You know his reasoning is hilarious. He thinks Stewart is a bigot, and he thinks he's prejudiced against everyone who isn't a white liberal. And part of his reasoning is that Stewart looks down on him (Sanchez) and calls him an idiot. Well, frankly, I think Stewart is spot on with most of his attacks on the media. Sanchez pushes stupid crap most of the time instead of actual news, and I don't care for him at all. Now he's not just throwing a tantrum because of it, he attacks Stewart for being prejudiced, elitist, for having not grown up in a lower class home with blue collar parents, and for only attacking the political right.
Personal attacks aside for a moment, he must never actually WATCH The Daily Show. Stewart attacks both sides viciously. Yes, he's a liberal. But more to the point, he's a pragmatist. I've seen him attack both sides and agree with both sides. Sanchez is ignorant if he thinks any different. And I'm not sure what was up with the personal attack. I kind of see, a little bit, what he was talking about regarding Jews, but not even that really. Sanchez is in his 30s or 40s, and growing up a Jew 30 and 40 years ago wasn't a walk in the park. I don't think it was as bad as being black, but it wasn't like being any other white kid. I think that's different today, but I think Sanchez is 1. Buying into some negative stereotypes about Jews as all being rich, and 2. He's bitter about how he grew up, and he wants to protect his status as a downtrodden minority because he feels threatened by another minority.
That attack came out of nowhere though, and it was totally off base. I actually don't think Stewart is all that elitist, and not just because he comes off as a pretty nice, regular guy. Most of his arguments aren't ivory tower, intellectually laden arguments, they're common sense arguments, with an eye towards complexity and reason that if we call elitist, then seriously I worry for what a "regular" guy is supposed to be like.
And yeah, he was fired. Good riddance.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I hated that man with a passion. He was CNN's Megyn Kelly, and that is in no way a good thing.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I'm just surprised it took this long.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I'm just surprised it took this long.
Seriously, he was like the Moose of news anchors.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I like Jon Stewart and watch The Daily Show often. I don't find him bigoted, but I wouldn't hesitate at all to call him elitist, and the show does go after conservatives much more and much more aggressively than liberals.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Until this story, I had never heard of Rich Sanchez. Or watched CNN outside of public places.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pretty much what Dante said. My personal characterization of Stewart would be 'goodhearted elitist', or at least that that is what he strives for. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to strive for, to be clear.
ETA: I think one has to be pretty firmly aligned with Stewart's politics not to see him as an elitist, now that I consider it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This is a good example of how much of an insane stretch it is for white Republicans to claim that people are 'prejudiced' or 'bigoted' against them or their culture. It makes them sound like morons.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Pretty much what Dante said. My personal characterization of Stewart would be 'goodhearted elitist', or at least that that is what he strives for. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to strive for, to be clear.
Exactly, I agree with your read on him and I don't think it's a bad thing at all.
I feel like in America today, if you don't have an elitist impulse on some level, it's a good (though not infallible) sign that you're ignorant and proud of it. Some of the things that "Joe sixpack" is into these days ("No mosques in my backyard") are just too dumb and wrong to condone.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: I like Jon Stewart and watch The Daily Show often. I don't find him bigoted, but I wouldn't hesitate at all to call him elitist, and the show does go after conservatives much more and much more aggressively than liberals.
Some of it has to be because of bias, but a lot of it tends to have to do with the disparity between what republicans can do to get mocked and what democrats can do to get mocked.
Especially in the legislative branch and general newsmedia. Liberals don't have a Sanchez. They don't have a Beck. They don't have a Coulter or a Malkin.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, as an aside, "elitist" has become a totally worthless pejorative mostly used by worthless people these days (think about it) but if Jon Stewart's elitism keeps people like tucker carlson and rick sanchez from desperately degrading the already decayed state of our information culture any further, then being an 'elitist' is the greatest damn accolade anyone could bestow upon him.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: This is a good example of how much of an insane stretch it is for white Republicans to claim that people are 'prejudiced' or 'bigoted' against them or their culture. It makes them sound like morons.
Meh. Try being a white kid in an all-black school. I mean, at least you can go home to normalcy at the end of the day, but it is possible to experience serious prejudice as a white person in America. It's pretty rare, though.
ETA: By "normalcy" I mean that the racism doesn't follow you home.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I know Rick Sanchez from his time as lead anchor at WSVN 7 (a Fox affiliate) in Miami.
He was despicable even then.
The most memorable story was when WSVN got news that a plane was having landing gear difficulty on approach to Miami International Airport. Rick Sanchez rushed to the scene for a LIVE broadcast so we can see the plane attempt to land.
The plane resolved its landing gear issue and landed safely.
But, as Rick quietly turned to the camera after the landing, you can see it in his eye that he wanted the plane to slam into the tarmac in a fiery explosion.
He is what turned WSVN 7 news into what it is now: the Hollywood version of the news. Flash visual effects, sensationalizing catastrophe and instilling fear and panic into the masses.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Until this story, I had never heard of Rich Sanchez. Or watched CNN outside of public places.
What she said...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I will say in retrospect I could see why Sanchez would be positively furious with Stewart. Stewart was pretty relentless in his making fun of Sanchez. Doesn't excuse his comments, but I do sympathize a little bit with the guy when he mentioned how he was seeing himself made to sound stupid on the show almost daily.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Whatever. Sanchez is a public figure doing a terrible job in what should be vital work. He deserves every bit of ridicule he received, and it's certainly no worse than what Stewart has unleashed on such poor, oppressed minorities as Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, or Wolf Blitzer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sanchez absolutely deserved every inch of criticism Stewart lay at his feet, and more. The guy isn't just a joke (which is most of what Stewart prodded), he's actually pretty legitimately despicable.
Just like when Stewart went on Crossfire in an era of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, lay bare the damaging nature of the show, and ended it, the kind of criticism that TDS hits people like Sanchez with isn't just funny, it's direly needed.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Meh. Try being a white kid in an all-black school. I mean, at least you can go home to normalcy at the end of the day, but it is possible to experience serious prejudice as a white person in America. It's pretty rare, though.
ETA: By "normalcy" I mean that the racism doesn't follow you home.
I certainly didn't mean to deny the existence of anti-white racism.
But there is a certain trend towards claiming that "Obama is biased against white culture" (G. Beck), or that some liberal or other is exhibiting "anti-Christian bigotry." Most such allegations seem about as trumped-up as Sanchez's.
People who disagree with you politically, or don't like the job you're doing, are not necessarily biased against you (except in the trivial sense of "bias").
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I was sooo happy when I found this out. Now they need to get rid of Headline Prime.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Sanchez, while drunk, ran over and killed someone, fled the scene, and was not prosecuted.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sanchez, on 'bigotry'
quote:I think Jon Stewart's a bigot ... Yeah, I think he's a bigot ... I think he looks at the world through his mom who was a schoolteacher and his dad who was a physicist, or something like that.
reading in context: not that much more helpful
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Stewart is elitist, absolutely. He pokes fun at egotists, hypocrites, the willfully ignorant and the incompetent. It's kind of his job description.
It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Sanchez, while drunk, ran over and killed someone, fled the scene, and was not prosecuted.
