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.
This is really hillarious, especially the fact that Stewart barely does anything funny at all, he's dead serious the whole time. Both the guys on Crossfire are trying to get him riled up and shut him down and they do an absolutely miserable job, and he ends up even calling the guy in the bowtie a dick!
Jon Stewart is my hero.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
After I saw the first debate, I chatted with friends for a while about getting a video of it. Granted, I should have just taped it myself, but I don't have a MythTV setup ready at our new house yet. I considered streamdumping the Washington Post's stream of the event, and that's what I did in the end. But it took ages - streamdumping typically operates at "1x", so this time it took an hour and a half. And anyone else who wanted it would have to do the same slow thing.
My question is, Where can one find political torrents? The debates and this Jon Stewart-on-Crossfire are good examples. Until I saw this on Slashdot, I had no idea where to get this, either. Is there a central repository for these kinds of things, or some other blog I should be reading for links?
|/usr/games/fortune
A credit to Jon Stewart.. he's a funny guy. But it really does say something about the current state of our media, when a satirical news show host is considered a political correspondant.
Although.. knowing the way my country works, I wouldn't be suprised if he becomes a governer, or the president, in less than 8 years. His running mate? Lewis Black.
They'd get my vote. We may as well have our kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.
Tucker Carlson's ego was the true guest of that episode of Crossfire, and it got shot down.
He's jealous that Stewart got to interview Kerry on his fake news show, and utterly devestated that Stewart would state that Carlson's not a true journalist. All in front of a live, studio audience.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
I disagree with the statement "the media ... certainly isn't liberal." What makes you say the media doesn't have a bias? What proof do you have? Sure, Fox tends to lean to the right, but how do you explain the lackadaisial coverage of CBS's BLATENT Kerry supporting with their little memo scandal?
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Actually, you could potentially end up slashdotting the tracker. It has to handle all the requests, after all. It's just like any web server, I think.
Clever signature text goes here.
Jon Stewart wants to be taken seriously
I disagree. I think he wants people to take democracy seriously (and off-air he uses what the influence he's got to that end), but I don't think his news show has any goal other than making people laugh.
The popularity of the show as a source of genuine news is merely an indicator of how far gone the "mainstream" media is.
Even if you're not a Stewart fan, you gotta give him credit for going on a popular show like Crossfire, and absolutely calling out the hosts and the rest of the media ON THEIR SHOW for being irresponsible journalists! Even more props for calling one of the hosts a "dick" on CNN. Gotta love when the Crossfire crew starts attacking the integrity of The Daily Show and Stewart immediately fires back that they're preceeded by a crank call program with puppets.
Regardless, I highly suggest anyone even remotely interested in politics and journalism read the transcript.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
NO, no, no. It's been proven that the show format is stronger than the host. Look at what happened to Craig Kilborn. TDS was still strong with a new host and Craig's new show was a flop. The Man Show floated for a season while Jimmy Kimmel's show bombed. Also Dennis Miller. I can't stand to watch his MSNBC or CNBC crap now. If Jon leaves TDS and succeds, it'll be a miracle.
I like Jon Stewart and his daily show ... but in general I find American tv debates/discussions and os called 'critical' and investigative journalism a joke. You should watch some british tv stuff that made politicians walk out. They really bite them instead of playing that stupid left-right ping pong.
American politics has become too much of a show - and way to many countries imitate that. Is that the way our global democracies should be modelled after?!
I don't think so!
Normally I can't stand Crossfire mostly because of James Carvile. When someone answers his questions not to his liking ha immediately begins to shout him down and spout complete nonsense or straw man arguments. Jon Stewart nailed the problem with this show, and many other news programs like it, right on the head. Tucker Carlson didn't help the show when he tried to hold Jon Stewart to a higher standard, discounting the fact that Jon Stewart does comedy of the news and does not report the news directly. Surprisingly Paul Begala kept his trap shut for the most part and took the beating from Jon Stewart.
On a side note I thought John Kerry's recent appearances on Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Regis and Kelly were pathetic attempts to try to connect with average citizens and prove that he's not just a robot. Sorry John, you're still a robot and you just made an ass of yourself on these shows.
Also, thanks/. for posting links to this Crossfire episode. I spent last night at Bertucci's outside Fenway Park waiting to hear news of the fate of Game 3 of the ALCS. One TV had ESPN on it, the other CNN. Headline News briefly covered the show but as it was in a bar, there was only closed captioning so I missed most of what was said, and I was more concerned with the ESPN feed, I was upset I missed my chance to see Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson get tongue lashed on their own show.
Jon Stewart doesn't want to be taken seriously on TDS. He has explicitly stated this. He has all kinds of people on his show and asks them "soft-ball" questions. If he was such a shill for the Dems, why does he parody the Dems so hard and why isn't he tough on his conservative guests. He's had Kissinger on his show, Ralph Reed has been there at least twice. He's had all kinds of people on there. He's actually quite a moderate.
Tucker's only attack was this, it was insane. CNN trying to hold a fake news show to some sort of journalistic integrity? WTF?! Both of them avoided the questions Jon was asking and were evading the entire discussion. They got defensive and Tucker even tried to attack Jon with that integrity crap. Jon accused them of hosting political kabuki every day and not actually discussing the things that matter to him as a citizen.
My question is how can anyone get indignant about the Dixie Chicks while also taking Jon Stewart's funny show seriously? That was Jon's real point. Both taking partisan positions on meaningless crap while ignoring the real news and holding the system accountable for it. He called them hacks because they perpetuate the absurdity rather than saying it's absurd. It's Jon's job to perpetuate absurdity, not CNN's.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
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.
I lean to the right, and I've been repeating both of those to countless people over the last few months. Lots of people have forgotten why they even started voting Republican in the first place and have become dumb enough to think that anything Republicans do must necessarily be conservative just because they are the "conservative party."
2 years ago was when the Republicans really started to gel their majority position, riding in on the President's high post-9/11 approval ratings. It was also around when humorists stopped going light on the administration(not just TDS either, Leno et all too).
I dunno, maybe TDS is biased... I still find it funny, it's point is to be funny, funny is subjective and it doesn't diminish Jon's point any.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
The Daily Show is the only news channel myself and many people i know watch on a regular basis. That says volumes about not only the quality of that show, but the state of news in this country.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
America isn't polarized, it's a big mess of folks right in the middle.
The folks on Crossfire represent their opinions as wholesome American values and the other side represents evil.
Seriously, do you think most Americans think it's right to out a CIA agent for any reason? And Begala ("Politics is show business for ugly people"). These people aren't interested in improving America, they're interested in improving ratings.
Stewart's biggest point is that they don't get paid for coming to consensus on difficult issues and getting both sides to talk instructively on issues. Crossfire is about baiting the other side, spin, and gotchas. It's theater, not debate.
You saw that after the first debate when Stewart interviewed Rudy Giuliani in "Spin-Alley". Jon tried to ask the Mayor about Bush's uneven performance at the debate. Giuliani kept spouting embarrassing spin. It was awful, transparent, and crass. CNN paid attention too. By the second debate, Jeff Greenfield (on CNN) said he didn't like cutting to "spin alley" for instant reaction. By the third presidential debate, CNN toned down the spin to the campaign chairs (which didn't embarrass themselves) and Judy Woodruff talking about spin alley.
Tucker Carlson obviously thought that Stewart would be funny and even tried to divert him to talk about O'Reilly. Stewart kept on the theme that CNN should inform not entertain.
The Daily Show wouldn't be half as interesting and popular if the "News Media" did its job and skewed political spin (read lies) when they saw it. But they won't, because they're part of the party (wink wink nudge nudge). You won't see John King exposing the president's BS because his career is linked to how well he gets along with the White House. So the 'real newsmen' are stifled and the commentators like Carlson, O'Reilly, Begala, and Carville get to do whatever they want, just as long as they stay 'on the reservation' of their political backers. Gross.
It's the movie Network, for real. I wouldn't have be surprised if Jon Stewart yelled "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore".
My father is a blogger.
Well, here. Apparently, Daily Show viewers are more informed about politics than those that watch Letterman, Leno, and any "real" news show. Why? Jon is a comedian. To be a comedian, you have to be funny. To be funny you have to be relevant. To be relevant you have to actually understand the issues. Period. Talking about vibrators and botox and shit like that is not news, and its not debate. Jon called Crossfire out on that. And it was blatently obvious that they didn't want that, and tried to side track him. In his own words, "I'm not your monkey."
I saw a comedian who stopped being funny, and was actually concerned, with a valid point. Partisan hackery is hurting the people. Period.
Have you even watched the Daily Show? Jon slams Kerry one day, slams Bush the next, has one of Bush's staff on the show the next day, then has Kerry on the day after. And he's polite and civil to each of them. Is it so hard to grasp that although CNN may be left leaning, and Jon is voting for Kerry, he may be voting for who he thinks is best for the country regardless of party or that he was trying to be above the muck of politics when he slammed Crossfire? Not everyone is partisan. Voting for someone does not make you a party puppet.
I disagree with the statement "the media ... certainly isn't liberal." You're bias is showing What makes you say the media doesn't have a bias? What proof do you have? How about the fact that that people on the left regularly talk about the media's right wing bias and people on the right talk about the media's left wing bias? Sounds to me like the media is likely a little bit more in the middle for the most part with only slight biases to one side or the other. Sure, Fox tends to lean to the right, but how do you explain the lackadaisial coverage of CBS's BLATENT Kerry supporting with their little memo scandal? Try... the fact that there was NO conclusive evidence that there was forgery involved with those memos that DIDN'T come from people with a pro-Bush stance? I wouldn't trust pro-Bush folks any farther than I could throw them. I WOULD trust someone who really was a disinterested party with all funding clearly in the public record.
