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.
Attention Slashdot Laser: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Attention Slashdot Laser: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Attention Slashdot Laser: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Attention Slashdot Laser: (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
Re:Is it? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?21
Maybe that will wake up a few people.
Re:Is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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". [google.com] 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.
Re:Is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I got news for you, my Canadian friend... that crap isn't that important down here either, at least not for any of us that have a triple digit IQ. News has turned into just another Inside Edition/Entertainment tonight (essentially Celebrity Gossip shows) and it's the drooling, hollow-skulled, Survivor-watching masses that give them the ratings.
Re:Why this has so much impact (Score:5, Interesting)
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"?
Re:Why this has so much impact (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
ifilm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ifilm (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:ifilm (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd call most mainstream network news journalism "fake" before I'd accuse the Daily Show of the same.
Beautiful irony ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The unintended irony is priceless.
Re:ifilm (Score:5, Insightful)
The one thing I noticed in that clip was that the guys at crossfire we trying to use Jon's interview with Kerry to show that even he couldn't ask tough questions. I will say that I was very disappointed with that episode. I don't know if he choked or what, but it was like watching a Barbra Walters interview. But the comparison between The Daily Show and other outlets is like apples and oranges. I can't believe that news shows criticize Stewart for not asking hard questions when most of their material is based on sophomoric jokes about bodily functions. Why should his show be held to the level of good journalistic ethos, when the journalists themselves can't even reach that goal? Yes, he dropped the ball big time when it came to his interview with Kerry, but that doesn't make his argument about the news media any less valid.
One thing brought up occasionally on Jon's show is the political duopoly that permeates our culture. It doesn't take a genius to discover that America's electoral system is mathematically capable of supporting no more than a two party majority for an extended period of time.* Regardless of your opinion of the Florida debacle last election, it served to backlight many of the shortcomings of a system which hasn't been modified since its inception. Every aspect of our culture and government has evolved in the nearly 200 years since the ratification, except the electoral process. It was designed for a time when few people were formally educated and even fewer were literate, yet it continues to operate under that original premise. For all the differences between the two parties, the historical record shows one topic where they have made an unspoken pact: don't mess with the system. It's been a two party majority forever, and it will stay that way as long as they have a say. Why were the electoral problems on everyone's lips for months afterwards, but no one gives a damn this year? Why is the President's opinion on Row v. Wade a hot button topic, but the President is powerless to make a law around the ruling? Do these people realize that the President has no power to overturn Supreme Court decisions? Does the media remind them about checks and balances so they might consider asking questions about topics he has power over? No, they'd rather ask them about who was doing what 30 years ago in the middle of a war people agree was wrong to start in the first place.
America: The Book was one of the best purchases I've recently made. You will read 'reviews' about how it's a pile of liberal rag. Obviously these 'reviewers' haven't read a word of it because, while making a distinction between parties and poking fun at them both, overall it does something no news outlets are doing. It's criticizing the system as a whole while holding an amazingly centrist position when compared to 'legitimate' publications. And the media is given status is noted as the Fourth Estate, and then completely torn down... no holds barred. The preface (more of a rant) for Chapter 7 is the furthest left the entire book goes.
A free an independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy. It serves to inform the voting public on matters relevant to its well-being. Why they've stopped doing that is a mystery. I mean 300 camera crews outside a courthouse to see what Kobe Bryant is wearing when the judge sets his hearing date, while false information used to send our country to go to war goes unchecked? What the fuck happened? These spineless cowards in the press have finally gone too far. They have violated a trust. "Was the President successful in convincing the country?" Who gives a shit? Why not tell us if what he said was t
SAw this yesterday on Fark/iFilm (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Have to remember that I actually have a TV and cable long enough to actually watch the Daily show...
Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [everythingisnt.com]
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
The Daily Show is newsworthy enough to have won a Peabody (Election Coverage in 2000).
I'd forward the opinion that it is easier to determine what is fake and/or unimportant news watching the Daily Show than most other 'real' news programs.
The fact that it is News-tainment doesn't bother me as the show has a social conscience, and attacks whenever and wherever it has found someone/something wrong.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that it is News-tainment doesn't bother me as the show has a social conscience, and attacks whenever and wherever it has found someone/something wrong.
