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.

Re:Next on /.: ./ sued by AOL/Time Warner/CNN

[strider44]

I saw it on a public site (IFilm link off Fark). I can only assume that it's allowed to be distributed.

ifilm

[avageek]

video of it is also posted on ifilm [ifilm.com]

More sources

[ylikone]

The video can also be found here in a few different formats... if the server isn't already dead...

http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/video/

This was...

[Sheetrock]

One of the coolest things I've seen on TV since O'Reilly vs. Franken on C-Span BookTV.

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.

oops, also here

[ylikone]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410160003 [mediamatters.org]

Forgot to include that in the previous post. And because the previous link wasn't hyperlinked,
http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/video/ [contemporaryinsanity.org]

Re:Political torrents

[ivan37]

Suprnova [suprnova.org] had torrents of all of the debates a day or two after (although those are the only political torrents I've seen).

Re:Political torrents

[stevenrace]

Apple's iTunes Music Store offers free downloads of the presidential debates usually the day after.

SAST

[Aggrazel]

Comedy Central used to have a show called Short Attention Span Theater, in that spirit, here's a summary of the show:

JS: You guys suck, you aren't real journalists, you're nothing but media whores out for attention.
Crossfire guys: Oh yeah!? Well when you had John Kerry on your show, all you asked him were these silly questions!
JS: My show is on after puppets making crank phone calls, yours is on CNN.
Crossfire guys: *insert more BS here*
JS: *insert more pnwage here*

Jon Stewart Interview on NPR

[stevenrace]

The interview linked below offers some insight into Stewart's views on the media, sans the cnn puppetry. http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=FA&showDate =30-Sep-2004&segNum=1&mediaPref=WM -WMV link, sorry /.ers The interview starts out a bit lame, however progresses into an interesting dialog about the nature of politics and the media about halfway through..... well interesting for people into thinking and what not.

Re:Best quotes

[AntsInMyPants]

What makes this even better is the tone, which you obviously can't get from the transcript.

Jon's was one of quiet exasperation coupled with legitimate anger, and just a dash of contempt.

Carlsons' tone was one of self-righteousness, followed quickly by stammering, defensiveness, and forced-incredulity.

Begala (who I otherwise despise) was at least wise enough to keep quiet through most of it. He seemed to understand that they were screwed.

Re:Jon Stewart talks about biased media coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's right. TDS used to be quite a bit more "balanced." Maybe you're right, and they simply don't have as much material to work with, but the fact remains that if you watch the show 2 years ago, it really did have a different feel to it. Perhaps that'll change after the election, perhaps it won't.

Re:Yes, yes! PUH-LEEZE?!

[Fortyseven]

Jesus, I don't know who this guy his, but I reckon the only vote he'd ever win is chief boy scout or something. Look around you buddy, and you'll notice it's a doggy dog world out there, and dems as well as reps will stoop as low as necessary to win whatever they have their eyes set upon. Welcome to the real world...

Well, let's see. We can sit on our ass making cute pithy little statements about 'doggy dogs' (what the fuck?) and say "Welp, that's just how it is. Nothing we can do about it. That's life. Welcome to the real world."

Or we can get up, go out there, and, gee, I dunno, maybe actually try and make an effort? Try to wake people up?

This is WHY our world sucks. People just give up and accept corruption and stupidity as givens and 'part of the process'. They become apathetic. And like Stewart said, this plays right into their strategy. They don't want people to pay attention. They want people to just kinda shrug and accept shit.

Re:Attention Slashdot Laser:

[TheSHAD0W]

It'd take tens of thousands of downloaders to slashdot a tracker on even a marginal server.

Non-torrent links

[gad_zuki!]

Here [mediamatters.org]

and here [ifilm.com]

Re:Carlson has a point though...

[gad_zuki!]

He was also softball with:

Henry Kissinger (most of the world considers him a war criminal)

Karen Hughes (Bush's campaign manager)

Ed Gillespie (RNC chairman/cheerleader)

Its just not a hard-news talk show. And its a comedy show which makes no promises about being fair, honest, or anything.

That said, you should watch the show more often as softball is all that goes on there, with a few exceptions.

Carlson doesnt have a point. Carlson needed to save face after he was exposed to be below the level of the daily show in terms of credibility. That's as low as you can get.