Un-news
My first reaction was "Yeah, that's the truth." But then I started thinking: I am a regular listener to NPR, and though their coverage of news is better (in my opinion) it's still not all that different. It could be because they still have to get corporate contributions, or is it more than that? One could also look at network news vs. the newshour on PBS to see the difference. Does that difference account for everything that's wrong with the news? I'm not sure it does.
Personally, I have a few peeves I'm not sure that other people share. One is that the media is not factual enough. Sure they will sometimes quote a statistic out of context, but they often don't have enough in depth covereage of the hard facts to give you a real idea of what they are. It's mostly a few statistics, press releases from political parties or corporations, and pundits, none of which give you much idea of the facts alone. Another issue is that they seem to believe that being unbiased means giving equal time to each viewpoint, rather than considering it on the basis of the facts that they're supposed to be reporting. If a polititian is wrong, they should say so, even if one is wrong more often than another. Finally, they need to challenge officials more in interviews, not so much in the O'reilly style of just barking their opinion (which is useless) but by assulting them with the hard facts to make it clear to everyone when they're lying. Those are my 2 cents, anyway.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Lastly, I just want to say that there are a small number of people who take their "news" from Johns show. They take what he says as fact. Most are younger (18-25) year olds, that will have their eyes opened when they get their first "real" paycheck and see how much is taken out in federal and state taxes.... Yes they are ignorant of the fact that he follows another "satire" show, because they don't watch that other show. They tune in to his show and take it as news.
This is so much bullshit. For someone with a sig like yours (Ben Franklin's line about giving up liberty for security and deserving neither, just in case you decide to change it...) to say something along those lines while all kinds of civil liberties are being trounced on by the man that's "giving you tax cuts" (at the expense of a shitload of social programs, no less) is a sad statement on where we are today as a nation.
Stewart's political views are not hidden in his jokes. He's very open about his views. But he's also tired of the political hackery on both sides and he's said and shown as much on many occasions.
And before you accuse me of being one of those "young punks" who's never gotten a real paycheck, I've been a CTO for the last year and a half and if they want to take more of my money and the money of people like me out in taxes, more power to 'em. I'd much rather see that money go to the public good than have another one of my colleagues blow his bonus on another new Bentley
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
The Economist is biased. They also report facts and put journalists on the ground who ask questions.... 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.
I agree about the bias in European publications, particularly the Economist (which I love), because the bias is explicitly out there and you can take it into account when you read whatever newspaper. But there's something to be said for "objective journalism" as well, but objective as such, not "objective" as practiced these days in the US.
Most major news organizations here seem to interpret "objectivity" as "let each side yell for the same amount of time". At least Fox is more honest in calling this balance, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with objectivity -- which should be all about the facts, and hounding sources for verifiable claims. Alas, there's almost none of that and so our objective journalism has become a shambles.
I'd love it if we could have a "fact bias".
I stopped donating to both NPR and PBS because their coverage has gone down the toilet just like the rest of the media.
NPR and PBS have fallen into the same trap, or jumped in, depending upon your perspective, of going out of their way to provide "balance" to every single story. If George Bush makes a whopper of a "mis-statement", like, let's say, "I never said I wasn't concerned about Osama bin Ladin", the press can't just report the facts, show the appropriate footage and move on, they will "balance the coverage" with a foible from Kerry like saying we've lost a million jobs, when the real number is 900K. The biggest disservice to US Citizens is that these are presented as equivalent when they are not. Back to PBS. The Newshour is the worst when it comes to this type of journalist ic BS and NPR's "All Things Considered" comes in a close second.
I've seen it posted around, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the following headline in the likes of the NYT because the media is afraid present the facts on anything.
"Report says Earth is flat: accounts differ."
Viewers equals one thing: advertising.
PBS has it too, although it's seriously downplayed. At the end of the show you get a thick list of sponsors. Nothing fancy, but it's there.
Also, those who watch the show regularily are more likely to contribute come fundraiser time, and more likely to vote on measures which increase tax-based contribution.
PBS is money-motivated as well. It's hard to say what organization isn't merely because it's not an advantageous position for most (especially those in the position to do so.. despite what any of you might think, making and keeping vast sums of money is less luck and influence and more ingenuity) to liquidate funds to provide a service with no return.
That's not the problem, however. It's the public's desire to see shows like this that cause them to be brought to life. After all, even though PBS may be free, we're still voting with our eyes.
