Support NeoGAF

[Blader]

In hindsight, I thought it was kind of crummy how he clearly ambushed them. They had one idea of what they were speaking about, and he went off the rails almost immediately. That shit was planned.

The alternative is he says straight up he wants to come on air and skewer their show and then mysteriously gets uninvited for some reason.

Sure he ambushed them, but there's no way other for him to get on that show and make that point by being upfront about it first.

edit: holy shit, this was 10 years ago?!

 

[backflip10019]

It really is. He pretty much singlehandedly got Crossfire taken off the air with this bit.

Damn, that's crazy! I was probably a little too young to really care about politics and Crossfire at the time, but the way that bowtie guy reacted to Stewart's criticism by attacking him was pretty disgusting.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

IIRC, Richard Sherman went on and did just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRjBhbH3y38

That was embarrassing for everyone. Sherman tried to come off as eloquent but literally said the same things a dozen times. Bayless is Bayless and is always a joke.

 

[BronsonLee]

The alternative is he says straight up he wants to come on air and skewer their show and then mysteriously gets uninvited for some reason.

Sure he ambushed them, but there's no way other for him to get on that show and make that point by being upfront about it first.

edit: holy shit, this was 10 years ago?!

Eh, another alternative would be they would've been better prepared for him, too. A big part of him ethering them so hard is due to the element of surprise. They weren't ready to go as hard in the paint as he was!

 

[deltatheta]

In hindsight, I thought it was kind of crummy how he clearly ambushed them. They had one idea of what they were speaking about, and he went off the rails almost immediately. That shit was planned.

I don't think he ambushed them at all. Tucker Carlson clearly had the list of "easy" questions that he asked John Kerry prepared beforehand. They knew that this was going to be the topic.

 

[B-Dubs]

Eh, another alternative would be they would've been better prepared for him, too. A big part of him ethering them so hard is due to the element of surprise. They weren't ready to go as hard in the paint as he was!

They never would have let him on if they knew. Neither of them was a good enough debater to beat him. They'd be even bigger idiots than they already appeared to be if they let him on the show with the knowledge that he was going to do that.

Besides, Kramer went on the Daily Show knowing full well what was going to happen to him, probably thinking he would be prepared and could take it, and still got his ass ethered.

Crossfire was never a good show and all his criticism of it was valid. What were they going to do? Admit they're crap and promise to change? If they denied it they'd just look like morons.

 

[ShadowKingpin]

Just looking at Tucker Carlson makes me want to really break his nose.

 

[inm8num2]

You couldn't check someone's AOL IM away message without seeing a link to or comment about Stewart on Crossfire after it happened. One of the legendary viral videos.

 

[Kurdel]

I watched crossfire as a teen until I saw this episode.

I remember thinking "wait a minute, he is right" and I stopped watching.

I will watch this clip again to remmber how badass he was.

 

[BronsonLee]

I don't think he ambushed them at all. Tucker Carlson clearly had the list of "easy" questions that he asked John Kerry prepared beforehand. They knew that this was going to be the topic.

Oh he absolutely did, there's no question about that.

They never would have let him on if they knew. Neither of them was a good enough debater to beat him. They'd be even bigger idiots than they already appeared to be if they let him on the show with the knowledge that he was going to do that.

Besides, Kramer went on the Daily Show knowing full well what was going to happen to him, probably thinking he would be prepared and could take it, and still got his ass ethered.

I think they would've let him on, and probably had that segment length cut in half. That would've basically removed Stewart's ability to say anything with real teeth to it.

Stewart's interview/debate game is ridiculous now, though. If he isn't hip to playing your game, he's coming for that ass

Coming off of this initially, it was crazy to see Stewart saying all that stuff. But now in retrospect some (ten?) years later, this is basically what happens when someone comes on your show, isn't going to play ball, and you aren't good enough to cut them down.

 

[Super Nothing]

They never would have let him on if they knew. Neither of them was a good enough debater to beat him. They'd be even bigger idiots than they already appeared to be if they let him on the show with the knowledge that he was going to do that.

Besides, Kramer went on the Daily Show knowing full well what was going to happen to him, probably thinking he would be prepared and could take it, and still got his ass ethered.

Crossfire was never a good show and all his criticism of it was valid. What were they going to do? Admit they're crap and promise to change? If they denied it they'd just look like morons.

I thought that Jim Kramer was going to break down and start sobbing during that interview. He really looked like he was holding back tears.

