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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a sad state of affairs when in a supposedly strong democracy like american (that only has two political parties with only milionnaires running and a pathetic participation rate on election day) you get better news from a comedy show than from the mainstream media.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
TDS is a satire a show, it satirizes current events.
Who they hell else are they supposed to make fun of? The right(if you define right as republican), controls both houses of congress, the presidency, and as we saw in 2000, the SCOTUS(which, if you want to disagree here[and I'm sure someone will], has a large influence on current events how often, precisely?). Pretty much the whole shebang. The left(if you define left as democrats) has so little influence on the Hill right now, they barely splash the news waters with actual policy. When was the last time you heard of a Democratic initiative?
Apart from that, picking on the left(if you define left as democrats), with things standing as they are right now, as much as the right for what little influence they have would be like kicking a cripple, or making fun of David, it's just not as funny.
Yea, Stewart leans left a bit, so what. Most comics and entertainers do. Kinda part and parcel with that whole "art" thing. If you only want to drink the "right-wing" entertainment icon kool-aid you're going to be a pretty uncultured boring prick way outside of pop-culture.
I'd accuse you of trolling, but wtf cares?
All that being said, The Daily Show will pretty much mock anyone deserving of it, if it's actually going to turn out funny.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
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.
Have you ever watched the show? Presenting the factual news in a funny way does not detract from the actual facts. He doesn't make up shit, just present news then make fun of how gay it really all is. Compare this to a more psychotically biased news channel like our favorite fox news and you see why he may be the only TRUE political correspondent.
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.
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.
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
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
I really wish James Carville had been on the left instead of Paul Begala. As much as I think Paul Begala deserved what he got from Jon Stewart, I think that pin should have been used to pop James Carville's ego.
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
The mainstream media is all a comedy show. "Chistopher Reeve killed himself so Kerry could win." "Four blades are the ULTIMATE POWER! ULTIMATE SHAVING POWER!" Or the best, "the Terrorists are coming to get you!!!" It's just like that radio show from the 50's, the "Mars attacks!" thing. People actually believed that Martians were invading earth. It was just comedy. Same thing here. People watch the tv and actually take things at face value whilst in actuality, it's completely mediatized, worth only for its comic value. You can see it in George Bush's face. He's like an actor on the Saturday Night Live show just about to burst into laughter. I'm sure the political class learned a lot from that Mars attacks show: that people will believe anything if you say it with a straight face and it's broadcasted.
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!
That is exactly what Jon Stewart went on the show to say. He also devoted an entire chapter of his new book (more about history than current events) to this topic.
If you want compare yourself to a comed show, go ahead.
Crossfire claims to be a show dealing with Real Issues(TM) and Real Serious Debates(TM). What Jon demonstrated quite eloquently, was that, in fact, Crossfire (and shows like it) are nothing more than the same kind of entertainment he provides.
The crucial difference being that his show is advertised as comedy. Crossfire advertises itself as journalism. If Tucker wants to chide Jon for not being "journalistic" enough on his show, the door is wide open for Jon to do the same. Its the hypocracy that is so nauseating. That Tucker and Begala think they are doing some great thing by asking Tough Questions(TM) that allow them to get to the Truth(TM).
In reality, they are not asking tough questions they are only asking inflammatory ones. And this allows each side to retreat to their talking points to while copmletely ignoring the actual issue at hand.
Jon exposes this, and the best they can do is say "Be funny" or "You're boring"? Their utter failure to defend their show in any meaningful way was more dmaning of their show than Jon's smart ass comments.
That said, Stewart's point is still dead on, and he deserves a lot of credit for making the point. Going out on a limb like this will only force Stewart to make his own show closer to his ideals.
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
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.
WOW! I watch the daily show and I think he does favor Kerry. But you could say the same thing about Jay Leno. Comedians tend to roast the guy they have the most materian on. that tends to be the incumbent.
That crossfire episode was brutal. He had those guys sweating and giggling out of nervousness. Its a MUST see. I'd call that comedy any day.
...It hurt his credibility a little...
We have arrived at a truly sad state when it hurts someones credibility if they tell the truth.
The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.
This is the most insightful comment I've seen on slashdot in a long time. Welcome to my friends list.