Comedy on the Daily Show works by a pretty simple principle. They say things that have an element of truth, but everyone else is avoiding saying, and they say them with extreme gusto. As such, the Daily Show often ends up saying things closer to the truth than the actual news, because their method of humor is a funny version of "Bzzzt, wrong!"
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Bravo.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Interesting)
"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 [failteireland.ie], it seems like any fool
should be able to see that re-electing Bush would be an insane
choice. But clearly many non-foolish Americans disagree, and
I for one would like to know what they're being told that
we're not.
--Adrian.
It boils down to (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that Jon Stewart decided that he agreed with your analysis: there's no way to get an audience for a political show of the type he wants. So he went and got on a comedy show which talks about political topics.
Stewart never said not to "do as I do". He was just very clear about this: If you're doing entertainment, such as theatre or comedy, you should be labeling it theatre or comedy rather than journalism. Otherwise, you're doing a grave disservice to the surprising number of Americans who can't tell the difference.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
What he's saying is, all these shows that are purported to be "news" shows, especially the ones on CNN, are not serving the country because they are NOT doing journalism.
Furthermore, I believe the oft-mentioned "American Public" want some real news. They don't want to be sheeple, but they don't have any other choices. The highest rated show on TV? 60 Minutes. Yes, they can have a definate spin to their questions. Yucca mountain reporting comes to mind, and I'm what you'd call an environmentalist, but even I could see they were asking loaded questions and trying to paint the NRC in a bad way. But the point is, for the most part, 60 Minutes tries to do in-depth reporting and tries to be fair, much more fair than other news shows, and they have great ratings. People want it. The country needs it.
The proof is in The Daily Show's high ratings and awards. It's a very sad commentary, and Jon Stewart knows it, that a *lot* of people get their news from his show because
- there aren't any better alternatives
. That's sad and Jon is trying to make everyone aware of that. Did you hear the reaction of the crowd during the Crossfire appearance? They were clapping for what Jon was saying. They agree! We want better journalism, and we want it to be on our TV!Re:SAw this yesterday on Fark/iFilm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SAw this yesterday on Fark/iFilm (Score:5, Insightful)
We have arrived at a truly sad state when it hurts someones credibility if they tell the truth.
Re:SAw this yesterday on Fark/iFilm (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what we have is competing teams without journalistic ethics. What Jon would propose is having actual dialog with facts instead of blast faxed talking points from the parties. Right now if they have a person who says black you have to get someone to say white. There is no evaluation of competing opinions. Shit, if they had someone on saying shooting kids in schools is bad they'll find some jackass to say it's good. In todays "journalism" merely being an opposing opinion automatically makes it valid. Which is bullshit. Its the new Republican relativism.
Re:SAw this yesterday on Fark/iFilm (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is totally fair. Either CNN should stop to prioritize entertainment value over journalistic integrity or it should admit that their shows are not more serious or reasonable than say
It is no coincidence that a lot of people have started listening to The Daily Show instead of allegedly "real news". They don't listen to John Stewart because The Daily Show is a good source of news but rather because the sources that describe themselves as serious aren't. The Daily Show is as good as CNN but that's CNN's fault. Except that CNN is lying about it. That these news channels hide the fact that they only care for ratings and refuse to admit that journalistic integrity is not a concern for them (as long as they look good) is deception to the public. It is an outright lie. They have to either raise the integrity bar or admit that they are only there for entertainment not unlike a comedy oriented news show.
The legal system can't do anything about these kinds of lies and false advertisement because they are so hard to prove. I guess the only solution here would be publicly funded organisations.
Non-torrent links (Score:4, Informative)
and here [ifilm.com]
Political torrents (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Political torrents (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Political torrents (Score:5, Informative)
Stewart Deserves a Trophy. (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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)
Steve Jobs
Re:This was... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [evote.com], "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)
My first reaction was "Yeah, that's the truth." But then I started thinking: I am a regular listener to NPR [npr.org], 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 [pbs.org] 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.
Bias would be an improvement (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Bias would be an improvement (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, he's pretty old, and he's got tons of money, so I should hope he's covered!
Oh, yeah, another pet peeve: why is election coverage about who's ahead, rather than who's going to do what in office?
That's a really good question...