Only reason he wasn't charged worse was because the person he hit was drunker than he was. And, yes, he left and returned two hours later.
He was charged and pleaded "no contest" to DUI.
It's worth noting that he didn't actually kill the person on the spot; the person he hit was paralyzed and died five years later. Why the guy didn't sue Rick for everything and then some is beyond me.
ETA: I am not justifying his actions. I think he's slime. Just clarifying the facts.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think sometimes people in the news media forget that Stewart is an entertainer. I watched a Youtube clip of Jon Stewart on the O'Reilly show back when he first started out. He made it pretty clear that everything he does is all in good fun and that his show is meant to entertain.
I'm glad Rick Sanchez got fired over this. If he had that belief then fine, but when you use a national news platform to say it, you deserve to be canned.
Jon Stewart may be liberal leaning, but conservatives have Colbert. Stewart is a little more preachy, but that is his style. I think he is great.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: ... Jon Stewart may be liberal leaning, but conservatives have Colbert.
Elaborate on Colbert please?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Jon Stewart may be liberal leaning, but conservatives have Colbert.
Colbert is absolutely not conservative. His character pretends to be conservative so as to sarcastically poke fun at the position. It's why during his first season or so, many prominent Republicans appeared on his show and had no idea how to react when he interviewed them.
I also think it's how he got invited to give a monologue at the White House Press Club party and so many people were unprepared for it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Jon Stewart may be liberal leaning, but conservatives have Colbert.
Colbert is absolutely not conservative. His character pretends to be conservative so as to sarcastically poke fun at the position. It's why during his first season or so, many prominent Republicans appeared on his show and had no idea how to react when he interviewed them.
I also think it's how he got invited to give a monologue at the White House Press Club party and so many people were unprepared for it.
I understand Colbert pokes fun, but again, it is an entertainment show. Colbert has a character he plays. He pokes fun at liberals and by doing so pokes fun at republicans as well. Jon Stewart doesn't play a character. He plays himself. During his news segments he does a great job at making people laugh, but I find his interviews to be preachy and boring.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Getting so one can't tell a caricature of a conservative from an actual conservative these days.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Jon Stewart may be liberal leaning, but conservatives have Colbert.]
hahahahah whaaaat?
oh dear.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Jon Stewart may be liberal leaning, but conservatives have Colbert.
Colbert is absolutely not conservative. His character pretends to be conservative so as to sarcastically poke fun at the position. It's why during his first season or so, many prominent Republicans appeared on his show and had no idea how to react when he interviewed them.
I also think it's how he got invited to give a monologue at the White House Press Club party and so many people were unprepared for it.
I understand Colbert pokes fun, but again, it is an entertainment show. Colbert has a character he plays. He pokes fun at liberals and by doing so pokes fun at republicans as well. Jon Stewart doesn't play a character. He plays himself. During his news segments he does a great job at making people laugh, but I find his interviews to be preachy and boring.
You do understand that Colbert is a satirical take on Conservative pundits right? He mostly pokes fun at republicans and sometimes democrats usually in the form of faux criticism or sardonic praise.
As for his interviews I find Jon Stewart to does the job that news outlets don't want to do, he's actually fairly tough, well informed and well researches his questions beforehand, when he gets down and serious about the interview he is downright scary in how easily he picks apart the bs of the person sitting from across from him and effortless shows the people he interviews to be complete idiots.
Like the person who tried to state the various republican talking points about the healthcare bill as fact, the person who thinks Obama wasn't born in the US, his latest interview with Blago, and the time he went on crossfire.
One can't go on The Daily Show and think its an easy ride, if you've done something foolish he will call you out on it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Jon Stewart may be liberal leaning, but conservatives have Colbert.
Colbert is absolutely not conservative. His character pretends to be conservative so as to sarcastically poke fun at the position. It's why during his first season or so, many prominent Republicans appeared on his show and had no idea how to react when he interviewed them.
I also think it's how he got invited to give a monologue at the White House Press Club party and so many people were unprepared for it.
I understand Colbert pokes fun, but again, it is an entertainment show. Colbert has a character he plays. He pokes fun at liberals and by doing so pokes fun at republicans as well. Jon Stewart doesn't play a character. He plays himself. During his news segments he does a great job at making people laugh, but I find his interviews to be preachy and boring.
I'm fairly certain Colbert's concept for his show stemmed directly from pundits like O'Reilly and Hannity who are loud and bombastic in their deliveries, and during interviews lay out snares for their interviewees and then relentless attack. They find tiny seemingly inconsequential details about those they dislike and then blow them up until they are unrecognizable.
Colbert is certainly putting a bit of a lighthearted spin on it, because I believe Stephen Colbert (the real person) is a very pleasant and kind person. But his audience is definitely predominately middle and left leaning folks. As Blayne says, his espousal of conservative positions are usually sardonic and sarcastic.
This isn't to say that he never actually goes after liberals, he does when they act like hypocrits or idiots. But the ratio is still heavily against Republicans and other conservatives.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I actually think Stewart has gotten a lot better at telling truth to power to their faces. He's great at it from afar, but he has a bit of a history of lobbing up softballs when people actually come on his show. I always figured it was because if he pissed too many of them off, they just wouldn't come back anymore.
In the last year or so though I think he's either stopped caring or he's gotten big enough to where people know they can't avoid him since his audience is too big, too loyal, and very much a demographic that it's extremely difficult to otherwise reach.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I actually think Stewart has gotten a lot better at telling truth to power to their faces. He's great at it from afar, but he has a bit of a history of lobbing up softballs when people actually come on his show. I always figured it was because if he pissed too many of them off, they just wouldn't come back anymore.
In the last year or so though I think he's either stopped caring or he's gotten big enough to where people know they can't avoid him since his audience is too big, too loyal, and very much a demographic that it's extremely difficult to otherwise reach.
That and his show has gained a lot of legitimacy from his frequent duels with O'Reilly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
To put it simply, Colbert is an unflinching act of satire parodying every single one of the worst and most laughable tendencies and tropes of conservative punditry. He is unambiguously making fun of conservatives. Or, at least I thought it was unambiguous. There's a disturbingly large number of conservatives who really buy into the whole new conservative media culture and apparently fail to realize that colbert is a parody of that.
Parody is dead?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So, Jon Stewart has responded to Sanchez's statements now on his show. He's been showing far more restraint than I'd expect.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: So, Jon Stewart has responded to Sanchez's statements now on his show. He's been showing far more restraint than I'd expect.
It doesn't surprise me. I think Mr. Stewart got it exactly right when he indicated that he doesn't think Sanchez is racist. He just got caught up in the moment and didn't think about what he was saying. I think Mr. Stewart does feel a little bit bad that Sanchez lost his job and probably won't be able to find another one in his field.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure. The impression I got was the John Stewart thought he should lose his job, but because he's a terrible reporter, not for some stupid comments he made.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Mr. Stewart does feel a little bit bad that Sanchez lost his job and probably won't be able to find another one in his field.
Even after all his antics on WSVN 7 Miami he was able to get on MSNBC and CNN.