The fact that the left screams about the right-wing bias of the media, while the right talks about the liberal bias of the media should be enough to clue people into the fact that there's a larger story here... but no one really seems interested in that--it's easier just to pretend they're on the other guy's side and whine about it.
As you so eloquently put it, the media is simply profitable. The only side the media is on is the media's.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
What he did was rude.
It was rude because he didn't follow Begalla's and Carlson's expectations? It was rude because he criticized them? Have you ever seen Crossfire before?
Was it what he said to Carlson? Carlson practically fed him the lines.
I don't have my opinions feed to me by some silly TV show
Which TV shows do "feed to you your opinions"?
It's like protesters, protesting about Bush all day, but when they're asked why don't they run for president, they just say something dumb like "That's not my job, he's the one who's president!" or some dumb junk like that.
That's pretty good, making stuff up like that. Maybe you should run for office, seeing as how you have such a great creative talent.
The real reason I think John wasn't funny was because he didn't have a team of writers giving him a script to read, he had to do the show live and without a script. There are lots of comedians like that, not funny without their script.
The whole point is that John wasn't being funny, he was being serious, which was his intention. Carlson was the one who was screamingly unintentionally funny. Begalla didn't come off that bad because he didn't give Stewart any big openings.
I think you've also demonstrated that you haven't really watched the Daily Show, so you really don't know what you're talking about.
So, to summarize:
1) Your command of the English language is astounding.
2) Your opinion is "feed" to you buy serious TV shows, not silly ones.
3) You have a talent for making shit up when you want to make a point.
4) You wouldn't know funny if it hit you on the ass.
5) Your opinion matters (especially since it isn't "feed" to you by silly TV shows).
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
> STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
If we can't criticize him because he's on Comedy Central, then why should we listen to any serious arguments from him, seeing as he's on Comedy Central?
You can't have it both ways, Jon. Either you make real commentary and open yourself up to critique, or you don't. It's kinda sleazy to expect people to take you seriously one moment, and hide behind the moniker of "satire" the next.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
As an apparent viewer, I'm surprised you don't remember when Stewart had Letterman on as a guest (I believe it could have been the last show). Dave praised Jon and the show, and imparted the wisdom that "cancellation does not equate to failure".
Unless you feel that David Letterman's morning sho lasted long enough for everyone to realize Dave's lack of talent or insight.
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
I don't think Jon is saying he can't be criticized because he is on Comedy Central. He was saying that because these two are on CNN that they should be held to a higher standard of journalism. Therefore, Carlson can't just brush away the criticism by saying "You do it so it's ok if I do it!"
And I think you have it backwards. It wasn't Carlson critiquing Jon, it was Jon critiquing Carlson and Carlson trying to "hide" by putting CNN on equal footing with a show on Comedy Central!
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.
"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.
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
Steve Jobs
I couldn't agree more with your characterization of the American media. I was watching Hardtalk extra on the BBC and Harry Shearer from NPR was on. (I don't live in the US at the moment, so I don't listen to him) he had made a similar comment. When asked if the media was liberal, he stated that he thought most journalists were, but most management were conservatives. The most interesting view that he had was that the media, more than being liberal or conservative, has a herd mentality. He used the media coverage leading up to the present war in Iraq (or lack of coverage if you like) as an example. Another interesting point he made was that up until 20 or so years ago, media coverage was more of a loss leader. Something that a network had to do in order to keep there license, otherwise the FCC might pull it.
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!
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."
Stewart wasn't saying that he's immune to criticism. He's saying that a comedy show exists for comedy, not to inform or to challenge; a comedy show has no duty to ask tough questions. A show bearing a pretense to be a watchdog of the political process does.
To put it another way: when the comedy show is held to higher standards than the news show, something's really wrong. When the comedy show actually does a better job adhering to those standards than the news show, well, it's all gone to shit.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I call BS on your logic. He's invited on CNN to discuss his book. CNN has declared him 'newsworthy'. Thus he has an opportunity to express an opinion in a public forum. When Stewart invites guests onto his show, there's some discussion of current events, but only for the purposes of comedy. John Stewart would not launch into such a diatribe if the Crossfire folks were guests on his show -- its a different forum. This, for example, is why there was a backlash against Rosie O'Donnell when she ambushed Tom Selleck years back on his NRA membership.
