Stewart is completely unloading on both Begala and Carlson for being "bad for America," "partisan hacks" and just basically attacking the entire system.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
<---no cable Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
<--cable, but still at work. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, crap, it's after 5! I hadn't noticed.
Bye folks!
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
They didn't turn his mic off in time at the end of the show, during the "pan out."
"Well, that went great!"
He sure won't be back. The was a really interesting gesture he just made, but I doubt it will make a difference. Carlson accused him of being a pushover for Kerry on The Daily Show, and Stewart pointed out that the show that leads into his is puppets making crank calls. I hope you guys saw that. Easily the best episode of Crossfire I have ever seen (though I make a point not to watch it most of the time.)
One of his best points was that, while a debate show would be great, Crossfire isn't it. Also a major point of contention, the networks' immediate travel to "spin alley" after the debates and such.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm pretty ignorant about Crossfire. I've never watched it--basically, I know nothing about it. What was his problem with it?
I do know that it is responsible for half the name of "Crossballs" a VERY funny mock show on Comedy Central.
-Katarain
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Is "Crossfire" reshown on the West Coast? When can I find it on?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
It's basically where uber-partisan commentators take pot-shots at the other guy's candidate for half an hour. The usual structure:
Guy on left (Paul Begala or James Carville): Stupid irrelevant attack on the other candidate, such as "Your candidate said X last night, isn't he stupid/irresponsible/incapable of being president/hypocritical"
Guy on Right (Robert Novak or Tucker Carlson) You are so dumb for bringing up such a non-issue. Why can't we focus on the issues, and not silly irrelevant character attacks. I can't believe you would even bring that up on a serious show. Especially as your candidate said Y at this press conference which utterly PROVES that it is HE that is stupid/incapable/irresponsible/incapable of being president.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Halfway through the show they invite a member of the House of representatives (or some other political figure, but usually the house members) to join in the partisan bickering. Interrupting the other guy is par for the course, and I have never seen anybody on Crossfire EVER concede a point to the other fellow.
You ain't missing much.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'm pretty sure that "Crossfire" repeats later tonight. I'll check when I get home. Sounds like one bit I really do want to see - I usually avoid the show for the very reasons Stewart gave. But they're all getting to look pretty much like "Crossfire" now - lots of guest partisan hacks shouting at each other with little real debate. Especially on MSNBC.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
My father claims he watched a talk show (not "Crossfire") where Carlson was a guest. And on that show, he said he wouldn't be voting for Bush in this election. He really couldn't bring himself to vote for Kerry, but a number of things Iraq-related had left him feeling like he couldn't support Bush as a real consevative.
Anyone know if this was just "wishful thinking" on my father's part or has anyone else heard that?
It's true a lot of conservatives are really unhappy about the neo-con agenda - Pat Buchanan is a good example since he wrote a book about it. But not to the extent that he'd refuse to vote for Bush.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I don't know. I was absolutely shocked today, because Carlson did make some statements (before Stewart came out) that he was dissatisfied with Bush's dealing with the National Guard and Reserve. First time I'd ever heard him say anything but the party line.
Stewart "This is political theatre. I mean... (to Carlson) how old are you?"
Carlson: Thirty (something I don't rememer exactly)
Stewart: "Okay, you are thirty years old. You wear a bow-tie. I mean, I'm obviously not saying you aren't an intelligent person, as those things are really hard to tie..."
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Hahaha (loves the comment above), I saw it in the gym, but it was muted.
[ October 15, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Jon Stewart is absolutely right, but virtually all the TV political "debate" shows should be thrown in with crossfire. Two or more spinmasters does NOT constitute a debate, and yet the networks repeatedly try to pass it off as one. A true debate is only a success if the truth is more clear afterwards, and if the participants involved are dedicated to reason, truthfulness, and the goal of finding the correct answer rather than tricking viewers into accepting whatever side they happen to favor.
Those programs are a joke, because the politicians or pundits they put on them are so biased that they will deny any reality to try and advance their point. It's most obvious when they come out after the debates and both sides claim their candidate had won - even in the first debate when it was clear Bush had lost. And it's not just shows like crossfire - it's also political commentary in general. Why would you interview Hilary Clinton about who won? We know what she's going to say. Why would you interview Karl Rove? Why does CNN.com have a pundit's "scorecard" that always includes one pundit that blatantly leans left and one pundit that blatantly leans right? Why is the "No Spin Zone" really just a couple guys spinning things?