Re:Is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Listen to yourselves

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Sorry, but you are a cranky crack monkey.

The state of journalism today is an absolute embarassment. It's all about being servants to the powerful, not comforting the powerless and watching the powerful.

Stewart is concerned about TV news - he parodies it. If the media looked at the funhouse mirror, they might think about what they're doing. He came on to talk seriously about them.

I don't think that "tough questions" was the focus of what Stewart was saying - just that shouting head journalism was hurting America. There is a line between infotainment and disinfotainment, but I'll definitely agree that neither one is truly informative.

IMHO, the primary problem with modern US journalism - and this ties into shouting heads - is that no one is willing to say that X is true. The media would much rather say "Well, the Republicans say X, the Democrats say Y", and then punt their responsibilities.

Some people watch the daily show for news because they like to be infotained; other people realize the layers of BS caking the mainstream media. Me, I don't rely on the US media to tell me what color the sky is. (Although I do have to recommend this article on the faith-based presidentcy [nytimes.com].

It's by that bastion of the truth that brought us Judith Miller, Whitewater, and Wen Ho Lee. What was that about the Daily Show being pathetic?

RealMedia link

[HeghmoH]

NPR also offers Real streams, which tend to be more non-Windows friendly. Here's the one for this show:

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.html?prgCode=FA&showDat e=30-Sep-2004&segNum=1&NPRMediaPref=RM [npr.org]

Re:Fairness Doctrine

[gad_zuki!]

Fact: They had a contract.

Fact: They broke the contract.

Fact: There is litigation about said contract.

The deal was done. Someone chickened out.

>here is no right-leaning pressure just to show the Kerry documentary

Fact: Sinclair tried to supress the airing of Nightline and was only stopped by public outcry.

Fact: Michael Moore offered to show F911 for FREE on Sinclairs networks after they aired thier anti-Kerry hatefest. Do you think they'll take the offer? Its money in the bank. They won't of course.

Re:Fairness Doctrine

[floateyedumpi]

I saw Michael Moore in Tucson, AZ this past Monday. At one point he said:

I think you know my film `Farenheit 911' came out on DVD today. And, you know, I don't really agree with the Copyright law as it stands today. I just want as many people to watch it as possible. So, when you get it, I think you know what to do.... burn baby burn.

He also mentioned that bootleg copies of F911 were widely circulating among troops in Iraq, and that he had "no idea how they got there".

Good stuff.

Re:Remember when Kerry was on TDS

[FosterKanig]

did you see the part where they asked him who he he would get the best material from as a professional comment? his response was yes, because my professional comic career is more important than being a citizen.

Please check your sarcasm meter. It appears to be broken.

Re:Lone Slashdot Conservative Responds...

[revision0819]

I can't think of anywhere else to post this but just to let you know I agree with you in a way. Unfortunately mine isn't as intelectually stimulating as yours but I tried. There is still one major problem I'm seeing with this whole Stewart deal. I am pretty much to the right, but I still watch his show. Not to get news, just for a laugh. I get a kick out of the correspondents (the fedex guy and such). The part I think I'm having the biggest problem with is seeing where the thrashing everyone else has seen but me has come in. He does a parody that makes fun of the media and how messed up it is. That's great for a funny relief from the norm. However, I have always believed in leading by example. The singlehanded largest way and I think the only meaningful way he could have come on that show and insult them was if he were to come on and point out how he has a competitive REAL news program that doesn't lean one way or the other (dreaming I know). Making fun of the media with your own show doesn't help the situation in any form to me. Granted I'm still going to watch his show, but I can't see this objectively as him "Tearing them a new one." He doesn't do any better of a job at news reporting then them. Sure it is a comedy show on comedy central, but then don't come onto another show and tell them how they are messing up at something you can't do yourself successfully. He tried before, it didn't work.

The Internet Archive

[Grendel Drago]

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, but the Internet Archive [archive.org] has the debates, along with plenty of other political stuff. See the Election 2004 [archive.org] video collection. The third debate isn't up yet, but, for instance, the second one [archive.org] is available in MPEG-4 streaming, MPEG-1, or MPEG-2 formats.

Also, they have the older SIGGRAPH Electronic Theater [archive.org] stuff. Pardon me while I binge.