Face it, CNN had home field advantage and they got ANNIHILATED by a non-professional. A show about arguments for specious reasons...a comedian guest comes on with a REAL issue, and they folded like lawn chairs.
Ultimately, I think Stewart is having a greater and greater sense of guilt...he's realising his influence on people and their voting habits and recognises that this SHOULDN'T be the case. I think he just wants to be a comedian, but when faced with unexpected power, he's trying to be responsible with it.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
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.
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.
> The only side the media is on is the media's.
Although theoretically, that is true, I would say that in this case, the major media heavily wants George W. Bush to win, so they tend to lean towards him. A great example is the fact that Kerry-Edwards won all four debates, but all the television pundits are now saying the debates don't really matter. If Bush had won (even just the last one), we would have heard about it non-stop.
Why would the major media prefer Bush? I read an interview in either Newsweek or Businessweek with the CEO of Viacom, who owns CBS among other outlets. In the interview, he was asked about the amount of money he personally has given to John Kerry, and he said something along the lines of I'm personally for Kerry, but as head of Viacom, when he votes, he votes in Viacom's interest. He said, "I don't want to denigrate Kerry, but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on."
When he says "deregulation" for his industry, he's talking about how the Bush administration has been heavily for media consolidation.
I think the reason why the Bush administration is for media consolidation is because, much like how Wal-mart prefers to work with a relatively small number of large vendors (so they can put pressures on them), the Bush administration knows that if there is a relatively small number of large media companies, they can put more pressure on them. If one of these companies puts out a movie critical of the president (let's say, Disney allowing "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be released), the White House can declare that ABC News (owned by Disney) doesn't get any embedded reporters during the war and they lose their space in the media entourage. Thus, since the large media company has lots to lose, they will practice self-censorship.
John Kerry has recently spoken out against media consolidation, as well as other Democrats and even some Republicans (I believe Kay Bailey Hutchinson IIRC), because they know that media consolidation will result in self-censorship, rendering it ultimately ineffective. Another interesting example is that Howard Dean was the media darling, until he spoke out against media consolidation. Soon after that, Dean was "Gored" by the media.
Jon Stewart is right. The media pretends to provide balance, but the truth is, they're no longer serving the public. They're really just serving the politicians.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
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."
But sadly, you probably can't tell the difference. Most GenXers can't. The worst part of watching Jon Stewart or Bill Maher is the contrast between the hosts and their audiences. Maher and Stewart lean left, but they don't follow party lines. They actually think for themselves. It's remarkable how often their moronic Los Angeles audiences will applaud at some liberal talking point, then immediately quiet down when the host disagrees and say, "Well actually, that's a load of crap, and here's why..."
Both Maher and Stewart deserve better than the DNC herds that trough in their studios.
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.
Gah! He runs a fake news show. Why is he being forced to raise the standards? His point was that his show is kicking the shit out of other shows, and it shouldn't be. His should be the lame duck, not the most reliable news source on television today.
Nah, Jon Stuart is more in the "Anyone but Bush" camp. You can tell he's not a huge Kerry fan either; they make fun of Kerry almost as much as Bush. But he does hate Bush and want him out of office. He's also one of the best fucking interviewers I've ever seen. Because he pretends to be an idiot, he sometimes catches people off guard. He really knows what he's talking about though, unlike most loudmouthed politically active comedians, and so he can sometimes embarass people, as he did with Bush's campaign manager. He's also the most watched news show amond viewers 18-25, which is pretty amazing considering the whole show is pretty much fake.
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
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).
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
The Crossfire hosts' job is to prevent guests from being able to make detailed points like you're describing by cutting them off and asking pointed questions that provoke negative responses. If you go too deep into making a good point that they don't agree with, then they will start yelling and creating chaos to distract the viewer. He did the only thing he could....repeated the basic ideas over and over so that intelligent minded individuals watching would be able to understand where he was coming from.
You have to understand... Those hosts do not give their guests an opportunity to make a complete point. They ask whatever pointed question pops into their head so that the person speaking is forced to answer it.. If they don't, then it looks like they're avoiding "the issue."
He did what he could, and he did a good job.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
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.
If you honestly feel this way, there are powerful things you can do as an inidividual to contribute to the "public good". There are thousands of organizations across the US starving for funds to make a *real* difference in people's lives. I do not hear about any of the porkbarrel spending that the Salvation Army is doing. Nor do I hear about the United Way taking on a foreign country in a war. I know the University of Michigan needs a lot more money if they are to stop raising tuition for all of their students.
Don't wait for the government to do it for you. Time and again, they have showed they will screw it up. If you were actually honest and serious about contributing to the common good, do it. Don't blow your bonus on "another new Bentley."
Que tout ce qui est vrai.
So you believe that the government can allocate resources (your increased tax dollars) more efficiently than the free market?
Interesting position...
A small group of government officials somehow knows "better" than the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people who ultimately CHOOSE how to spend their money with prices determined by supply and demand. If your buddy wants a Bently, he should have one - there is obviously a market for them otherwise Bentlys wouldn't exist.
The goverment should provide services that the market will not - like defense, protection of property rights, protection of other human and inalienable rights etc... and that is about it.
Neither candidate does that for me.
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?
Actually, yes.
It's clear that Surlyboi's contemporaries (as with much of the m(b)illions of other typical humans) believe that 200k will do far more for the good of mankind if it's traded for a very comfortable automobile into which they can place their tender ass.
While I won't claim that I'm getting a great return on my investment which is taken from my paycheck, my money is, infact, going to investments in science and technology, biotech, education, law enforcement, national defense, community outreach, and other worthy programs. Out of my $200,000 in taxes, only $50k,000 may go to programs I deem useful, but that's $50,000 more than if I'd spent it on another Bentley.
Oh, and your free market can't do squat when it comes to efficiency. How do I know? Take a look at what Brittney Spears made last year and then tell me that - based on her talent - that sum was justified, because THAT is the free market in action.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...What makes you think "the whole show is pretty much fake"? The stories are unarguably real, although the journalism is often comedic -- and even that... Well.
I'd call most mainstream network news journalism "fake" before I'd accuse the Daily Show of the same.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
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
I think what we have is competing teams without journalistic ethics. What Jon would propose is having actual dialog with facts instead of blast faxed talking points from the parties. Right now if they have a person who says black you have to get someone to say white. There is no evaluation of competing opinions. Shit, if they had someone on saying shooting kids in schools is bad they'll find some jackass to say it's good. In todays "journalism" merely being an opposing opinion automatically makes it valid. Which is bullshit. Its the new Republican relativism.
Its not a couple argueing dudes. Its the CNN/FOx/MSNBC/ABC/CBS way. Get 2 conservatives, a moderate and someone slightly to the right of Liebermann and have them go at it. They each pick up their talking points from the RNC blast fax and give minor variations on it. There isn't a sane reasoned political moment on television right now except The Daily Show. America is that fucking weak. Having a press which basically props up opposing view points, points at them and calls it journalism hurts our ability to get information. Having a press which is invested in being nice to the in power white house administration hurts America. Having a press that goes and sits in "Spin Alley" right after the debates and has the Repubs and Dems screaming their talking points, instead of just watching the fucking debates and using google, lexis/nexis and the phone to verify the candidates statements hurts America. The press for the most part in this country sucks ass. So yes, Carlson and Begala are partisan hacks as Jon Stewart said. O'Reilly is a partison hack. Blitzer is a partisan hack.
"I don't think it's fair to hide behind his identity as a comic"
... a fake news show on a comedy channel.
I think it is totally fair. Either CNN should stop to prioritize entertainment value over journalistic integrity or it should admit that their shows are not more serious or reasonable than say
It is no coincidence that a lot of people have started listening to The Daily Show instead of allegedly "real news". They don't listen to John Stewart because The Daily Show is a good source of news but rather because the sources that describe themselves as serious aren't. The Daily Show is as good as CNN but that's CNN's fault. Except that CNN is lying about it. That these news channels hide the fact that they only care for ratings and refuse to admit that journalistic integrity is not a concern for them (as long as they look good) is deception to the public. It is an outright lie. They have to either raise the integrity bar or admit that they are only there for entertainment not unlike a comedy oriented news show.