My news pet peeve: Why is the guy that tells me about war, genocide, castastrphes and murders spending as much time, if not more, making small talk with the weather guy and discussing how many balls one group of men threw yesterday and if that was more than one other bunch of ball-obsessed men? I barely watch the news anymore, I scoure the internet looking for the info I crave rather than be subject to inane banter by "credible" newsmen. And why is "entertainment" news part of normal news? Stop plugging your parent company's crap and tell me the state of the world! Tell me about science, pollution, demographics, economies, say something worthwhile!
Re:Bias would be an improvement (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. In fact, I'm a bit tired of the word "biased". The way people use the word, it tends to equate someone who has take a position based on careful thinking about the evidence with someone who has taken a self-serving position.
If the only way to be "unbiased" is to refuse to take a position on anything that is contested, even when there's a mountain of evidence for the position, well, I'd rather be biased!
There's a difference between having an opinion and being on the take....
--Bruce Fields
Atlantic Monthly article on Karl Rove (Score:5, Informative)
Or a whisper campaign against Alabama state supreme court justice Mark Kennedy, who was unjustly smeared as a peadophile:
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
Hurt to watch (Score:5, Funny)
Except the puppies were Carlson and Begala and the boots were Truth, so it was cool.
Re:Hurt to watch (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want compare yourself to a comed show, go ahead.
Crossfire claims to be a show dealing with Real Issues(TM) and Real Serious Debates(TM). What Jon demonstrated quite eloquently, was that, in fact, Crossfire (and shows like it) are nothing more than the same kind of entertainment he provides.
The crucial difference being that his show is advertised as comedy. Crossfire advertises itself as journalism. If Tucker wants to chide Jon for not being "journalistic" enough on his show, the door is wide open for Jon to do the same. Its the hypocracy that is so nauseating. That Tucker and Begala think they are doing some great thing by asking Tough Questions(TM) that allow them to get to the Truth(TM).
In reality, they are not asking tough questions they are only asking inflammatory ones. And this allows each side to retreat to their talking points to while copmletely ignoring the actual issue at hand.
Jon exposes this, and the best they can do is say "Be funny" or "You're boring"? Their utter failure to defend their show in any meaningful way was more dmaning of their show than Jon's smart ass comments.
Re:Hurt to watch (Score:5, Insightful)
It was rude because he didn't follow Begalla's and Carlson's expectations? It was rude because he criticized them? Have you ever seen Crossfire before?
Was it what he said to Carlson? Carlson practically fed him the lines.
I don't have my opinions feed to me by some silly TV show
Which TV shows do "feed to you your opinions"?
It's like protesters, protesting about Bush all day, but when they're asked why don't they run for president, they just say something dumb like "That's not my job, he's the one who's president!" or some dumb junk like that.
That's pretty good, making stuff up like that. Maybe you should run for office, seeing as how you have such a great creative talent.
The real reason I think John wasn't funny was because he didn't have a team of writers giving him a script to read, he had to do the show live and without a script. There are lots of comedians like that, not funny without their script.
The whole point is that John wasn't being funny, he was being serious, which was his intention. Carlson was the one who was screamingly unintentionally funny. Begalla didn't come off that bad because he didn't give Stewart any big openings.
I think you've also demonstrated that you haven't really watched the Daily Show, so you really don't know what you're talking about.
So, to summarize:
1) Your command of the English language is astounding.
2) Your opinion is "feed" to you buy serious TV shows, not silly ones.
3) You have a talent for making shit up when you want to make a point.
4) You wouldn't know funny if it hit you on the ass.
5) Your opinion matters (especially since it isn't "feed" to you by silly TV shows).
That guy sis damn funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:That guy sis damn funny. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Best quotes (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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:Best quotes (Score:5, Funny)
***
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.
Re:Best quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it another way: when the comedy show is held to higher standards than the news show, something's really wrong. When the comedy show actually does a better job adhering to those standards than the news show, well, it's all gone to shit.
Re:Best quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, CNN had home field advantage and they got ANNIHILATED by a non-professional. A show about arguments for specious reasons...a comedian guest comes on with a REAL issue, and they folded like lawn chairs.
Ultimately, I think Stewart is having a greater and greater sense of guilt...he's realising his influence on people and their voting habits and recognises that this SHOULDN'T be the case. I think he just wants to be a comedian, but when faced with unexpected power, he's trying to be responsible with it.
