "Bill of Rights" then you have failed at least one of those concepts.... If you would like an example, how about holding people accused of crimes (accused combatants) without access to counsel?
Man I know! Why oh why did he have to say "would that it were?"
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
I am another Canadian, but do not think the US and CNN is full of propaganda. In fact a lot of what you see in Canada is slanted anti-American and the poor guy is probably simply unaware of this slant. Proof you ask: well in Canada Al-Jazeera is allowed. You can watch the rantings and anti-American diatribes on the infamous network. But - surprise, surprise - you cannot watch Fox. It is not banned you understand, it is just not available. So poor Canada get this left of center view (and any other view is biased they claim). You may or may not want to watch Fox. That is not the issue. What is at issue is Canada gets a slanted view of information fed from the US. There are many things from the US that I am not happy with, but I'd like all the information available - Fox and all - before jumping to an ill informed conclusion. Another infamous source of anti-Americanism is the Canadian Broadcast Corporation that nightly pumps out strong anti-US sentiment. How do Canadians deal with a dissident like me, you ask? They simply say I cannot be a true Canadian. True Canadians don't think like you, they say. I believe once Orwell wrote about this. It is called group think.
Until Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, the Daily Show had been playing their punch-line pretty quietly: the punch-line only really works when the butt of the joke doesn't realize what's going on. Tucker Carlson's comparison of Crossfire to the Daily Show is proof that he, at least, didn't realize that the joke was on him and not on George Bush or John Kerry. Unfortunately, Jon Stewart actaully explained the joke: and, of course, once you explain a joke, it's not funny anymore.
Fortunately, it's unlikely that the news media will give Stewart's explanation much play, since it can only make them look bad. The only power the new media has is based on some minimal level of public trust. Running with a story that essentially reads "FLASH: TV News is Bullshit!" just isn't in their self-interest. So long as TV journalism is controlled by a few large corporate interests, we should be able to enjoy the Daily Show's joke at their expense for a good while yet.
I dont usually reply in these forums, just read them every day... but this article was one that really got me moved. I love the daily show, and find that it is one of the only shows that is "sane" in TV land... Its about time people stood up and said, ok, enough of the partisan pundants pushing us around... its time for intellegent debates...
OHHHhhhhhhh shit man! That shit is mad funny! I don't care where you from.
And if he ain't considered a GENIUS for sayin' what needs to be said by gum on air and shit then he should be considered that for being a comic genius.
Who would actually in this day and age go up to someone on TV and say something like that? People today can not take a joke. His ass would be sued and never allowed on TV like some people said, fo' sho'.
"Slander" and all that shit. Fuck you, if you can't take a joke and sue them until they're poor. That shit is hella weak, cos you can't come step when the truth is in yo' face. What's wrong with people today?
And even if you don't think it's the truth and you got a different opinion, well fuck you for not letting someone else express theirs and cutting their shit off with a commercial. WTF is the matter with you now? Free speach my ass, truth is you can't even get up and say watchu want on a world-wide CNN type network. What the hell is that shit?
Free speach loud as you can yell it, that's about it. And then you gots people belittling you and shit.
Yo're not allowed to say an opinion unless you can stand up to yourself with tons of people with YEARS of practice in bullshit.
You're not allowed to say an opinion unless you got hella buckzz and lawyers and shit to SPEND money to say that you gotz tha right to say something. WTF is wrong with this shit?
OK so now to say anything you gotta own tha TV, you gotta own tha cash and tha lawyers, and you gotta own tha politicians with they secrit keys ta pull tha plug ta fuck up ya network lest ye protect yourself by lining they pockets and supporting they shit.
Fuck that. So by the time you get free speach, you're already hindered by not being able to say shit about politikz, plus then you gots no reason to complain cos you got that $$$ and lawyerz and you're sedated, either that or worn out by the process of accumulating all this shit.
Hellz ya you gotta be Michael Moore to get up and talk about this shit and bully your way onto the screen and be an asshole. Yeah lotta people think he's an asshole but who fucken cares cos he's the one up on tha screen tellin ya what's what. Get yo own damn show.
One joker did and he got laughed off the stage fast because people realized his shit was bull, he gots nothin' ta say because he just got up to make a spectacle out of Moore. Well Moore's really talking about shit that's affectin' everyone for a long time, not some ass trying ta get his 15 minutes of fame by yellin' at someone who's getting his 15 minutes of fame.
Lotta people may get 15 minutes of fame but it's what you do with that 15 minutes that makes you go into history or not. WTF is wrong with people criticizing other people who gots something to say?
