-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
John Stewart on Crossfire @ 4:30pm est.
- Thread starter Cerebral Palsy
- Start date
- Status
IAmtheFMan
Member
I'm downloading now; I've always had a great respect for Jon Stewart. His post 9/11 Daily Show (a few weeks after the fact since they were on break) was one of the most honest and pure moments of television I've ever seen.
Thing is that the single mindedness of Stewart's attack caught the Crossfire crew completely off guard. Sure they were expecting a little bit of that and Carlson was lying in wait with his 'you softballed Kerry' foray but they didn't realise how completely disgusted Stewart is with them.
I mean it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who watches The Daily Show regularly that Stewart doesn't hate Republicans, what he hates is how politics has turned completely into a battle of sound bites and he has a complete loathing for 'journalists' who care more for ratings than journalism and are more than happy to just endlessly replay the latest accusations the two sides hurl at each other without checking to see how much validity the accusations actually have.
And I think the fact that people are holding Jon up to journalistic standards ironically proves his point exactly. Why are you holding Jon Stewart to higher standards and not doing the same for CNN? It's Jon's job to mock the absurdities of life, and it's the news organisations' job to research and investigate what happens in the world rather than just regurgitate the latest press release. Jon is doing his job very well, the news organisations aren't. It just so happens that Jon views the lack of investigation in contemporary journalism to be one of the most absurd thing happening in the world.
Edit: Actually Makura, Jon has been on this personal crusade for a looong time.
I mean it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who watches The Daily Show regularly that Stewart doesn't hate Republicans, what he hates is how politics has turned completely into a battle of sound bites and he has a complete loathing for 'journalists' who care more for ratings than journalism and are more than happy to just endlessly replay the latest accusations the two sides hurl at each other without checking to see how much validity the accusations actually have.
And I think the fact that people are holding Jon up to journalistic standards ironically proves his point exactly. Why are you holding Jon Stewart to higher standards and not doing the same for CNN? It's Jon's job to mock the absurdities of life, and it's the news organisations' job to research and investigate what happens in the world rather than just regurgitate the latest press release. Jon is doing his job very well, the news organisations aren't. It just so happens that Jon views the lack of investigation in contemporary journalism to be one of the most absurd thing happening in the world.
Edit: Actually Makura, Jon has been on this personal crusade for a looong time.
Plus I remember seeing a clip of him when he was either hosting an awards show or when he was introducing an award where he went "and I'd like to congratulate news shows for finally turning into whores for ratings just like the rest of us". Everybody in the audience laughed and then promptly forgot it failing to realise how repulsive the sitution that Jon was highlighting is. I think only now are people getting the idea that Stewart really cares about the issue deeply.
JON STEWART PRODUCES ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA. CNN (purportedly) PRODUCES NEWS MEDIA.etiolate said:
if stewart were to suddenly reengineer the daily show to be a source of real honest to god news media, his bosses at viacom would probably fire him.
is this that difficult to get through your head?
on a side note, there are still journalists in the world, they just aren't getting much if any exposure in western news medias. if you ask me, it's by design. there is a problem here, and it isn't just that so many journos are full of shit, but that the people who own the media sources are only hiring journos that are full of shit.
boredJonathan
Member
Celicar said:
Living up to your tag nicely I see. Unless you care to back that up.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Celicar said:
Buga duh what?
I think he was just responding to the attacks on him by tucker. The bigger the asshole tucker was, the more Jon cut him down.
boredJonathan
Member
Celicar said:
I was asking for an elaboration on what made you think Stewart came across as an ass.
it's not just convenient for him. it really is just a comedy show, jesus christ.
the fact that it pushes the boundaries of fake news into... real news? is just another layer of absurdity.
the whole point of this though is that he's a smart guy, and a responsible citizen. the fact that he makes a fake news show doesn't really affect this, especially when the show itself is so smart. so? so, just because he makes comedy, doesn't mean he can't be serious, and the fact that he is more rational when he's serious than the people who are supposed to be serious PROFESSIONALLY is a pretty big deal. i don't know if you don't want to see this or can't, but that's what everyone else is seeing here.