I don't think we've seen the last of Rick.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I think Mr. Stewart got it exactly right when he indicated that he doesn't think Sanchez is racist.
Antisemitic maybe, racist seems overly broad since they're both white anyways.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I think Mr. Stewart got it exactly right when he indicated that he doesn't think Sanchez is racist.
Antisemitic maybe, racist seems overly broad since they're both white anyways.
Oh be quiet and go open a laundromat or something. Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I was reading Alan Dershwitz panicked op-ed in the HuffPo trying to persuade readers that Jews don't in fact control the media and I found this entry in the comments section:
quote:I can't believe no one sees the obvious: Sanchez was relentlessly bullied by Stewart. Who is Stewart to mock and repeatedly make Sanchez the butt of jokes? Who in Sanchez' shoes wouldn't be angry and take the first opportunity to call Stewart a name on national radio? How long will media feel entitled to pinch, punch and poke anyone they don't like before an audience of millions?
Bullying is in the news. Children are killing themselves as a result of the behavior exhibited by Stewart and retaliated against by Sanchez. People wonder how children become skilled bullies. Well, it's because they see it modeled, day after day, on programs like South Park and "comedy" programs like The Daily Show. If Stewart were 14 years old, he'd be taken to the principal's office and reprimanded for bullying. But he's an adult and a comedian, so that gives him license to make Sanchez the butt of jokes--not once or twice, but over 20 times? Indeed, Sanchez became a target of Stewart's bullying masquerading as biting wit. I personally don't care for Sanchez but I cannot stand Stewart. He has no compassion, no subtlety and shows no indication whatsoever that he has ever put himself in the shoes of another. Whatever gets him a laugh is what he says; there are many comedians like him.
Wake up, America. What children learn comes straight from the boob tube. The loudest, most obnoxious boobs seem to be turning America into a very cruel place.
The thing is, Rick Sanchez was not a popular and established personality on CNN but certainly someone who's star was rising and Stewart was relentlessly making him appear to be a buffoon day in and day out and possibly hurting the dude's career and prospects. It's one thing to subject elected officials to that treatment and another for Stewart to treat a rather mainstream CNN host in that fashion. This whole incident was nothing but a victim of bullying lashing back.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
If that were the case, Glenn Beck would have probably shot Stewart dead in the street by now.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
But it's clear that Stewart's mockery of Beck stems from political differences and can easily be swept aside as such. On the other hand, Sanchez was a liberal and the Stewart crew were digging into him relentlessly for no other reason than the dude's (unremarkable) mannerisms.
(And by the way, the video segments they used of Sanchez weren't that outrageous. It's like they trained the audience to laugh by merely repeating the joke.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The thing is, Rick Sanchez was not a popular and established personality on CNN but certainly someone who's star was rising and Stewart was relentlessly making him appear to be a buffoon day in and day out and possibly hurting the dude's career and prospects. It's one thing to subject elected officials to that treatment and another for Stewart to treat a rather mainstream CNN host in that fashion. This whole incident was nothing but a victim of bullying lashing back.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we accept your analysis of events that casts a Jew as villain and Sanchez as victim.
ETA: Which is, y'know, a big shocker.
Maybe Sanchez, a fully grown man with hair on his chest, ought to have pulled up his big boy professional pants and, y'know, not lashed out like an ignorant jackass. Part and parcel of being a 'mainstream CNN host', one would think, or isn't it?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:There's a disturbingly large number of conservatives who really buy into the whole new conservative media culture and apparently fail to realize that colbert is a parody of that.
Hmmm, I don't know that that is the best explanation of Colbert being more popular than Stewart in conservative circles. While both are clearly liberal, I feel more comfortable watching Colbert around my conservative friends and I know they get the joke. His mockery goes both ways more and is just more light-hearted. I think it's harder to watch Stewart unless you agree with him.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:I can't believe no one sees the obvious: Sanchez was relentlessly bullied by Stewart. Who is Stewart to mock and repeatedly make Sanchez the butt of jokes? Who in Sanchez' shoes wouldn't be angry and take the first opportunity to call Stewart a name on national radio?
Bzzt. Nope. Sanchez didn't just call Stewart a name. He grouped him into a "Jewish conspiracy". Of course, I can see why that would meet with your approval, Ib.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I was reading Alan Dershwitz panicked op-ed in the HuffPo trying to persuade readers that Jews don't in fact control the media and I found this entry in the comments section:
quote:I can't believe no one sees the obvious: Sanchez was relentlessly bullied by Stewart. Who is Stewart to mock and repeatedly make Sanchez the butt of jokes? Who in Sanchez' shoes wouldn't be angry and take the first opportunity to call Stewart a name on national radio? How long will media feel entitled to pinch, punch and poke anyone they don't like before an audience of millions?
Bullying is in the news. Children are killing themselves as a result of the behavior exhibited by Stewart and retaliated against by Sanchez. People wonder how children become skilled bullies. Well, it's because they see it modeled, day after day, on programs like South Park and "comedy" programs like The Daily Show. If Stewart were 14 years old, he'd be taken to the principal's office and reprimanded for bullying. But he's an adult and a comedian, so that gives him license to make Sanchez the butt of jokes--not once or twice, but over 20 times? Indeed, Sanchez became a target of Stewart's bullying masquerading as biting wit. I personally don't care for Sanchez but I cannot stand Stewart. He has no compassion, no subtlety and shows no indication whatsoever that he has ever put himself in the shoes of another. Whatever gets him a laugh is what he says; there are many comedians like him.
Wake up, America. What children learn comes straight from the boob tube. The loudest, most obnoxious boobs seem to be turning America into a very cruel place.
The thing is, Rick Sanchez was not a popular and established personality on CNN but certainly someone who's star was rising and Stewart was relentlessly making him appear to be a buffoon day in and day out and possibly hurting the dude's career and prospects. It's one thing to subject elected officials to that treatment and another for Stewart to treat a rather mainstream CNN host in that fashion. This whole incident was nothing but a victim of bullying lashing back.
Have you even heard of Rick Sanchez before today? How would you know his star was rising and that he WASNT a baffoon?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: But it's clear that Stewart's mockery of Beck stems from political differences and can easily be swept aside as such. On the other hand, Sanchez was a liberal and the Stewart crew were digging into him relentlessly for no other reason than the dude's (unremarkable) mannerisms.
(And by the way, the video segments they used of Sanchez weren't that outrageous. It's like they trained the audience to laugh by merely repeating the joke.)
I saw many of the clips, and I knew exactly why they were funny. I felt terrible for laughing, but that's one of the risks of being on TV and a news anchor. Anchors are traditionally expected to put on airs and sound all professional. As I said before Sanchez sounded like Moose from Archie comics.
He didn't get into trouble for calling Stewart a biggot. People would have shrugged that off as, well Stewart has been kinda a jerk to Sanchez. He also didn't get in trouble for wrongly saying that Stewart was from a privileged upbringing unlike him who has had to work his way to the top. Stewart is from New Jersey, and lived I believe in a single parent household where his mother was a waitress. No, Sanchez got in trouble for echoing an antisemitic remark that has been used for decades, that the Jews control the media. If you are going to be the face of a news program you don't get to say stuff like that. Dan Rather kept going at George Bush and sacrificed his career for it.
