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.
Please Slashdot the torrent link so I can download it faster. Saying that hurts my brain. :(
video of it is also posted on ifilm
This man is my hero. I heard a clip of it from the Randy Rhodes show on the way home last night, and this morning grabbed the torrent of the show (god, cut the commercials out of the video, man...).
He really did something respectable and the hosts, rather than actually discuss the opinion being given, felt they needed to make fun of him and dodge the issue since they couldn't provide a realistic response. It was like "ERR ERR DOES NOT COMPUTE RESPOND WITH JIBBERISH" and sparks came out of their neck. Just like XP.
BytesTemplar.com
Journalism standards have gone down the toilet. Kudos to Stewart for giving these folks a metaphorical kick to the nuts on live television -- wasn't a fan before, starting to become one now.
He's just so right; when a satirical news program on a minor cable channel meets or exceeds the journalistic bar in this country, to the point of winning awards and in many cases being the only news people will watch, you get an idea of just why things are so screwed and why so many people continue to buy into the two-party system. The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Except the puppies were Carlson and Begala and the boots were Truth, so it was cool.
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?
STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
***
CARLSON: Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?
STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.
The coolest voice ever.
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.
Apple's iTunes Music Store offers free downloads of the presidential debates usually the day after.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Is Jon Stewart turning into our generation's Neil Postman? Sure seems that way. It looked like Jon had an attack of conscience. It looked like he wanted to either yell or cry. Maybe he was ready for the jokes, pimping the book, etc and remembered how this show was going to play out: one guy giving out the DNC talking points, the other guy giving the RNC talking points, and Stewart making silly jokes about both. Like he said, he didn't want to be their monkey so he went into Neil Postman mode and attacked them on their newstainment bullshit. Its well deserved, not only because he attacked the newstainment format but because that show is especially bad in regards to politics. Its not right v left or any of that, its Democrat v. Republican talking points.
I mean, Carlson is the guy who said this about Edwards: "he (Edwards) was a personal-injury lawyer specializing in Jacuzzi cases." He knew full well Edwards did a class action for a pool pump which was used in both public and private pools which hurt little kids, but as a GOP operative that's what he had to say, especially when their managers are trying to out-sleeze shows like O'Reily and the other pathetic offerings from Fox News and MSNBC. It was all too fake for Stewart so he just spent this invaluable time attacking the system. Any sane person would have done the same. Perhaps. I think most people would have been good little boys and girls and pimped their books and played nice. Stewart knows he doesn't need CNN to sell his book or to get ratings for his show, so he took a very risky chance to take a moral stand. Don't expect him to be on any other shows for a long time, unless this is the straw which breaks the corporate media's back, which I doubt it is. If anything, this is more like a Lenny Bruce monologue which was groundbreaking at the time, but wasn't an agent of change in itself for a long time after.
Its almost predictable. I think too many people see the Daily Show as a fake news comedy show. It actually is satire of the highest order. Jon and his writers are doing nothing but mocking every news show, every hackneyed local evening news anchor, every news magazine format, every soft news journalist, etc.
I thought the most interesting part of this exchange was the comment about Carlson's bow-tie. Stewart wasn't mocking him for his lack of fashion sense, he was justifying what he calls "theater." Why would a young man wear such an old fashioned article of clothing like that, if not for attention? If not for a "distinctive look." If not for "personality branding." etc. Carlson was denying his show is theater while in a costume. It was very poignant observation by Stewart and showed the absurdity of the entire spectacle.
Source
But Jon doesn't force his show to lean either way; he just has more cannon fodder from Republicans.
I remember after the first debate, Jon's show was live. When Kerry answered the first question, Jon began the "audience falling asleep" type of assault. Last I saw, Kerry was a Democrat, not a Republican.
But just look at the cannon fodder for him to play with on one side! We have Bush saying that the war in Iraq is successful and we're winning, and then we see BBC feeds showing that we're not safe at all. We have Republicans in front of cameras LYING, not exaggerating or misleading, flat out LYING, and then on-camera proof to retort.
Try as you may, it's not Republican bashing, it's finally getting truth to the people who want it. Even if it's biting commentary or satirical in nature, Stewart still isn't about destroying one side.
If you want to end "Republican Bashing", start by telling Republicans who get bashed that we can record things, and we can play them back. Lying will get people nowhere today.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
I didn't like to hear that kind of personal attack, even though it's 100% accurate. It hurt his credibility a little, but for the most part, I was impressed by how he refused to rise to the baiting from the bowtied dick. Oops.
Funny you should mention talk radio. When Reagan took away the Fairness Doctrine, AM radio became a right-wing hatefest and continues to stay that way. Limbaugh, Savage, et al. AM used to be the cheap way to get ears, but now its partisan as all get out. Previous to Reagan's decision, AM (all broadcast media for that matter) had to present both sides of the issue in a serious manner. We are reaping the loss of the FD today with today's uber-consolidated corporate media. Just look at Sinclair which is going to air a ridiculous "documentary" on John Kerry on the 21st in a shameless attempt to alter the election. That ain't information, that's disinformation. Meanwhile Michal Moore lost his PPV F911 spot.
Double standard? You're soaking in it.
The fairness doctrine actually gave us Fair and Balanced coverage. Today, Fair and Balanced is a smartass tagline of the most biased network on television.
The 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."
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.
...It hurt his credibility a little...
We have arrived at a truly sad state when it hurts someones credibility if they tell the truth.
Then contact CNN and let them know you fully agree.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?21
Maybe that will wake up a few people.
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
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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'm Canadian as well, and CNN scares the crap out of me.
Americans would typically respond with something like "well your news is biased too", because they have been well indoctrinated for years to have nothing but contempt for the notion that objective truth even exists. In the past few years this weird epistemological relativism has overtaken American public discourse. All that matters is the appearance that "bias" is equally balanced on both sides. An interview show will "balance" a Holocaust survivor guest by also inviting a Holocaust denier. If letters to the editor are skewed 100:1 following a given story, they'll still pick two or three letters from each side so as to give the impression that both viewpoints are equally valid. They are committed to providing no useful information at all. And contempt for objectivity has pervaded people's thinking across the board. Just look at politics.slashdot.org. Yesterday Michael posted two stories: "RNC and voter suppression" quickly followed with "DNC and voter suppression", as if both stories had substance to them. Again, notice the commitment to providing no information.
This is an extremely corrosive approach to journalism (not that Michael is a journalist) because it gives an extreme advantage to liars. If one candidate starts telling lies, it becomes incumbent on journalists to start digging through anything the other candidate said, anything at all, that might not be totally accurate, to support a headline like "Kerry, Bush Both Tell Fibs". Mark Halperin, a political director at ABC, recently wrote an internal memo to his staff that correctly noted that while neither Bush nor Kerry make factually correct statements 100% of the time, only one of the two has recently adopted a strategy of telling flat-out lies in the final weeks of the campaign, and that journalists working for ABC should not feel obligated to "balance" every major lie with some inconsequential lie from the other candidate unless the lie is obviously central to the candidate's effort to win. The memo was promptly posted on Drudge and has now become a "scandal". This is how far American journalism has deteriorated. Deviating from information-free "balanced" content gets you in trouble and ruins your career. "Balance" has won the war against truth in American journalism.
Another consequence of this thinking is the common retort: "the news isn't biased, because we have Fox, and you have CNN". CNN, however, has become practically indistinguishable from Fox. The only thing it doesn't have are the distinctive personalities (O'Reilly, etc).
1. They appear, and wish to appear, to the American public as the #1 official news source.
They all have that schtick going. The Daily Show makes fun of it- "The Most Important Show... Ever."
2. On many occasions, they sensationalise any possible "news" story. See Monica Lewinsky, OJ, Michael Jackson... You name it. Apparently that stuff is important in the US. It's not to the rest of the world, get over it. CNN - you're missing the real issues here.
They are no longer obligated to show news as a requirement of their broadcast licenses. So they are free to air entertainment that bills itself as news, which generates more advertising dollars. This includes not only the "Scott Peterson"-type stories, but also the slanted commentary by which talking points are distributed for public consumption. People are mesmerized by stupid stuff like this. Unfortunately, if you believe what you're watching is news, you'll believe anything they tell you.
3. CNN is completely biased. I remember during the opening hours of Iraq conflict (the current one) Aaron Brown trying not to cheer as he smirked watching the video feed of the tanks rolling into Iraq. "ooohhhh! look at the firepower! RA RA America." Way to be a journalist Aaron.
Fox News actually dropped party balloons from the ceiling at the moment Bush's "24 hour ultimatum" expired to begin the war.