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?
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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?
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?
He's had on some pretty creepy characters, in my view -- Karen Hughes, Richard Perle, Wolf Blitzer, Ralph Reed, Racicot, etc -- and he has never failed to treat them with respect and conduct a civil discussion. There have been a few times when he did, politely but plainly, point out that someone was a bit "out there" ( a guy STILL claiming close ties between OBL and Saddam comes to mind) -- but again, never in anger, never to humiliate anyone, never contentiously -- just honestly.
Same courtesies he extends to people closer to his own views.
I have to disagree with the parent poster of this thread though -- if Pres Bush were on the show, Stewart would be respectful, just as he had been for Kerry. He is NOT a partisan hack, blind to one side, and not to another. Many times we have seen him point out crazy things my folk (liberals) have done. But never has there ever been any kind of vicious ambush, or shouting down. Instead, it's like a Mad Tea Party that everyone has an equal seat at.
He's the Court Jester of our time -- the guy who can get away with speaking the truth. He doesn't suck up to anyone -- he survives because he is enormously entertaining and charming and does indeed dare to say the things that need to be said, and heard.
I heard Jon interviewed by Charlie Rose -- fascinating intellect. Says his approach is bred in the bone -- when your ancestors have long had Cossacks chasing you across the Steppes to kill you, you find it is useful protection to be cute and charming and make them laugh..... And so it has been with all the *great* clowns.
Jon did not appear on CrossFire to be the amusing monkey - (what a stupid trap *that* schtick is to get caught in) -- he was there as a serious American citizen. He raised excellent issues. But the CrossFire folk just do not receive signals from the frequency of intellect and facts.... I sure as hell appreciate him putting his neck out -- to some degree stepping out of the "court Jester" role to speak simply as a citizen -- he's doing so because the stakes are so high -- not out of any partisanship.
Ah well -- he tried -- but he seems to have to make do with Charlie Rose and Bill Moyers for now, the few remaining denizens of Planet Reality.
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.
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
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!
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.
> 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 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.
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.
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
No, actually, it's often the necessary first step to getting people to change. Things are the way they are in part because nobody has had the gumption to tell these people off.
Indeed. If only he would use his celebrity to get invited to a nationally-broadcast serious show, where he could make his serious points in a relevant context.... oh, wait. That's what he did. If The Daily Show tries to remake itself into a serious news show, he will lose his audience and hence his pull, and nobody will listen to or care about anything he says.
By the way, it's not like The Daily Show doesn't take swings at the bland, uninformative, and partisan media, either. He wasn't really saying anything new here.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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").