If Sanchez wants to try to hurt Jon Stewart's feelings on television he can start his own comedy show, or similar format.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Does Sa'eed get in trouble for echoing that anti-Semitic remark that Jews control the media? I am curious, because he did it in that veiled way that leaves his intent obvious yet gives him plausible deniability.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What do you mean by "get in trouble"? It's not against the rules here to be blatantly anti-Semitic, so I don't think he'd draw official sanctions. But we all pretty much know what Sa'eed is. People who pay attention already have a very low opinion of him. I don't know if this would make it go any lower, but only because it doesn't really any farther to drop.
Are people like yourself going to stop feeding the troll because of this? It doesn't look like it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Sa'eed never echoed that remark. He linked to a Huffington Post piece responding to that accusation, then led it into a comment about bullying, and how there are similarities to what Stewart was doing and a cyber bully.
Looking for intentionally obscured agendas and trying to tease them out is a very dangerous game. There was a poster who kept trying to find hidden statements in my posts and it really angered me. On the other hand I'm not oblivious to the fact that we have had posters in the past who most certainly made "innocent" posts/threads where the stated goal was one thing, but the real goal was clearly something else. Tread lightly please.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not? I could've sworn there were rules against making disparaging remarks against religious groups. That's a subjective thing, though, I realize. Good zing, though, Mr. Squicky! Clever. And no, we don't all 'pretty much know what Sa'eed is. That comes out quite clearly whenever he gets going sufficiently, though of late he's tamped down quite a bit.
----
quote:I was reading Alan Dershwitz panicked op-ed in the HuffPo trying to persuade readers that Jews don't in fact control the media and I found this entry in the comments section:
That's one way to interpret this, that's true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And no, we don't all 'pretty much know what Sa'eed is.
Don't we? I mean, hands up; who doesn't pretty much know?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Well, it's hard to tell since we don't exactly have polling data, it's true. I just remember times in the past when the consensus didn't seem as clear cut as you and Mr. Squicky suggest, that's all. Good zinger, though, Mr. Squicky!
quote: Looking for intentionally obscured agendas and trying to tease them out is a very dangerous game.
I realize that, it's just to me it didn't seem very obscured at all. I suppose there's one very straightforward way to clarify: Sa'eed, what do you think? Do Jews in fact control the media?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I mean, hands up; who doesn't pretty much know?
*Raises Hand*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I'm not trying to zing you. I'm trying to get you to realize that it is your behavior in feeding these trolls, in responding to them in a hostile way that often leads to you drawing official censure that gives them exactly what they want and what they are posting for.
If your goal is to reduce the effect they have on this forum or to get them to post less, you are in fact achieving the opposite.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Do Jews in fact control the media?
I think Hitchens has a good summary here
quote:Coming to Sanchez, then, I ask myself if the world in which I have worked for so many decades—the intersecting and overlapping world of the news media, publishing, the academy, and the think-tank industry—is even imaginable without the presence of liberal American Jews. The answer is plainly no. Moreover, I can't think of any other "minority" of which this is remotely true, unless it were to be the other minority from which I can claim descent: people of British or Anglophile provenance.
So why the fuss? I think it has to do with the tone of voice in which these facts are stated. Karel de Gucht, for example, prefaced his comments by saying: "There is indeed a belief—it's difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right." How untrue is this? Self-criticism among Jews, on matters of religion and statecraft, is actually rather noticeable. But anyone who has ever had a dispute with some of the spokesmen for the holy state may possibly have detected a whiff of righteousness here and there. (I pause to ask myself what it's like to be a Belgian, if there is such a thing. Too proud? Too masochistic? Difficult to decide. Like the mule, it seems to be a country without pride in paternity or hope of posterity.)
In the manner in which Sanchez spoke, also, there was something like a buried resentment. He didn't descend into saying that there was Jewish control of the media, but he did imply that liberalism was linked to a single ethnicity. Still, there is nothing criminal about this, and the speed of his firing, like the other recent abrupt disappearances of Laura Schlessinger and Octavia Nasr, seems to suggest a network system that cares only about playing safe and avoiding "offense."
I think there are larger issues at stake than whether "Jew control the media" which as a generalization is false. As in the strength of the pro-Israeli lobby distorts foreign policy even to the detriment of the United States itself. Also, how the range of voices that are allowed to be heard is increasingly shrinking in the media (let alone in politics).
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And no, we don't all 'pretty much know what Sa'eed is.
Don't we? I mean, hands up; who doesn't pretty much know?
He's the guy from Lost, right?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Nah. Sayid was Iraqi. Ibby is Somali.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sa'eed, what do you think? Do Jews in fact control the media?
I agree with Alan Dershowitz column:
quote:Amidst all the brouhaha over CNN's firing of Rick Sanchez for his remarks about Jews in the media, an important distinction is being missed. Yes, there are many individual Jews in positions of influence in Hollywood, in network television, in sports and entertainment, and in many other areas of American public life. These individuals, who happen to be Jewish, do not act together in any kind of conspiratorial manner. There is no "Jewish control" of any of these areas -- or of the many other areas, such as medicine, law, academia, finance -- where there are large numbers of individual Jews in high positions.
But I believe that the large numbers of individual Jews in the media (as Dershowitz acknowledges) are very influential on the question of how Zionism is presented to American audiences and are pivotal to keeping out anti-Zionist voices out of the mainstream media.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The thing is, Rick Sanchez was not a popular and established personality on CNN but certainly someone who's star was rising and Stewart was relentlessly making him appear to be a buffoon day in and day out and possibly hurting the dude's career and prospects. It's one thing to subject elected officials to that treatment and another for Stewart to treat a rather mainstream CNN host in that fashion. This whole incident was nothing but a victim of bullying lashing back.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we accept your analysis of events that casts a Jew as villain and Sanchez as victim.
ETA: Which is, y'know, a big shocker.
Maybe Sanchez, a fully grown man with hair on his chest, ought to have pulled up his big boy professional pants and, y'know, not lashed out like an ignorant jackass. Part and parcel of being a 'mainstream CNN host', one would think, or isn't it?
You know that Sanchez is trapped. If he attempts to respond tit for tat he'll inevitably fail. If he responds seriously, he'll fail, because haha they're just jokes why so serious? Stewart and his writers are in a position to be bullies and they just couldn't help themselves. They should have saved that sort of abuse for scumbag politicians and demagogues and not use it to hurt the careers of people who did nothing wrong.
I think the reason they loved picking on Sanchez was for a simple, high-schoolish reason: Sanchez has the appearance and demeanor of the popular athletic jock, more so than any broadcaster on cable, and the writers are this ugly bunch:
Again, I think it's clear that Sanchez did nothing wrong. The Daily Crew show simply didn't like him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You know that Sanchez is trapped. If he attempts to respond tit for tat he'll inevitably fail. If he responds seriously, he'll fail, because haha they're just jokes why so serious? Stewart and his writers are in a position to be bullies and they just couldn't help themselves. They should have saved that sort of abuse for scumbag politicians and demagogues and not use it to hurt the careers of people who did nothing wrong.
