Posted on 10/15/2004 1:52:21 PM PDT by staytrue
Isn't Stewart a Canadian?
Yeah, but you didn't see some of the other interviews he's done in the past couple years with guys like Bob Dole and Henry Kissinger (who also got softballed).
The sole purpose of Kerry's appearance, as intended by both the DNC and Stewart, was to present Kerry in as favourable a light as possible, with zero criticism, to get VOTES for him.
And you expected...what? A series of hard-hitting questions on policy and his record? Undoubtedly you'd expect the same from Leno or Letterman. Hell, the candidates don't get that on "news" shows (which is Stewart's point) - why would they on TDS?
SW
You may have noticed that many politicians don't like to go on these shows, particularly Presidential candidates - that's mainly because they can't control the discussion down to the last. In fact, I can't recall a serious Presidential candidate *ever* having been on Crossfire or McLaughlin or H&C or any of the shouting-match shows.
Now that's ok and all but for Stewart to then leave his studio and go to Crossfire and smarmily lecture them about "hurting America" is where I have to draw the line.
Is that an endorsement of the sort of cheapening of political discourse that shows like Crossfire promotes? Do you think that such a cheapening of the discourse harms or helps the American people?
And offensive; did you see this exchange? "And come work for us, because we, as the people"... suddenly Jon Stewart has anointed himself spokesman of "the people".
As far as it goes, I support that...I think the media certainly do far more against the public interest than for it.
Nobody has a "responsibility" to be "unbiased". The bow-tie guy is biased and so is Begala. All people are biased, including Jon Stewart.
It isn't about bias or lack thereof. It's about the media's inability to do their freakin' job. Shows like "Crossfire" are emblematic of that.
SW
Right. So "won't ask the hard questions" is... a valid criticism of said shows?
Is that an endorsement of the sort of cheapening of political discourse that shows like Crossfire promotes?
First of all I'm not sure how exactly Crossfire "cheapens" the political discourse. When was it "expensive" exactly? Tippecanoe and Tyler too? Generally I support *more* arguing not less, if that's what you're saying.
Second, I'm not here to defend Crossfire. I'm not sure I've ever even watched more than a minute or two of Crossfire. (In fact, I'm sure of it: this Jon Stewart segment is the longest I've ever watched it.) It seems pretty worthless to me all right. (But more damning: boring.)
Third, however much Crossfire may C.T.P.D., I have watched The Daily Show and it does it in spades. Which puts Jon Stewart in no position whatsoever to go on other shows and whine to them, let alone pose as the avatar of "the people" who have to "mow their lawns" as he does it.
Do you think that such a cheapening of the discourse harms or helps the American people?
For one thing I don't think the effect of the television program Crossifre on "the American people" is measurable one way or the other. Virtually NO ONE WATCHES IT.
That said, I don't think its existence is even a fraction as "harmful" as the existence of The Daily Show (which, itself, is mostly harmless).
[Jon Stewart anointing himself as the spokesman of "the people"] As far as it goes, I support that
If I've understood you correctly here, this would seem to be where we disagree.
I watched the entire segment and one thing that was striking was that Stewart's criticisms of Crossfire contained no substance whatsoever. He called it "bad". He said it was "hurting America". He criticized the name of the frickin bar where they hang out (!). These are not serious points; actually now that I think about it I'm not sure why we're dignifying them by pretending that they are.
It feels funny to say this but both Begala and Bowtie made serious, substantive points in rebuttal. Stewart was shedding heat, not light.
It's about the media's inability to do their freakin' job. Shows like "Crossfire" are emblematic of that.
What is the "freakin' job" of Crossfire? To parade people arguing about issues, I reckon. Don't they do that?
Second, have you considered that the role of The Daily Show in the media's efforts to do their freakin' job may not be entirely salutary?
When a John Kerry doesn't want to expose himself to real questioning, but still get exposure, he can go hide in the friendly confines of TDS. What if he couldn't?
We'll never know.
I don't have a problem with argument. I do have a problem with what amounts to drones puking the latest talking-points fax from HQ, which is almost exclusively what the shows are these days. And that's not argument or debate - just noise.
Third, however much Crossfire may C.T.P.D., I have watched The Daily Show and it does it in spades.
