|
|
Well, crossfire promoted that kind of thing, but Carlson wasn't any worse than Novak, Begalla, Bill Press, Pat B., ect...but, obviously, Carlson is the one that Stewart wanted to go after that day, so he did (I would say, "hates the most", but I think that title is reserved for Novak). I just don't see bipartisan slander on Stewart's part...that's all.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
well, i just looked at a transcript from the show:Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../15/cf.01.html
and from the text it looks like stewart did have an agenda but it wasn't a directly partisan one...in fact he was trying to say that shows like crossfire further the divide between right and left. the agitation came when tucker criticized his interview of john kerry for not being hard-hitting enough...and the two took shots at each other for the rest of the show.
also, i would not lump begalla in with the rest of the crossfire crowd. i don't agree with all of his politics but he at least gave interviewees their say and kept a level head almost all the time.
Well, I watched mainly the run up to the 2004 election, so maybe Paul was extra fiery. I've seen him do his fair share of backbiting interviews...I just think he's more of a puss than Carville or the rest of them. I always found Carville entertaining even when I didn't agree with him (most of the time). He's great at playing down to the viewers level. He knows that things aren't nearly as simple as he makes them out, but he also knows a lot about voters and what they know. He's the master at what he does.
The crux of the matter is that News and Entertainment have merged. It's kind of like merging alcohol with perscription drugs. It's a bad idea, but it can be fun. Stewart had a basis for a lot of his criticism, but this particular situation allows his show to thrive. If Infotainment wasn't as big as it is, the daily show wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is. He's kind of biting the hand that feeds him in my opinion.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
you never know, he may actually care about this subject more than his own personal success. i mean anything's possible.
Last edited by sik-m-boi; 05-03-2006 at 12:29 PM.
The only problem with John Stewart's argument is that people arent interested in boring old non-partisan news. People demand to be entertained, and regular, boring old news isnt entertaining. That is why the Daily Show is successful because it is a comedy bit. That is why O'Reilly and Rush are successful because he entertains those that agree with him because he can tear down those who dont (entertaining to those who side with them). That is why shows like Crossfire do well because it shows two parties go at each other's necks. People want to be entertained, not informed, as a whole. Even if misinformation is part of their entertainment. John's argument is that shows like crossfire shouldnt be about sacrificing news for entertainment, thus further burrowing party lines through their throat cutting debate. Problem is, Fox, CNN, etc. care about ratings, too.
Well then John should go into boring old, non-partisan news. My problem with John's stance is that he hides behind the fact that he does a comedy bit, so no one takes me seriously, but he is lecturing to Begala and Carlson that they shouldnt do what they do because people do take them seriously. In other words, John can do what he wants because no one should take him seriously, but those who are taken seriously cant afford that luxury. While, I see where he is coming from, people demand entertainment so news channels arent going to show non-partisan shows. Second of all, I would say that people are starting to take the Daily Show more seriously, so maybe John should heed to his own advice and be more diligent with his reporting if he truly believes that is what he should do. He wont, though, because then people would not like the Daily Show because it changed styles.
his show is on comedy central and was preceded by a show where "puppets make crank calls," crossfire is on the "most trusted" news channel. that's his point. thinking people should not, logically, take his show seriously but should be able to take one on a news station seriously. now, i didn't take crossfire seriously, i don't take hannity seriously, i don't believe half of what rush says, o'reilly has some good points ans stances like the one on child molestation (but i think letterman may have been right with his "60%" statement), ect., ect.
the fact is that most of the cast of the daily show has come from the second city comedy troop...whereas most of the cnn and fox people come from highly reputable broadcast journalism backgrounds. that should say something about credibility right there. news channels should feel an obligation to the truth, and comedy channels should have an obligation to comedy...they shouldn't be compared.
And...Shreveport people should support...and party lines should take a back-seat to the health of the country...and students should find out for themselves when the basketball games are...yada yada yada.
What should happen and what does happen are rarely one in the same.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
i'm not arguing with you on that but you guys are are smart people who can separate the two. who can see that jon stewart is a comedian and not a real reporter. you cannot blame him for trying to get a cnn show to separate itself from the ranks of a satire/talkshow. i know that people use his show for news...you know it...he knows it. and it is apparent that the reason for this is the sensationalization of the news on the news channels...jon's been on the show since 1999, and it was popular...but it he wasn't an icon until the news channels became punditized...they made shows like his credible by default by lowering their standards of integrity in order to get ratings.
this all started by you mentioning that jon called tucker a dick. well, he's been calling people dicks for years on his show because when he says it, it's funny and HE'S a comedian...who makes political jokes. if you know people that take the daily show for news, enlighten them...but my point is you cannot expect jon stewart to change into a respectable news man because the show that he has been doing in (essentially) the same fashion for seven years is suddenly taken seriously by an ignorant public. his job is to be funny and poke fun at the system...and he does just that.
Hey man, we can agree on your above post. That being true, his "advice" to Tucker should be taken as such. Sadly, it's being trumpeted as a triumph of liberalism by the likes of VH-1 (who, sadly, people also rely on for news).
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Here is the way I see it, both the Daily Show and shows like Crossfire are dancing along a thin line. One started at the more serious side of politics and has gone to a more entertaining, yet not really comical side of politics. The other has started as political satire and then got pulled up by the public as a serious news network. My point being if Jon feels so passionate about this non-divisive, non-partisan politics, he is in the position to transition to that if he wants to. One problem, though, he knows he would lose his fan base. He wants CNN to take one for the team, but he wont.
Let me just say, though, that I understand Jon's side, and it isnt his or CNN's fault. You know whose fault it is? The public. We demand to be entertained, even with our news. If that means it needs to be "spiced up a bit", than so be it. We dont care if it is false, just who can get it to us the quickest and make it the juiciest. Who Jon really needs to yell at is the common person watching his TV show, but I wouldnt advise that if he wants to keep an audience.
i can't believe i just now saw a two-day-old thread with my name in the title! i haven't had a whole lot of time to post and read lately. i'll have to see if i can find the rerun and tivo it.
as for john stewart, he really is an ass. i have always liked his show and i agree to some extent with his criticism of crossfire, but he is nothing but a hypocrite. he takes himself very seriously until someone else starts taking him seriously enough to be held accountable -- then he hides behind the commedian bit. i can see why it was frustrating for carlson. he wasn't expecting that kind of attack, and if he had it to do again, i would think that he could tear stewart appart for his hypocracy.
stewart claims to be non-partisan, which is completely absurd. then again, anyone who claims to be unbiased is either lying, delusional, or too dumb to form their own opinions. the only true way for a news show to be unbiased and non-partisan is to have a group of people with a wide range of political views working together.
i'm not going to get into the stewart debate again. but i wish you'd posted on this earlier...i had it recorded but i figured you either had watched it or were not interested since you hadn't posted. my bad, man. your boy did well. most of his interview involved the discussion of his book about weight loss. at the end colbert asked him if he was going to run for president and huckabee said he was thinking about it and that if colbert was his running mate they could "change the world." seemed like a good, personable guy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