What happened to real, truthful, honest, objective analysis aimed not at making your side the winner, but at figuring out the truth? Can't there be a show like that?
Truthfully, I think Saturday Night Live, or The Tonight Show, and the Daily Show are almost more informative in that respect. At least it's something more than spin...
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Exactly, Xap!
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
...And the worst part is, the parties are gradually trying to make the Presidential Debates into the same format.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Another thing that is a sad commentary on our News networks is that watchers (or would that be 'stoners') of The Daily Show are more informed than those watching the REAL News.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
If you can call the O'Reilly Factor real news.
Here. They posted a transcript. Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I think it's about time somebody had the cojones to stand up to those guys. That Jon Stewart could do it without sounding like an enraged lunatic (if anything, he won over Crossfire's own studio audience) is particularly sweet.
Xap: I thought he made it pretty clear that he was condemning all "debate" shows of this type. He just focused his ire on Crossfire because that's the show he happened to be on. Heh... now that I think about it, that in itself is rather remarkable. Most people expressing such a viewpoint would probably throw in some token compliment to the Crossfire guys, but (reaffirming his own point) Stewart refused to buy into that sort of obsequious back-patting. Good for him.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:My father claims he watched a talk show (not "Crossfire") where Carlson was a guest. And on that show, he said he wouldn't be voting for Bush in this election. He really couldn't bring himself to vote for Kerry, but a number of things Iraq-related had left him feeling like he couldn't support Bush as a real consevative.
He has a show shown around here on PBS; I've seen it only once, but the time I saw it, I recall him saying that fiscal conservatives "can't take Bush seriously" (paraphrased) because of his policies (the phrase "spending is out of control" or something similar was used either in agreement with him or by him, I can't remember). From watching Crossfire, I too get the impression that Carlson is not thrilled with Bush.
[EDIT] And as for Jon Stewert... that video (the link was posted here once) that was supposedly a parody of the Repub. Convention video comes to mind Personally, his statement about shows like Crossfire aiding to polarize the country hits the nail on the head: there's too much "Your party was stupid handling Issue X!" "Oh? Well, your party was stupid handling Issue Y!" and so forth and not enough discussion.
--j_k
[ October 16, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Just watched that Crossfire again. Thanks so much for that bittorrent link.
I now have about thirty times the respect for Stewart that I did before. I still dislike how incredibly partisan his show is, but there is certainy an argument to be made. he IS a comedy show and it IS easier to mock those in power. Nevertheless, his show also became almost exclusively political only during the last year or two, so we don't know how hard he will lampoon Democrats.
Either way, what he said really needed to be said.... but I doubt it will be heard.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Well, Stewart himself pointed out that his comedy hinges on the absurdity of the Powers That Be. While it's definitely true that his liberal leanings manifest themselves in how he interviews his guests, I think the main reason the Daily Show has seemed so vehemently anti-Bush lately is simply because Bush is the current President, a president whose policies are extremely controversial.
My read on Jon Stewart isn't so much that he's excessively zealous about his own political beliefs as much as he is someone who genuinely cares about politics, and who believes very strongly that our democracy has the potential to be greater than it currently is. That's why he's so outspoken when it comes to stuff that REALLY pisses him off, like Crossfire (and media corruption in general).
[ October 16, 2004, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:CARLSON: Right. But of the nine guys running, who do you think was best. Do you think he was the best, the most impressive?
STEWART: The most impressive?
CARLSON: Yes.
STEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: I enjoyed his way of speaking.
I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: CROSSFIRE.
STEWART: Or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass" or...
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Will jump on it.
In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: We have noticed.
STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: But in its defense...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.
CARLSON: Yes.
STEWART: Stop.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.
BEGALA: OK. Now
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...
CARLSON: How do you pay?
STEWART: The people -- not well.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.
STEWART: But you can sleep at night.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Wait, Jon, let me tell you something valuable that I think we do that I'd like to see you...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Something valuable?