No, it's a legit point (Score:5, Insightful)
CNN on the other hand, is Time Warner's news channel, the Cable News Network. They were, to the best of my knowledge, the first 24-hour news network. All news, all the time, with localized versions throught the world. They sell themselves as a very serious news organization, dedicated to news and nothing else. Their tagline from their website is "CNN: The most trusted name in news." Crossfire in particular claims to be "debating the issues that impact your life."
So Stewart is perfectly in the right to rag on these guys from CNN. They are on the news network, they have a responsibility to do news. Stewart is on the comedy channel, he has a responsibility to make people laugh.
You don't have to do something to be able to claim that those doing it aren't doing a good job. You can send back food at a resturant that's bad even if you aren't a chef and you can critique the government even if you aren't a politician.
Stewart isn't a news man, he's a comedian, but that doesn't mean he can't criticize problems in the news media. However when they then try to pretend like those problems are his, he's right in pointing out that he's NOT in news. Being on TV doesn't mean you are in news or have some journalistic responsibility. I don't want the South Park characters doing investigative reporting, I want them making dick and fart jokes.
However just because he is a comedian and does satire on his show, doesn't mean he isn't also an intelligent human, who has opinions that he can express.
Re:Best quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
This is so much bullshit. For someone with a sig like yours (Ben Franklin's line about giving up liberty for security and deserving neither, just in case you decide to change it...) to say something along those lines while all kinds of civil liberties are being trounced on by the man that's "giving you tax cuts" (at the expense of a shitload of social programs, no less) is a sad statement on where we are today as a nation.
Stewart's political views are not hidden in his jokes. He's very open about his views. But he's also tired of the political hackery on both sides and he's said and shown as much on many occasions.
And before you accuse me of being one of those "young punks" who's never gotten a real paycheck, I've been a CTO for the last year and a half and if they want to take more of my money and the money of people like me out in taxes, more power to 'em. I'd much rather see that money go to the public good than have another one of my colleagues blow his bonus on another new Bentley
Re:Best quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clear that Surlyboi's contemporaries (as with much of the m(b)illions of other typical humans) believe that 200k will do far more for the good of mankind if it's traded for a very comfortable automobile into which they can place their tender ass.
While I won't claim that I'm getting a great return on my investment which is taken from my paycheck, my money is, infact, going to investments in science and technology, biotech, education, law enforcement, national defense, community outreach, and other worthy programs. Out of my $200,000 in taxes, only $50k,000 may go to programs I deem useful, but that's $50,000 more than if I'd spent it on another Bentley.
Oh, and your free market can't do squat when it comes to efficiency. How do I know? Take a look at what Brittney Spears made last year and then tell me that - based on her talent - that sum was justified, because THAT is the free market in action.
The simple fact is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Double standard? You're soaking in it.
The fairness doctrine [wikipedia.org] 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)
Jon Stewart to a foreigner / Explaining Crossfire (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Jon Stewart to a foreigner / Explaining Crossfi (Score:5, Insightful)
People who watch The Daily Show did better on a quiz about their political knowledge than people who watch any of the cable news shows - FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Doesn't that mean he's doing his duty to inform people?
Funny.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Masterful (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hypocracy is dead (not really though) (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
favorite quote from transcript (Score:5, Funny)
Funniest thing I've seen in a while on Crossfire (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
John Stewart is great (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:John Stewart is great (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re:Jon Stewart is great (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Crossfire is the Fake News. (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
Stewart, Moyers, and journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
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
That was amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
As a Canadian observing American politics (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
"Doggy dog"? (Score:5, Funny)
you'll notice it's a doggy dog world out there
I believe the phrase you wanted is "dog-eat-dog" not "doggy dog". The idea is that one dog will try to eat another dog when competition becomes fierce. Compare this with "doggy dog", which sounds like another name for a cute little puppy pup.
Re:Remember when Kerry was on TDS (Score:5, Insightful)
His show is not about blasting comedians, it's about laughing at the really poor job that the media does.
He's been nice in interviews with republicans too, and he even was angry at his audience when they didn't pay proper respect to the republican guest.
Re:Remember when Kerry was on TDS (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
show format (Score:5, Insightful)
The heart of the difference is that Carlson et al. are practitioners of the only profession which is explicitly protected in a constitutional amendment. Stewart is voicing a widely held criticism of commercial journalism: that commercial journalism is not adequately doing its job under the constitution.