as for why people don't pay him to be serious, i'll leave that one for you to figure out.
the fact that it pushes the boundaries of fake news into... real news? is just another layer of absurdity.
the whole point of this though is that he's a smart guy, and a responsible citizen. the fact that he makes a fake news show doesn't really affect this, especially when the show itself is so smart. so? so, just because he makes comedy, doesn't mean he can't be serious, and the fact that he is more rational when he's serious than the people who are supposed to be serious PROFESSIONALLY is a pretty big deal. i don't know if you don't want to see this or can't, but that's what everyone else is seeing here.
as for why people don't pay him to be serious, i'll leave that one for you to figure out.
He falls back on that because it is a comedy show. Responsibilities stem from the audience and implications. His audience watches to laugh. It airs on Comedy Central. Etc. If he takes it on himself to ask hard-hitting questions or challenge guests, that is his prerogative, out of his own interest, and in no way an obligation.etiolate said:
Crossfire, however, projects itself as a pure news show. They "debate" about the issues. Yet, to quote the infinite wisdom of Memles: "They have bullshit, cliche-ridden arguments. They spew their respective party lines with such absolute bravado that it makes the head hurt." It truly is theatre. They misrepresent themselves. Attacking a show such as Crossfire is more or less an attack on the mainstream media. They all do the same shit.
boredJonathan
Member
etiolate said:
Now that is a wonderful idea.
Aww... I'm sorry he verbally ass raped your boy Carlson. And I'm sorry you don't see the Corporate takeover of the American media as a problem. I'm sorry you live in fantasy land, where George W. Bush is a great leader and a decent human being.Makura said:
I'm sorry about all of these things, but I'm not surprised about them. So, which right wing site did you get this stock "outrage at the outrage" response off of, hmm?
ConfusingJazz
Member
Actually, Tucker can't be Makura's boy, because Tucker has seriously thought of not voting for the current admnistration because of the handling of Iraq and how it was sold to him.Raoul Duke said:
Tucker Carlson
New York Times
May 16, 2004
Oh, he'll still vote for Bush. I garauntee you. He knows who's looking out for him and all the other assholes that wear bowties on tv.
Seriously, I wonder when enough will truly be enough for people to shake off the 9/11 hangover and look at things objectively and say, "Hey, this guy really isn't a compassionate conservative. He's not compassionate, and he's not a conservative. He's a fucking insane evangelical nutjob, and he's sitting in the oval office." When that day comes, I hope you dumb bastards can sort it out. I'm trying to wash my hands of all this, but it's like Socrates said, "Gladly would I drink the hemlock, but then who would keep things tidy? Not you, for I have seen your room." Or words to that effect.
Seriously, I wonder when enough will truly be enough for people to shake off the 9/11 hangover and look at things objectively and say, "Hey, this guy really isn't a compassionate conservative. He's not compassionate, and he's not a conservative. He's a fucking insane evangelical nutjob, and he's sitting in the oval office." When that day comes, I hope you dumb bastards can sort it out. I'm trying to wash my hands of all this, but it's like Socrates said, "Gladly would I drink the hemlock, but then who would keep things tidy? Not you, for I have seen your room." Or words to that effect.
http://www.daypop.com/top/
blogged by just about everybody
oh and drudge weighs in with some "statistics" heehee.
blogged by just about everybody
oh and drudge weighs in with some "statistics" heehee.
I agree with a lot of what Jon said and have long thought that the problems he described (such as the media breaking things down into broad left/right terms and engaging in "partisan hackery") are prevalent in all forms of news media, not just the "news entertainment" programs like Crossfire that he lambasted.
That said, he really did come across as kind of an ass. Surely there was a better way to present those points. I'm glad they're out there, at least.
That said, he really did come across as kind of an ass. Surely there was a better way to present those points. I'm glad they're out there, at least.
CrimsonSkies
Member
It has probably been a long time since anyone has cared enough to mention CrossFire. It got bumped up to the early afternoon for a reason.