So your position is that it's impossible for classy Sanchez to have remained above the bullying Jew Stewart & Co., right? Again, even if we accept your analysis as right - unlikely to say the least - Sanchez could have just stayed classy and accepted that some people are schmucks and not, as you would have us believe, descended to Stewart's level.
Being bullied is hard for anchors to take!
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
"Being bullied is hard for anchors to take! "
Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke. Their treatment of him was unwarranted and sick. Sanchez was not a right wing demagogue or a politician but an average joe who happened to be blessed with the looks and personality to be a news anchor and Stewart's unrelenting mockery of the man was clearly psychologically torturous to him hence his outburst. Day in and day out Sanchez must have been thinking "why me? What did I do?" but all that matters is the lolz right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke.
And his only recourse was to...act like a jackass? It's interesting how well you seem to read Sanchez's mind, though. How clearly you see into his thoughts. And Stewart's too, of course.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
It wasn't a recourse. It was an emotional outburst. And he was provoked. Anyway, what Sanchez said wasn't appropriate but Stewart & CO's behavior was far more sick.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke.
Stewart and 'company' were noting that the guy was already a joke. I know you'll stand arm-in-arm with the guy because he went on the line with the whole Jewish Media Conspiracy, but seriously. He was a joke long before he ever got noted on Stewart's show.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It wasn't a recourse. It was an emotional outburst. And he was provoked. Anyway, what Sanchez said wasn't appropriate but Stewart & CO's behavior was far more sick.
Of course it was. After all, they're Jews.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: "Being bullied is hard for anchors to take! "
Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke. Their treatment of him was unwarranted and sick. Sanchez was not a right wing demagogue or a politician but an average joe who happened to be blessed with the looks and personality to be a news anchor and Stewart's unrelenting mockery of the man was clearly psychologically torturous to him hence his outburst. Day in and day out Sanchez must have been thinking "why me? What did I do?" but all that matters is the lolz right?
Guys, it's not like there's nothing to this. Yes, Sanchez was exemplary of a certain lowering of cable-news standards that's been building up for many years. But there is a disturbing parallel between Stewart's attacks and relentless "griefing."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sure Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Christine O'Donnell will be quick to feel griefed as well. I'm sure, to them, it's all invalid character assassination.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer, aren't there PvE servers for that? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sanchez got stunlocked by a CC (Crowd control? Or comedy central?) rogue and rerolled on a carebear network.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And, of course, let's not ignore another part of this: it's not like a media personality can't parlay being attacked by 'the Daily Show Crew' (you know, them) into something in the media.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think CNN missed a chance, here.
In the age of Twitter and 24 hour coverage, I can't blame networks for leaping to contain problems before they tarnish the network itself, but I don't think the zero-tolerance approach seen here works very well, either. What I think they should have done?
Bring Sanchez and Stewart together, with a moderator, and put it on TV.
Sanchez gets a chance to defend himself -- or publicly apologize -- and he and Stewart could discuss some of what bothers him about Sanchez' style of reporting. After Sanchez was canned, Stewart ran a piece demonstrating why he personally did not think Sanchez was bigoted; I think he'd be open to something like this. CNN might not have to fire the guy after all, everyone involved gets a ratings bump, and the public is happy that Something Was Done.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From what I can tell, and this may not be correct, John Stewart attacked Rick Sanchez repeatedly as being a really bad journalist who was, as noted, exemplifying the decline in standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks. If that's the case, I don't really see how it is much like griefing.
A responsible and reliable press is a key foundation of a healthy democracy. We have a constitutionally guaranteed right that the government can't interfere with the press. This grants them a great deal of freedom but it also places a strong responsibility on them. When they fail to live up to this responsibility, because of the vital nature of their role and because they are free from government censure, it is extremely important that non-governmental entities censure them for it.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke.
Stewart and 'company' were noting that the guy was already a joke. I know you'll stand arm-in-arm with the guy because he went on the line with the whole Jewish Media Conspiracy, but seriously. He was a joke long before he ever got noted on Stewart's show.
Surprise surprise. Many here are willing to blame the victim in order to defend their liberal darling.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From what I can tell, and this may not be correct, John Stewart attacked Rick Sanchez repeatedly as being a really bad journalist who was, as noted, exemplifying the decline in standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks. If that's the case, I don't really see how it is much like griefing.
That's just an excuse. What exactly did Sanchez do that's so emblematic of the decline in "standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks"? How is this more credible than a bunch of dorks picking on someone they perceived to be weak?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe CNN could learn to put smarter people on the air?
I don't know about "repeatedly" attacked. I watch The Daily Show pretty regularly and I wasn't really aware of Mr. Sanchez until this incident.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Sanchez had a reputation for being a polarizing figure in news for years before his job at CNN. I suspect that's a large part of why they hired him in the first place.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Surprise surprise. Many here are willing to blame the victim in order to defend their liberal darling.
"I was a victim of my own outburst," said Sanchez, adopting Sa'eed's mental workaround. "Even though it was my own outburst, I'm still a victim! My own words, pouring out of my own mouth .. my inability to coherently form a notion of 'bigotry' .. all of this, the fault of the perpetrator of this injustice, Stewart!"
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: How is this more credible than a bunch of dorks picking on someone they perceived to be weak?
Protip: Stewart wasn't picking on him because he was perceived to be weak.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
He was a victim of relentless and unnecessary mockery -- and he's not a politician or a demagogue. They just didn't like his mannerisms. They were being jackasses. Anyway, Stewart knew that Sanchez was merely up and coming at CNN which is why he could afford to go after Sanchez: Stewart is more of the liberal darling who can do no wrong. No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Mostly they made fun of him the same way they make fun of any news reporter who inserts him or herself into the story and acts like an idiot while doing so.
The first time I can find is 2005: Sanchez letting himself be Tasered. Not a biggie; just about every news show has done this at some point since Tasers became popular. Here Stewart makes fun of Sanchez's deduction: "It hurts." Minor ridicule.
In July they mocked him, along with many other news figures such as Anderson Cooper, Geraldo and the president of CNN, for their over-the-top hurricane coverage.
In April 2009 they were so happy that Sanchez asked a probing, difficult question that they officially retired his Taser tape (although, after showing it one last time, Stewart changed his mind).
June: Another Moment of Zen with Sanchez wanting to tag team a guest.
June again, as part of mocking many CNN newscasters bitching about Rolling Stone getting better access to Gen. McChrystal, Stewart mocked a clip of Sanchez comparing McChrystal's interview with his kids hanging out in their basement.
August 11: a Moment of Zen when Sanchez moves awkwardly from a report on American deaths in Afghanistan to "this whole Tiger Woods thing."
In September, Stewart mocked FOX, MSNBC and CNN for their coverage of Obama's midterm speech. They closed with a slam at Sanchez for his part, and for flubbing a line because his mind was on football.
And that's it, that's all the mentions I can find, many of them simple, uncommented clips of ill-chosen statements or replays of his Tasering. Sanchez is seen as part of a larger problem, the general idiocy of broadcast journalism.
