Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Media Media Television Government It's funny.  Laugh. Politics

Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire 1254

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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:11AM (#10544051)
    Please Slashdot the torrent link so I can download it faster. Saying that hurts my brain. :(
  • Is it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SpooForBrains ( 771537 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:12AM (#10544053)
    Is it time to really stop all the political games that both sides play?

    • Re:Is it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:14AM (#10544384)
      Then contact CNN and let them know you fully agree.

      Maybe that will wake up a few people.
      • Re:Is it? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16, 2004 @01:32PM (#10545140)
        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.

  • ifilm (Score:5, Informative)

    by avageek ( 537035 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:12AM (#10544055)
    video of it is also posted on ifilm []
    • Re:ifilm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:12AM (#10544375) Homepage Journal
      WOW! I watch the daily show and I think he does favor Kerry. But you could say the same thing about Jay Leno. Comedians tend to roast the guy they have the most materian on. that tends to be the incumbent.

      That crossfire episode was brutal. He had those guys sweating and giggling out of nervousness. Its a MUST see. I'd call that comedy any day.
      • Re:ifilm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @01:03PM (#10544957)
        Nah, Jon Stuart is more in the "Anyone but Bush" camp. You can tell he's not a huge Kerry fan either; they make fun of Kerry almost as much as Bush. But he does hate Bush and want him out of office. He's also one of the best fucking interviewers I've ever seen. Because he pretends to be an idiot, he sometimes catches people off guard. He really knows what he's talking about though, unlike most loudmouthed politically active comedians, and so he can sometimes embarass people, as he did with Bush's campaign manager. He's also the most watched news show amond viewers 18-25, which is pretty amazing considering the whole show is pretty much fake.
        • Re:ifilm (Score:5, Insightful)

          by uhlume ( 597871 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @02:34PM (#10545505) Homepage
          ...What makes you think "the whole show is pretty much fake"? The stories are unarguably real, although the journalism is often comedic -- and even that... Well.

          I'd call most mainstream network news journalism "fake" before I'd accuse the Daily Show of the same.
          • by Stan Chesnutt ( 2253 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @04:40PM (#10546233) Homepage
            I don't know if you noticed, but on the bottom of the screen CNN's "news crawl" was reporting the usual celebri-journalism: I saw one item about Sandra Bullock's lawsuit and another about Martha Stewart.

            The unintended irony is priceless.
  • by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:13AM (#10544059) Journal

    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.
    • It was beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bitingduck ( 810730 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:23AM (#10544117) Homepage
      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...
    • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:50AM (#10544257)
      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 []
      • by zaffir ( 546764 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:16AM (#10544391)
        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.
      • by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @01:58PM (#10545282)
        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
        • by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @03:23PM (#10545772)
          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.

          It's not a flawed argument. Americans aren't naturally ignorant sheeple. They have just been conditioned over the last twenty years by this sort of crap to lose their ability to distinguish between news and editorial. Sure, Americans love scandal and sleaze, but the drug dealer and the pimp share responsibility in the plights of the crack-addicted whores they prey upon. Jon stood up basically said, "I'm one of your viewers. I'm not your crack whore. I want this relationship to stop and could you please stop pimping out the public and selling them crack? You're hurting them. Stop. You've got them hooked and they can't help themselves, so please just stop."

        • by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @03:28PM (#10545795)
          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.

          Actually, the flaw is in your reasoning.

          Channels like CNN are owned by large corporations with significant politcal interests. To pretend it's all about what the viewers want is to display extreme ignorance of the system.

          The corporate media in this country have their own interests.

          A really quick and easy example would be these channels' coverage of new movie releases:
          Ever notice how new movies tend to get reported on/advertised by the channels who just happen to be associated with the company that made the movie?

          Try thinking about this one for a second:
          Maybe Nader wasn't allowed in the poresidential debates because the MEDIA's interests did not want him there. Say what you will, Nader basically decided the last election. If there was no Nader, we would have a different president right now.
          In addition, I think most americans recognize that having a third party in the debates would have made them much more interesting.

          Perhaps the REAL reason Nader was not allow in the presidential debates was because neither the corporate new media, nor their advertisers had bought him off. Seems logical doesn't it?
        • by aecolley ( 467094 ) <aecolley@gmail.c3.14om minus pi> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @04:07PM (#10546047) Homepage Journal

          "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.


          • It boils down to (Score:5, Insightful)

            by beakburke ( 550627 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @09:36PM (#10547843) Homepage

            No, I'm serious, the US has attitudes that are culturally much different that that of Europe. In particular, the US learned different lessons from the last century of history. For example, "Patriotism" and "Nationalism" got really bad names in Europe because of WWI and WWII and their apparent causes. Europeans became deeply suspicious of them for that reason, but USians found those attributes a good thing, because it helped them WIN those wars. I guess I'm saying that it's not the the US gets so much different information, (ignorance, FUD, etc) but that USians seem to view it with a much different perspective than the rest of the world.

            I'm not sure that it is wrong or right. It just is.

    • by y2imm ( 700704 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:53AM (#10544281)
      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.
      • by paxil ( 99137 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:12AM (#10544376)
        ...It hurt his credibility a little...

        We have arrived at a truly sad state when it hurts someones credibility if they tell the truth.
    • Non-torrent links (Score:4, Informative)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:01AM (#10544313)
      Here []

      and here []
  • Political torrents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by paulproteus ( 112149 ) <slashdot@asheesh. o r g> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:14AM (#10544066) Homepage
    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?
  • by Fortyseven ( 240736 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:16AM (#10544075) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • This was... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:17AM (#10544080) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:This was... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) * on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:15AM (#10544390) Journal
      The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.

      This is the most insightful comment I've seen on slashdot in a long time. Welcome to my friends list.

      The fact that the left screams about the right-wing bias of the media, while the right talks about the liberal bias of the media should be enough to clue people into the fact that there's a larger story here... but no one really seems interested in that--it's easier just to pretend they're on the other guy's side and whine about it.

      As you so eloquently put it, the media is simply profitable. The only side the media is on is the media's.

      • Re:This was... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ratsnapple tea ( 686697 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:50AM (#10544548)
        "When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."

        Steve Jobs
      • Re:This was... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sg3000 ( 87992 ) * <> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @12:50PM (#10544890)
        > The only side the media is on is the media's.

        Although theoretically, that is true, I would say that in this case, the major media heavily wants George W. Bush to win, so they tend to lean towards him. A great example is the fact that Kerry-Edwards won all four debates, but all the television pundits are now saying the debates don't really matter. If Bush had won (even just the last one), we would have heard about it non-stop.

        Why would the major media prefer Bush? I read an interview in either Newsweek or Businessweek with the CEO of Viacom, who owns CBS among other outlets. In the interview, he was asked about the amount of money he personally has given to John Kerry, and he said something along the lines of I'm personally for Kerry, but as head of Viacom, when he votes, he votes in Viacom's interest. He said [], "I don't want to denigrate Kerry, but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on."

        When he says "deregulation" for his industry, he's talking about how the Bush administration has been heavily for media consolidation.

        I think the reason why the Bush administration is for media consolidation is because, much like how Wal-mart prefers to work with a relatively small number of large vendors (so they can put pressures on them), the Bush administration knows that if there is a relatively small number of large media companies, they can put more pressure on them. If one of these companies puts out a movie critical of the president (let's say, Disney allowing "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be released), the White House can declare that ABC News (owned by Disney) doesn't get any embedded reporters during the war and they lose their space in the media entourage. Thus, since the large media company has lots to lose, they will practice self-censorship.

        John Kerry has recently spoken out against media consolidation, as well as other Democrats and even some Republicans (I believe Kay Bailey Hutchinson IIRC), because they know that media consolidation will result in self-censorship, rendering it ultimately ineffective. Another interesting example is that Howard Dean was the media darling, until he spoke out against media consolidation. Soon after that, Dean was "Gored" by the media.

        Jon Stewart is right. The media pretends to provide balance, but the truth is, they're no longer serving the public. They're really just serving the politicians.

    • Re:This was... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by internic ( 453511 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:37AM (#10544493)
      The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.

      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.

  • by AntsInMyPants ( 819105 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:18AM (#10544085)
    It was like watching a man stomp on the heads of puppies with steel toed boots.

    Except the puppies were Carlson and Begala and the boots were Truth, so it was cool.

  • by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:18AM (#10544089) Homepage
    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?
    • by LuxFX ( 220822 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @02:31PM (#10545484) Homepage Journal
      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 []....

      It turned out that viewers of The Daily Show were more likely to have completed a four-year college than viewers of The Factor.
  • Best quotes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:20AM (#10544098) Homepage
    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.
    • Re:Best quotes (Score:5, Informative)

      by AntsInMyPants ( 819105 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:39AM (#10544204)
      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.

    • by tksh ( 816129 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:20AM (#10544413)
      Actually, I thought these were the better:


      CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

      STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.


      CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.

      STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.


      I mean, he got invited to the show and they were expecting him to take the setups from both hosts and make jokes but he refused to and told them straight what he thought. That takes guts. Especailly in the second quote, you can tell Carlson got smack in the face and he had nothing to respond.
  • by DragonMagic ( 170846 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:21AM (#10544105) Homepage
    Yes, it's time to stop. The media plays for the largest audience, so alienating large numbers of people is bad. They need these numbers to attract advertisers and higher rates to have ads during these shows.

    Two solutions still linger: Talk radio and satellite radio. Talk radio has low values for advertisers already, and satellite radio is already paid for by subscriptions. Imagine Jon Stewart without the bounds of Viacom or the need to placate to any audience the corporation wanted.

    Jon, as good as he is, also wants to be big; he wants Dave Letterman's spot when he retires. GE controlling Conan at 11:35pm versus Viacom controlling Jon at 11:35pm, would it be tragic or a victory for political humor?

    I just hope Jon can get his own talk show on radio, whether AM/FM or satellite, that can reach the masses without the fetters of a large corporation.
    • Fairness Doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:58AM (#10544303)
      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.
      • Re:Fairness Doctrine (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @02:07PM (#10545335) Homepage
        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.
  • by P-Frank ( 788137 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:23AM (#10544120) Homepage

    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.

  • Funny.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sinner0423 ( 687266 ) < minus language> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:25AM (#10544140)
    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.
    • Re:Funny.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zebbers ( 134389 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:42AM (#10544221)
      Have you ever watched the show? Presenting the factual news in a funny way does not detract from the actual facts. He doesn't make up shit, just present news then make fun of how gay it really all is. Compare this to a more psychotically biased news channel like our favorite fox news and you see why he may be the only TRUE political correspondent.
  • Masterful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by underwhelm ( 53409 ) <underwhelm&gmail,com> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:26AM (#10544144) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by AntsInMyPants ( 819105 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:32AM (#10544169)
    It shows you how bad journalism has gotten when someone can step in and just demolish them like that.

    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.

  • kudos (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EZmagz ( 538905 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:34AM (#10544176) Homepage
    Read the transcript on Fark yesterday, and my jaw hit the ground as soon as Stewart started talking. I admit right off the bat that I'm a huge Stewart fan, mainly because his "fake news" show is more informative (IMHO) than any other real news show on television these days. That aside, Stewart's also a VERY quick guy who's a force to be reckoned with when it comes to a battle of the wits.

    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.

  • by spoonyfork ( 23307 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <krofynoops>> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:36AM (#10544185) Journal
    You can get the transcript here [].

    STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

    CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

    STEWART: You need to go to one.
    Jon Stewart, I love you.
  • by stubear ( 130454 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:49AM (#10544253)
    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.
  • by Jonas the Bold ( 701271 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:54AM (#10544284)
    That was wonderful. Shows like crossfire aren't actual political debate, the guy on the left is a democrat shill and the guy on the right is a republican shill.

    The guy on the right can never say something like, "hey, warmongering isn't a conservative value" or "You're not really being fiscally conservative, bush". They just repeat republican rhetoric.

    Same with the guy on the left, who isn't actually on the left, but just a democrat hack.

    Basically, both of them are just repeating their party's arguments, which leaves huge blind spots for us, the people. Until this changes we'll never end up with not voting for the lesser of two evils, and democrats will never be held responsible for their actions BY democrats, and republicans will never be held responsible by conservatives. Also, we'll never hear any real arguments but just stupid stuff like kerry and bush's vietnam service. Like John Stewart said, "I asked him.. but I didn't care". Or like the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story, which has nothing to do with anything.

    The politicians don't care, becuase the only people they ever get in trouble with are the opposition, who's support they don't have anyway.
    • by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:07AM (#10544345)
      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."
  • by Big Sean O ( 317186 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:16AM (#10544392)
    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".
  • by Webs 101 ( 798265 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @12:33PM (#10544797) Homepage
    What Stewart says goes to the heart of journalism. Look at societies that don't have a free press. They are ruled, generally, by governments with strong hands, which have little patience for opposition in thought or practice.

    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

  • by Vthornheart ( 745224 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @01:21PM (#10545076)
    They didn't even know what to think! Their response to his heartfelt appeal was lines like:

    CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

    Shameful. You know what it is - they knew, both of those fucks knew - that he was right. They had to appeal to distraction tactics and wait him out. I'd be surprised if Stewart ever gets air on a non-Comedy Central station again. He hit them at the core of what is really going on, and they'll never forgive him for it.

  • by iamghetto ( 450099 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @02:59PM (#10545663) Homepage
    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.

Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter