john stewart kicks crossfire's ass

[VV o n g B a]

damn... dunno how many of u guys saw this today, but john stewart came on crossfire and told carlson and begala that they were "partisan hacks" and that carlson was as much of a dick on his show as on any other show or something. he told them they were hurting america by staging theater and not holding the politicians' feet to the fire. carlson actually got mad and started listing stewart's questions to kerry when kerry was on the daily show and stewart said something to the effect of "if u wanna compare your show to a comedy show go ahead." he just went out there and destroyed these two guys. it was beautiful.

http://bitflood.org:8080/file?info_hash=y%1B/%5D%95%A5M%13%81%B8_%27%1BQ%F7%1Es%96A%85

[Yeahman]

Didn't watch it yet but Stewart is a partisan hack. He's like the liberal Bill O'Reilly. I mean the liberal bias is pretty damn obvious but I don't think Stewart would admit that.
And yes it is a comedy show but a comedy show with some actual political clout. I watch the Daily Show more than CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and local news combined. And I bet a lot of other people do too. And so I don't think it's a good excuse for letting liberal guests off extremely easy and really trying to clobber conservative guests.

[John0101]

The Daily Show is not a unbaised news show, it is comedy.

Stewart is nothing like O'Reilly, nothing.

[bluemonq]

And yes it is a comedy show but a comedy show with some actual political clout. I watch the Daily Show more than CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and local news combined. And I bet a lot of other people do too. And so I don't think it's a good excuse for letting liberal guests off extremely easy and really trying to clobber conservative guests.
im surprised that the conservatives don't have their own comedy show on fox or something...

[TB4000]

im surprised that the conservatives don't have their own comedy show on fox or something...
They do, it's called The 'O Reilly Factor.

[A.R.A.M.]

Didn't watch it yet but Stewart is a partisan hack. He's like the liberal Bill O'Reilly. I mean the liberal bias is pretty damn obvious but I don't think Stewart would admit that.
And yes it is a comedy show but a comedy show with some actual political clout. I watch the Daily Show more than CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and local news combined. And I bet a lot of other people do too. And so I don't think it's a good excuse for letting liberal guests off extremely easy and really trying to clobber conservative guests.

The Daily Show has political clout; Oprah has political clout; even Dr. Phil has political clout. Should they all be asking hard hitting questions? Well, Dr. Phil did ask both Bush and Kerry about spanking their daughters. But these shows are in a different class than Crossfire and Hardball which make claims to being part of the media. They are on CNN and MSNBC; the Daily Show is on Comedy Central. Stewart's show can be liberal "theater", can be entertainment for liberals, because it makes no pretensions to being otherwise. He makes no claims to being "objective," unlike FOX News (which makes FOX News all the more nefarious).

That said, I don't think that Stewart's content is politically irrelevant. I especially like his take on the news, which is often very telling--and yes, very liberal. As an aside, I love it when Stewart shows a clip from some news show in which Cheney denies he said something, and then he shows a clip from another news show in which Cheney is saying the very thing he just claims to have never said. But Stewart pokes fun at Kerry and liberals. He also talks about Kerry's multiple positions on multiple issues. And who knows what jokes a Kerry administration will bring?

But I don't like his interviews. He never asks politicians any hard hitting questions. Stewart pandered to Kerry, but he also lobbed a bunch of softball questions to Ron Gellespie (sp?), the RNC chairman, and Ralph Reed. I felt Stewart should have gone after those guys more, but I don't hear conservatives getting all riled up about it.

[ism]

And yes it is a comedy show but a comedy show with some actual political clout. I watch the Daily Show more than CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and local news combined. And I bet a lot of other people do too. And so I don't think it's a good excuse for letting liberal guests off extremely easy and really trying to clobber conservative guests.So what's O'Reilly's excuse?

The Daily Show has so much clout that its viewers are better informed (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/) than viewers of shows that claim to be real news sources. Stewart was getting at this point -- using bias as the metric for the validity of a news source is the wrong way to go about it. Informed viewers are. And when a political satire show beats "hard-hitting," "no-spin zone," "fair and balanced" news sources in that respect, it's a pretty sorry thing that journalism has become.

Crossfire drew more of Stewart's ire in that it boils the partisan concept down to two talking head caricatures who pander to their respective crowd, never arriving at any actual information, never considering other options other than their party's party lines. Has anyone realized that Kerry's isn't really Left, he just happens to be Left of Bush, and viewpoints Left of Kerry are actually Centrist? Television news has completely glossed over this, politics degenerating into the Good Guys vs the Bad Guys.

The best part was when Carlson asked Stewart what he thought of the O'Reilly vibrator story, and Stewart replied, "I'm sorry. I don't." The entire show seemed like it was pre-scripted, with Begala and Carlson practically feeding him these open opportunities (at least Begala got the sense to shut up). That's why Stewart just owned them.

I'm not sure how Begala and Carlson could have gotten out of that, other than admitting that they're not really a serious political show, but an entertainment show (and even at that, results in less-informed viewers).

[Mr.Lum]

im surprised that the conservatives don't have their own comedy show on fox or something...

Conservative comedy wouldn't be funny. They're too uptight for that stuff.

[Yeahman]

They do, it's called The 'O Reilly Factor.
O'Reilly's not comedy. At least it's not meant to be. The conservative version of the Daily Show is that crappy Dennis Miller show.

So what's O'Reilly's excuse?
Denial.

Anyway, the link doesn't work. Anybody have a working link to that Crossfire episode. Also if anyone is interested O'Reilly appeared on the Daily Show last week. Thursday, I think. Don't have a link though.

Anyway, I've been thinking... Why do I continue to watch the Daily Show? I haven't missed a single episode since last year. It's second only to the Sopranos as my favorite show. But I disagree with most of what they present. And why do other other educated conservatives also enjoy the show? I have many less-educated liberal friends who have no interest in the show. Maybe it's because, there are no decent conservative political comedy shows. And maybe that's because we have a Republican in the White House. It would be interesting to see how the Daily Show evolves if Kerry is president.

[Mr.Lum]

O'Reilly's not comedy. At least it's not meant to be. The conservative version of the Daily Show is that crappy Dennis Miller show.

But he's not even funny.

[ism]

There's a transcript from CNN: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

[A.R.A.M.]

Denial.

Anyway, the link doesn't work. Anybody have a working link to that Crossfire episode. Also if anyone is interested O'Reilly appeared on the Daily Show last week. Thursday, I think. Don't have a link though.

Are you saying Ism is in denial, or that O'Reilly's excuse is denial?

I saw O'Reilly's appearance on the Daily Show. It was a fun episode. O'Reilly and Stewart didn't seem like mortal enemies. In fact, O'Reilly joked around with Stewart a little bit, even suggesting he may puff the magic dragon occasionally like Stewart's viewers supposedly do.

[Yeahman]

O'Reilly is in denial that he leans right.

Anyway, I read the transcript. I understand Stewart's point but he keeps on using the excuse that he's exempt from his own rules because he's on Comedy Central.
And the whole point of Crossfire is never to agree with each other on camera. The host's job is to argue for the Democratic or Republican parties. Robert Novak was opposed to the war in Iraq but he didn't say that on the show.

BTW this reminds me of the time Al Franken was on Crossfire and he was critisized in the same way by Carlon:
CARLSON: Al Franken, thanks for joining us.

Like all good liberals I spent a good part of my day listening to your show, "The O'Franken Factor." And I want to read back to you an exchange that took place between you and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

This is your pretty hard-hitting question. You said, quote, "Senator, you went to Iraq and Afghanistan right after Thanksgiving, right?"

"During Thanksgiving," said Mrs. Clinton.

Quote from you, "Tell us about that a bit."

Now here's my question. You're not simply liberal, but you're a partisan Democrat. Doesn't an exchange like this give people the impression that you're not going to be tough on Democrats, that you're essentially part of the establishment? That you're playing for a team and not for an idea? And isn't the result boring?

FRANKEN: I think that you took that out of context, because I said, I think you would have liked this better, because I think you left out, I said "Tell us a little bit about that, bitch."

And you just are -- you're just taking it out of context.

[Mr.Lum]

O'Reilly is in denial that he leans right.



He doesn't "lean right". He fully situates himself right on top of the right wing, right there next to the emperor. I think he knows that too and he's just trying to pretend that he's able to give a somewhat valid commentary on anything. He's not a newman at all. None of those FOX crackpots are. NEither is Steward.

[ism]

Anyway, I read the transcript. I understand Stewart's point but he keeps on using the excuse that he's exempt from his own rules because he's on Comedy Central.
And the whole point of Crossfire is never to agree with each other on camera. The host's job is to argue for the Democratic or Republican parties. Robert Novak was opposed to the war in Iraq but he didn't say that on the show.I think I'm misunderstanding what you believe Stewart's point was, and I'm unclear on what his rules are. In the end, Stewart's viewers are better informed than viewers of hard news programs.

Journalism may be about asking the hard questions, but ultimately, the goal is to obtain the facts. If whatever Stewart does -- comedy, satire, actual news -- results in viewers that are better informed, then isn't that serving the public good and helping the democratic process? Based on this metric, Stewart isn't exempt from the rules. He's winning by those rules.

Crossfire is an example of the opposite end of this spectrum, a program that panders to your personal truth, no matter how wrong it is, because all that matters on that program is what side you're on. Its very existence is hurting the democratic process.

[Yeahman]

I think I'm misunderstanding what you believe Stewart's point was, and I'm unclear on what his rules are. In the end, Stewart's viewers are better informed than viewers of hard news programs.

Journalism may be about asking the hard questions, but ultimately, the goal is to obtain the facts. If whatever Stewart does -- comedy, satire, actual news -- results in viewers that are better informed, then isn't that serving the public good and helping the democratic process? Based on this metric, Stewart isn't exempt from the rules. He's winning by those rules.
You've got that completely backwards. Viewers aren't better informed because they watch the Daily Show. Viewers watch the Daily Show because they are already politically savvy. The show would not be much fun to those uninterested and ignorant of politics.

[Chester]

You've got that completely backwards. Viewers aren't better informed because they watch the Daily Show. Viewers watch the Daily Show because they are already politically savvy. The show would not be much fun to those uninterested and ignorant of politics.
Right. Which is why nobody should be looking to Jon Stewart and The Daily Show as a source of balanced news.

[Deadpool]

Angry Stewart
fucking fantastic (http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831&htv=12)

[kimpossible]

Anyway, the link doesn't work. Anybody have a working link to that Crossfire episode.


Merged Deadpool's link.

[achtungbaby]

They do, it's called The 'O Reilly Factor.
Took the words right outta my mouth.

I understand Stewart's point but he keeps on using the excuse that he's exempt from his own rules because he's on Comedy Central.
I agree.

[ChinaLama]

Stewart's not really exempting himself from his rules, because his rules apply to journalists, not comedians. So he's saying the Crossfire people aren't fulfilling their journalistic duties. If they wanted to be theater, they should just say straight out they're there for entertainment rather than pretending to be a news or debate show.

[ism]

You've got that completely backwards. Viewers aren't better informed because they watch the Daily Show. Viewers watch the Daily Show because they are already politically savvy. The show would not be much fun to those uninterested and ignorant of politics.So what responsibility does Stewart have in having a serious discourse when he is a comedian and the show claims to be satire, while all the "hard" news programs claim to be serious? If the question comes down to "with power comes great esponsibility," then should we expect Oprah to throw hardball questions at guests? Dr. Phil? How about Rosie O'Donnell blindsiding Tom Selleck for his NRA affilliation?

If Crossfire, a self-labelled serious, hard news program, wanted to compare itself to a comedy show -- a show that calls itself a comedy show -- then Stewart invited them to do so. If Daily Show viewers are already politically savvy, then Stewart doesn't have a responsibility to do anything other than what the show claims it provides -- entertainment. The fact that Daily Show viewers are still better informed after knowing Stewart is biased just shows that the Daily Show isn't hurting the democratic process. If it's making politics more entertaining and enjoyable, then it's still helping it.

Look, this isn't an attack on the Right. Stewart blasted Crossfire, which has both a Democrat and Republican patsy. I'm a little surprised that someone who has the sense to vote for Badnarik, a 3rd party, is missing the point that a program purporting to be hard news, but really polarizing American politics blindly, is not good for democracy.

If you do get that, and I apologize for directing this specifically at you, I'm still at a loss why the charges of hypocrisy are being levelled at Stewart. His complaint has long been a complaint of the independents, the undecided, the swing voters, the party-unregistered, people like you and me, and the majority of this country who do not vote at all.

Strangely enough, this ties into your election reform topic. The two-party system is the nature of the beast, and I don't think we can move away from it until the electoral college is abolished. Given a minimum of two axes of political thought (social and economic), there are at least four viable candidates for each quadrant. I have always longed for a candidate that is at least in the same quadrant as me that is viable. I don't know about you, but wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing that supporting Badnarik would actually have a chance of succeeding? Shows like Crossfire or whatever, that blindly follow the party line, are just brainwashing the straight-liners, and turning off the swings from participating.