So yeah, in this case I'm blaming the victim. Did The Daily Show go after Sanchez? No more than any other newscaster who speaks without thinking. Hell, the Daily Show has picked on Anderson Cooper far more than they ever picked on Sanchez. When they go after someone, you know it. Ask Jim Cramer about that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Howard Stern, Sa'eed? Really?
C'mon, that's transparent, even by your standards. And who are the overwhelming majority of Stern's listeners, of course. Anyway, Chris's 17x/5yrs is pretty decisive that you're, y'know, flat-out wrong. Well-done on his part as usual.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I removed my 17 count because I counted my paragraphs and in a few cases more than one instance was mentioned, so probably closer to 20 or so. From a show that runs 4 times a week, maybe 42-45 weeks out of the year? (Dunno how many vacation weeks they take) I'm not going to go back and look 'em up now -- gotta have some Saturday to myself -- but it wouldn't surprise me if they've picked on every CNN anchor as much, and some much more. And at that, CNN gets less heat than MSNBC and much less than FOX.
And I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
And I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Hey, for some that is pretty difficult standard.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: "Being bullied is hard for anchors to take! "
Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke. Their treatment of him was unwarranted and sick. Sanchez was not a right wing demagogue or a politician but an average joe who happened to be blessed with the looks and personality to be a news anchor and Stewart's unrelenting mockery of the man was clearly psychologically torturous to him hence his outburst. Day in and day out Sanchez must have been thinking "why me? What did I do?" but all that matters is the lolz right?
Stop making excuses. Stewart is a comedian on CC. His JOB is to make fun of people, and his critique of him was spot on.
It's not like it was hard to make fun of him. He made it fairly easy.
If he can't handle it he could always find another job. You know, one he might actually be good at, and not be putting himself forward as an expert of subjects he knows nothing about.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Sanchez makes a little bit of sense here, taking responsibility for his "inartful comments" and plugging his book a bit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Not that your whole conflation of TDS/Stewart to 4chan trolling makes any sense whatsoever anyway, but it's the 'lulz.'
And stewart's actions only superficially resemble teh lulz to people who are steadfastly ignorant of and wish to caricature his successful job lampooning and ridiculing the stupidity of our politicians and our media, using a pastiche of doddering conceptualizations of internet troll culture.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Stewart *is* the problem with our media. He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate we now have shows of his type: one person giving his opinions unopposed. Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He he he no.
Angrily banging your shoe on your table doesnt make you right.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Stewart *is* the problem with our media. He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate we now have shows of his type: one person giving his opinions unopposed. Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
I know, right? Damned Jew...
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
rehehe
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate..."
Crossfire wasn't debate. That was Stewart's point. It was yelling.
Sa'eed, I have listed every time Rick Sanchez was mentioned on the Daily Show. He was not targeted any more than other newscasters on CNN or otherwise. He seems to have been the only one with a problem about it, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Really? First of all, for the sake of argument, let's say this is true: so what? The guy runs a comedy show. Isn't the real reason you find this objectionable - and also the real reason you're so uncomfortable agreeing with Sa'eed - is that he more often takes shots at conservatives and a conservative agenda doing it, Dan_Frank?
He's not kyrptonite. His rhetoric isn't unassailable, or at least theoretically it isn't. It's not actually being assailed at all here except in theory. The very fact that he is a comedian means that yes, he can dodge substantive criticism more easily if he chooses to do so - but, y'know, Stewart seems to take substantive criticism pretty straight on - but it also makes him much easier to brush off. You can hear examples from folks like O'Reilly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
One might even say that he tends to run a comedy show on comedy central when convenient.
Stewart is a remarkable asset when it comes to the evolution and maintenance of political discourse in this country. But the fact that we were ever at a point where a comedian running a comedy show is exactly what we needed to re-rail our media and jingoistic political morass is kind of a perfect example of how pathetic the nation has gotten in this regard. That we're now down to people criticizing him for his journalistic presentation via a comedy show as though we have to look to a show on comedy central for cues into standards for journalism, we're in trouble.
To quote Stewart himself, in response to Sa'eed's remarkably clueless screed: "The show that leads into mine is puppets making crank calls. What is wrong with you?"
[ October 10, 2010, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Really? First of all, for the sake of argument, let's say this is true: so what? The guy runs a comedy show. Isn't the real reason you find this objectionable - and also the real reason you're so uncomfortable agreeing with Sa'eed - is that he more often takes shots at conservatives and a conservative agenda doing it, Dan_Frank?
I will never understand the double standard here of when it is and isn't okay to put words in other people's mouths. But, whatever.
Okay, so, certainly the reason I personally don't have all that much interest in/respect for Stewart is certainly that I think he is woefully wrong about many political issues/movements/people.
(I also don't see that he was ever "exactly what this country needed," but in full disclosure I almost never watch TV news, outside of occasional clips I see online. I prefer reading my news, in most cases. So maybe I just don't have a good enough concept of the dire straits Samp seems to think we were in.)
So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
And I'll freely admit that I am probably more annoyed by the clown nose behavior than I would be if he was a snarky conservative comedian/newscaster. Because I'm in agreement with the people whose arguments he deflects with the clown nose. If you're someone who thinks those arguments are just stupid ramblings from some right wing jerk then you'd be less bothered when Stewart deflects it with a joke instead of a response (like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But the fact that we were ever at a point where a comedian running a comedy show is exactly what we needed to re-rail our media and jingoistic political morass is kind of a perfect example of how pathetic the nation has gotten in this regard. That we're now down to people criticizing him for his journalistic presentation via a comedy show as though we have to look to a show on comedy central for cues into standards for journalism, we're in trouble.
See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
I think it's actually completely childish to dislike someone because you disagree with their political agenda. I don't dislike rush limbaugh because he has a political agenda I disagree with. I dislike him, or anyone, whose chosen tactics pollute newsmedia with lies and disinformation to advance that political agenda.
This disconnect, now that I think about it, could have a lot to do with why you'll stick up for someone like Breitbart as a credible source.
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Stewart's integrity as a host of a comedy show does much better when you let him speak for himself, as opposed to letting droves of hypothetical kids speak for him.
But what the kids have right is that stewart's influence on newsmedia is positive — moreso than most people in our country who should be shouldering the responsibility of respectable journalism, and aren't.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
I think it's actually completely childish to dislike someone because you disagree with their political agenda. I don't dislike rush limbaugh because he has a political agenda I disagree with. I dislike him, or anyone, whose chosen tactics pollute newsmedia with lies and disinformation to advance that political agenda.
This disconnect, now that I think about it, could have a lot to do with why you'll stick up for someone like Breitbart as a credible source.
Sorry, I thought it was self-evident that you see lies and disinformation when you look at people with a political agenda you disagree with.
Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sorry, I thought it was self-evident that you see lies and disinformation when you look at people with a political agenda you disagree with.
Let's try this again, and see if you get it any better: I see lies and disinformation when I look at people who engage in the spreading of lies and disinformation. This can be for people for whom I generally find agreement or disagreement with when it comes to shared political goals.
I dislike people for being serial misinformers. I respect people who have political agendas I disagree with, but do so without polluting newsmedia with lies and disinformation. I don't dislike them simply because of the political disagreement. This is different and unambiguously better than what you are saying you do.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
At what point does someone smearing an individual or group by mischaracterizing their position become "lies and disinformation?"