On media fact-correction, I would gladly buy any newspaper that replaced the front page with a list of retractions from the previous issues. Even if they were the biggest biased pieces of shit, that alone would at least tell me their representation is based on facts.
The role of journalist is not strictly to provide a window of truth, but to empower those without power. Journalism, done properly, challenges those who hold power and penetrate the shields held up by those who want to keep all the power for themselves.
As a journalist, you represent the public. You need to fight for access and return to the public what you learn. This is what Stewart is saying. It doesn't matter who you support, what matters is that you get the information that the public can digest.
Power, however, doesn't just mean government. It is also corporate. Companies and organizations can put out press releases all day long. They have the ability to lobby, which the public does not - and by organizations, I mean more than corporations. The NRA and the ACLU lobby just as capably as Monsanto or Microsoft. Journalism's job is to support the little guy.
This is the drummer beating in opposition to complaints that the press is too liberal. It has to be liberal, although it doesn't have to be partisan. It attracts liberal-leaning personalities, those who want to stand up for the common man in the face of financial and ruling interests. The reason so much press is so atrocious today is because so much of the press has been absorbed by those very financial interests. Who does AOL Time Warner serve? I'll give you a hint, and it starts with "stockholders", not "public".
Anybody who wants journalists to serve people rather than interests needs to abhor two things: media conglomeration and government secrecy. One of the Bush administration's very first acts was to limit the release of Presidential records, of the past and the present. It's appalling.
Bill Moyers recently gave a speech discussing these issues. Here are a few choice quotes:
What's important for the journalist is not how close you are to power but how close you are to reality....
The job of trying to tell the truth about people whose job it is to hide the truth is almost as complicated and difficult as trying to hide it in the first place. Unless you're willing to fight and refight the same battles until you go blue in the face, drive the people you work with nuts going over every last detail to make certain you've got it right, and then take hit after unfair hit accusing you of "bias", or these days even a point of view, there's no use even trying....
I am reminded of the answer the veteran journalist Richard Reeves gave when asked by a college student to define "real news." "Real news," said Richard Reeves "is the news you and I need to keep our freedoms."...
One study reports that the number of crime stories on the network news tripled over six years. Another reports that in fifty-five markets in thirty-five states, local news was dominated by crime and violence, triviality and celebrity. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, reporting on the front pages of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, on the ABC, CBS, and NBC Nightly news programs, and on Time and Newsweek, showed that from l977 to l997 the number of stories about government dropped from one in three to one in five, while the number of stories about celebrities rose from one in every fifty stories to one in every fourteen. What difference does it make? Well, its government that can pick our pockets, slap us into jail, run a highway through our back yard, or send us to war. Knowing what government does is "the news we need to keep our freedoms."...
"A journalist tries to get the facts right," tries to get "as close as possible to the verifiable truth" - not to help one side win or lose but "to inspire public discussion." Neutrality, he concludes, is not a core principle of journalism, "but the commitment to facts, to public consideration, and to inde
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
How much coverage have you seen of Kerry's health plan? Did you know that he has one?
;-)
Well, he's pretty old, and he's got tons of money, so I should hope he's covered!
Oh, yeah, another pet peeve: why is election coverage about who's ahead, rather than who's going to do what in office?
That's a really good question...
My news pet peeve: Why is the guy that tells me about war, genocide, castastrphes and murders spending as much time, if not more, making small talk with the weather guy and discussing how many balls one group of men threw yesterday and if that was more than one other bunch of ball-obsessed men? I barely watch the news anymore, I scoure the internet looking for the info I crave rather than be subject to inane banter by "credible" newsmen. And why is "entertainment" news part of normal news? Stop plugging your parent company's crap and tell me the state of the world! Tell me about science, pollution, demographics, economies, say something worthwhile!
You can't take the sky from me...
What I thought was most interesting was the audience reaction shots showing that the vast majority of them were in complete agreement with Stewart.
Was this a Crossfire audience or a Daily Show Audience? It seemed to be an audience in complete agreement that Crossfire is not a news show but a theatre act akin to the Roman Coliseum: watch some poor schmuck disembowled, and yesterday it was Tucker Carlson.
First off I'm a big Jon Stewart fan. I've read his most recent book and used to listen to his stand up a lot. Did jon stewart catch Begowa and Carlson off guard. Absolutely. Of course the format of their show is that they attack and they ask the questions so of course they are off guard when their show and themselves became the topic of attack. Although Jon Stewart defended himself well against attacks from Carlson, Stewart did not form strong arguments himself against cross fire: at least not in this interview. Yes he called the show theatre over and over again but what did this mean? He started to have an interesting point about politicos using disingenuous arguments because the ends justified the means but he didn't develop this point and certainly didn't even hint why this was cross fires fault. In the end when he was asked if cross fire was "too easy" on its guests he said no that's not it and then sort of stared off and mumbled a bit. To be fair he wasn't given much opportunity to develop his points. A good interview where he does develop his points is here at freshair.