Well, how do you figure? TDS has always been a parody of what the mainstream media do in their quest for ratings. Just watching their "in-depth stories" should give you that much. Fercryinoutloud, their slogan is "When News Breaks, We Fix It!"
Which puts Jon Stewart in no position whatsoever to go on other shows and whine to them, let alone pose as the avatar of "the people" who have to "mow their lawns" as he does it.
Who else is doing it? By your standard, no one in any segment of the media should have the moral authority to criticize anyone else in the media. (And I think Stewart lives in NYC, and is thus unlikely to have a lawn to mow).
For one thing I don't think the effect of the television program Crossifre on "the American people" is measurable one way or the other. Virtually NO ONE WATCHES IT.
That's immaterial. We don't hesitate to criticize other cable (or non-cable) news outlets simply because they don't reach a ton of people. Plenty of screaming here about MSNBC's coverage, yet virtually no one watches it.
I watched the entire segment and one thing that was striking was that Stewart's criticisms of Crossfire contained no substance whatsoever. He called it "bad". He said it was "hurting America".
Well, it is and it is. But I think you'll agree it's difficult to make a substantive critique of the media in a 10-minute segment where two other people are continually interrupting you.
He criticized the name of the frickin bar where they hang out (!).
No. "Spin Alley" is the name for the area where, after the Presidential debates, all the party hacks hang out for their press availabilities. I'm sure you saw it on TV after the debates - political types, standing in clusters of people, one of whom was holding a tall sign with the hack's name on it? Yeah, that. That's "Spin Alley."
It's really pathetic, in fact, that much of the debate coverage centered not on the debates themselves, but the spin put out by each campaign afterward. It's meta-coverage - the process rather than the substance, and it's one of TDS's biggest sources of material.
When a John Kerry doesn't want to expose himself to real questioning, but still get exposure, he can go hide in the friendly confines of TDS.
...or Leno, or Letterman, or Kimmel, or O'Brien, or Dr Phil (!) or any of the interviews he's done with the "news" networks. The questions the candidates get from say, pretty much anyone in the news biz aren't much tougher than what they usually get from Oprah or Larry King or whomever. And that's the problem.
SW
That's swell. Parody is funny. (Ha! Ha!) It doesn't really contribute anything however.
And that's ok. There's a place for it - a big place. But then for the Parody-Funnyman to go around posturing as some kind of savior of our Political Discourse is just a bit much for me. Ok?
[Stewart not in a position] Who else is doing it?
Nobody - not even Stewart! As I said, his criticisms were empty posturing. I suppose it would indeed be valuable to see a takedown of Crossfire done well and substantively. Stewart did not and probably could not do that, and this has everything to do with the fact that he's a JOKE.
By your standard, no one in any segment of the media should have the moral authority to criticize anyone else in the media.
Wait what? That is not my "standard", I don't know where you get that.
And I think Stewart lives in NYC, and is thus unlikely to have a lawn to mow
Tell HIM that. Evidently he forgot.
["bad" + "hurting America"] Well, it is and it is.
That may well be so. Like I said I've never really watched it. However Stewart gave no actual reasons for anyone with a brain to think it so. He called names and it was an exciting TV gotcha moment but his criticism was empty. "Your show is bad" is not exactly my idea of persuasive criticism. Frankly I came away with more respect for the two other guys than I had before.
But I think you'll agree it's difficult to make a substantive critique of the media in a 10-minute segment where two other people are continually interrupting you.
Poor little Jonny Stewart too "difficult" to say intelligent things in only 10 minutes, therefore he had to say "You're hurting America".
No. "Spin Alley" is the name for the area where, after the Presidential debates, all the party hacks hang out for their press availabilities. I'm sure you saw it on TV after the debates
I did not. I didn't watch the debates on TV (heard some on radio). I honestly got the impression he was talking about a bar where they hang out afterwards, my mistake.
...or Leno, or Letterman, or Kimmel, or O'Brien, or Dr Phil (!) or any of the interviews he's done with the "news" networks.
Agreed about Leno/Letterman/etc.. I get rather disgusted when politicians go on any of these things.
And that's the problem.
That's *a* problem. There are many.
