• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Stewart vs Santorum: Jon rolls over and plays dead

Status
Not open for further replies.

Archaix

Drunky McMurder
Less than two weeks ago, Jon Stewart absolutely ripped apart his interview subject, Bernard Goldberg, for writing a book about the people ruining America and including too many trivial targets such as entertainers and celebrities rather than politicians and people in actual positions of power. Tonight, Stewart had one of these people who are in a true position of power and who is actually doing ill to America. Regretably, he gave Santorum a free pass on everything. He allowed himself to be on the defensive, backed off of any point he attempted to make, and let Santorum interrupt at every turn.

The one moment of the interview which stands out as representative of the entire segment was when Santorum said that a mother, a father, and children are absolutely required to have a family over and over again, Jon Stewart seemed to do his best impersonation of Milton from "Office Space" and mumbled "I...I come from a...a one parent home..."

Stewart has had this problem before with politicians. He consistantly makes fun of the White House press briefings during which the journalists make no attempt at actual journalism, and then when he has a politican on he does the same. Now, granted, he is not a journalist and doesn't claim to be one. However, when he goes out and attacks a guest who is just writing a book about which nobody will care and then 12 days later lets a politician who is promoting his book completely control the flow of the interview, it is rather disappointing.

He did the same thing when John Kerry was on the show last year. He sat in the back of his chair and made a half-assed joke about whatever insignificant point was made, and then let Kerry direct everything.

I enjoy the Daily Show, and to hope for it to give anything other than simple entertainment is likely a mistake. But Jon Stewart has made a living out of calling politicians for their bullshit, and he just won't when he meets one face to face.

This was far too long-winded and I didn't really make any points, but I typed it up already so fuck it. I live in PA and feel particularly disgusted with just about everything Santorum does, and would have liked to see him actually confronted on something, anything.
 
Bah, I forgot to watch this one... have to catch it at 1 AM or find a torrent.

It's disappointing to hear that Stewart rolled over for Santorum. The "I'm no journalist, I'm just a comedian" argument doesn't hold much water when he does the same thing when given a chance.
 
As a huge Stewart fan, I have to defend him. Santorum may be an idiot, but at least hes an honest and sincere idiot. Goldberg was ripped into because of his own defensivness and logical failings. There is nothing that Santorum said today which would make anybody scream and I've learned long ago to never trust what kind of charecter a man has based on the opinions of others.

Having said that, I too wished he had torn into him a bit, but Stewart's schtick has never been about confrontation. As he mentioned in the now famous Crossfire interview, he wished there was more discussion and less noise, less screaming, and more discussion on the issues so I don't know why you would expect him to rip everybody.

In any case, he did show Santorum that his arguement of a eroding culture was flawed (comparing today's Victoria Secret commercials to the past's racial segragation). He owned him without screaming at him...how about that?
 
Since he's been so critical of the amount of noise in politics, and since he seems acutely aware of (and slightly embarrassed by) his home-court advantage, he seems to make an effort a lot of times to go easy on conservatives.

It was pretty disappointing, since his best interviews seem to come when he's literally tired of all the rhetorical BS. I think his best interview moment is when Ralph Reed listed all the nasty things Saddam had done, and Stewart replied "You know what I mean; what's he done since 91?"

Also, Loki is Rick Santorum. The mind-numbing repetition of the word "virtue," the nice-guy evasiveness on why homosexuality is a Bad Thing, the complaints about the decline of American culture, and a charming ignorance of the government's ability to change it.

On the other hand, I think Santorum was just arguing in bad faith the whole time because he knows he can't say his agenda out loud in front of an audience like that, while Loki's just sort of goofy.
 
this isn't a political show. people who watch the daily show already understand most of the hypocracy in politics and can see through the tedious red/blue bullshit. what the Daily Show does is satire. it's entertainment, and people turning to it looking to be educated on any subject should get their head fixed.

it isn't hypocritical of Stewart for not calling out Santorum - it's simply not his domain, and nor should it be.
 
::rubs forhead::

You know, we've had these kinds of shows in Canada for years and nobody has ever brought up shit like this. Just take the show for the humour that it has and leave it at that. Does everything that everyone does in the political realm have to be so fucking serious?
 
fallout said:
::rubs forhead::

You know, we've had these kinds of shows in Canada for years and nobody has ever brought up shit like this. Just take the show for the humour that it has and leave it at that. Does everything that everyone does in the political realm have to be so fucking serious?