 

[3rdman]

The part that really bothered me about this whole exchange was that even after Jon's pleas, the argument on air and afterwards never elevated into a discussion about journalism. We talk about how Jon took their lunch money away (and he did...gloriously) but the very point he was trying to make is barely discussed.

Those Crossfire hosts were/are hacks...on this we all agree but Jon was railing against the state of cable-tv news and the fact that they are not truly serving the public. To this day, Tucker Bow-Tie Carlson still doesn't understand...to him, this was about being "attacked"...Amazing.

 

[Sephzilla]

I've never seen this before.

I think I'm legit shook seeing Stewart go in so hard like that.

 

[wildfire]

he tries to evade this by positioning himself as some kind of innocent clown without wider social responsibilities like a straight news channel but i think that's a false representation of how his audience actually perceives him, how the show is watched and received and i don't buy it for a second. it's more than just a comedy show.

The mistake you are making is thinking we don't agree with him.

Essentially both points are correct. The show is viewed as more than a comedy show but a legit news source. At the same time we are also frustrated with the fact when it comes to TV he does crush every major network except for the BBC and Bloomberg. It shouldn't be possible for him to mock the major news networks like this but they make it way too easy.

Poor Tucker: http://gawker.com/5173532/jon-stewart-haunts-tucker-carlsons-restless-bitter-nights

Stewart went on Crossfire and effortlessly juggled and destroyed two "hard hitting" journalists. Hilarious.

Tagged: FEUDS

Not much of a feud if one side forgets who you are.

 

[Mully]

The part that really bothered me about this whole exchange was that even after Jon's pleas, the argument on air and afterwards never elevated into a discussion about journalism. We talk about how Jon took their lunch money away (and he did...gloriously) but the very point he was trying to make is barely discussed.

Those Crossfire hosts were/are hacks...on this we all agree but Jon was railing against the state of cable-tv news and the fact that they are not truly serving the public. To this day, Tucker Bow-Tie Carlson still doesn't understand...to him, this was about being "attacked"...Amazing.

Even though I've watched the video dozens of times, each time I hope Carlson will engage Stewart in a discussion about cable journalism. Stewart's rant almost reaches the other side. He almost made Carlson be introspective for a moment. It's a shame it never happened.

Also, dear god at the questions the audience asked. Why do we always get caught up with little bullshit like the hump on W's back, or Obama's relation to Rev. Wright?

 

[Silexx]

Saying that Jon "ambushed" Crossfire is almost misleading, because it just means that they had never paid attention to what Jon had said in the past or, at the very least, thought that he was only 'joking'.

Jon had repeatedly stated his dislike for the show in the past and his belief that it was toxic for public discourse. Anyone with any sense at all could have seen this coming when he appeared as a guest.

 

[Guess Who]

Anyone have a link to the Kramer interview? I am all about watching that dude get ether'd.

 

[Bacon]

Anyone have a link to the Kramer interview? I am all about watching that dude get ether'd.

This link includes the Cramer interview and a few other good Stewart interviews

 

[3rdman]

Saying that Jon "ambushed" Crossfire is almost misleading, because it just means that they had never paid attention to what Jon had said in the past or, at the very least, thought that he was only 'joking'.

Jon had repeatedly stated his dislike for the show in the past and his belief that it was toxic for public discourse. Anyone with any sense at all could have seen this coming when he appeared as a guest.

You can't ambush somebody when you are quite literally trying to discuss their job...it's the one thing they should be imminently familiar with. The fact that they can't keep up only proves that they should never have been given that forum.

 

[Blader]

Eh, another alternative would be they would've been better prepared for him, too. A big part of him ethering them so hard is due to the element of surprise. They weren't ready to go as hard in the paint as he was!

The amount of preparation is irrelevant though, they wouldn't want the debate in the first place.

 

[BronsonLee]

Saying that Jon "ambushed" Crossfire is almost misleading, because it just means that they had never paid attention to what Jon had said in the past or, at the very least, thought that he was only 'joking'.

Jon had repeatedly stated his dislike for the show in the past and his belief that it was toxic for public discourse. Anyone with any sense at all could have seen this coming when he appeared as a guest.

Talk shows have combative guests on all the time, though. They brought him on because of the stated dislike and such, but he went from talking about something else to basically going 120 mph at their face right off the bat. It's not so much a bad thing, but he definitely did ambush the shit out of them.

The amount of preparation is irrelevant though, they wouldn't want the debate in the first place.

Hrm? Sure they would. Arguments bring ratings. But remember, this is kind of the first scenario where Stewart really let loose on a motherfucker. Nobody saw something like this coming, especially from him. With this scenario in retrospect, if they risk bringing him on a show, they're controlling the situation far more.

 

[wildfire]

Talk shows have combative guests on all the time, though. They brought him on because of the stated dislike and such, but he went from talking about something else to basically going 120 mph at their face right off the bat. It's not so much a bad thing, but he definitely did ambush the shit out of them.

That isn't an ambush since you even admit they called him on because of his dislike of their brand.

He was trying to get them to have a discussion about how journalism empires like CNN squander resources. It's kind of illuminating watching the other youtube links and come across a section where he respects Fox News because while they aren't a news organization they are a well ran political one (this was before the drubbing served to Romney so who knows how he reassessed their attempts at being foot soldiers for the Republican establishment [actually on record they are foot soldiers of Bush but his presidency is long over now]).

 

[Maitiú]

I've seen this probably half a dozen times over the course of 10 years, and while Jon is a hero of mine, I think his argument was either partially disingenuous or partially naive. Jon says he wants a debate show. Anyone can watch the PBS Newshour and get a discussion. But they don't. Television viewers don't want to watch a debate. They want theater. They want to play with softballs and silliness rather than struggle with neural dissonance, wrestling the hard questions. The problem isn't the two hosts, it's the people watching them.

 

[Vyer]

i think his broader point is against the team sportsification of politics and is spot on, it's incredibly damaging to public discourse. i really like this appearance. yet it's kinda hollow to me, as while i enjoy the daily show i basically think it's bad for democracy too. it's guilty of the same thing to me, which is turning news into entertainment, appealing so that liberals can feel smarter, more empathetic, superior than conservatives and pandering hard to that audience. it's a lot classier than conservative talk radio, but it functionally serves the same purpose.

he tries to evade this by positioning himself as some kind of innocent clown without wider social responsibilities like a straight news channel but i think that's a false representation of how his audience actually perceives him, how the show is watched and received and i don't buy it for a second. it's more than just a comedy show.

That's the point though. This happened 10 years ago; cable news was already in its way to the garbage heap. But it's very telling that even then the only rebuttal they could offer was 'but on your show'...

Stewart's show is still a political satire comedy show on a network that featured puppets making prank calls. That it's perceived the way it is now - and its position in the current 'news' landscape - isn't the fault of his show. It's a reflection of cable news' current state. Yet even 10 years ago someone like Carlson was unable to see the path he was happily dancing down.

Stewart's warning of 'comparing to a comedy show' as your 'standard' wasn't an excuse, it was a premonition. One that ultimately came true.

 

[thechristoph]

This link includes the Cramer interview and a few other good Stewart interviews

Oh boy, check out that Top Ten Articles link to the right. "Why Cosplay is bad for the American Economy", "Why do Liberals despise Christianity?" Looks like some fun stuff on that site.

 

[Bacon]

Oh boy, check out that Top Ten Articles link to the right. "Why Cosplay is bad for the American Economy", "Why do Liberals despise Christianity?" Looks like some fun stuff on that site.

Lol yeah i dunno about all that. I just google searched for the Cramer video and this was the first page to have the full interview.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

i'd say that's fair. i think part of my frustration with stewart here is that he clearly has the intelligence and personal charm to do something that's better than 'look at this stupid republican being stupid', like he keeps saying in the crossfire interview "we need help", looking back at this interview i feel he could do more with his influence and popularity to do that.

Eh? He's slowly spawning a media empire. He initially only had his show, now there's The Colbert Report, Last Week Tonight, and The Minority Report debuts next year.

To maintain viewership it's well established that you need to be entertaining at this point. I much prefer the approach of John Oliver and Jon Stewart and Colbert who present facts and riff on them, as opposed to traditional news which fosters entertainment by presenting a topic and then letting two or three people joust over what the facts are without ever clarifying what they actually are.

 

[ShadowKingpin]

Oh my god. That Jim Cramer interview is absolutely priceless.

 

[Who]

My problem with Stewart is that he hides behind his "comedy show" yet still tries to make serious political points. He can get away with showing clips out of context, misrepresenting a quote etc etc. because he hides behind the guise of "Oh well I'm a comedian!" You can't have it both ways when you have a loyal viewership that relies on your show for actual information. I mean shit he's had every living president and major political figure on his show atleast once.

 

[Inferno313]

Eh? He's slowly spawning a media empire. He initially only had his show, now there's The Colbert Report, Last Week Tonight, and The Minority Report debuts next year.

To maintain viewership it's well established that you need to be entertaining at this point. I much prefer the approach of John Oliver and Jon Stewart and Colbert who present facts and riff on them, as opposed to traditional news which fosters entertainment by presenting a topic and then letting two or three people joust over what the facts are without ever clarifying what they actually are.

Colbert Report is about to end, and he doesn't have any involvement in Last Week Tonight.

 

[Pelydr]

My problem with Stewart is that he hides behind his "comedy show" yet still tries to make serious political points. He can get away with showing clips out of context, misrepresenting a quote etc etc. because he hides behind the guise of "Oh well I'm a comedian!" You can't have it both ways when you have a loyal viewership that relies on your show for actual information. I mean shit he's had every living president and major political figure on his show atleast once.

What clips have they shown out of context? Are you Jim Cramer?

 

[Little Green Yoda]

It was an awesome moment it's just a shame the whole cable news monster hasn't changed much since then, if anything it's gotten worse. ESPN and First Take could really use someone to come in and "crossfire" them.

Did Mark Cuban rip into Skip Bayless on First Take or on a different program?

 

[Who]

What clips have they shown out of context? Are you Jim Cramer?

I've watched the show for years and in my opinion he has made some exaggerated points and had shown short clips out of context to make a joke and/or a quasi-serious political statement in which case he falls back on, "I'm a comedian on comedy central!" If you've watched the show as much as I have and don't see that then...*shrugs* opinions man.

 

[Pelydr]

I've watched the show for years and in my opinion he has made some exaggerated points and had shown short clips out of context to make a joke and/or a quasi-serious political statement in which case he falls back on, "I'm a comedian on comedy central!" If you've watched the show as much as I have and don't see that then...*shrugs* opinions man.

Thanks for not presenting any facts at all! I'm totally sure you watch it all the time, though.

 

[Silexx]

My problem with Stewart is that he hides behind his "comedy show" yet still tries to make serious political points.

Congratulations! You just discovered Political Satire!

 

[Who]

Thanks for not presenting any facts at all! I'm totally sure you watch it all the time, though.

Haha alright man I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm sure Jon Stewart will be fine.

 

[immortal-joe]

I can't sit through that Cramer interview again. It just depresses me.

 

[Zeyphersan]

What is up with Tucker Carlson's face that makes me want to punch it so much?

Anyway, these guys are chumps compared to Stewart. He needs to fight someone his own size: Bill O"Reilly. Their debates are so entertaining and even matched

The great thing about his and Bill's debates is that they clearly respect each other. There was no respect on Crossfire from anyone

 

[DrForester]

I pretty much stopped watching Daily Show regularly after I learned they pretty much do what they constantly bash news outlets for doing. Manipulating their story to fit their agenda.

After doing a piece on last years Colorado Recall election, they took to the street to interview people and find out why they didn't vote, and if they agreed or disagreed with Colorado's new gun laws. Well, in order to get people to say what they wanted, they interviewed people in Denver, 70 miles away from the district where the recall took place.

 

[Fusebox]

I pretty much stopped watching Daily Show regularly after I learned they pretty much do what they constantly bash news outlets for doing. Manipulating their story to fit their agenda.

After doing a piece on last years Colorado Recall election, they took to the street to interview people and find out why they didn't vote, and if they agreed or disagreed with Colorado's new gun laws. Well, in order to get people to say what they wanted, they interviewed people in Denver, 70 miles away from the district where the recall took place.

We've heard that one. Any other examples?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Jon Stewart.
Clown face on. Clown face off. Clown face on. Clown face off.

 

[DrForester]

We've heard that one. Any other examples?

I don't know of any more, and the only reason I know about that case is because I know Denver. I see no reason not to think it has happened other times when I am not clued into other information.

 

[Hindl]

This link includes the Cramer interview and a few other good Stewart interviews

Oh man, it's missing Stewart's evisceration of Betsy McCaughey. She was the instigator of all that death panel talk with ObamaCare, and she came on the show with a big binder with the law to look smart. He went in on her and she ended up resigning from her position a few weeks later

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/b52wbd/betsy-mccaughey-pt--1

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Did Mark Cuban rip into Skip Bayless on First Take or on a different program?

It was on First Take.

 

[mreddie]

Has it really been 10 years? Damn.

 

[Belfast]

i think his broader point is against the team sportsification of politics and is spot on, it's incredibly damaging to public discourse. i really like this appearance. yet it's kinda hollow to me, as while i enjoy the daily show i basically think it's bad for democracy too. it's guilty of the same thing to me, which is turning news into entertainment, appealing so that liberals can feel smarter, more empathetic, superior than conservatives and pandering hard to that audience. it's a lot classier than conservative talk radio, but it functionally serves the same purpose.

he tries to evade this by positioning himself as some kind of innocent clown without wider social responsibilities like a straight news channel but i think that's a false representation of how his audience actually perceives him, how the show is watched and received and i don't buy it for a second. it's more than just a comedy show.

Simple explanation: all good comedy comes from truth or the revelation of it.

 

[LurkerPrime]

Great thread, OP. I'm looking forward to the letter in the mail.

I've seen this probably half a dozen times over the course of 10 years, and while Jon is a hero of mine, I think his argument was either partially disingenuous or partially naive. Jon says he wants a debate show. Anyone can watch the PBS Newshour and get a discussion. But they don't. Television viewers don't want to watch a debate. They want theater. They want to play with softballs and silliness rather than struggle with neural dissonance, wrestling the hard questions. The problem isn't the two hosts, it's the people watching them.

If this is the case then why do entertainment shows masquerade as legitimate news?

"News" programs shilling products, opinions, and views without any regard for the viewers that see it is dangerous and, as Jon said in this decade-old video, harmful to everyone.

 

[Laekon]

The main issue is political shows can't make every guest look like a moron or a liar because then no one will come on their show that attracts viewers. The Daily Show doesn't have the same pressure because they'll have any actor, musician, or author on plus there little sketches. Look at Fox and MSNBC, neither network has viewer attracting guest from the other side on because they know the show is against them. All their shows are now just biased argument shows that pander to a specific audience. It's only entertainment and not news. Crossfire use to be one of the better shows for trying to present both sides but the modern era of entertainment news killed it off. So Crossfire died but Hannity lives on and even grows.

The fact politicians can make such obviously false statements that they are scared to go on any neutral debate show says more about the people of the U.S. then the state of our media.

If this is the case then why do entertainment shows masquerade as legitimate news?

The only shows like this are left leaning(in US political context). They allow a lot of people to feel like they have some type of moral high ground on, or better understanding of current events then the people who watched the piece being made fun of.

 

[EatinOlives]

The main issue is political shows can't make every guest look like a moron or a liar because then no one will come on their show that attracts viewers. The Daily Show doesn't have the same pressure because they'll have any actor, musician, or author on plus there little sketches. Look at Fox and MSNBC, neither network has viewer attracting guest from the other side on because they know the show is against them. All their shows are now just biased argument shows that pander to a specific audience. It's only entertainment and not news. Crossfire use to be one of the better shows for trying to present both sides but the modern era of entertainment news killed it off. So Crossfire died but Hannity lives on and even grows.

The fact politicians can make such obviously false statements that they are scared to go on any neutral debate show says more about the people of the U.S. then the state of our media.

The state of the media definitely perpetuates the mindset of the US population, though. If all of the US media was like NPR we would be seeing a far more rational and calm discussion of politics. Hamming it up and playing into the confirmation bias of people only serves to make those political chasms bigger.

EDIT: At this point the media's idea of neutrality is to always give both sides a "voice" in a debate, even when what they're talking about is not a debate and the only people who pick the "other side" are fringe crazy minority. Then it essentially legitimizes their insanity when the actual rational course of action is to say "shut up, you're crazy". This was the case with the BBC and their recent change to stop giving climate change deniers the airtime they thirsted for. At this point CNN's stance is "the sky is blue...BUT IS IT???! Let's now hear from a cult that says the sky ISN'T blue but rather puke green. After all, we're being totally neutral and there's always two sides to everything!!" That doesn't help political discourse or even make people informed. It just validates the crazy people who say the sky is green and perpetuates a useless debate that shouldn't be happening, not to mention all the wasted efforts that could've gone toward focusing on something actually important.

 

[Earthstrike]

This is one of those clips that I rewatch once every couple of years. Each time I spot something new. Like this time, I noticed when they tried to throw in an endorsement of his book, he kind of stopped it to get back to the issue. In fact, everytime they tried to change the topic, Jon quite frequently would use clever ingenuity to steer it right back on topic. Namely the topic of the partisan hackery that was CNN's crossfire at the time.