It matters less whether a viewer shares this criticism than the question of whether journalists are obligated to make viewers aware of it.
For the same reason, I think it misses the point to denigrate a Comedy Channel program for its lack of balanced news coverage.
Re:Remember when Kerry was on TDS (Score:5, Interesting)
Tucker's only attack was this, it was insane. CNN trying to hold a fake news show to some sort of journalistic integrity? WTF?! Both of them avoided the questions Jon was asking and were evading the entire discussion. They got defensive and Tucker even tried to attack Jon with that integrity crap. Jon accused them of hosting political kabuki every day and not actually discussing the things that matter to him as a citizen.
My question is how can anyone get indignant about the Dixie Chicks while also taking Jon Stewart's funny show seriously? That was Jon's real point. Both taking partisan positions on meaningless crap while ignoring the real news and holding the system accountable for it. He called them hacks because they perpetuate the absurdity rather than saying it's absurd. It's Jon's job to perpetuate absurdity, not CNN's.
Re:Remember when Kerry was on TDS (Score:5, Insightful)
did you see the part where they asked him who he he would get the best material from as a professional comment? his response was yes, because my professional comic career is more important than being a citizen.
john stewart is, among other things, a citizen of the united states. he was invited as john stewart the comedian, but he came as john stewart the citizen. and the citizens of our country are being betrayed by the poor state of journalism in this country. and john stewart, citizen, addressed the media when he got the chance.
as far as his career on the daily show - sure, he amused himself (and many others) with his interview with kerry. and if you actually saw that, you'll see he was taking digs at the media as he does on every show.
regardless of who wins this election, john stewart the citizen (and all the rest of us) will still be given poor service by the media. and almost more important than this election, the media needs to change. journalism needs to serve the public interest.
it currently is not.
Reality check. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, Stewart's show isn't about tough questions. It's about cracking jokes and having fun. That's his job there. If he started asking any politician tough questions he'd be out on his ass, sooner or later. It's comedy. It's not supposed to be real. It's like complaining that Readers Digest "Humor in Uniform" doesn't get into the realities of the war in Iraq, or that "Spy vs Spy" isn't as detailed as "Smiley's People".
His point, which nobody addressed, is that there's all this time and energy wasted on crap that is just irrelevant. What was most of that transcript about? Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, and he seems to have mixed feelings about it. Well, geeze, is anyone surprised? You gotta expect he's going to be touchy about it sometimes, and able to deal with it other times. He's human.
Or let's look at the National Guard. The spin that's going on there is crazy. There's no reason to attack Bush about his service in the National Guard... we know that he had a troubled youth, with a lot of irresponsible behaviour. You either accept that he grew out of it, or you don't. You look for signs that he's learned from his mistakes... in fact that's something that's worth asking: what did he learn from that time. I'd like to know that.
Or the whole Swift Boat melodrama. Whether Kerry exaggerated his role or not, it's a fact that he asked to go to Vietnam, and he volunteered for hazardous duty. If it turns out that he wasn't as courageous as he wants you to think, if his motivations were mixed, he still had more backbone than someone who took a slot in the National Guard.
I could go on and on, but Stewart's right, the media is asking stupid questions and letting the candidates deflect them into concentrating on stupid issues far far too often... and paying attention to real problems far too infrequently. Really, they should ignore what either candidate says about the other. Treat is as a "hot tip" for something to investigate, at the most. They should ignore anything the candidate says about their own character... of course they're going to try and say good things about themselves. Instead, look for the things the candidates aren't talking about or what they're talking about they aren't explaining. Because that's where the real skeletons are going to be buried.
Re:America, a country at war with itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to remove your blinders (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hate to remove your blinders (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you see the show where he had Marc Racicot on? He was rather civil to him, as he was to a lot of people on the right.
Perhaps you should consider your own bias before you call someone else on thiers.
Re:Carlson has a point though... (Score:5, Informative)
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:Carlson has a point though... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually, it's often the necessary first step to getting people to change. Things are the way they are in part because nobody has had the gumption to tell these people off.
Indeed. If only he would use his celebrity to get invited to a nationally-broadcast serious show, where he could make his serious points in a relevant context.... oh, wait. That's what he did. If The Daily Show tries to remake itself into a serious news show, he will lose his audience and hence his pull, and nobody will listen to or care about anything he says.