Let these people say something. If it's shit well let everyone else decide that it's shit. How you gonna pull the plug on them before everyone else gets to judge what you pooh poohed? You think you can speak for everyone? What the hell makes your goddam opinion so much more important than anyone else's?
I dont' care what your background is or who you from or what you is, wtf you thinking if you don't think everyone can have their opinion on shit?
Holy shit!
Damn right I'm putting my name on this.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
I scrolled through this topic and didn't see anyone mention it, so I thought I'd share. Here's a link to John Stewart being interviewed on Fresh Air on NPR. This interview took place after his book came out. He goes into more detail about what he thinks about the Media, politics etc... If you enjoyed Stewart on Cross-fire, check this out. It's at the top of the page.
= day&todayDate=09/30/2004
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue
As usual, Jerk City has the scoop:
http://www.jerkcity.com/jerkcity2178.html
To look and see if Wikipedia has an entry for the term 'randroid.
Here, I'll spell it out for ya in simple terms. Stewart isn't looking for a "truth"; he was telling Begala and Carlson that they, the so-called "debate" show on the Cable NEWS Network, should be doing a better job of asking questions and should be listening to what the other side has to say. They should be listening, so that they can then ask further, probing questions. And also concede the other side's points when they should be.
He is asking for a civilized debate-based show, instead of the pro-wrestling format "theater" they have going on there. And he's asking that, because Crossfire claims to be a debate-type show. It is not at all, and just consists of lefties and righties spouting off their party lines, not listening to the other side.
You ignore the details about the very debates they get in. You think that them having a debate would allow them to come to a conclusion. They can't, they probably disagree about fundamental things like "where life beings" and the value of multiculturalism on a fundamental level and they'll never get passed that. You say that the level of debate can be improved, I say that your notion of improving it is a big pie in the sky stupid dream. It's never going to get there. I think the "political hacks" on crossfire are smart people who have spent a lot of time thinking about the issues and you think they are shills that's the difference.
I'll make it simple for you :
What Bill Maher thinks is "pro-wrestling" is just the expression of two different points of view of very intelligent people that will never be resolved. Trying to pretend that there is some sort of way that the debate is going to come to some sort of resolution is idealistic blather. The only way it could come to some resolution is if you had somebody come in and say I'm the judge, you're right you're wrong. That's dialectical. Dualism is letting both live and letting them argue before the American people and try some ideas here and there and let the truth slowly emerge.
Oh yeah, by the way. I find it beautifully ironic that you call for civilized debate yet you flame away with the worst of em'.
Did Stewart try to convince them privately first?
I'm not sure how things are done generally in the US. But I'd have thought that it would be better to try to convince people privately that they are doing something wrong rather than do it in Public TV.
So maybe Stewart's blasting them was also just part of the Show. Not sure what the full implications are if that is so.
Oh well at least it is something different.
The inevitable dilemma of a free enterprise media. What do you do when your cause is no longer profitable? We know that we live in a profit-driven media market, and it scares us. We call foul - bias as it were - because we know that once we become unimportant to the media, the stories that matter to us will cease to be stories.
Journalism isn't about information anymore - it's about the survival of one's public voice. If you see indications that your local news, or the national news, might be leaning to support only one group, then you need to call bias to support your own agenda, ideals, and needs. If it works, some other group will be calling bias in a few weeks, and the medium overall hovers around the middle.
Once, a single person could shift the ideology of a news outlet by being passionate. Now that we have bigger news, we're building bigger voices: PACs, advocacy groups, Sierra Clubs, Christian Coalitions. Many times the real issues get lost in the management of campaign monies. Still, a small voice with the right mic turned on can make a big difference.
But not if we just sit there whining about it. It's okay to go up to the people who make the news programs and tell them to stop being biased - which is exactly what Mr. Stewart did. They'll probably tell you to stop watching their news show if you don't like it, but changing the channel and minding your own business is not what readership was meant to be. The press might get their money from a big corporation, but they are accountable to us. We should all hold them to this trust, even if it means calling bias and getting our hands dirty a little - and yes, maybe even some yelling.
It it never a fair debate when one side has a megaphone and the other is forced to whisper.
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
Here's an exceprt:
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
How can someone who votes in the raw commercial interest of the company, supposedly against his own principles, honestly spit out a line about what the company "believes in"? Profit margins have nothing to do with belief. Companies don't have beliefs - they're legal entities with "official positions" and "company policies" instead of "opinions" and "habits". If he voted by what he believed in.... ack! I just popped an absurdity valve!
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
That's incorrect on several fronts:
1) Every vote is not a confidence vote. Traditionally only major policy issues such as the annual budget and Throne Speech (legislative agenda) are subject to a confidence motion. It is possible for the Prime Minister to declare an issue as a confidence vote, but that's generally disliked as it then becomes a whip to force dissenting back-benchers to vote with the party or face unemployment (not to mention the risk that the dissenters could choose to torpedo their own government).
2) Neither the Prime Minister nor the house (by way of a non-confidence motion) can end a government. The power to disolve Parliament rests with the Sovereign as represented by the Governor General ("GG"). Procedurally, when a governing party decides it wants to step down (whether having reached the end of its term or having received a vote of non-confidence), the Prime Minister visits the GG to ask permission to end parliament and request that the GG issue a "Writ of Election".
3) Following a vote of non-confidence, the GG is not required to authorize an election. (In fact, we don't actually elect a governing party in Canada -- we elect representatives to the House, and the GG selects a party to run the country. The GG traditionally selects the party that elected the most members, and risks creating a "Constitutional Crisis" if a party holding a majority of seats is not selected.) Since the GG has the discretion to select which party will run the country, in the event a minority government falls the GG can ask the other parties to form a coalition government without any intervening election.
4) On a somewhat-less-related note, the GG also appoints "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" to counter the government. That is traditionally the party holding the second largest number of seats, but is ultimately at the GG's discretion.
These rules avoid problems inherent in a multi-party system. For one thing, if two parties are tied for first or second place there is no need to hold a run-off election for the roles of government and opposition -- the GG simply chooses.
Although the GG is supposed to remain non-partisan, the rise of the BQ (separtist) party in Quebec has lead to a supposition that, if they ever managed to win the 2nd place in an election, the GG would refuse to appoint them to the opposition role.
October Surprise.
People who watch The Daily Show did better on a quiz about their political knowledge than people who watch any of the cable news shows - FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Doesn't that mean he's doing his duty to inform people?
The Daily Show is very much like School House Rock for politics - it presents the subject matter in a fun/funny way, and it seems to stick to people much more readily than the real news.
Behold a regular HTTP link. Could and probably will be rather slow but it is just a direct download from my wonderful web server. Enjoy! And let me know if its working for you or not. (Tis a relatively large file, (91.9MB) ) http://69.242.135.143/misc/crossfire.zip
The Property of One's : "The Oneitude is directly proportional to the Colditude of the one." - S.B.
I'd so like (actually luve), that people would start linking to the 'external material(s)' they are quoating/refering to ... so one could (if one wanted to) read all of the 'external material(s)' the person used, and assess if 'he or she' did a fair (enough) interpretation of the 'material(s)'
This isn't ssooo oddly uncommon, or whole scientific processes is built upon this very notion, that one provides all the info one has used to come to a conclusion - so it can be verified by <WHOEVER> ... and during/under the process settle intechnicallities or other disputes, and in the long end actually have 'something' everyone agrees with (well, there will allways be people still thinking/believing the earths flat .... so I mean 'all' in the sense of 'people with a fair amount of commonsense')
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
I say, Ralph deserves to be in "The Daily Show's" scope, the same as any other legitimate candidate. Do us a favor, Mr. Stewart-- Remember why you first got into comedy... Well, other than the girls... The second reason...
You want an outside view? Yes. To the rest of the world only an idiot would vote for Bush.
I've argued this point a couple of times. The only reason I can see for voting for Bush is that he is the more Christian candidate. I suggest you read my comment history to see what I think of that. Try this comment (and the thread) for size.1
meh
I know it's so late that no one will read this post, but I saw this blurb on /. earlier this week and just now downloaded the torrent and watched it.
What I saw was Socrates, the gadfly, speaking truth to the Athenians. The truth is too much. It throws the hearers off balance and they cannot handle it. Just like Socrates, Stewart became -- that day -- the antithesis to their stale thesis.
This guy needs to do whatever he can to keep saying what he said on that show. Unlike Socrates, I do not think he will killed for it....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I consider him to be independent because of the hardline he took during Monicagate. His position from fairly early on was that the President should resign, and he was pretty forceful in voicing this opinion.
Now, for what reasons would you classify him as a liberal? For his associations? Are you one of those who uses the word liberal as a name calling tactic, so anyone left of you is a liberal and any democrat is a liberal?
"Liberal" has become a trigger word, used to elicit an emotional response. If you want to accuse Matthews of bias, then accuse him of moderate bias. He doesn't seem to hold any extreme views, nor does he engage in extreme partisanship. The worst you can say about the guy is that he's a whiney asshole who likes to mix it up with guests and likes his guests to mix it up with each other.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
NY Times has an article about Bush's faith-based, anti-factual presidency.
S H. html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login
7 82 .htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BU
Soul sucking reg. required.