This is not an exculpatory factor for Stewart to act like an arrogant poser. But hey if you're impressed with the moron more power to you.
Hurrah! Nice to see that there are fellow Freepers who love Good Eats.
I'm not privy to AB's political leanings, but in one of his rants at AltonBrown.com, he makes it clear that he believes in personal responibility.
But they have gone on meet the press and russert does not serve up softball questions. I think they don't go on crossfire because the show is a joke.
Well, then isn't it supposed to be funny then?
I hope AB keeps politics out of his show completely. He's fun, entertaining, and has some great recipes. I don't need to know what he thinks about anything but cooking ! :)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/17/rs.01.html
She kicked Reliable Sources butt!!
Way back when Buchanan was sane we used to watch as a family.
Those days are long gone.
I am not a Daily Show fan, frankly I don't have time for that crap, and I certainly don't like Stewart's preachy liberal style, but you have to admit he has a point about the media (and cable news specifically). Perhaps he was a jerk about it, but Crossfire, and other shows like it, are completely worthless. Brining up Stewart's love of Kerry doesn't really challenge that point at all.
"who seems to think he's an important, respected, intelligent commentator..."
Simply not true. See interview with Ted Koppel, excerpts of which appear here:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104473/
At one point, he even encourages Koppel to use the bully pulpit of Nightline to speak truth to power: [Jon Stewart to Ted Koppel] "You can say, 'That's B.S.' You don't need humor, because you have what I wish I had, which is credibility and gravitas."
Again, Jon Stewart:
I know my role. I am the dancing monkey.
Sad but true.
P.S. It was Bagala who labeled Stewart as either the smartest funny man or the funniest smart man in the media.
The fact that he said some other stuff in some other interview with some other guy doesn't somehow negative or reverse the fact that he said some pretentious, arrogant stuff on Crossfire.
It's good to see he's formally aware (or, was this summer) that he lacks credibility and gravitas, it would have been even better if he had acted like he knows this on Crossfire.
What I'd like to see would be for someone to explain rationally (a) exactly WHAT valid criticism they think Jon Stewart made of Crossfire on Crossfire, and (b) what argument or evidence he offered for that criticism. I'm still amazed a week later that the entire internet decided that "you're a hack", "you're hurting America", and "you're a d**k" constituted some kind of impressive tour de force display of criticism. Also loved that college-student-dropout-level-Marxist-claptrap about how they were serving (wait for it) "the corporations". Never heard that before it's BRILLIANT!
Sorry but the guy is just a moron. Listening to a lecture from him on media responsibility (or whatever point he thought he was making) makes me want to lose my dinner.
"The sole purpose of Kerry's appearance, ..., was to present Kerry in as favourable a light as possible"
How do you know this?
Jon Stewart has also invited President Bush to come on the show but he has so far declined. In my humble opinion, Jon would show the same comedic respect for Bush as he did for Kerry. Why do I believe this?
Ralph Reed has come on Jon Stewart's show. You cannot get further right of the Christian Coalition than Reed. Jon allowed Reed his time to speak, and even to misconstrue what was written in the 9/11 Commission report, and still cordially thanked him for being on the show and welcomed him back.
I don't "know" it. I'm only 99.99999% certain. As evidenced by his bizarre appearance on Crossfire, Stewart is a flaming liberal wackjob pretending (unsuccessfully) to be "fair and balanced." Letterman and certainly Leno do a much better job of hiding their political bias. Stewart feels so strongly anti-Bush that he is willing to risk torpedoing his career by making an ass of himself like this. If he has ever made fun of Kerry in a way which ridicules his political positions, I'd like to hear about it. His token civility to conservatives doesn't convince me of anything, other than that he thinks some of his viewers are stupid.
Stewart is an intellectual hack, just like Maher is. Both guys are left-wing, liberal commies who, like the ACLU (speaking of the ACLU where have they been when protestors prevented the Showing of that anti-Kerry war documentary in Philly - hypocrits, just like these two comedic idiots), think that they know what's best for this country. It's funny that these comedians think that they know politics. While they are entitled to speak freely about what they think, thankfully they're in innocuous positions and no one with any sort of intelligence takes them seriously.
Those guys have a talent for comedy and should leave it at that. Don't see actors trying to be real doctors?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.