Alcibiades
Member
that's the whole point, he (and Novak) are journalists, conservative's that hold "hack" viewpoints to their ideology, but they're not programmed to do these shout-and-back, damage-control type deals...Ristamar said:
they adjusted to it, and at first Begala and Carville used to eat Carlson alive, but he adapted and become the "spinmiester" that's on now.
That said, he and Novak are capable of intelligent conversation on political topics, and I saw that many times before they brought in the Clinton crew, in fact Novak still has some good insight on Capital Gang somtimes...
So bascially, CNN had two journalists (conservatives) pitted against two Democratic Party advisors/operatives (liberals).
The matchup just doesn't make sense, espeically when there are some very good liberal journalists out there (like Bill Press) that would engage in discussion and not just silly debate...
No excuses for bowtie boy. While I know he isn't always a total ass (like his appearance on Maher's show), he still has to sleep in the bed he helps make. I'll give Begala credit for not putting too much of his own foot in his mouth on Friday's show. I think he knew he wasn't going to win that fight, or perhaps he just decided to let Carlson do the bulk of the bickering and let him go down in flames.
I do agree with one of your last statements, though. I used to watch Buchanan and Press, and they were far easier to stomach (they were on MSNBC, though).
I do agree with one of your last statements, though. I used to watch Buchanan and Press, and they were far easier to stomach (they were on MSNBC, though).
Alcibiades
Member
yeah, Buchanan and Press was great, they were both part of Crossfire too on CNN at some point...Ristamar said:
CNN wanted to "spice up" Crossfire though, so they brought in the Clinton spin guys...
The problem with that is that Carville and Begala or Democratic loyalists, not liberal thinkers.
Novak has been a journalist for his whole life and Tucker Carlson used to write for the Weekly Standard, they are conservative journalists, not Republican operatives...
It just seems odd to mix the two, why not hire Republican guys to go against the Democrats, that would make more sense, or hire some liberal journalists...
either way, I used to watch Novak and Carlson way more when they did shows without those two Democratic clowns...
From today's show. What cocks. All Novak could do is repeat that baseless "he's uninformed" line. And Carville just brought up that Ted Koppel thing out of left field. Koppel started that if I remember correctly, and Stewart never "attacked" him. On top of that, the two of them smoothed things out months ago. And what kind of retarded arguement is it that you shouldn't attack someone just because they've been in the business so long? That sure as fuck didn't stop people from criticising Dan Rather when he deserved it. Bullshit.
Idiots. For one, he "attacked" Koppel in July. And here's a partial transcript:
http://www.lostremote.com/archives/001905.html
The Daily Show had better be new tonight.
http://www.lostremote.com/archives/001905.html
The Daily Show had better be new tonight.
So it's wrong to criticize Ted Koppel just because he's been in the industry for a long time? Riiight.
And how can Carville be proud of being a hack? Is that supposed to actually mean something or is he pretending that there's actually value in just reciting party lines or that it's a polite diplomatic statement that his viewers won't understand and consequently make Stewart look mean?
I like how they grab two selective quotes, one that bashes Stewart for no good reason, and another that defends Crossfire as some kind of bastion to the freedom of speech. Yeah, those guys are above interrupting and preventing someone from saying their piece. They would never try and prevent someone from saying what they wanted to. Right.
----
And yes, it's a new Daily Show, focused on the third debate. Seems like they're showing an older segment of Cordry's though, unfortunately.
Disregarding the fact that this doesn't make grammatical sense, but does the person who said this even know what the word "hack" means? I have to assume not.
And how can Carville be proud of being a hack? Is that supposed to actually mean something or is he pretending that there's actually value in just reciting party lines or that it's a polite diplomatic statement that his viewers won't understand and consequently make Stewart look mean?
I like how they grab two selective quotes, one that bashes Stewart for no good reason, and another that defends Crossfire as some kind of bastion to the freedom of speech. Yeah, those guys are above interrupting and preventing someone from saying their piece. They would never try and prevent someone from saying what they wanted to. Right.
----
And yes, it's a new Daily Show, focused on the third debate. Seems like they're showing an older segment of Cordry's though, unfortunately.
Alcibiades
Member
of course they were relevant...Socreges said:
first, I'm pointing out exactly how Crossfire went from what it was in the 90's to what it is now (like Stewart, I can't stand what it is now cause it's just silly back-and-forth) and pointing out that Carslon and Novak (and Crossfire) weren't always like this
then when someone points out that Carlson can't do damage control, I'm pointing out that if Carslon and Novak get owned by the Clinton guys, it's cause they aren't programmed for the type of exchanges for regular punditry...
the, I responded with how Crossfire used to have the "Buchanan and Press" guys that the poster referred too...
Not sure what you read in the posts I responded to...
The conversation Stewart tried to have with the Crossfire guys, he actually did have with Koppel and Charlie Rose(IIRC). I found 'em both to be very intelligent, interesting and valuable, and wish there were more moments like 'em on TV news.
I hate to use a line like "this response just helps make Stewart's point about Crossfire," but I sure don't see a better way to put it....
edit - just checked the link to Koppel's interview...the interview I really enjoyed was a follow-up to that one I think...they definitely didn't end it on ugly terms or anything...
I hate to use a line like "this response just helps make Stewart's point about Crossfire," but I sure don't see a better way to put it....
edit - just checked the link to Koppel's interview...the interview I really enjoyed was a follow-up to that one I think...they definitely didn't end it on ugly terms or anything...
I wish I could SEE that Koppel interview, as it's hard to judge this supposed anger that Koppel is showing at the end, and how Jon Stewart reacts to it. I can imagine it though...
There does seem to be this gigantic 'protect the hive' mentality with these news personalities. Like they absolutely positively cannot ever admit that what they're doing is not the best thing for America. It's really pitiful. There's no public acknowledgement that there's a realistic way of improving things. None of them have any interest in actually intelligently arguing their position either, they just stop the conversation or try to tarnish the other person's (Stewart's) position in stupid and irrelevant ways.
There does seem to be this gigantic 'protect the hive' mentality with these news personalities. Like they absolutely positively cannot ever admit that what they're doing is not the best thing for America. It's really pitiful. There's no public acknowledgement that there's a realistic way of improving things. None of them have any interest in actually intelligently arguing their position either, they just stop the conversation or try to tarnish the other person's (Stewart's) position in stupid and irrelevant ways.
I read something concerning the topic at hand, in some way. You would then use that post as a bridge to your spiels about, more or less, the two liberals being "Democratic operatives" and treating the conservatives like wonderful journalists that were corrupted. You did that THREE TIMES, just in different words. Each of those three posts had intent, the same intent. I don't know what that intent is, mind you, but all I see is you trying to drive your point home, three times, that barely relates to the topic at hand.efralope said:
Granted, you ALWAYS weird me out, efralope. Mainly with your perceptions and how you go to bizarre, seemingly deluded lengths to justify them.
And the ownage continues.
Bush: " . . . Christians, Muslims, and Jews . . . "
Stewart: Top that Kerry
Kerry: "I met with Native Americans earlier . . . felt a connectedness . . . " :lol
And then the ". . . with Wolves" thing :lol
The Mary Cheney bit was pure gold. Really made Jon's point about the media.
Bush: " . . . Christians, Muslims, and Jews . . . "
Stewart: Top that Kerry
Kerry: "I met with Native Americans earlier . . . felt a connectedness . . . " :lol
And then the ". . . with Wolves" thing :lol
The Mary Cheney bit was pure gold. Really made Jon's point about the media.
http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/sept2004/August312004/8-31-04-tedkoppel.mov
Here's a video of an interview Koppel did for the Daily show after their supposed arguement. Doesn't seem like there's bad blood between them to me.
Here's a video of an interview Koppel did for the Daily show after their supposed arguement. Doesn't seem like there's bad blood between them to me.
- Status