Now, we can't force those shows off the air (and I don't want to), and some people do view it as entertainment, but I find it hard to criticize Stewart's actions. Those shows could use a blasting every now and then; won't change things majorly, but at least let some people out there know that some people care. Judging by the reaction I've seen on several places (Fark, Slashdot, BoingBoing, etc.) -- a lot of people are glad to know that they're not alone. Doesn't this feel good, knowing that someone isn't just going to toe the Democrat or Republican line? That's he's actually in the majority of the population? That if the system changed, he, and many others, would truly make America more democratic?

[Yeahman]

So what responsibility does Stewart have in having a serious discourse when he is a comedian and the show claims to be satire, while all the "hard" news programs claim to be serious? If the question comes down to "with power comes great esponsibility," then should we expect Oprah to throw hardball questions at guests? Dr. Phil? How about Rosie O'Donnell blindsiding Tom Selleck for his NRA affilliation?
Give the audience what they want. So all of the hosts you mentioned should have very different questions to ask.
Stewart should be funny. But his audience, I think, also expects him to ask meaningful, or at least entertaining (for a politically savvy crowd), questions. He totally let Kerry by. Carlon wasn't the only person to critisize Stewart's interview with Kerry.
Perhaps we give Stewart too much credit. He critisizes the media for being soft. And despite all the humor, he does have a serious issue with the way the mainstream media underperforms. So he's given the chance to interview the man who may be the most powerful man in the world come next January. We all expected him to be the man to cut through the BS and deliver. And he ends up being worse than those he critisized.

If Crossfire, a self-labelled serious, hard news program, wanted to compare itself to a comedy show -- a show that calls itself a comedy show -- then Stewart invited them to do so. If Daily Show viewers are already politically savvy, then Stewart doesn't have a responsibility to do anything other than what the show claims it provides -- entertainment. The fact that Daily Show viewers are still better informed after knowing Stewart is biased just shows that the Daily Show isn't hurting the democratic process. If it's making politics more entertaining and enjoyable, then it's still helping it.
I never said it was hurting though I don't like the liberal agenda being promoted like that. But I do think that there isn't much difference between Crossfire and the Daily Show. Difference in format, yes. But I don't see much difference in purpose. Come on, Stewart gotta be the only guy that thinks that a show where Carlson ate a shoe (albeit a chocolate one) because of a bet, is somehow supposed to be held to a higher standard than his own.

Look, this isn't an attack on the Right. Stewart blasted Crossfire, which has both a Democrat and Republican patsy. I'm a little surprised that someone who has the sense to vote for Badnarik, a 3rd party, is missing the point that a program purporting to be hard news, but really polarizing American politics blindly, is not good for democracy.
I haven't even touched that issue of polarization. Perhaps Stewart has a point there but regardless, I think he was totally out of line and hypocritical.

If you do get that, and I apologize for directing this specifically at you, I'm still at a loss why the charges of hypocrisy are being levelled at Stewart. His complaint has long been a complaint of the independents, the undecided, the swing voters, the party-unregistered, people like you and me, and the majority of this country who do not vote at all.
So then he should practice what he preaches.

Strangely enough, this ties into your election reform topic. The two-party system is the nature of the beast, and I don't think we can move away from it until the electoral college is abolished. Given a minimum of two axes of political thought (social and economic), there are at least four viable candidates for each quadrant. I have always longed for a candidate that is at least in the same quadrant as me that is viable. I don't know about you, but wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing that supporting Badnarik would actually have a chance of succeeding? Shows like Crossfire or whatever, that blindly follow the party line, are just brainwashing the straight-liners, and turning off the swings from participating.
I think shows like Crossfire exist precisiously because we have a 2 party system. In an ideal multi-party nation the Crossfire format would not be practical.

Now, we can't force those shows off the air (and I don't want to), and some people do view it as entertainment, but I find it hard to criticize Stewart's actions. Those shows could use a blasting every now and then; won't change things majorly, but at least let some people out there know that some people care. Judging by the reaction I've seen on several places (Fark, Slashdot, BoingBoing, etc.) -- a lot of people are glad to know that they're not alone. Doesn't this feel good, knowing that someone isn't just going to toe the Democrat or Republican line? That's he's actually in the majority of the population? That if the system changed, he, and many others, would truly make America more democratic?
I have no problem with that. But...
1. Stewart did come across as a dick.
2. He doesn't practice what he preaches. I don't buy the "But it's a on Comedy Central" excuse.

---------------
On Crossfire today, Carville called Stewart a "pompous ass."
On the Daily Show today, Stewart made it known that it wasn't just Novak (a favorite target of Stewart) that he despises but all 4 of them at Crossfire.