Knight-ridder has an article about Bush doing absolutely no planning for post-war Iraq:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927
Both of these are left leaning, but they are based on facts. Perhaps selectively, but I trust them more than I do either candidate.
No, it's anti-stupidity. However, unlike your broadcast media, who know that it's good for business to propagate a special brand of "truth", the CBC not afraid to speak the real truth and point out stupidity by whomever it is practiced.
Your wish has been granted.
In case you're reading this, I've got another random thing for you, from this week's issue of TIME magazine. 54% of 18-24 year olds believe that Bush will institute a draft if re-elected (compared to 4% for Kerry) because of the ridiculous draft rumor that's been going around. And yes, it is ridiculous, because it's based in lies (that the government increased the Selective Service Administration's budget by "28 million dollars" when it has in fact not been increased, and its entire budget is only 26 million; or that a defendamerica.mil web page for "How you can help" - one of many - gave people information for volunteering on local draft boards, a capability that the United States has maintained since Vietnam...and NO, they didn't sit "vacant for years" as the chain email states). Or that it was a "secret administration effort" when in reality it was introduced in the House and Senate by all liberal politicians to make a (questionable) point about disproportionate minority percentages in the military.
Then, sites like stopthedraftnow.com trumpet "WE WON" when it was the Republicans who actually forced the vote on the bill to kill the incredibly stupid rumors, and now say "NOW IT'S ON TO THE SENATE", when in fact the Senate has already decided to never vote on this bill, or hear any more discussion about it. Even funnier is that more Republicans than Democrats support the idea of an exclusively all-volunteer military, and there is a Republican-sponsored bill to get rid of the Military Selective Service System altogether.
Not to mention that Kerry's rhetoric about INCREASING troop levels in Iraq by up to *two fold*, increasing the size of the regular Army, and insisting we should be "fighting and winning" against Al Qaeda in *all 60 nations they're operating in* actually means that, if anything, we're closer to the need for a draft under Kerry (IF his rhetoric is true) than we would be under Bush!
My point? It goes both ways. If 54% of supposedly informed college-aged kids think that there is going to be *a fucking draft* under Bush, compared to *4%* under Kerry, when Kerry is actually advocating what would require the greatest escalation of our forces since probably World War II, we've got just as big of a problem as 44% of people thinking some of the hijackers were Iraqis.
And the supposedly non-partisan "Rock the Vote" campaign has been running full page ads showing a kid with long hair getting his head shaved with the caption: "GO TO COLLEGE or GO TO WAR: YOUR CHOICE". The implication is obvious.
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2809/America %20(the%20book)[www.lokitorrent.com].torrent
In 2000 I voted for the lesser of two evils. Did I want 4 more years of possible impeachment and scandal? No.
I'm supposed to take you seriously when sports preempt national political discourse? No one with any intellectual capacity cares about grown men hitting a ball around in the grass.
I think it is important to discuss Stewart's reaction to his interview with Kerry. If you check out the cover article for rolling stone this week it discusses how regretful he was in not asking him tougher questions, so much so that he beat himself up about it for a good time afterward. Its important to keep in mind in the context of the Crossfire "interview" because they are attempting to call him out on not doing a good interview, using it to bring him down when he has publically made his regret known both on his show and in rolling stone
Sure, I can understand that. We don't know in advance how people will perform. My question is, how are you going to vote *now*?
meh
Every single one of you needs to see the movie Network. Even though it was made in 1976, the movie grows in relevance every day. The plot is about a news anchor who is fired for sinking rating and who is exploited for ratings by his network after he suffers from a mental breakdown. It is about the way that news organizations pander to the lowest forms of thrill-seeking. Howard Beale, the anchor turned madman prophet, is given a show on which he rails against the sickness of his times -- ALL of which is still relevant today. The best soliloquy of the entire movie is all about this:
What makes the Daily Show so good is that they're honest about what kind of show they are. It's the "real" news sites that are too disingenuous to admit that they've made "Network" a reality.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
My mind was made up when Howard Dean bowed out of the race.
I'd agree that Howard Dean was the candidate the Democrats should have had, but that doesn't answer the question. My mind was made up (I'm not a USian, so it is immaterial) in favour of Kerry when Dean bowed out.
As Winston Churchill said:
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons"
I certainly wouldn't go that far but I would support any reasonable candidate over Bush.
meh
I just watched the clip, and unless I missed something obvious, there was nothing notable about this exchange (oh, wait, I forgot that exposed boobies can result in huge fines in your country).
Perhaps in America this is a big deal, try paying attention to Canadian politics sometime. I know it's pretty hard to do because there's no blowjobs, wars and nekked women flying about, but you guys really have to get a grip and grow up.
Apparently the only place on television for real political discourse.