The legal system can't do anything about these kinds of lies and false advertisement because they are so hard to prove. I guess the only solution here would be publicly funded organisations.
all I hear after the last debate is that John Kerry mentioned Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian... DO WE CARE?!!!???
Actually, yeah, most in this country do care. We care because the run for presidency isn't as much about good politics or who's willing and able to get the job done as it is a popularity contest. Just as you pointed out that your country has 5 legitimate parties. We only have two recognized parties. If Americans voted for their desires from government do you really think that Dems and Reps would be the leading two parties? They're practically the same party playing a contest of who can kiss the ass of the public best. Americans far and wide are too cowardly to vote for who they want or are simply too lazy to find out who else is running.
That's why slashdot suddenly joined the political game too: to talk up John Kerry. It has nothing to do with what matters it's about the flow of information pushing people as much on to their side sa possiable.
Call me a troll but on Nov 2nd I'm voting for who I want in office. I'm not going to pussyfoot around and be a bitch to the big two parties.
i am not disputing that they are partisan hacks. i am disputing that partisan hacks are bad for america. you still have google right? you are able to get the information you want. so you believe one particular source of information is inferior. what of it? that hurts america? there are so many information sources that no one source should bear any responsibility to provide anything. besides, the information the press provides is a reflection of what consumers want. doesnt the responsibility to be informed fall on the shoulders of the individual who chooses to inform themselves? isnt laying responsibility on partisan hacks just a misdirection of blame? besides, i like partisan hacks, if they lie in order to get the candidate i prefer elected. people lie, so what. nobody has a gun to my head forcing me to believe them. nobody closed down whever noble source you use for your "real" information. where is the problem?
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
You lost me on any semblance of integrity when you called it "gay".
That's very easy to say because:
Presumably you're pretty young, probably unmarried, have no children, own no property, have your paycheck subsidized by someone (e.g., you're not a small business owner).
You're probably not relied upon to provide for your elderly parents, you've probably never known someone who has hit retirement penniless, and you probably haven't had to pay for a child's education.
You've probably never been assessed for street repairs (aside from on Monopoly), you've likely never had to deal with avoiding taxes to passing asset to a loved one such as your son or daughter, and you've likely never experienced the death and settling the estate (as executor) of a loved one.
Once you've done even half of these, come back and talk to us about being so ambivalent about taxes.
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...
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.
I'd call most mainstream network news journalism "fake" before I'd accuse the Daily Show of the same.
Well, John Steward goes to great pains to describe his own show as "fake news" - and I think he, of all people, should know. Of course he's being disingenuous - many a true word is spoken in jest - but the fact is he's been very careful to leave himself the "comedy show" escape clause, and I'm willing to let him have it.
Having said that, the Kerry interview was a disappointment. He should have asked him why he said "knowing what I know now, I'd still vote to invade Iraq". That answer was so weird, so revealing of the-goings-on-behind-the-curtain, that it puckered spacetime.
grib.
maybe
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.
Corporations are more conservative, because they want to keep the status quo, not make waves, and consolidate power to make more money. As long as news makes enough money, corporate stays out of it. But if reporters start taking that liberal stuff to heart and start making waves -- enough waves to make more trouble than money -- they slap it down. And they can, because reporters that are part of a big media conglomerate can (should? do?) make more money than independents. Once a reporter hits the big time, he'll be less willing to take the monetary/prestige hit.
(ObTheInsider: " 'I'm Lowell Bergmann, I'm from 60 Minutes.' You know, you take the 60 Minutes out of that sentence, nobody returns your phone call.")
This would explain why conservatives see a liberal media (listening directly to the journalists), liberals see a conservative media (watching what the corporations do) and you don't see much difference between corporate and public (because there isn't enough difference to notice at the journalist level).
Just a thought. Other possibilities include:
- Herd instinct - if everyone else is covering it, it must be important.
- Restrictions of the medium - Television works better with sound bites, simple assumptions, short explanations...
- Similar boundaries: Public television is, by definition, government-funded, restricting its ability to strongly criticize the establishment. To the extent it's corporate funded, the previous discussion would apply.
Discuss among yourselves...TSG
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.