--grendel drago

Re:Remember when Kerry was on TDS

[Thangodin]

If you'll recall, this was at the time when 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' was at the height of its attack--probably the dirtiest political attack in a Presidential campaign in decades. That's what the question "How are you holding up?" was about--the real question was already out there, and frankly, SBVFT does not deserve the dignity of being named. Stewart usually just tries to get guests to talk, regardless of which side they're on. He goes as easy on the Republicans as on the Democrats, and sometimes I think he goes too easily on the spin doctors and partisans. The only time he jumps down someone's throat is when they make a claim which is obviously false, like the guy who had just published a book in favour of the invasion of Iraq based on the very arguments that had just been disproven. And the fact is, the Republicans of late have done this a lot more than the Democrats.

Clinton!

[copponex]

Jon totally destroyed Clinton a show a few months ago when he was doing his little "kiss on the lips" interview with Dan Rather. I'm paraphrasing, but...
(From the clip)Clinton: "If there hadn't been someone like Star hanging around, I would've admitted my mistake, told the American people, and said, 'Here's what happened.'"

Stewart: "I'll say this: Clinton's integrity is at it's highest with the situation is at it's most hypothetical."

Fact is, Bush and his administration are lying. Fact is, Stewart is pissed because Clinton was called out for a blowjob, and Bush doesn't get called out for the wrongful deaths of 13,000 Iraqi civilians, thousand of Afghan civilians, and just over a thousand of our men and women in uniform, and God knows how many who will come back without limbs.

What good is revenging 3,000 civilian lives when the response causes the deaths of five times that many? When will we realize that our lives are no more precious that those of people in other countries?

Being courageous has nothing to do with calling death "collateral damage." You would all feel differently if it were your wife and child under the rubble.

Re:Lone Slashdot Conservative Responds...

[Idarubicin]

Now I am going to get pummled by Mods I know :) I see my comments go up and down from +4 to +0 in the course of a single hour as Slashdot is overwhelminingly a left-wing Noam Chomsky echo chamber...

This may, possibly, have something to do with prefacing your remarks with a tacit invitation to flamewar?

Actually, this is rather the point Jon Stewart was trying to make. Modern news/talk/interview programs very seldom engage in the actual debate that is so important to a functional political process. Shows like Crossfire epitomize the problem. In lieu of debate, one sees screaming heads parroting party-line talking points and engaging in as much intellectual dishonesty and name-calling as they think they can get away with.

If you get past the fact that Jon Stewart leans to the left and actually listen to what he said, you might find that you agree with him--he genuinely seems to believe in vigorous, honest debate, and he rightly calls the partisan hacks on Crossfire on their own lack of depth, substance, or independent thought.

Re:That guy sis damn funny.

[LuxFX]

I heard he was on the Factor

Actually, that interview led to a particularly amusing bit of research. Comedy Central, although open enough to the fact that O'Reilly was just joking in fun when he said that nothing but "stoned slackers watch your dopey show", didn't like the misconception it reflected. So, they had Nielson Media do some research [cnn.com]....

It turned out that viewers of The Daily Show were more likely to have completed a four-year college than viewers of The Factor.

Re:This was...

[po8]

NPR has manipulated laws and its public "competition" to the point where it has a near-monopoly on non-profit radio in the United States. For example, they have consistently sided with commercial broadcasters against [fcc.gov] allowing low-power (and thus low-cost) FM radio stations. Some college radio stations were driven off the air when NPR successfully lobbied [wordiq.com] the FCC to kill their licenses soon after it was formed.

Keep in mind that NPR is a medium-sized corporation: it pays salaries to quite a few people, owns infrastructure and facilities, etc. It has about the same set of concerns as any (privately-held) broadcasting corporation, including increasing market share and revenue.

In addition, as you observe, NPR is funded directly by the same large corporations that fund the Democratic and Republican parties. While I'm skeptical that there's explicit tying of donations to content, I'm sure that NPR is careful to keep its overall format fundable.

Atlantic Monthly article on Karl Rove

[maynard]

Don't miss this [theatlantic.com] Atlantic Monthly article by Joshua Green on Karl Rove and his history of campaign dirty tricks. The story to which you refer is presented there in detail:

A typical instance occurred in the hard-fought 1996 race for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court between Rove's client, Harold See, then a University of Alabama law professor, and the Democratic incumbent, Kenneth Ingram. According to someone who worked for him, Rove, dissatisfied with the campaign's progress, had flyers printed up--absent any trace of who was behind them--viciously attacking See and his family. "We were trying to craft a message to reach some of the blue-collar, lower-middle-class people," the staffer says. "You'd roll it up, put a rubber band around it, and paperboy it at houses late at night. I was told, 'Do not hand it to anybody, do not tell anybody who you're with, and if you can, borrow a car that doesn't have your tags.' So I borrowed a buddy's car [and drove] down the middle of the street ... I had Hefty bags stuffed full of these rolled-up pamphlets, and I'd cruise the designated neighborhoods, throwing these things out with both hands and literally driving with my knees." The ploy left Rove's opponent at a loss. Ingram's staff realized that it would be fruitless to try to persuade the public that the See campaign was attacking its own candidate in order "to create a backlash against the Democrat," as Joe Perkins, who worked for Ingram, put it to me. Presumably the public would believe that Democrats were spreading terrible rumors about See and his family. "They just beat you down to your knees," Ingram said of being on the receiving end of Rove's attacks. See won the race.

Or a whisper campaign against Alabama state supreme court justice Mark Kennedy, who was unjustly smeared as a peadophile:

Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out--he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."

There's plenty more stories to read. all of which would make any honest person want to puke. Republicans only damage their own credibility by supporting this crap on the national stage. At some point these tactics will backfire and the GOP will wind up badly damaged as a result. JMO. --M

First, lay off the "poor me" intro.

[khasim]

Now I am going to get pummled by Mods I know :) I see my comments go up and down from +4 to +0 in the course of a single hour as Slashdot is overwhelminingly a left-wing Noam Chomsky echo chamber but here goes:

Don't blame others for your faults and do not attempt to catagorize people you've never communicated with.

I read the transcript and I didn't see John Stewart actually say anything.

He said that the "debate" shows were useless as far as actual news or discussion or debate. He said that such shows were tools of the political parties and did nothing to inform their audience. He said that their shows were pure entertainment.

Knock of the "Dialectical" and "Dualism" crap. Both are wrong. The fact is that every single person in the US has his/her own viewpoint and values and so forth. In the end, it comes down to how to spend a limited amount of money/time/people on all the different goals of all the different people.

This evolved from the Judeo-Christian idea of origional sin. That we are not perfect. That we will never be absolutely perfect though we can strive to perfection. The political process for a dualist is a constant war of ideas, compromise and experimentation, moving more slowly toward a better political organization.

Great, whatever. Why does anyone care what this mythical idiot thinks?

If you ask 100 random people to rank 100 goals in order of priority/importance/value, you'll get 100 different answers.

How to attain the goal is not know to a dualist, he realizes that much debate, experimentation and examination of details must occur before things improve.

That's great if there are only two people to be considered. There is no "right" or "wrong". There are only goals and the means by which you attempt to achieve those goals.

The dialecticist on the other hand is far more arrogant believing he can put together the whole solution and all that remains is to push aside the debaters and doubters and implement his vision.

Pay close attention to current politics. Do you see that happening a lot? I thought so.

Yet it seems that you favour your "Dualism" approach.

Here's some advice. Pull yourself out of the crap you learned in Philosophy 101 and look around the world today. Talk to people. LISTEN to people.

Stewart was presenting his beliefs on that show. One of his beliefs is that their show was of a specific format, when it should have been of a different format. He stated that point and illustrated that point very well.

Re:SAw this yesterday on Fark/iFilm

[TomServo]

At least know what you're talking about before calling someone shit-for-brains.

"Studio Location: Daily Show Studios, 513 West 54th Street, NY. Between 10th and 11th Avenues."
-- http://www.nytix.com/TVShows/NewYork/DailyShow/Tic kets/tickets.html [nytix.com]

and...

"The Daily Show tapes every Monday through Thursday at the Daily Show studios, located at 513 West 54th Street, New York City. Doors open at 5:45 PM. Audience members must be 18 or over to attend (tickets are required for attendance)."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show [wikipedia.org]

If you can't seem to gather a clue on your own, perhaps you can find somewhere to purchase one?