Really my big problem with the crossfire interview is that when you go on the show as a guest you are agreeing to be the topic of debate. If you want to attack the crossfire guys the venue to do that is to have the hosts interviewed on a different show. How much of a point are you making when you catch people off guard who aren't intending to be asked questions. Let them prepare to defend them selves and have them interviewed to see if crossfire can be defended.
Excellent post, first off. It is easy to forget that an antagonistic system is necessary. Republicans and Democrats can't agree all the time, otherwise the government moves too quickly in one direction and you get things like the Patriot Act. In effect the two party system would become a one party system.
I want the Republicans to call the Democrats on over-spending, higher taxes, and big government. And I want the Democrats to remind the Republicans that we have civil liberties and that you can't rely on amoral institutions like corporations to always do the right thing.
What I really want is for both parties to remember their positions on those things. Instead, both parties think the answer to problems is to form new government agencies and programs. The Democrats add more taxes, the Republicans make a show of not doing that, but don't slow down the spending either. So the choices are: take home a smaller paycheck, or live with a government that is constantly in debt.
So I think Stewart definitely led with his weakest argument, though perhaps more to bring a little levity in before getting into his reason for being there. If Begala and Carlson started to agree with each other all the time, not only would the show go off the air, but the canary would be singing about our government.
That said, I think he has valid points. At heart, I don't doubt that Crossfire is as much about entertainment as it is about news or politics. Really all news programs are about entertainment. People watch the news in hours when they aren't working; they want to know what is going on, but they don't want to hear Harvard professors presenting long, nuanced arguments.
I guess, in trying to address his weakest argument, I'm forming my own weakest argument. Can we hold the media accountable when they are only giving us what we ask for? The answer I guess, is a dialectic one: the media is giving the people what they want, but the people should be demanding more and the media should be giving the people more, even if they don't demand it.
Which gets into what I think are Stewart's better arguments. Nobody can deny that the political campaigns are major marketing machines with tightly controlled messages. The news media most often reports on the strategies of the campaigns rather than analyzing or presenting information on their actual positions. Political reporting is turning into sports reporting: We can expect Kerry to come on strong on this, because Bush said something on that.
What about what they said? What are the ramifications of the policies they are espousing? We don't get a lot of insight into that, we mostly get reports on what the other side says are the ramifications. Reporting doesn't mean finding out information any more, it means being a mouthpiece for both sides. And Fox News isn't even doing THAT anymore.
There have been many reports that the White House Press Corp is heavily under the thumb of Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. If reporters don't ask the right questions, they aren't heard from that much, if at all. Some may even be asked to leave. I don't really count the Democrats as immune from this. I doubt that the Democrats really want to answer the hard questions either. I expect they will also purposely avoid questions they don't like.
The truth is, the news media has let the American public down. The fact that Stewart is a trusted source of news at all is alarming. He is there to entertain and is very clear about that. Stewart notes that "[t]he show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." He is on Comedy Central for Bob's sake! I think the show is popular because people recognize the satire of the media that it represents and they trust that more than the 'serious' news outlets.
Begala and Carlson attacked Stewart for not attacking Kerry, and I think Stewart's defense is perfect: it is not his job to do that. It's Begala and Carlson's job, and they don't really do it. They address the surface. If
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
I sent off an email to let CNN know I appreciated having Jon on.
I'm a Canadian and I'm sick of American propaganda coming from your "news" outlets.
The US reminds me of certain countries in the world that try to block outside influence. If you watch any other first world country's news, it's vastly different than the American interperatation. (Canada, Europe). Now, if 95% of the world says one thing, and the US government is telling you something else, logically, which outcome is more likely?
CNN is pandering for ratings by putting up sensationalist, misleading, and possibly unfactual stories.
I leave CNN on in the background much of the day, though I usually turn off Crossfire and a few of their shows I can't stand(the monring show, Wolf, Paula, Cooper). OK I guess I actually shut off more than on lately. I dearly wish I could get CNN international because CNN U.S. seems to be intentionally very dumbed down for an American audience.
I shut off Crossfire because there is to much shouting and to much repetition of the same worn out talking points by the left and the right. I did watch the show yesterday thought and it was awe inspiring, especially because it was live and they kept coming back from the commercial breaks for another beating. I especially liked it when they were in Rapidfire and Stewart ignored the gong until they gave up on it.
Once again the right proved they have no sense of humour, Begala mostly kept his mouth shut and Carlson made a complete ass out of himself. Another example of the Republicans having no sense of humor the Michigan Republican party trying to charge Michael Moore with vote buying for offering clean underwear or Ramen noodles to slackers who vote. The first DA they took it to said no, she had real crime to deal with.