CARLSON: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I would like to hear it.
CARLSON: And I'll tell you.
When politicians come on...
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... up on the screen.
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: No, no, no, here's the point.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: If that's your goal.
CARLSON: It's not.
STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.
CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show.
STEWART: Right.
CARLSON: Let me suggest why he wants to come on your show.
I LOVE this man.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
The BitTorrent link doesn't work, btw. It just downloads something in a second and won't open. How do I work it?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
i just watched this. it was great.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My problem with Crossfire, beyond the partisan sniping which seems to happen everywhere, is the implicit underlying assumption that 2 people can adequately represent all sides of every political issue.
As much as I hate the stupid short political quiz, if it raises awareness that political though is not a linear continuum it will have served some use.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Lalo, you need a bittorrent software to do this. Check out www.suprnova.org. It isn't all "legal" stuff but some of it is. The software is, at least.
Good luck!
Oh, and having watched a bit since downloading...yeeesh! Go John!
fil
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think the most telling thing about this exchange was that they didn't even try to defend their actions. They did pretty much what partisans often do when faced with problems in their own side, they attacked their accuser.
"You guys are failing in your responsibilities to the American people and hurting them and the political process in general."
"Oh yeah, well you didn't ask John Kerry hard questions."
What does the response have to do with the first statement? Not a darn thing really, it's just a tactic to distract you from the fact that the first statement is totally correct. If you then start arguing about whether or not the response is actually true, it doesn't matter if you win or lose that arguement, the apologist has won by removing the focus from the original thing.
Posted by Intelligence3 (Member # 6944) on :
Hi, I'm new.
Ehh, I dunno. Crossfie is theatre. I have not been impressed with Begala ever, and Carlson seems more independent out of that format than he is on Crossfire; not Novak independent, but independent.
At its root, Stewart's complaint is that Crossfire is theatre instead of debate, but judging from the transcript (didn't see the show, read the transcript) he didn't cut right to the heart of the complaint. He's potentially not a strong debater himself, IMO, based on what I read there. Of course, he's not being paid to debate, but to entertain, but I'd say that's kind of what Carlson and Begala are being paid for.
(And, for those who can't bear to have a sentence end with a preposition: Of course, he's not being paid to debate, but to entertain, but I'd say that's kind of for what Carlson and Begala are being paid.)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Wow. We're watching it now. They won't let him talk enough, but I think his message is definitely getting through--at least to the audience.
quote: It's basically where uber-partisan commentators take pot-shots at the other guy's candidate for half an hour. The usual structure:
Guy on left (Paul Begala or James Carville): Stupid irrelevant attack on the other candidate, such as "Your candidate said X last night, isn't he stupid/irresponsible/incapable of being president/hypocritical"
Guy on Right (Robert Novak or Tucker Carlson) You are so dumb for bringing up such a non-issue. Why can't we focus on the issues, and not silly irrelevant character attacks. I can't believe you would even bring that up on a serious show. Especially as your candidate said Y at this press conference which utterly PROVES that it is HE that is stupid/incapable/irresponsible/incapable of being president.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Halfway through the show they invite a member of the House of representatives (or some other political figure, but usually the house members) to join in the partisan bickering. Interrupting the other guy is par for the course, and I have never seen anybody on Crossfire EVER concede a point to the other fellow.
You ain't missing much.
Minus concessions,which does occasionally happen if people are reminded that doing so is 'cool', you have just described 99% of the posts on Ornery these days.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
This is why I avoid Ornery, as well.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Just as a follow-up. If any of you watched the Daily Show monday night, Stewart related the story of his Crossfire appearance with an update of a famous quote attributed to Winston Churchill.
quote:I told the their show blows, and they told me I wasn't being funny. To which I replied "you're right. I'm not. But tomorrow, I will go back to being funny. And your show... will still blow.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They are part of a business that sells one thing: consumers. Television exists to sell consumers to advertisers who give them money for access to those eyes. It is theatre. It's all theatre. It's nice and it's sweet when something noble creeps in, but I don't understand the "shocked and outrage." Of course it's theatre.