In contrast, our humourous politicial shows don't have an interview sections so the opportunity for more serious discussion doesn't present itself. Our shows like 22 minutes also are a lot less serious than The Daily Show.

That said, I find it disappointing when Jon doesn't pounce on opportunities to make his guest think or answer a tough question that's not everyone's minds. Drolly asking a couple hard questions goes a lot further in my book than the general, ass-kissing questions you can find on practically every talk show. Questions that make the viewer and the interviewee think are generally the best, most entertaining one's.

Jon's not obligated to do heavy hitting political stuff -- he's not even obligated to do partially serious political stuff. After all, The Daily Show is a comedy show, not a scream fest like Crossfire. However, he is an entertainer, and as an entertainer he needs to put on he best possible show for the audience. No, he's not there to be taken seriously, but a few serious questions peppered with witty follow ups for the inevitable weaselling would be appreciated.
 
Mandark said:
Since he's been so critical of the amount of noise in politics, and since he seems acutely aware of (and slightly embarrassed by) his home-court advantage, he seems to make an effort a lot of times to go easy on conservatives.

It was pretty disappointing, since his best interviews seem to come when he's literally tired of all the rhetorical BS. I think his best interview moment is when Ralph Reed listed all the nasty things Saddam had done, and Stewart replied "You know what I mean; what's he done since 91?"

Also, Loki is Rick Santorum. The mind-numbing repetition of the word "virtue," the nice-guy evasiveness on why homosexuality is a Bad Thing, the complaints about the decline of American culture, and a charming ignorance of the government's ability to change it.

On the other hand, I think Santorum was just arguing in bad faith the whole time because he knows he can't say his agenda out loud in front of an audience like that, while Loki's just sort of goofy.


Ah, making insulting comparisons about Loki when he can't defend himself. Real classy :P
 
What, is he on one of his isolation chamber stints where he tries to kick his forum addiction? The point of the post was to lure him out and start a huge diatribe about virtues and how he'd use PBS to make everyone nicer.
Then link Azih to the thread and let him deal with it.
 
Mandark said:
What, is he on one of his isolation chamber stints where he tries to kick his forum addiction? The point of the post was to lure him out and start a huge diatribe about virtues and how he'd use PBS to make everyone nicer.
Then link Azih to the thread and let him deal with it.
Oh yeah, you can't read the record anymore...
 
Jon's done far more neutered political interviews before. It seems to me that he can't seem to win. With that Goldberg interview, some people here complained that he didn't give Goldberg a fair chance to explain himself. Now it seems he gave Santorum too much chance to explain away his bullshit beliefs. It may be pretty tough to strike that right balance, but I do get the sense that Stewart is genuinely trying to appease both sides, in pointing out bullshit when he can but also letting these guys spout their stuff (and dig their own graves, as it were).

Not the best interview, not the worst. There will be complaints no matter what he does though.
 
I think what people are forgetting is that Stewart is an awful, awful interviewer. If they just got rid of the interview altogether, or got it back to just a vehicle for people pimping their movies/etc--like every other talk show--then it would be bearable. But this stuff, where: is it a real show? is it a fake show? just detracts from the whole thing. The Daily Show has been rudderless ever since it stopped being about the media, and started being about politics.
 
APF said:
I think what people are forgetting is that Stewart is an awful, awful interviewer.
mehlman-inside.jpg


I respectfully disagree.
 
Mandark said:
I respectfully disagree.
Oooohh....kaaaay...

Stewart is an awful interviewer, but not as bad as Ken Mehlman?

[EDIT: objectively speaking, Stewart is a horrible interviewer. I'm sorry to break it to you, it's just the truth. He's funny, he's clever, I like him doing everything on that show other than interviewing--where, objectively speaking, he sucks. That's why you have inconsistent interviews like we're talking about here.]
 
Stewart is an excellent interviewer and is distinctly serious when he has political guests. The real/fake dichotomy is only present during the rest of the show and no dilemma exists. It is a real news show that will do fake bits in order to make the reality more amusing. Very simple.

Dan said:
Jon's done far more neutered political interviews before. It seems to me that he can't seem to win. With that Goldberg interview, some people here complained that he didn't give Goldberg a fair chance to explain himself. Now it seems he gave Santorum too much chance to explain away his bullshit beliefs. It may be pretty tough to strike that right balance, but I do get the sense that Stewart is genuinely trying to appease both sides, in pointing out bullshit when he can but also letting these guys spout their stuff (and dig their own graves, as it were).

Not the best interview, not the worst. There will be complaints no matter what he does though.
I really don't think it's simply a matter of him not being able to strike a balance. I think he is genuinely reluctant to attack certain people. He may be afraid of appearing too nasty toward conservatives, or maybe he doesn't want to confront particular guests since similar (difficult to get) types may then be reluctant to go on his show. That's one reason, I believe, why he went easy on John Kerry. If he's willing to slap around the Democratic candidate, then other higher-ups may see TDS as political suicide.
 
It doesn't really matter, to be honest. In a year and a half, Santorum will be a former nutjob Senator and future VP sop to the religous right for McCain.
 
You know, I'm watching it right now and I really don't think he's giving him a pass here. He didn't let it devolve into a clash of rhetoric, but that's because then he would be a hypocrit in calling out Crossfire. And if we're to be honest here, that's what it would have become if he had pushed it any harder.

The difference between this interview and the culture book guy's interview is that that guy was extremely evasive. He didn't answer the questions he was asked, and Jon really stuck it to him for doing so. Santorum, on the other hand, answered the questions pretty honestly. He may be a slimey douchebag, but at least he said what he felt and where it was coming from. Jon took it to the point where there was nothing more to say and then went to commercial. Not much else he could do.
 
The whole time I was watching the interview with Santorum I thought:
helenlovejoy6tq.jpg

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!
 
Socreges said:
Four nights a week

You get, what, CNN World? Just Friday nights, right?
Yeah, I live in the Netherlands. I only get one episode every Friday night at 1:30 AM and the same episode (at least I think it's the same episode) on Saturday and Sunday at 9:30 PM. :( Daily show global edition.
 
I was just over in Scotland and had to experience that first hand. But I introduced them to BitTorrent and now they download the episodes on a regular basis. You could try the same. Often just an hour to download each one.
 
Archaix said:
Less than two weeks ago, Jon Stewart absolutely ripped apart his interview subject, Bernard Goldberg, for writing a book about the people ruining America and including too many trivial targets such as entertainers and celebrities rather than politicians and people in actual positions of power. Tonight, Stewart had one of these people who are in a true position of power and who is actually doing ill to America. Regretably, he gave Santorum a free pass on everything. He allowed himself to be on the defensive, backed off of any point he attempted to make, and let Santorum interrupt at every turn.

The one moment of the interview which stands out as representative of the entire segment was when Santorum said that a mother, a father, and children are absolutely required to have a family over and over again, Jon Stewart seemed to do his best impersonation of Milton from "Office Space" and mumbled "I...I come from a...a one parent home..."

Stewart has had this problem before with politicians. He consistantly makes fun of the White House press briefings during which the journalists make no attempt at actual journalism, and then when he has a politican on he does the same. Now, granted, he is not a journalist and doesn't claim to be one. However, when he goes out and attacks a guest who is just writing a book about which nobody will care and then 12 days later lets a politician who is promoting his book completely control the flow of the interview, it is rather disappointing.

He did the same thing when John Kerry was on the show last year. He sat in the back of his chair and made a half-assed joke about whatever insignificant point was made, and then let Kerry direct everything.

I enjoy the Daily Show, and to hope for it to give anything other than simple entertainment is likely a mistake. But Jon Stewart has made a living out of calling politicians for their bullshit, and he just won't when he meets one face to face.

This was far too long-winded and I didn't really make any points, but I typed it up already so fuck it. I live in PA and feel particularly disgusted with just about everything Santorum does, and would have liked to see him actually confronted on something, anything.
He panders to politicians for the same reason most media people pander to the politicians, they want to remain relevent and not be avoided by people who might see them as cranks if they consistantly ripped people apart. I'm sure blatently selectively ripping apart just one side of the political spectrum is not seen as being appealing either. As long as he stays within the reasonable confines of the media circle of safety, he will still have the guests and viewers that do show up even if they are in opposition somewhat to his voiced set of values or normal commentary.

And you know, all the really smart sophisticated people at least try to pretend that they are moderates in some way nowadays. Those looking to John Stewart for consistant brave in your face political rhetoric are bound to be disappointed, and it is naive to think that he doesn't serve many of the same interests that he rails against.
 
Mandark said:
Thank you very much for quoting the entire original post!