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them. If their ratings suck they will go off the air, but if people watch them they will keep doing what they do. Unfortunately most people want scandal, lurid crimes, partisan bickering, controversy and watching people fight. The problem here is mostly the American people and not so much the cable networks. Americans are so dumbed down most of them don't want to watch insightful debate or intelligent journalism.
Where cable news is today and is going to keep going is dictated almost entirely by FOX News. They now control a market share equal to all of the rest of the cable news networks combined, 9 of the top 10 shows through the summer. The one exception was Larry King and that is mostly because half his shows have been turned over to Court TV which obsess on the lurid trials of the day, and a quarter seem to be about Britain's royal family. Larry King has completely dumbed his show down to the level American's are comfortable with it.
The fact is a LOT of Americans are extremely partisan, and not well informed, and in particular a LOT of them are rabidly right wing partisans which is why talk radio is like it is and why FOX dominates an entire half of the cable news market.
What Stewart said was right in an ideal world but this isn't an ideal world. There are some fairly well done news shows Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Russert, Aaron Brown and they have an audience but they are never going to compete against vicious, partisan shouting matches like O'Reilly (though we can pray O'Reilly's career will crater now that the scandal mongering is aimed at him and not by him).
The hypocrisy in what Stewart said is I wager he would be a sensational flop if he were to try to do what he was telling the news networks to do. If he tried to run a news show with insightful debate and reasoned commentary (and no comedy) chances are high it would flop or end up with a subsistence market share. If anyone could do it he could and if he wants to put his money where his mouth is he should. Its pretty easy to scold the news networks to do something that would probably be ratings suicide, and then go back to doing fake news and comedy and a sure market share.
From Yahoo News
Fox News beats all rivals
Pamela McClintock, STAFF
Tue Sep 28, 6:23 PM ET
NEW YORK -- For the first time in its history, Fox News Channel beat the combined competition in primetime during the third quarter of 2004, with major headlines of the summer including the national political conventions and a brutal string of hurricanes.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 1.8 million viewers, while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News averaged a combined total of 1.7 million. The quarter ended Su
@de_machina
Now this is a really good sumup of what I believe he wanted us to know... By the way... If you think stuff is absurd in the US... In Sweden there's a discussion about taxing men for raping and hurting women... And no, not fining the ones who actually do hurt women... Just taxing every man in Sweden... How's that for a can of fucked up?
Don't blame the fairness doctrine for your alleged "right-wing hatefest". Elimination of the doctrine allowed people to engage in political speech on the radio without fear that someone would demand "equal time" for a dissenting viewpoint. This made it commercially viable. Why is Rush Limbaugh on a zillion stations? It isn't because he is a right-wing zealot, it's because he's entertaining to a large group of listeners and delivers an audience to advertisers. The average owner of a radio station would put Hillary Clinton on for four hours a day if she could deliver an audience. It's all about the ratings and dollars.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
But this is not about Jon's show. It's about the political process in the US. I personally wish we could limit it like it is in Canada, and put some silly rule in that politicians have to have a "home" district (borough, county, district, state) for the office they're running for, with the expectation (not quite a legal requirement) that they need to win on their home turf, limit the duration of the obvious election process to maybe 3 months for the federal level offices, 2 months for state-level offices and measures and one month for city/county level offices.
But, of course, that would "limit free speech". Somehow, I can't help feeling that the sanctity (definitely, for lack of a better term) of the voting process is slightly above "free speech".
Right now, the US Presidency elections take about 4 years. The winner of the Presidency has about 6 months to "be the president", and the rest of the time gradually becomes oriented to getting re-elected or promoting his desired successor, rather than being the president. And it all grinds to a halt the last year or so for the Prez, because he doesn't want to do something that is detrimental to his campaign or fodder for his oppenent's campaign. Where does serving the population come into that?
Oh well. Does anyone else see the similarities in George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, with George C. Scott's character in "Dr. Strangelove"?
"Although Stewart leans left, he attacked political shows and begged them: 'Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.'" ...What the hell place does "Although Stewart leans left" have in this sentence?
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
Rewind 30 years. I assume the vast majority of Americans received their news from the Big Three national news broadcasts and their local news. Cable TV and the Internet had not yet revolutionized the way we access information. If you wanted "hard news" on TV back then, you had to watch something dry as a bone, like the Macneill Leherer Report on PBS.
Cable TV news came along and started watering shit down. Look at the TV news playing field of today: flashy graphics and dramatic music, sound bites, Shepherd Smith, Crossfire, The Daily Show, Bill Mahr. News analysis is not an extreme sport, yet all the networks treat it as such. They have had to dumb down their content in order to appeal to a wider demographic.
By nature, news analysis is boring, analytical, academic stuff. And now, instead of having a large, possibly underinformed populace like we had 30 years ago, we now have a gigantic, misinformed populace who expects TV news to be as exciting as the latest episode of Survivor.
Now, our system isn't the best either. It has its problems, but at least we have about 5 legitimate parties across the country, and with the "minority goverment" that the Liberals (that is an actual party name) have right now, they to comprimise to get things passed. For those who don't know, everything our Prime Minister puts to the house to vote on, if its not passed by the majority, that is the end of our gov't. It's considered a vote of non-confidence, and we have another round of national elections. So it makes for flexible government, and something more representative of the countries views as a whole...
Anyways... I think Jon Stewart is dead on with his scorn of the crap on CNN and on american political tv in general. I watch a lot of political TV, and after these debates... on all the news channels, I only found one program ON FRICKING PBS that actually discussed the feasability and the logic behind the bush and kerry health care plans. They actually had people on who broke down and explained legit problems with health care in the states. They didn't start with "ten million less people have health care than they did 4 years ago" and respond with "all kerry is going to tax you even more". And actual logical break down of the pros and cons of each of their plans from people in the health care industry. Not some RNC and DNC tools debating who's the liar and who's daughter is a lesbian.
Like christ, all I hear after the last debate is that John Kerry mentioned Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian... DO WE CARE?!!!??? Ya, that affects me. How about the war, how about the economy, health care, education... No, no, no, all we're hearing about is this lesbian. What?
I don't get it.
The winner of the Presidency has about 6 months to "be the president", and the rest of the time gradually becomes oriented to getting re-elected
Once upon a time, a popular meme for debate was changing the rules so that the President would be elected for only one six-year term, rather than two four-year terms. The idea was precisely to reduce the overhead of campaigning and eliminate the distracting possibility of re-election.
"I dearly wish I could get CNN international because CNN U.S. seems to be intentionally very dumbed down for an American audience."
Weird. I wish I could get CNN U.S., because CNN international seems to be intent on projecting an image of calm to the world rather than exposing the incredible mess that is U.S. election politics. From way over here in .ie, it seems like any fool
should be able to see that re-electing Bush would be an insane
choice. But clearly many non-foolish Americans disagree, and
I for one would like to know what they're being told that
we're not.
--Adrian.
He promotes gross fiscal irresponsibility and ballooning debt. That's not conservative.
He promotes nation building and continual warfare. That's not conservative.
He has supported erosion of civil liberties and violations of due process against American citizens. That's not conservative.
He supports what is effectively amnesty for illegal aliens. That's not conservative.
He supports corporate welfare through huge increases in agriculture subsidies. That's not conservative.
In general he supports expansion of government power, especially that of the executive branch. That's not conservative.
It isn't liberal either. Nor libertarian, green, independent, or any other party I can think of.
If the polls can be believed then, in lockstep, Republicans agree with Bush policy and direction.
If it isn't conservative then what is it?
Way to troll....
Look, I work in TV, and it is BS that they're in business to give people what they want.
They're in business to MAKE MONEY.
So they make money by giving people what they don't want? Are you reading what you wrote, Mr Tv Man?
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
How is this man -- who has never worked outside of comedy -- going to critique actual journalists, and get taken seriously? Ask Lenny Bruce. Or Bill Hicks. Or George Carlin. Or even David Cross. Just don't ask Gallagher. Give me intelligent, insightful comedy over "partison hackery" any day.
The news shows are like they are because people watch them. [...] Americans are so dumbed down most of them don't want to watch insightful debate or intelligent journalism.
It's more than that. The problem with TV news is that they have to fill a time-slot every day. This gives it the advantage of providing immediate, real-time coverage during a crisis. However, when there's no crisis, they have to find something to fill the time slot, which means that most news coverage is irrelevant most of the time. That makes it boring and needlessly depressing.
The Daily Show works around this by being funny. If there's nothing relevant to talk about it, at least you can get a few laughs off it.
I'm not sure what Fox News does, since I've seen maybe ten minutes' worth of it total, but from what I've heard of it, it looks to me like they're trying to fake relevance by pitching themselves as the last defender of All That Is Good And Decent from the Evil Liberal Conspiracy.
And frankly, if it's a choice of that or some talking head discussing the ramifications of the President's nasal polyps, I'd watch Fox News too.
Even Slashdot is a better news source. At least here, if nothing's happened today, I can read about the robot drum machine or look at pictures of some cool casemod.
One of the reasons I love The Economist is that it's clear what their viewpoints are, but they still are willing to grant points to the "other side" when they have good points. In contrast, a lot of US biased news sources are merely partisan: they praise everything their side says and slam everything the other side says. To a Democrat, nothing Bush says can possibly be good, and the first thing they try to do is to figure out how to spin it negatively; same for the Republicans and how they view Kerry.