What Stewart is saying is that their highest value shouldn't be to those that are putting them on the air - in other words, delivering those eyes so the network has something to sell - but instead to the people. I think that was the most telling; remark of the exchange - "How do the people pay?" "Not well, but you can sleep at night."
I think they are all entertainers and therefore don't really care what they say about each other - this is at about the same level as the Lindsay Lohan/Hilary Duff fued, as far I'm concerned - but I don't think much of people who urgently demand that other people live up to values and standards that they refuse to.
In other words, if Jon Stewart believes he knows a better way, he should try to do it instead of hiding behind the premise of his show. What's that name for a critic? "Someone who knows the way but cannot drive the car."
---
Crossfire is Hilary Duff and Jon Stewart is Lindsay Lohan. Same music, different words.
[ October 20, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
katherina - by those standards no one could possibly criticize anyone else unless the person complaining could personally do a better job. That's not terribly practical, frankly.
And Stewart has suggested better ways for the media to present the facts, several times, in different interviews. Paraphrased, it boils down to "don't tell me what people thought about Politician A's speech, tell me what the speech said and how accurate it was." I would suggest that in this case Jon is Lindsay Lohan and he is baffled why Peter Jennings (for example) is trying to be Hilary Duff instead of being something more useful, like, say, Peter Jennings.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the populace apparently prefers the theater to the reality. Or at least those in charge of the media conglomerates think they do, which is effectively the same thing.
[ October 20, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
See, there's a democrat I'd probably vote for. (Democrat, liberal, left-leaning, whatever.)
-Katarain
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've read about this, and the statements I see people cheering for and the parts of the interview that are recounted and crowed over are not the parts where Jon urges them to work for the people; it's the parts of the interview where he tells them they suck and calls wosshisname a ****. Snaps for the princess, I guess.
-----
That's kind of the hobgoblin of all criticism, isn't it? Movie, book, any other critics included. It's always easier to tear apart than it is to build.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I just finished watching this, and yeah, there was a moment when I said to myself, "I would vote for this guy if he ran for president." But thinking about it, it just doesn't work. I will, however, read his book.
What's great is that the entire thing read as comedy. It was insanely sophisticated comedy rising over the heads of the people present. Even if Jon Stewart didn't know that he was playing for laughs, it was still comedy.
That said, I do agree with the points he brought forth, the whole partisanship injuring a democracy idea. He could definitely have expressed it better, but I lean on Stewart to be a funnyguy, not a politician.
The problem is I just don't see any way for people NOT to be partisan. The mere fact that we have parties makes it just plain happen.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
All criticism? No. I think you're being far too general.
There is such a thing as constructive criticism. I cannot write a decent headline to save my life, but I can usually tell a good one after I see it. A friend of mine is still working on writing columns and admits to major problems writing stories, but he has an unerring ability to point out problems with mine (which is why I use him as a "first reader" with many thing).
If someone has a strength you do not possess, and you can see how they could use it more effectively, is it wrong to point it out? Always?
[ October 20, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is not wrong to point it out. It is wrong to call them crude names and crow afterwards about how you insulted them. That's what makes it a fluffy fued instead of constructive criticism.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough. I agree he would have made his point far more effectively if he had kept his cool on their show.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Although, to be fair, he largely kept his cool until Tucker repeatedly called him Kerry's "butt boy". If you watch the segment, this becomes much clearer (IMO) than in the transcript.
And Jon Stewart has a point: he's comedy, these debate shows purport to get to the tough issues, and really try to nail politicians to the wall. He feels that they really are just parroting party lines. He's asking, as a citizen, to have these people stop doing what their doing, and to try to be more constructive themselves. At least, that's how I saw it. His show is satire, not intended to be a real information source... I think there's irony here, considering Jon Stewart has NEVER attempted to proclaim himself or his show to be any sort of serious news show. He's not a journalist, and openly admits to just pretending to be one on a show that admits to just pretending to be a news show.
Kat, are you asking that Jon create a show that follows the format he wishes the others would?
-Bok
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Katrina, aren't you basically saying that only TV journalists should criticise TV journalists?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Kat, are you asking that Jon create a show that follows the format he wishes the others would?
You know, I'd love to see that. He's in the business, he does a show about politics, he has the connections to make it happen, and it's something that feels strongly and idealistic about. Yes, I would love to him do it, for many reasons. If he succeeded - if he made the show that he berated the hosts of crossfire for not making - then everyone wins. If it doesn't succeed, then it's shadenfruedey heaven.
Foust: No, it would be impossible and unwise to limit criticism to those areas. But Jon lost his cool, threw a fit, and then crowed about it afterwards. It is one thing to criticize and another thing entirely to brag on your own show about how you humiliated the person you criticized. That kind of thing belongs in games, in sports and in show business fueds - in things that don't really matter. If it matters, then act like a gentleman instead of a 17-year-old football player. His own behavior belied his argument.
[ October 20, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
When I watch him rag on the networks in The Daily Show, sure I laugh, but mostly, I get his point. Comedians are always saying in interviews that their talent is fed by negative emotions like anger and loneliness. Stewart is a comedian who communicates his anger in the only way he knows how: comedy. And he really is angry. Watch any episode of TDS and you'll see it. He's angry at the media. He's angry that the system is so damned broken nowadays that what passes for honest debate is actually partisan hackery, as he calls it. I wasn't surprised at all to see him get angry on Crossfire. On Comedy Central, humor is the medium to get his point across. In the lion's den, sarcasm and wit will not get his message across. Be it aired on Comedy Central or on CNN, his message is that this current era of partisanship passing as news needs to end, NOW.
Edited for grammar.
[ October 20, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Defenestraitor ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are two ways to kill it - take it off the air, or stop taking it seriously.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Lost his cool?
It didn't look like that to me at all.
He came on with an agenda and controlled the interview from the get go. It was a brilliant piece of discourse.
Why?
Because he trapped them in a corner. If Crossfire is important and all about political debate and journalistic [This is CNN], then Tucker Carlson whining about the fact that if he doesn't need a civics lesson, etc. totally betrayed the elitist, self importance of the show (yes, we already knew that, but in the context of the Stewart interview it's all that more pointed).
If Crossfire is simply entertaining television and theatre, then Stewart showed that that its theatrics are pretty dumb. When faced with a real performer both hosts wilted and failed.
At the best Crossfire fails both as theatre and as political discourse. At the worst -- maybe Stewart's words were actually heartfelt. Maybe Crossfire is bad for America. Maybe a civics lesson is just what people need.
The jaded commentators are all yawning and talking about how boring it is when actors, comedians and writers stick their noses in politics, and yet, at least for me, there's this nagging feeling that he could be both sincere in his plea and -- right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But Jon lost his cool, threw a fit, and then crowed about it afterwards."
Are you kidding, Katie? He came on the show with the express purpose of criticizing their format, and did so in a way that subverted their style AND exposed exactly the behaviors he wanted to criticize in the first place.
He's the first person I've ever seen on Crossfire who not only managed to speak his mind but got them to speak their minds, too -- and for that he will have my eternal and undying respect.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Not to mention, when he got back to his show, things had started to take off. The blogosphere had exploded with links to the torrent and the transcript, it had been the single most watched clip on ifilm that day, the AP released a blurb about it, the Washington Post had a story. It would have been a vast disappointment had he NOT said something about it. And, being on a comedy show, he said it in a very funny way. I don't think you could really describe that as "crowing" about it.
By the way, the Crossfire folks all mentioned it too, for their next two shows.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have to admit I haven't seen it. As a matter of fact, I've never seen an episode of either show. The recap of the show on his own show the next sounded like it, though. Repeating the monkey comment, "Tomorrow I'll be funny, but your show will still be crap."
[ October 20, 2004, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
That's an update of a quote by Winston Churchill!It just goes to show that Jon Stewart, while he does follow a show about "puppets making crank phone calls," knows something about history. America: the Book is about ten times as hilarious as it would have been had he just made everything up, because he uses actual history, and puts a (rather large) twist on it.
But I honestly don't know why you are attacking Stewart without watching the clip. I would highly reccomend you do so, as inflection and tone have a lot to do with interpretation. There are torrent and avi links in this thread.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
An homage?
I may in the minority, but I never think that declaring someone to be a vulgarity is something to applaud. I also want to prick self-important people with a pin, to see what happens.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
One thing that's never been seriously disputed is the validity of Jon Stewart's claim. He was sincere, and more importantly, dead on. The way Carlson and Begala acted pretty much proved it. On the right, it was attack mode. Carlson was repetitive and shrill, and never once honestly debated with Jon. There's something so funny in watching that hack engage in dishonest tactics to counter a claim that his show wasn't about honest debate. Begala, for his part, seemed honestly dumbstruck that a liberal could acutally criticize him. He was left literally speechless that someone he thought was on his "team" could attack him like that.
You don't have to know how to drive to know the way. The Daily Show is satire keep that in mind.
[ October 20, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Chaeron ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its an attempt to be funny, being outrageous and paraphrasing Churchill at the same time. It was made by the host of a comedy show, on a comedy show, after all.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Well, declaring him to be "a vulgarity" was not really what I was most applauding( though I think his analysis is dead on concerning Carlson's status as a section of the male anatomy.) Rather, it was his indictment of both the Crossfire hosts as partisan hacks who engage in political theatre to the detriment of those who (albeit foolishly) depend on the media to verify, not just present, the claims of the parties.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:...the rest of the show is increasingly wobbly. It’s full of half-baked taped bits relying on hoodwinking-the-rubes interviews that condescend to a big chunk of the citizenry Stewart would like to mobilize (to judge from serious comments he’s made) as well as to entertain.
This isn't anything new, it's what The Daily Show has always done, since the days of Craig Kilborn. If anything they do a good deal less of it now.
Just saying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie, it's worth noting that the "backlash" here basically consists of "hey, you say you're a comedian; either stay in your box and don't have real opinions, or join us."
Now, that's a fair criticism: I think that the Daily Show underrates itself when it pretends that it is not a major force of social commentary and satire, and I think that they tend to hide behind that label in order to get away with things that a "real" news outlet or social commentator would not be able to say.
But if that's the only price they have to pay to say these things, to get these things into the national discourse, that's absolutely worth it. Right now, the Daily Show is one of the only shows out there actually seeking to dialogue with the American public.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The message Stewart has presented, over and over, has two main points.
The Daily Show is not a news show. He's never said anything about being a social force or a source of commentary, just news. They seek to entertain, any information content is incidental.
And too many legitimate news sources seem to want to be entertainers instead of informers. They should be seeking to inform, any entertainment content should be incidental.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"He's never said anything about being a social force or a source of commentary, just news."
Yeah, but he's actually trying to have it both ways -- which is a valid criticism. If you go on Crossfire and lecture them about their responsibility to the nation, you can't retreat to your turf and say, "Well, we don't have to be responsible, because we just want to be funny." It's not that he's not right, and that he should have to be responsible, but if Stewart's going to wear a mantle of moral authority that entitles him to raise the issue, he's going to have to put on the rest of the outfit.
When Will Rogers criticized the news media, they were justly angry; he did not, however, respond by saying, "Aw, shucks! I'm just a comedian; you don't have to listen to anything I say, 'cause ah'm just a-makin' it up anyways."
[ October 27, 2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Perhaps if Jon Stewart wants to be taken more seriously then he can't have it both ways. However, that doesn't diminish any of the points he makes. Truth is truth regardless of the messenger. If people choose to criticize the messenger and debate his fitness rather than to consider the message itself, well, that says more about them than it does about the messenger.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. Which is why I'm defending him to Katie at the same time that I'm criticizing him to Chris. *grin*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In this case, however, Stewart needs to make it clear why he and the Daily Show aren't contributing to the same problem, and "I'm just a comedy show" isn't enough in my mind.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Coming from the position that all television shows passing as news are pointless, flawed, and generally useless, I have the freedom to nitpick the messenger. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I feel that Stewarts "moral authority" to comment on this is simply being a citizen, and member of the viewing public. The fact that he has a Fake News show just gives him the ability to get on these shows. What he does for his day job doesn't disqualify him, IMO, from critiquing the current state of "debate" shows.
-Bok
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Dag, the thing you have to keep in mind is that Jon Stewart has to be nice to his guests, especially ones like Kerry, otherwise, he will stop getting them. Stewart goes easy on high profile republicans as well, remember. His attack dogs are reserved more for the "news" segment of the program. Besides, if he ceased editorializing and taking sides, he would cease to be funny.
Moreover, when Kerry appeared on his show it was right at the height of the whole Swift Boat Vets thing. This was something Jon was rightly outraged about; as such, it's likely he felt that drilling Kerry at this time was not the right thing to do. Yes, he is partisan, but he will not defend anything Kerry does. Recently he seems to be taking a more bipartisan tack as he seems to be concentrating on both candidates equally.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
After reading Tom's post, I have another comment to make.
Can't we just accept that Jon Stewart is a satirist? He satires what he sees as wrong with the media and politics; when he has an opportunity to directly confront the problem as he sees it, is it at all surprising that he takes it? Despite the outrageous nature of pieces like "A Modest Proposal", Jonathan Swift cared deeply about issues he cared to write about, in this case, the treatment of the Irish. If he chose to speak in all seriousness about the manner, would it be fair to say that we shouldn't take him seriously because he thinks the English are baby-eaters?
Furthermore, as a regular viewer of the show, I fail to see how he is part of the problem. It seems he is completely unequivical about his wish to see a media that fact checks, and does the tough work of making judgement calls. Is partisanship incompatible with this? Of course not. Jon Stewart is making the claim that the discourse of "on the left, and on the right" is a damaging oversimplification. Naturally, he editorializes, but does this make him a partisan hack? One repeat guest he obviously respects is John McCain. He praises his efforts to keep the parties civil and productive. I think his interviews with McCain indicate more than his interview with Kerry just how he feels about the current state of Washington.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't necessarily think his content is part of the problem. But if the effect caustic attacks in lieu of real debate have on viewers is the issue, then he has to show why the caustic attacks in his show don't have the same effect.
He can't hide behind his intentions when he's attacking others for their actual effects.
This isn't about his moral authority to say this. Rather, it's about clearly defining what the problem is that he claims exists. He clearly thinks his show isn't part of the problem. From a definitional standpoint, he needs to make the distinction clear.
"We're just trying to be funny" doesn't make it clear.
Dagonee
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Dag, I don't think you understand the nature of his complaint. This is understandable because he kept getting interrupted, and if you didn't watch his show regularly, and haven't watched or read his other interviews, you won't have the full picture.
His main complaint is that Crossfire debate is inherently dishonest and meaningless. He decries the process of hurling talking points at each other for 30 minutes as political theatre, rather than honest debate. It is not so much the partisanship of the hosts he despises, but the totality of their partisan apologetics. Neither side concedes anything, and neither side will criticise their party. The arguements are often dishonest, and the dialouge is ultimately meaningless. Frequently, everyone is trying to shout their talking points over their oppoents and nothing can be heard. Above all, Jon Stewart hates talking points, and the media's reliance on them. Because the Bush Administration and campaign has relied on them so heavily, he harps on them heavily; however, he also takes issue with Kerry on his talking points. One exchange I remember very well was with him and John McCain where he praised him for being one perhaps the only high profile Washington insider who will challenge both sides on their "f***ing talking points".
<edit>
Perhaps I can make this a little clearer, Jon challenges the talking points, rather than just rebutting with the talking points of the other side. Because he takes on the talking points he often goes into deeper analysis than anyone in the TV news media. This is, quite frankly, scary, and he knows it is.
[ October 27, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Chaeron ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:He decries the process of hurling talking points at each other for 30 minutes as political theatre, rather than honest debate.
This is where I'm brought up face to face with my alienation from the general public. Wasn't this general knowledge??? How on EARTH can you get honest debate when there is no way to concede without "losing"? Television discussion of the issues has been pointless since Nixon lost because he refused to wear makeup. I can't believe anyone ever took them seriously.
There is no such thing as honest debate in any situation where people have an agenda that hinges on them seeming to have won the debate, regardless of the truth or worthiness of their position. Honest debates don't even exist in high school debate tournaments, much less public forums where the opinion of the public and therefore the power of the nation is batted around like a cat's toy and the last one to grab tightly wins.
That's why bias in print media irritates me so badly. TV news is already beyond hope, and it was once the image because as important as the message and the success of a show was measured by its ratings. There is much information to be gained by the shows, but not about the issues they are purporting to be discussing.
I don't disagree with what Jon Stewart said; I'm floored that he felt he needed to say it at all, and skeptical that he actually thinks he can shame an industry into giving up the system that serves them and their guests so well with exactly what they want. It's like he wants the industry to change, but not for him. He wants someone else to do the hard work of defying the system and working for an idealistic good probably resulting in career suicide while claiming that his own material is just a bunch of jokes. He irritates me in the same way that anyone does who flips through comic books and claims children should only read moralistic fables does.
Jon Stewart says that shows like Crossfire are more theatre than honest discussion. No freaking kidding - that's why they are doing it on a stage. If they were interested in finding and presenting truth, they'd be working for a think tank and doing original research somewhere else.
Who actually thought there WAS honest debate, untinged by partisanship on Crossfire? Who thinks there ever is?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What's funny, Kat, is you're attacking a position Jon Stewart doesn't have and agreeing with one he does.
He doesn't think people don't know that this is entertainment (well, there are probably people out there who don't know it, but generally speaking), his point is that it asserts it is not entertainment (they certainly say they're considering the issues) (which they shouldn't do if they are entertainment rathr than issue consideration), and that they should be considering the issues instead of primarily thinking about entertainment, which seems to be the gist of what you want to happen, too .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fugu, that's not what I said.
He is condemning them for conducting an entertainment show (political theatre) while they SHOULD be conducting a public service show. However, he, in the meantime, will be doing an entertainment show, thank you very much.
The difference in opinions between Jon Stewart and I is that he thinks that publicly shaming his fellow entertainers, he can get them to change into good little kids while remaining an entertainer, while I have no such hope and will continue to judge them on their entertainment value while looking for truth elsewhere.
Or, he doesn't believe he can shame anyone into changing and is merely trying to point out the lack of clothes on the emperor. My wonder at this is that anyone thought they were dressed in the first place.
Or, alternatively, he's an entertainer through and through and has a personal reason for all of this.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(BTW, you can find the hilarious clip on IFILM.COM. There are two clips: one of the Crossfire interview, and the other on Jon Stewart making fun of the interview while safe on his own show)
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Kat, what you fail to consider is that Jon Stewart is not claiming to be real news. He isn't claiming to be a serious policy debate show. Crossfire is, and he thinks the portrayal of honest policy debate as the shouting on Crossfire is damaging.
There is value in satire. It's clear to me that The Daily Show does this quite well. What Jon Stewart has a right to be angry over is how the serious shows have become a mockery of themselves.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Crossfire claims to be a news show, a serious show. The Daily Show does not (though it coincidentally tends to use political material). It claims to be a comedy show.
It is reasonable that something which claims to be a comedy show is a comedy show. Saturday Night Live is a comedy show, which often uses bits from politics in its comedy. This does not make it a political show, and it does not claim to be one. We do not expect SNL to suddenly stop being a comedy and become a serious news show.
It is not reasonable that a show which claims to be serious political commentary is not. If the Daily Show claimed to be a serious news show and wasn't, that would be hypocritical, not to mention detrimental to political discourse if it was part of an environment of such things. Crossfire claims to be a serious news show, and isn't. That is hypocritical and detrimental to political discourse.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It seemed to me that his argument was along the lines of "Political entertainment is my job, yours is to bring intelligent political discourse to the people. Stop doing my job, and start doing yours."
As for his comments on his own show, he went on Crossfire and told them they were "hurting america" and then went on his own show and said that their show "blows". If he had been all lovey dovey to their faces, then went back and made those comments - that would be one thing. He didn't. He told them to their faces what he thought, then continued in the same vein on his show for further comedic effect.
And yes, you should watch the clips, because the timing is *everything* with Jon Stewart. The words chosen are done so for maximum comedic effect, and the silent pauses before them make that abundantly clear.
Trying to interpret a speaker's meaning from text alone (especially trying to interpret comedy) is not doing the words justice.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Personally, his statement about shows like Crossfire aiding to polarize the country hits the nail on the head: there's too much "Your party was stupid handling Issue X!" "Oh? Well, your party was stupid handling Issue Y!" and so forth and not enough discussion.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)