By the way, it's not like The Daily Show doesn't take swings at the bland, uninformative, and partisan media, either. He wasn't really saying anything new here.
Re:When the hell did Jon Stewart attain credibilit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:When the hell did Jon Stewart attain credibilit (Score:5, Insightful)
By pointing out that his comedy show has more credibility than their "news" show? At least, that's how he *did* it.
Re:Listen to yourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
You, sir, are a class-A moron.
The reason so many people are cheering Jon Stuart is because he voiced what they've been trying to say for a long time. The average Joe (or Jane) stands a higher chance of climbing Mt. Everest than being invited on Crossfire.
JS got invited (partly because of his book, and partly because he has often criticized Crossfire as sympotmatic of the media corruption), and he took the opportunity to make a sincere plea for change. This was about all he could do. And he did a mighty fine job shooting down those two monkeys.
Anybody else would have been the goody-2-shoes and just bent over for the anal exam. JS took a stand for what he believes is in the best interest of the country, which is honest, open, informative political discourse. He should be applauded, and I do applaud him.
Is he perfect? No. Is he God?? No! But he did a pretty good job of voicing the peoples' concerns on this topic. Just see the amount of applause he got (and I'm sure it wasn't the "APPLAUSE" sign going off, because it was CNN's show, not his).
Re:Lone Slashdot Conservative Responds... (Score:5, Interesting)
I want the Republicans to call the Democrats on over-spending, higher taxes, and big government. And I want the Democrats to remind the Republicans that we have civil liberties and that you can't rely on amoral institutions like corporations to always do the right thing.
What I really want is for both parties to remember their positions on those things. Instead, both parties think the answer to problems is to form new government agencies and programs. The Democrats add more taxes, the Republicans make a show of not doing that, but don't slow down the spending either. So the choices are: take home a smaller paycheck, or live with a government that is constantly in debt.
So I think Stewart definitely led with his weakest argument, though perhaps more to bring a little levity in before getting into his reason for being there. If Begala and Carlson started to agree with each other all the time, not only would the show go off the air, but the canary would be singing about our government.
That said, I think he has valid points. At heart, I don't doubt that Crossfire is as much about entertainment as it is about news or politics. Really all news programs are about entertainment. People watch the news in hours when they aren't working; they want to know what is going on, but they don't want to hear Harvard professors presenting long, nuanced arguments.
I guess, in trying to address his weakest argument, I'm forming my own weakest argument. Can we hold the media accountable when they are only giving us what we ask for? The answer I guess, is a dialectic one: the media is giving the people what they want, but the people should be demanding more and the media should be giving the people more, even if they don't demand it.
Which gets into what I think are Stewart's better arguments. Nobody can deny that the political campaigns are major marketing machines with tightly controlled messages. The news media most often reports on the strategies of the campaigns rather than analyzing or presenting information on their actual positions. Political reporting is turning into sports reporting: We can expect Kerry to come on strong on this, because Bush said something on that.
What about what they said? What are the ramifications of the policies they are espousing? We don't get a lot of insight into that, we mostly get reports on what the other side says are the ramifications. Reporting doesn't mean finding out information any more, it means being a mouthpiece for both sides. And Fox News isn't even doing THAT anymore.
There have been many reports that the White House Press Corp is heavily under the thumb of Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. If reporters don't ask the right questions, they aren't heard from that much, if at all. Some may even be asked to leave. I don't really count the Democrats as immune from this. I doubt that the Democrats really want to answer the hard questions either. I expect they will also purposely avoid questions they don't like.
The truth is, the news media has let the American public down. The fact that Stewart is a trusted source of news at all is alarming. He is there to entertain and is very clear about that. Stewart notes that "[t]he show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." He is on Comedy Central for Bob's sake! I think the show is popular because people recognize the satire of the media that it represents and they trust that more than the 'serious' news outlets.
Begala and Carlson attacked Stewart for not attacking Kerry, and I think Stewart's defense is perfect: it is not his job to do that. It's Begala and Carlson's job, and they don't really do it. They address the surface. If
Re:Lone Slashdot Conservative Responds... (Score:5, Informative)
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:I wasn't that impressed with jon stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
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.