Edit: I really thought this was self-evident in the original context, but I guess not.
When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda. I felt the word "agenda" implied that he was willing to twist things to further his goal, whereas if I'd just said he "has an admitted bias" or something similar, that would be more of a neutral observation that he is not pretending to be nonpartisan.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda.
Ok! Let's say for now that this is how he operates. Given that premise, do you not like Breitbart for doing so in a completely blatant and callous fashion?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I will never understand the double standard here of when it is and isn't okay to put words in other people's mouths. But, whatever.
Let me be more clear, then: you were criticizing Stewart and suggesting it was somehow unfair that he 'takes off and puts on the clown nose when convenient'. But the guy runs a comedy show on Comedy Central.
If professional politicians and professional news anchors cannot handle someone on that network, Dan_Frank? If you think there's something unfair about that? Then I submit that your real problem isn't actually that something Stewart is doing is unfair, and I stand by that.
quote:...(like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
Do you want to actually examine the Crossfire event? Sure, there was some snark. That's not all it was, though.
quote: But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Who considers him a journalist? Does he even credit himself a journalist? Does he insist he be considered a journalist? You're putting up a straw man here. Some of his points ought to be taken seriously, but just because he's a comic doesn't mean you just get to say, "Well, he's got a clown nose on, I don't have to listen."
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Who? Can you point to someone who does, and is also taken seriously? Please note that 'better than many hacks on mainstream media' =/ excellent journalist.
quote:Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Hey, words and mouths.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda.
Ok! Let's say for now that this is how he operates. Given that premise, do you not like Breitbart for doing so in a completely blatant and callous fashion?
I assume this is in reference the the Sherrod incident? It's questionable. I think that if Breitbart had the full video, and edited it down to paint Sherrod as a racist, then yeah, that's slimy and I would dislike him for that. Unequivocally. Does this surprise you? I personally don't think that she's as much of a reformed racist as you think she is, Samp, but that's irrelevant here. The original video lacks some context, and that type of selective editing is wrong.
I don't think any compelling evidence that this is actually what happened has been presented. Has it?
I've seen him say that he was given the video as he presented it. Furthermore, I've seen him say that the audience (full of NAACP members) reaction to Sherrod's tale of past racism is another notable issue, and one not altered by the full video; they didn't know what the punchline was going to be, and most of the audience seemed tickled that Sherrod had mistreated a white farmer who acted "superior" to her.
So, I currently think Breitbart is a pretty cool guy. And you think he's scum. Because you think he's twisting the facts to support his agenda, and I don't.
Which was sort of my point. Honestly, I believe very few people actually think "Yeah, this guy is twisting the facts to make his point, but I like his point, so he's alright."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If professional politicians and professional news anchors cannot handle someone on that network, Dan_Frank? If you think there's something unfair about that? Then I submit that your real problem isn't actually that something Stewart is doing is unfair, and I stand by that.
I'm honestly not sure I'm parsing this correctly, so tell me if my answer is not really addressing your statement.
I don't really care if people can or can't "handle" Stewart. I don't have a problem with what he did to Sanchez. I don't have a specific problem with him going after conservative figures. My problem is the idea is mostly in regard to the times he has gone on lengthy lectures or debates with people—the crossfire incident of course, but he also went on O'Reilly and there are examples in heated interviews on his own show as well—where he flips back and forth between seriously confronting someone else and then deflecting responses because he's just a comedian.
This is not applicable to all of his show, the rest of which is just a politically biased comedy show that doesn't purport to be telling the truth (though on a tangential note, I wish less kids like Blayne put him on such a pedestal.) Like I said, I was only leaping off of what I felt was a grain of truth Sa'eed touched on. I don't even think applies with regards to the topic of this post (Sanchez.)
quote:
quote:...(like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
Do you want to actually examine the Crossfire event? Sure, there was some snark. That's not all it was, though.
But, that's my point. He was trying to be serious, but when people responded to that he fell back on "I'm just a comedian."
quote:
quote: But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Who considers him a journalist? Does he even credit himself a journalist? Does he insist he be considered a journalist? You're putting up a straw man here. Some of his points ought to be taken seriously, but just because he's a comic doesn't mean you just get to say, "Well, he's got a clown nose on, I don't have to listen."
I think journalist was probably the wrong word, you're right. But I do think that, at least some of the time, he wants to be taken seriously as a political commentator.
quote:
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Who? Can you point to someone who does, and is also taken seriously? Please note that 'better than many hacks on mainstream media' =/ excellent journalist.
Well, that's fair. If thinking he's better than most people on mainstream media doesn't actually equate to thinking he's a great [strike]journalist[/strike] political commentator, then I doubt I could point to anyone. That was really all I was driving at.
quote:
quote:Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Hey, words and mouths.
Yeah, for sure. Sorry about that.
PS: Rakeesh, would you mind just calling me Dan? I cringe every time I see that stupid underscore. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:But, that's my point. He was trying to be serious, but when people responded to that he fell back on "I'm just a comedian."
More accurately he said, "I run a comedy show, you are supposed to be a news program."
People give him the credibility of a newsman, which is why he was voted the most trusted man in America. But as long as he isn't putting on airs on his show and maintains that he is running a comedy show he does not really step into the news niche.
He makes salient points, and he also does all the things he complains that news companies do. But he does it for laughs. News organizations do it and cynically call it honest reporting.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But if he does the same thing, how does that make him the most trusted man? That's the sort of thing I don't get.
There's something to be said for self-reflection, of course, but if the thing you recognize in yourself is something you condemn others for doing... how are you better?
That's the thing... it's one thing to be a hack and to admit it and be funny. It's another thing to be a hack and admit it and be funny... except when you want to be taken seriously. That seems disingenuous to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I assume this is in reference the the Sherrod incident?
This is in reference to Breitbart. The guy who will openly claim that his goal is to take down the left by whatever means he has, then turns around and selects and keeps people like this to slander them.
quote:So, I currently think Breitbart is a pretty cool guy. And you think he's scum. Because you think he's twisting the facts to support his agenda, and I don't.
Which was sort of my point. Honestly, I believe very few people actually think "Yeah, this guy is twisting the facts to make his point, but I like his point, so he's alright."
The reason why I think breitbart is a serial misinformer is because there's a surplus of evidence that he is a serial misinformer. The only thing I see your point making is that you're favorably impressionable to his claims because he's conservative, and you would like to claim that I'm guilty of the same level of bias.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dan, if I'm reading you right, what's bothering you is the apparent sidestepping Stewart does between being a journalistic force and merely a comedian, as convenient, yes? Acts like a reporter when he wants to and hides behind the clown nose when called on it?
If so, I urge you to look up "satire." The Wikipedia definition will do: "Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon."
Is he hoping to cause change with his humor? Hell, yes. Judging from what I've seen, he wants journalism that actually reports facts and not hearsay, that investigates corruption instead of trumped up scandal, that serves the public good rather than terrifies or titillates its audience for ratings and higher ad rates.
Every one of the Rick Sanchez bits I listed above was TDS laughing at how CNN and its reporters chooses to report the news. And this is why people like The Daily Show and trust Stewart, because many of them are also fed up with media they can no longer trust to act like journalists.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
I think this is a good point, especially the bold section. Perhaps you're right.
I do think that I am less annoyed by Colbert because I feel like he gets his point across without getting sanctimonious.
Chris, you understand me correctly in your first paragraph, but as you go on I feel less like you do. As I said a second ago, I find Colbert less objectionable because he generally sticks to his shtick the whole time. I feel like Stewart sometimes wobbles between what I would consider satire, and simple lecturing. The former, though I don't always agree with it, is nevertheless funny and often insightful. It's the latter that annoys me, because of the clown nosing. Do you get what I mean? Been a long day packing boxes for our move, so I feel a little burnt out. This may be less legible than I think it is.
Samp: I feel like you basically sidestepped my question, sooo... I guess we're done for now? Edit: Samp, at the time of this writing, the link Media Matters provides to Big Government has nothing. I imagine I could probably find a cache to show he used to be there, but as of this moment I can't find any trace of Kevin Pezzi on BigGovernment.com. So... yeah. But I sort of doubt this will change your opinion much.
[ October 11, 2010, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From what I've seen, the clown nosing that John Stewart does comes about when he makes an (often valid) criticism of someone and they come back with "Well, what about you?"
And that's sort of the point of this. First, "Well, what about you?" is not a valid defense of something that you've done wrong. For some reason, we accept this excuse from the people like politicians and journalists who should be held to the highest standards when we would not accept it from our 10 year old children.
Second, people who have these responsibilities are asking, in response to them not living up to it, why the host of a comedy news show whose primary purpose is to make people laugh isn't living up to the much higher responsibilities that they have.
John Stewart should not be among the most trusted source of news. It should not be the case that people who watch the Daily Show are better informed that those who watch the "real" news networks. That this is the case is because of massive failures of those networks in living up to their responsibilities. But because they've left a wasteland of credibility and reliable information doesn't mean that when The Daily Show has as a secondary effect doing a better job in these areas, it elevates The Daily Show into a real news show.
---
I'll add a personal observation. Fox News is a terribly irresponsible news organization. They are constantly presenting examples of this.
When they do, and it gets brought up here or elsewhere, it seems like there are two linked responses.
First, there's the absurdly childish and personally irresponsible "Well, CNN and MSNBC are bad too." And second, there's the noting that Fox News is by far the most popular of the cable news channels.
Think about that. Can you see why that actually speaks very badly about a large number of "conservatives"?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, Squicky, I see what you're saying. That's an interesting perspective.
Re: Fox News...
I think I'm positively disposed towards Fox News, but with one significant caveat. I don't actually have cable television. I don't watch the channel with anything approaching regularity. I only occasionally watch clips from shows posted online (the same is true for my Daily Show exposure, except that I also sometimes watch it if I'm at a friend-with-cable's house, since it's the news show of choice for many of my friends.)
Anyway, since my primary exposure to Fox is when someone posts a clip from it, there's really no way for me to know if those clips are representative of the standard level of quality. So, I don't really have any desire to argue that Fox is or is not a great news station, unless you really, really want to. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp: I feel like you basically sidestepped my question, sooo... I guess we're done for now?
You can guess whatever you like!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Substantive. Thank you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
I think this is a good point, especially the bold section. Perhaps you're right.
I do think that I am less annoyed by Colbert because I feel like he gets his point across without getting sanctimonious.
Chris, you understand me correctly in your first paragraph, but as you go on I feel less like you do. As I said a second ago, I find Colbert less objectionable because he generally sticks to his shtick the whole time. I feel like Stewart sometimes wobbles between what I would consider satire, and simple lecturing. The former, though I don't always agree with it, is nevertheless funny and often insightful. It's the latter that annoys me, because of the clown nosing. Do you get what I mean? Been a long day packing boxes for our move, so I feel a little burnt out. This may be less legible than I think it is.
Samp: I feel like you basically sidestepped my question, sooo... I guess we're done for now? Edit: Samp, at the time of this writing, the link Media Matters provides to Big Government has nothing. I imagine I could probably find a cache to show he used to be there, but as of this moment I can't find any trace of Kevin Pezzi on BigGovernment.com. So... yeah. But I sort of doubt this will change your opinion much.
Never seen Colbert when he does "The Word" segments do you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Substantive. Thank you.
What else do you want from you guessing that 'we're done here?' I wasn't, personally, but I can't stop you from deciding you're done.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Samp: If you want to keep going, we can, but I have to say it's a little bit frustrating when you, as far as I can tell, ignore most of what I say to you. The only significant time we discussed Breitbart previously was re: Sherrod, but apparently that's not what you want to discuss. Okay.
So you suggest that because Breitbart hired, and kept on staff, some guy who seems like a narcissistic douchebag, that proves he isn't credible. Except he apparently didn't keep the guy on staff, because he's not currently on their list of contributors. So... I'm really not sure what your point is, now.
If you'd like to keep discussing it, okay, go for it.
Blayne: like Fox and the Daily Show, mostly I watch clips of Colbert online. However, my recollection of the Word is that it's a parody of sanctimonious lecturing, done in character (I thought it was directly riffing off of something O'Reilly does. Was I wrong on that?), so that's not quite what I'm talking about re: Stewart. But perhaps I'm misremembering. Does Colbert break character during the Word segments and rail against conservatives?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You do realize that is what satire is right? Lecturing and being critical via wit and sardonic praise?
He's praising the right/conservatives incharacter but in such a way that his sarcasm is unmistakably condemnation for their position/actions.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, Blayne, I understand what Colbert does and it has nothing to do with what I'm complaining about re: Stewart.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You have this false comparison happening where your complaining about Stewart but praising Colbert when they're saying essentially the same thing but in different ways.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You do realize that I'm not complaining about Stewart with regards to the majority of his show, right?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The difference is that sometimes Stewart seems to break character and let his personal frustration come out, rather than couching it in satire.
Colbert rarely breaks character.
He's done so twice, that I can recall. Once, when Stephen Colbert refused to interview the Gorillaz and instead sent out Steve Colbert to do it.
And at the end of Colbert's Congressional testimony, when asked why he chose to speak up on the issue: "I like talking about people who don’t have any power. and this seems like one of the least powerful people in the united states are migrant workers who come and do our work, but don’t have any rights as a result, and yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave, and that’s an interesting contradiction to me and, you know what so ever you do for the least of my brothers and these seem like the least of our brothers right now, a lot of people are least of the brothers right now because the economy is so hard and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them, but migrant workers suffer and have no rights."
Thing is, Stewart isn't playing a character, and the times he's really gone after other news media without joking was when he wasn't behind the Daily Show desk. When he was invited onto Crossfire, apparently they expected him to be a funny bit they could move past and instead he told them, earnestly, exactly what he thought of the show and its habit of preferring noise over substance. But when I watch the bit, I really get the sense that he was hoping to convince them to change their ways and become a force for good journalism. Reportedly he stayed for hours afterward in the Crossfire offices, talking to them. The decision to close the show down was the networks; they could just as easily have retooled it.
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)