Unfettered by corporate money

[Anonymous Coward]

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer [pbs.org] is a good start.
For no-holds-barred expose' nothing touches NOW with Bill Moyers [pbs.org]--stuff no other video broadcast outlet will air (e.g., Michael Powell & the FCC. ABC mentioned it momentarily--once--at 3:30AM).

gewg_

Re:Best quotes

[flosofl]

Really no other comment than this. Quite an eye-opener:

"Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't."

Stewart's 'stoned slackers'? Not quite [cnn.com]

Re:Attention Slashdot Laser:

[Thing 1]

That's not entirely accurate, because not everyone is downloading. As I said in another response to the parent, I'm currently getting download speeds over 200 KB/s, and am connected to 4609 seeds and 902 peers.

So the number of people downloading is only 902, whereas there are 4609+902=5511 people uploading. So if upload speeds are 1/5 download speeds, everyone will be getting it at their maximum download rate.

That's the cool thing about BitTorrent; if people leave their torrents open when they're done, everyone else gets it much faster.

Rub it in

[DeepFried]

Contact http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?7 [cnn.com] CNN Crossfire and let them know how you feel.

2002 "Reliable Sources" interview was better

[Robin Lionheart]

If you want a good interview of Jon Stewart lambasting the press, watch how he tells off Howard Kurtz in his November 2, 2002 interview on "Reliable Sources" [cnn.com]. Now I'd like a video of that [americanpolitics.com].

Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years ago, also on CNN: ...

KURTZ: So you don't, you're not confusing yourself with a quote, "real journalist"?

STEWART: No. You guys are...

KURTZ: You're just making fun...

STEWART: You guys are confusing yourselves with real journalists. ...

(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/02/ rs .00.html)

Re:Dead serious is right

[c0dedude]

Nope, You're wrong. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a bipartisan, not nonpartisan nonprofit founded by the Republicans and Democrats togather. Nader wasn't allowed in because they don't want him in.

John Stewart Radio Interview on Fresh Air

[Jabrams007]

I scrolled through this topic and didn't see anyone mention it, so I thought I'd share. Here's a link to John Stewart being interviewed on Fresh Air on NPR. This interview took place after his book came out. He goes into more detail about what he thinks about the Media, politics etc... If you enjoyed Stewart on Cross-fire, check this out. It's at the top of the page.

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue= day&todayDate=09/30/2004 [npr.org]

This is not a first for Steward

[internic]

It's probably a little late now, but I found it interesting that apparently he voiced similar complaints about the media on the CNN program Reliable Sources [cnn.com]. A transcript can be found here [cnn.com].

Here's an exceprt:

KURTZ: What should happen to all of these experts who came and filled the airwaves with all of these predictions that turned out to be completely and totally wrong?

STEWART: Well, it's not their fault.

KURTZ: It's not their fault?

STEWART: No.

KURTZ: Shouldn't they have to resign from the talking head society?

STEWART: Shouldn't CNN have to pay a penalty for putting them on the air? You're Paulie Walnuts. You're vouching. You brought a guy in, and you put him on the air and you vouched. You said, "No, Tony, this guy, he's good people, he's credible." So whatever they say, I mean, they're called profilers.

If you watched the coverage, you would have thought that that's what the police do, is they literally have two guys sort of almost like psychics sitting around going, "What do you think he is?" "I don't know, maybe he's white, maybe he's black. Maybe he's with al Qaeda, maybe he's Son of Sam."

They're actually following real leads. I don't understand the idea of -- you know I heard a guy talking -- actually on your show -- saying, "Well, the public really wanted information. They had a real thirst for information. So because we didn't really have that much information, we had to just speculate."

KURTZ: We made it up. STEWART: Right. Which seems insane. That's like saying, "You know, the kids were real thirsty, and we didn't have any water, so we just gave them beer, because we figured that would work."

(LAUGHTER)

KURTZ: Well, you're right. The cable folks who put these folks in front of the camera have to bear some of the responsibility.

STEWART: Not some, all.

For Lazies without Bittorrent..

[PhaxMohdem]

Behold a regular HTTP link. Could and probably will be rather slow but it is just a direct download from my wonderful web server. Enjoy! And let me know if its working for you or not. (Tis a relatively large file, (91.9MB) ) http://69.242.135.143/misc/crossfire.zip [69.242.135.143]