PS Evolution's real, dimwit! In your face!
Whoa whoa whoa whoa.... Uter's on the "Evolution is a theory that should be given equal time with the ol' 'Intellligent Design'" Fiasco Bandwagon?

For shame, Uter. For shame. Not entirely surprising, tho, you freeper fascist f***.
 
Just saw this particular interview, and it didn't strike me as though Jon was pandering or cowardly. He admitted to himself and the viewers at about half-way through the interview that they'd reached the point where neither person could convince the other that they were right, and I agree. Maybe if Jon and his crew had done a bit more research the questions could've gone a bit further and Santorum would've had to explain himself out of his comfort zone, but unfortunately that just didn't happen.
 
Raoul Duke said:
Whoa whoa whoa whoa.... Uter's on the "Evolution is a theory that should be given equal time with the ol' 'Intellligent Design'" Fiasco Bandwagon?

For shame, Uter. For shame. Not entirely surprising, tho, you freeper fascist f***.

Darwinian evolution is a theory and a rather incomplete one at that, ergo the outgrowth of today's modern evolutionary synthesis|neo-Darwism which seeks to explain the dynamics in terms of a mechanistic theory of genetic transmission of information. Futher extention is happening in terms of the general dynamics of evolution (eg. a subset of information theory).

At the current point, anyone who is objective in the areas of biochemistry, organic chemistry, or general biology will be forced to state that Darwinian Evolution and it's outgrowths (eg. the neo-Darwinian and Cultural/Information Theory revolutiuon) still fail miserably when applied to the Origion of Life problem. And there is no obvious, straight-foward, rectification in sight with the fallacies of the early Miller-Urey Model; for this you need to look to the alternative theories of which I'm a proponent of Stuart Kauffman's work on self-organisation, although the RNA models are doing surprisingly well.

At this time, while we may all believe it to eventually be the correct solution -- much akin to how theoretical physicists 'feel' that buried within M-Theory|String Theory is the solution despite the absolute lack of even a complete theoretical framework -- it is, in fact, still a theoretical model akin to ID (of which ID doesn't need a personal or God of the bible, but rather just something like Einstein's 'creator who went on vacation' -- eg. Spinoza's God).

So, please, will the kid with a high-school education in biology that believes they understand a thing or two please shut the **** up untill you reach the point of self-realization in which you discover that what you've stated is nothing but contemporary politic horseshit mixed with your own stupidity. Douche.

Not entirely surprising tho (sic)...

EDIT: And for the record, Jon Stuart is a hack; a conduit for pseduo-information for a generation which demands entertainment above all else and harbors no desire for knowledge. In you want the news, go read the BBC and CNN, maybe throw in some Fox if you have time. I lost all respect for him after his interview of Richard Perle, it was like JoJo the Indian circus boy trying to converse with a true intellectual. ****ing pathetic.
 
Mandark said:
Thank you very much for quoting the entire original post!

PS Evolution's real, dimwit! In your face!
Hello, troll.


Raoul Duke said:
Whoa whoa whoa whoa.... Uter's on the "Evolution is a theory that should be given equal time with the ol' 'Intellligent Design'" Fiasco Bandwagon?
yeah, don't actually read what I said or anything.


Raoul Duke said:
For shame, Uter. For shame. Not entirely surprising, tho, you freeper fascist f***.
I am not a freeper or a fascist, not entirely suprising that you would resort to your typical ad hominem abusive attacks though, troll. Although it is kind of funny that you would do so here and now when you went mysteriously silent in so many other threads where I made pointed comments towards you.


It's so good of you both to actually respond to my comments here though instead of just trolling.
 
At the current point, anyone who is objective in the areas of biochemistry, organic chemistry, or general biology will be forced to state that Darwinian Evolution and it's outgrowths (eg. the neo-Darwinian and Cultural/Information Theory revolutiuon) still fail miserably when applied to the Origion of Life problem.

Umm, the theory isnt even supposed to 'answer' that question.. Just like the theory of gravity doesnt answer 'where' gravity comes from.

At this time, while we may all believe it to eventually be the correct solution -- much akin to how theoretical physicists 'feel' that buried within M-Theory|String Theory is the solution despite the absolute lack of even a complete theoretical framework -- it is, in fact, still a theoretical model akin to ID (of which ID doesn't need a personal or God of the bible, but rather just something like Einstein's 'creator who went on vacation' -- eg. Spinoza's God).