No I do not. Having a thrid party there who would actually answer the questions asked of him and calls others on their BS would make things MORE INTERESTING.
(actually the MEDIA doesn't decide who gets to debate so your whole premise is flawed)
The debate format is controlled by two parties, the canidates and the media. The "Debate Society" or whatever the hell they choose to call it is nothing but the embodiment of these two seperate interests.
The second it tried to exert it's OWN opinion, the canidates and the media would just go off and create a new debate club.
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).
When you contribute money to both sides (Enron, Microsoft, etc), you don't care who wins as long as it's one of the two guys you paid off.
Life is too short to proofread.
The one thing I noticed in that clip was that the guys at crossfire we trying to use Jon's interview with Kerry to show that even he couldn't ask tough questions. I will say that I was very disappointed with that episode. I don't know if he choked or what, but it was like watching a Barbra Walters interview. But the comparison between The Daily Show and other outlets is like apples and oranges. I can't believe that news shows criticize Stewart for not asking hard questions when most of their material is based on sophomoric jokes about bodily functions. Why should his show be held to the level of good journalistic ethos, when the journalists themselves can't even reach that goal? Yes, he dropped the ball big time when it came to his interview with Kerry, but that doesn't make his argument about the news media any less valid.
One thing brought up occasionally on Jon's show is the political duopoly that permeates our culture. It doesn't take a genius to discover that America's electoral system is mathematically capable of supporting no more than a two party majority for an extended period of time.* Regardless of your opinion of the Florida debacle last election, it served to backlight many of the shortcomings of a system which hasn't been modified since its inception. Every aspect of our culture and government has evolved in the nearly 200 years since the ratification, except the electoral process. It was designed for a time when few people were formally educated and even fewer were literate, yet it continues to operate under that original premise. For all the differences between the two parties, the historical record shows one topic where they have made an unspoken pact: don't mess with the system. It's been a two party majority forever, and it will stay that way as long as they have a say. Why were the electoral problems on everyone's lips for months afterwards, but no one gives a damn this year? Why is the President's opinion on Row v. Wade a hot button topic, but the President is powerless to make a law around the ruling? Do these people realize that the President has no power to overturn Supreme Court decisions? Does the media remind them about checks and balances so they might consider asking questions about topics he has power over? No, they'd rather ask them about who was doing what 30 years ago in the middle of a war people agree was wrong to start in the first place.
America: The Book was one of the best purchases I've recently made. You will read 'reviews' about how it's a pile of liberal rag. Obviously these 'reviewers' haven't read a word of it because, while making a distinction between parties and poking fun at them both, overall it does something no news outlets are doing. It's criticizing the system as a whole while holding an amazingly centrist position when compared to 'legitimate' publications. And the media is given status is noted as the Fourth Estate, and then completely torn down... no holds barred. The preface (more of a rant) for Chapter 7 is the furthest left the entire book goes.
A free an independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy. It serves to inform the voting public on matters relevant to its well-being. Why they've stopped doing that is a mystery. I mean 300 camera crews outside a courthouse to see what Kobe Bryant is wearing when the judge sets his hearing date, while false information used to send our country to go to war goes unchecked? What the fuck happened? These spineless cowards in the press have finally gone too far. They have violated a trust. "Was the President successful in convincing the country?" Who gives a shit? Why not tell us if what he said was t
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.
Ironically, it's The Daily Show's status as comedy show, 'fake' news, that makes them more accurate than real news shows. The Daily Show's top priority is to be funny, and if their facts aren't 100% accurate, it's not funny. If a news program incorrectly reports something, they get to say "Nobody's perfect." If The Daily Show screws up, they don't get laughs, and laughs are their livelyhood.
The idea that K-E won the debates is just your opinion, and sounds like an echo of newscaster's opinions after the debates. It seems like most people watching or listening to the debates thought "their guy" "won". (My very weak opinion is that Cheney was better in his debate, Bush better in the last debate, and Kerry better in his first two debates. This is based upon style and debating-brownie-points.) If the debate is judged by whose statements represent what will be the best for US citizens, Bush-Cheney routed their opposition.
The idea that the media prefers Bush is just laughable. So-called journalists are dominantly liberal. It is market forces that have allowed Fox News to blindside the rest of the TV industry.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
All I'm trying to do is square the circle between the conservatives who have reasonable examples of liberal bias and the liberals who have reasonable examples of corporate bias. I don't buy the media argument of "Everyone hates us, we must be doing something right," and I don't think you do, either. I loved that Jon Stewart shouted truth at those guys.I have no problem agreeing that corporate control of media is a bad thing. Just take a look at the other side.
TSG
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.
What happens if Bush is reelected and the Christians get what they want, outlawing abortion? Further, what if they win an anti-gay marriage constitutional ammendment? Or prayer in schools? OK... so they win these few hot button issues, then what? IMO, that faction of the party will disolve, having met their goals,
No, they won't stop there.
They wlll then push for mandatory prayer in school.
They will push for turning America into a fundamentalist theocracy.
Now, the "they" here will be getting smaller as more of these things pass, but the people pushing the hardest are extremist zealots and they will not rest until they strip away all freedoms not supported by their particular extremist interpretation of the bible.
Now, the GOP might peter out, or it might schism, but I don't forsee that happening before a lot more damage is done.
I think this is extremely likely for the same reason the Dems are currently blackballing Nader.
That would give the Dems an advantage, and a lot of these people, especially the elected officials, but lots of Republican (and Democrat) voters have far more loyalty to their party than they do to their country.
No, its the essence of greed and selfishness, because you benefit from these things but don't want to pay for them.
Individual greed and selfishness often lead to a global optimization (I am paraphrasing Adam Smith).
If you want to talk about the moral implications of taxation - consider this - everyone should receive equal benefit from the government in an ideal egalatarian society. Therefore, given those constraints, every single citizen should pay the same amount of tax for the same amount of service rendered. Given that the top 20% earners fund about 80% of the government, I believe a tax overhaul is necessary to "equalize" things. The "greedy" rich already foot the bill for most of the country's expenses not to mention create jobs and value to the economy in their pursuit of "greed". Progressive taxation can also be found in the communist manifesto.
I'm not saying we eliminate all taxes and social programs. Just the extra crap that provides a service that the market already does. Like say -- government health care for everyone. This is a serious market distortion that will create huge changes in the quality and expense of health care. I speak as a former Canadian, who now happily lives in a less broken country.
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.
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").
Actually, if it is an emergency, by law you cannot be turned down in America.
Millions of Americans are not without health care, there are just alot of Americans without health INSURANCE. If you do not have insurance, and have an emergency, hospitals have to treat you. They have to agree on a payment plan with you, even if it is just two dollars a month for the rest of your life.
Furthermore, the reports stating that "40 million Americans were without health care this year" are misleading twofold.
1. They're not without health care, they're without health insurance.
2. It is not "for the whole year". If I switch medical coverage and am without health care for a couple of days, then I am added to that list. As you might imagine, the number is a whole lot lower than advertised.
+1. Forgot to mention, most of the Americans working without health care are YOUNG people who refuse to get health care, simply because they find that they do not need it.
"to afford their citizens a standard of living that most Americans can dream of, such as 30 or more days off a year"
Ever been to Europe? With the exception of Socialized innercities, and backwoods rural areas, the standard of living in America is much higher.
Oh yeah, and the vacation thing. The average number of vacation days per year in America is brought down by part time elderly and young workers who do not need or get vacation time. Stop distorting reality.
"and healthcare paid for by taxes (so that even the poorest person can walk in and get healthcare)"
As said, if you have an emergency, you will be treated. If you think you deserve to get treated at the doctor's office for the slightest of annoyances on my dollar, you're a lowly human being. Such a system immediately leads to abuse.
Socialized systems, like your prized welfare states of Europe and Canada, end up resorting to rationing and waiting lists --- waiting lists going into the months.
"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?"
They're always addressed on t.v. and distorted by Liberals. The fact of the matter is, they use bullshit arguments and distort reality to usurp power. Apparently you are incapable or intentionally unwilling of recognizing this.
"Does he talk about how America is run like some kind of captive consumer livestock ranch for the benefit of corporate investors? No."
More intentional distortion. I would rather our "consumer culture" instead of peasant democracy like Europe.
Speckpot?