The Economist, meanwhile, is unapologetically for free trade, but has no problems with admitting problems free trade agreements have had, negative effects of free trade, and so on. They have a viewpoint on how to best solve problems, but they are willing to investigate flaws and difficulties that viewpoint presents, because that's, after all, the only way to actually fix them.
To take a concrete example, they actually favored the war in Iraq, and still think it was a good idea, but their coverage has also included quite a bit of criticism of it.
Crossfire, on the other hand, has a team sports mentality where the "right" must always defend what their side says and attack what the other side says, and the same for the "left". Bah.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Unfortunately, I think soon as Jon Stewart starts presenting himself as too serious, then he will not be able to get the guests he does, nor be able to act the way he does on show from too much outside pressure. He is walking a fine line between popularity with the rest of us for pointing out abusrdities in what he sees, and still getting the access he does to people like John Kerry, Rudy Gulliani, etc.
He can only be so hard hitting, before all of a sudden he is a Gary Treudeau, and respected by people who read him, as well as critically, but, will have no access to the people he is discussing.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
were set in a monarchy for precisely this reason. The authors (Niven and Pournelle) wanted to explore a future where the rulers concentrated more on doing the job than they did on getting the job. A child born to the throne, the idea went, can be trained from a young age on how to do it well. (Assuming the society as a whole is still functioning properly, not gotten corrupt or decadent, etc.)
"Do we 'believe' in a monarchy? Not necessarily," they wrote in a later essay. "Do we believe it's /possible/? Damn straight."
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
We had a similar occurence, here in Canada, during our Federal elections. We had a televised debate where every "major" party's leader was invited to debate on live television. Jim Harris' Green Party (which has candidates in EVERY riding in Canada, and a serious and complete political platform) was not invited.
The Bloc Quebecois, however, WAS invited to join, even though they are a FEDERAL political party that a) is a seperatist party and wants Canada's federation to fail, and b) only has candidates in Quebec. Go figure.
I wrote to the CBC and expressed my disgust at this obvious sham, and they gave me some fluff answer about how the Greens weren't invited because the media and the major parties had an agreement to appear together blah blah blah; basically, "they can't play with us because we don't like 'em".
People around here keep confusing the Greens with the Bloc Pot (Marijuana Party - I live in Montreal, btw) because they are so mis-informed about the whole thing. Part of that, in fact a MAJOR part of that, is the "serious" news agencies' vehement refusal to give them any space to try and sell themselves.
http://www.greenparty.ca/
Sometime, a couple of months ago, a man got caught shuttling immigrants into Texas. One tv station in Dallas ran a story that included "people on the street" reactions, one of which was this crazy, angry-looking guy saying the smuggler ought to be sent to jail for "treason or somethin'". Hmm. I wonder why that comment made it on the show.....
Here's some facts for ya: The Dallas Morning News is the more yellow in their reporting than any other paper I've read. Last month they ran an article claiming that the protesters outside the GOP national convention were mentally deficient. Almost every story they run has a heavy conservative bias.
Second fact: The Dallas Morning News is one of the top papers in America, and not just in sales. They're widely respected in the journalistic community for the quality of their reporting. Scary, huh?
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
""Patriotism" and "Nationalism""
How do you reconcile Americans supposed fondness for "Nationalism" with the current trend among American government and business to sell America down the river in the name of "Globalization". Globalization is a death knell for "Nationalism".
You could argue thats the government and not the people, yet the people who are supporting Bush are in supporting an administration who is openly infatuated with the globalization that will ultimately trump their nationalism. Not sure the Dems aren't just as infatuated with it but at least they are backpeddling on it a little now.
Or are you thinking that American's can maintain their "Patriotism" and "Nationalism" on a military, social and a political level while they abandon it on economic level?
@de_machina
Or could it be that supporters of President Bush endorse a foreign policy of premptive use of force against an irregular and non-national threat to the country's security?
There's a lot of talk about Bush's foreign policy but very little of it gets to the core issue: Bush believes in a foreign policy that is, simplistically, shoot first and ask questions later.
If you can understand that about Bush's core policy, then actions like the Iraq war are more explainable. Confronted with a rogue nation, conflicting and unclear intelligence, and a potential source of support for direct or indirect threats to the US, what does the Bush doctrine say? Shoot first ask questions later. If we're not sure, then apply force just in case.
It's certainly arguable whether that doctrine is really any more successful against an irregular threat like El Queso's brand of international terrorism. It's also anathama to the Democratic party in general who've been largely skitish about any armed conflict where Americans might come home in body bags.
Couple that with Kerry's apparent willingness to make US national security decisions dependant on provably corrupt organizations like the UN and support for a second Bush term doesn't have to originate with Bible-thumpers and corporate execs.
Quite simply there's a not-unfounded fear that Democrats in general, and John Kerry in particular, are unable to come to grips with the reality of a post-9/11 world.