ID isnt even a theory.. Not one scientific, peer reviewed paper.. Teach it in schools? They cant even figure out a circulum for it. "Life is too complicated to arise on its own... um.. any questions?" Pftt.
 
Mandark said:
Also, Loki is Rick Santorum. The mind-numbing repetition of the word "virtue," the nice-guy evasiveness on why homosexuality is a Bad Thing, the complaints about the decline of American culture, and a charming ignorance of the government's ability to change it.
Not that I'm Loki's biggest fan, but that wasn't really a fair comparison. He wasn't (isn't) exactly a fiscal conservative, for one thing, and I'd hardly call Santorum "evasive" when it comes to homosexuality.
 
Saw it last night. I have to agree that Stewart had a good chance to really point out some of the fallacies in Santorum's arguments and instead opted to roll over. However he did have a point in that ice cream really is a delicious treat, but if eaten too much it can ruin your appetit.
 
In Stewart's defense, if he adopts a combative attitude (and I'm not saying that reasonably pointing out errors in people's reasoning is necessarily combative, but not everyone is reasonable in kind and the situation can escalate) in every interview, pretty soon the show becomes something like Hardball, where nothing constructive happens because people are just arguing with each other without saying much. He might also scare potential interviewees away who don't feel like having their values and lines of thinking called into question when all they want to do is talk about their damn policies/books/what have you.

I agree that Stewart should, as he puts it, call people on their bullshit as much as is feasible, but feasibility is the real key here.
 
APF said:
I think what people are forgetting is that Stewart is an awful, awful interviewer. The Daily Show has been rudderless ever since it stopped being about the media, and started being about politics.

I'm sorry, do we watch the same Daily Show? Jon Stewart is usually a good interviewer, much moreso with politicians than hollywood personalities. He tailors his approach to the person being interviewed. I once watched him own some token black republican so hard that Jon actually backed off and kept the discussion fluffier, I assume out of respect or pity.

Here's some stuff from 2004, when TDS was all politics:
***
Polling conducted between July 15 and Sept. 19 among 19,013 adults showed that on a six-item political knowledge test people who did not watch any late-night comedy programs in the past week answered 2.62 items correctly, while viewers of Late Night with David Letterman on CBS answered 2.91, viewers of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno answered 2.95, and viewers of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart answered 3.59 items correctly. That meant there was a difference of 16 percentage points between Daily Show viewers and people who did not watch any late-night programming.

“However, these factors do not explain the difference in levels of campaign knowledge between people who watch The Daily Show and people who do not,” Young pointed out. “In fact, Daily Show viewers have higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers -- even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age, and gender are taken into consideration.”
***

Yes, it serves no purpose at all.

Also, I think Jon Stewart himself said it best when Carlson the media gadfly attacked him for going easy on candidates he personally approved of: "The show before mine is puppets making crank calls!! YOU ARE ON CNN!!"

article type stuff taken from: http://www.business-journal.com/NoJokeDailyShowViewersKnowIssues.asp
 
DaMan121 said:
Umm, the theory isnt even supposed to 'answer' that question.. Just like the theory of gravity doesnt answer 'where' gravity comes from.

Exactly. Evolution describes how speciation and biodiversity takes place, not how life got started to begin with. It doesn't even attempt that.

And don't get caught in the "just a theory" trap -- the theory of evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. When people claim something is "just a theory" they nearly always are referring to what would be known as a scientific hypothesis. Theories are observable, accepted, and stand up to experimentation. Hypothesis have not yet attained that status, and are more along the lines of educated guesses. Religious creation stories are hypothesis, not theory, for example. Also, don't forget that even science doesn't believe theories are absolute -- only scientific laws are absolute. All theories are continually tested against observation, experimentation, and new discoveries. Sometimes theories are modified or even abandoned when new evidence disproves them. But so far, nothing like that has happened for evolution.

Sorry for the OT.
 
Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the reason Stewart doesn't take it to these guys is because he can't?

Do you really think that after the Dan Rather thing, Viacom is in any hurry to piss off Washington even more? Especially with the current administration? They understand the line between poking fun at politics and becoming your own lobbyist. It's simply not fun to most people to watch two people get hostile in an interview, trying to hollar down each others rhetoric and still maintain some bullshit charm about them. If I wanted that, I'd watch the O'Reilly Factor.

Those of you who want someone on the left who will shout down politicians and make them look stupid should probably not look to the Daily Show for hope, but rather start a letter-writing campaign to get Al Franken his own comedy central tv show.
 
Umpteen said:
I'm sorry, do we watch the same Daily Show?
I'm watching the Daily Show where the host either talks over the guests in order to interject self-depreciating humor or otherwise easy jokes, or alternately just lets his guests talk without asking questions which guide the direction of the interview in a meaningful way and/or draw-out real information and extemporaneous/"free" thought as opposed to scripted or defensive responses.

Umpteen said:
Jon Stewart is usually a good interviewer, much moreso with politicians than hollywood personalities. He tailors his approach to the person being interviewed. I once watched him own some token black republican so hard that Jon actually backed off and kept the discussion fluffier, I assume out of respect or pity.
I'm thrilled at your word choice there: Jon Stewart owned a black Republican.


Umpteen said:
Here's some stuff from 2004, when TDS was all politics:
***
Polling conducted between July 15 and Sept. 19 among 19,013 adults showed that on a six-item political knowledge test people who did not watch any late-night comedy programs in the past week answered 2.62 items correctly, while viewers of Late Night with David Letterman on CBS answered 2.91, viewers of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno answered 2.95, and viewers of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart answered 3.59 items correctly. That meant there was a difference of 16 percentage points between Daily Show viewers and people who did not watch any late-night programming.

“However, these factors do not explain the difference in levels of campaign knowledge between people who watch The Daily Show and people who do not,” Young pointed out. “In fact, Daily Show viewers have higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers -- even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age, and gender are taken into consideration.”
***

Yes, it serves no purpose at all.
Huh? I'm not sure what your point is here, at least if you're responding to something I said.

Umpteen said:
Also, I think Jon Stewart himself said it best when Carlson the media gadfly attacked him for going easy on candidates he personally approved of: "The show before mine is puppets making crank calls!! YOU ARE ON CNN!!"
Wait, so is it the fake news or the real news? Tucker Carlson is a "media gadfly?"
 
Tucker Carlson is actually a political gadfly, thanks for catching that for me. :)

The Daily Show is FAKE NEWS (as they say constantly) with a little truth sprinkled throughout for flavoring. I'm not entirely sure how to respond to you on that, as anyone who watches the show knows exactly what it is. It isn't a real news show, it contains plenty of thinly veiled opinion and uses sarcasm to illustrate the issues of the day.

In my grandpa's time, Jon Stewart would have been onstage at the theatre between acts with a piano, singing political ditties. Satire is an old and well established thing. Does it really confuse you that much?

You really didn't get my point? I was showing that the Daily Show's ratings have gone way up since they became a political satire operation. That doesn't seem to apply to you saying it has been rudderless ever since it went political? Are you sure?

And I wasn't exactly trying to thrill you with my wordsmithing, but I'm happy I did anyway.

EDIT: oh I included the wrong text. Anyhoo, the Daily Show's coverage of the 2004 election broke ratings records for cable tv (which would include all the old Daily Shows). That's what I meant to put in there. :(
 
OpinionatedCyborg said:
In contrast, our humourous politicial shows don't have an interview sections so the opportunity for more serious discussion doesn't present itself. Our shows like 22 minutes also are a lot less serious than The Daily Show.
Yeah, that does bring up a good point. Still though, I look at that time as a period when I can hear about some interesting stuff. I don't want him tearing the other guy apart if he only disagrees with his view. If the guy is being an idiot, then yeah, call him out on it, but otherwise, why bother?
 
APF said:
I'm thrilled at your word choice there: Jon Stewart owned a black Republican.

Also, before you try and frame me up as something I'm not, don't omit the qualifying word from my statement. "TOKEN black republican", thus acknowledging the scarcity and the irony of sending a minority to a liberal-slanted show.
 
DaMan121 said:
ID isnt even a theory.. Not one scientific, peer reviewed paper.. Teach it in schools? They cant even figure out a circulum for it. "Life is too complicated to arise on its own... um.. any questions?" Pftt.


I dont intend to get into this discussion past this post, but I'd at least like to bring this to your attention: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.


Whether or not ID is true, I dont care, just wanted to point out your statement is ill-informed.
 
Umpteen said:
Tucker Carlson is actually a political gadfly, thanks for catching that for me. :)
Ehh, I'm not sure you're using the word correctly. I think you just mean to say he's annoying?

Umpteen said:
The Daily Show is FAKE NEWS (as they say constantly) with a little truth sprinkled throughout for flavoring.
Yet it's used as a real news show, as your quote demonstrated [EDIT: on second thought, it really didn't]. It reports the actual news. It does so with humor, yes. It has little funny skits, true. It also has "real" interviews with media and political figures. The humor is the focus, but it's also used as a smokescreen IMO to hide behind when people call the show out for muddying the waters and being hypocrites for doing so (for example).

Umpteen said:
It isn't a real news show, it contains plenty of thinly veiled opinion and uses sarcasm to illustrate the issues of the day.
Your description here fits the show in the same category as all the other news-related opinion/interview programs which use entertainment as a pull for viewership. It's just funnier? Political commentary is political commentary, even when it's funny or entertaining. Just because there is a difference in form and tone between straight news broadcasts, opinion/debate shows, and politically-driven comedy doesn't mean the ideas contained in those different vehicles are somehow incongruent--or in the case of The Daily Show, sacrosanct.

Umpteen said:
You really didn't get my point? I was showing that the Daily Show's ratings have gone way up since they became a political satire operation. That doesn't seem to apply to you saying it has been rudderless ever since it went political? Are you sure?
You're posing a false dilemma. It doesn't know what it wants to be, that's my opinion. A lot of people love the show, that's a fact.
 
APF said:
Ehh, I'm not sure you're using the word correctly. I think you just mean to say he's annoying?

Um, yes. That's the definition of the word.

from dictionary.com :
# A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.
# One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.

I'm just about tired of people who argue their own interpretations of words and then imply I don't know what I'm talking about when I use them correctly.

The daily show is closer to real news than some shows that air on Fox, I'll give you that. But it is satire, plain and simple. You cannot hold it to the same standards you do actual news reporting.

But that isn't what I came in here to argue. Just that Jon Stewart is actually a pretty good interviewer, and rather than being "rudderless" (by which I assume you mean directionless or aimless) *since* it went political, it is my opinion that it became much more enjoyable and even a little useful to the population at large.
 
Umpteen said:
Um, yes. That's the definition of the word.

from dictionary.com :
# A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.
# One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.

I'm just about tired of people who argue their own interpretations of words and then imply I don't know what I'm talking about when I use them correctly.
I was going by the second definition:
http://www.answers.com/topic/gadfly-social said:
gadfly (social)

"Gadfly" is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempts to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant.

The term "gadfly" was coined by Plato to describe Socrates' relationship of uncomfortable goad to the Athenian politician scene, which he compared to a slow and dimwitted horse. The term has been used to describe many politicians and social commentators.

During his defence when on trial for his life, Plato wrote that Socrates pointed out that dissent, like the tiny (relative to the size of a horse) gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me" because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth."
You think he's being a provocative stimulus? IMO that implies a positive role in society. Thanks for being a condescending asshole for no reason though.

Umpteen said:
The daily show is closer to real news than some shows that air on Fox, I'll give you that. But it is satire, plain and simple. You cannot hold it to the same standards you do actual news reporting.
I can hold it to the same standards I hold all political commentary. And when it deems to report the news, I can criticize the manner in which it does. Even if that reporting has a humorous postscript.

Umpteen said:
But that isn't what I came in here to argue. Just that Jon Stewart is actually a pretty good interviewer
That is an assertion that is not based in reality, but based off the fact that you like the guy.
 
APF said:
I was going by the second definition:

You think he's being a provocative stimulus? IMO that implies a positive role in society.

Nooo, I think he is a snotty prick who has nothing of his own to say and yet insists on being disrespectful and rude to the people he debates/interviews.

Also, *I used the word first*. Whatevery secondary or tertiary definition you were going by means nothing to me.

APF said:
Thanks for being a condescending asshole for no reason though.

Actually you were the one who started that fun with your implication I don't grasp the meaning of the word "gadfly". Turn it around when dictionary.com owns you, that's ok. I won't like you any less. :)




APF said:
That is an assertion that is not based in reality, but based off the fact that you like the guy.

Mostly it is based off having watched him and compared him to other people like Larry King or Craig Killborn. In those comparisons Stewart comes off looking like Oprah. I have been watching the show "in reality", unless my living room was transported to OZ at some point without anyone telling me.

But yes, I do like Jon Stewart. He makes me guffaw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom