I agree with everything you said Guthmund! I'm so happy I was able to catch the clip on ifilm. I just love the fact that the 2 hosts kept trying to be cute with Stewart, trying to get him back to being funny and sell his book, but forgot that this guy might actually have some real opinions. Yes, he was brought on to sell the book, promote his show and make the funny, but that's what all those other late night entertainment shows are for. I've never watched Crossfire before, but I assume that the show is meant to present arguments from differing sides of the political spectrum, and hopefully come up with some conclusion at the end. They figure that since Stewart has some sort of relation to politics, they can have him on the show and maintain their reputation as a political show. Stewart came on with those cute faces and lines, and the hosts bought into them. Then he unleashes his true intentions, and the hosts are visibly shocked by it. They try and devalue his arguments by acting sarcastic and making everything into a joke. They criticize his show for not being serious enough about the election, when that is exactly what his show is about. They mock the travesty that these news shows try and present themselves to be. They ask ridiculous questions to supposedly important people because that's what those shows are doing. They know their audience is smart enough to understand what they are trying to do, so they don't have to put up those stupid "this is not meant to be taken seriously" warnings. But these crossfire guys continue to try and harm his reputation and image when it comes to politics, when Stewart already does it on his own show! The ridiculousness of the segments should be proof of this. But the only reason why people watch him is because they know he's making a mockery of it all. He's being satirical because it's the best way to tell the truth. And sadly, these so called political experts seem to forget about this. They spend the entire time criticizing his show, instead of his own opinions. His own opinions as a human being and citizen of this nation. I cannot wait to see if Stewart mentions this on his own show, and make it even more ridiculous. Thank you John Stewart!

That's really odd. I turn on the Daily Show, and then I turn on CNN or MSNBC or even Fox News, and I see much more honest and thorough coverage in the latter three. I don't see any possible way that one could become decently informed by the Daily Show. I'm perplexed.

Halx, I know about the guy. I think of him as Bill Mahrer Lite, a Howard Stern everything-I-don't-agree-with-is-repressive type; another of those strange tv mutants who call themselves politico-comedians. He tries to hide his liberal political agenda behind his comedy. Fine. He likes to criticize the US media, fine. Along with Michael Moore, I think he should be grateful he lives in country that so richly rewards him for his criticism. Send him to Mexico for a year, and as soon as someone steals his Porsche, and he can't get a Starbucks he'll want back into the bad old US-of-A. I think he has an overblown sense of self-importance, and I still think he made an ass of himself yesterday on CNN.

We will all see.....that which we wish to see. Only a few will see beyond what they already "know" to be the truth, into the fog of enlightenment. Comedy can indeed, open doors shut tight by anger, and burn this fog into no more than a haze. Laughter can crack the walls, that a closed mind creates.

no. that's a good question and i'm glad you asked. i'm proposing that satire and comedic revue no longer have their well-defined contextual position that once made it so valuable in political discourse. satire and comedy now IS political discussion. stewart obviously runs a comedy operation, but our entertainment culture tends to attribute to him more credibility than he deserves or even wanted in the beginning.

stewart certainly has the right to run a comedy show supported by his own comedic talents. hell, when the man is sticking to comedy... he's got an exceptional gift. he crosses the line when he admonishes others for a supposed destruction of political discussion when he himself is the posterboy for such abuses.

it's not his fault personally that the public discourse is arranged so, but to come on crossfire w/such a smug demeanor to criticize others for not effecting positive change when he is the one who could be the most help is hypocritical. it'd cost him some ratings and some book sales... but he could do more than any other tv personality to get things on track, instead he prefers to snipe at those who do the same thing as he w/out the protection of being on a particular channel.

bottomline: stewart is a big part of the problem he makes money attacking. whether that is by design or circumstance... i cannot say. the minute he begins to deny his own role in the media and starts lecturing others is the instant he can no longer hide behind his format and must begin to take the responsibility for change that he encourages in others.

tecoyah-san:
pass me that opium pipe, will ya?
Then come over here and teach me all about truth & enlightenment. :lol:

*ears perk up* did someone say opium?

I have trouble with opinions like this. What I'm getting is, in effect, since he lives in a place where he has the freedom to be satirical and express his political opinions in a way that makes fun of the current administration, he should be grateful for it and quit making fun of it. In essence, what I'm getting is that you're saying to people like them, "Be glad you have the freedom, now stop using it."

The study SecretMethod referenced compared the Daily Show to Leno and Letterman, not to the news networks, so the result is not too surprising.

I agree that if you just watch the Daily Show, you're not going to become very informed. The show really acts as a comedic supplement to the normal, straight news that you might get on a CNN or NY Times. I doubt that many Daily Show viewers only get their news from that single source, because if they did that they probably wouldn't understand half the jokes.

Dear Jesus,
Where did I say "Stop Using It?"
Where did I say Jon Stewart should stop doing his schtick?
Show me, please. Did I say this? Somewhere, Anywhere?

I didn't say anything of the sort. These are you're own phantom ideas conjured up and falsely attributed to me. Naughty, naughty...a debate faux paus, sir. For the record, I don't think he should stop what he does, why should he? This is AMERICA!!, where you are free to take the good with the bad. Do I think he's a disingenuous, hypocrital little weasel? Most definitely, but I don't think his opinions should be censored, no way. Are you implying that I don't have the right to criticize him?

Now, please join willtravel, me & tecoyah-san over at the opium pipe. We're going to learn about Truth & Enlightenment!!! :p

Sir, I may not agree with your opium use, but I'll defend to the death your right to view pink elephants and little leprechauns and little Stewarts criticising others for being partisan hacks...oh wait, that last one's real.

That makes much more sense to me. Thanks.

I think irate put it much more eloquently than I could have hoped to.

The study compared late-night comedy show viewers (which included Daily Show viewers) with non-late-night comedy show viewers. This allowed a comparison between Leno/Letterman/Stewart, but overall it demonstrated that, all else being equal (whether or how much non-comedy news information was viewed), viewers of late-night comedy were more knowledgeable about current events than non-viewers of late-night comedy.

Details:

I disagree with calling the Daily Show a horrible source of information. They have been one of the few media outlets to address how the media spins news (with the assist of partisan hacks) and what a dominating player big media has become. This spin of the truth is actually the undiscussed news story of our age, it is a kind of gridlock that is impossible to break out of. It afflicts TFP constantly in threads, including this one.
Have we really gotten back to "Love it or Leave it Hippy" This is exactly what Jon Stewart is talking about. Powerclown's qoute isn't a discussion, it's dogma.
It is part of the power of the daily show to operate in the realm of comedy. Anyone who has seen the loop of flacks pronouncing Kerry and Edwards first and fourth most liberal in the exact same language over and over will know what it means.

I get the impression that stewart somehow personally wronged you. Perhaps you should try not to get so emotional about him. I don't think you really know anything about the man, since you seem to have huge misconceptions about his opinion of america. He is no micheal moore, or howard stern, or bill marher. Maybe you should try to address what he was talking about, instead of making emotional misstatements about the man's character.


Irate it seems to me you think that he has no right to be a media critic, since he works in the media. I think he is in the perfect position to call bullshit on the media when it takes itself too seriously. The difference between stewart and carlson is that stewart isn't claiming to be a journalist. He isn't claiming to have the public's best interest in mind. His job is to make people laugh. His job is satire, which by its very nature requires a certain amount of smug self righteousness.

just saw that clip this morning, off of fark, damn that was the funniest thing ever. wish i would have saw it live.

I'd watch his show if I thought he was funny.
I used to watch it until I decided it wasn't.

they should either change the show to CROSSTALK, or spice up the transcripts using the term CROSSFIRE at the appropriate moments.

also i noticed stewart's message of integrity was blantantly ignored minutes later...

i almost agree with stewart. personally i find crossfire unwatchable, i'm surprised he said that he watches regularly. and it takes balls to criticize these people to their face, although the name-calling kind of diminshes his point.

but i think cable news, like the daily show, is what it is. honest intelligent debate does not always earn great ratings. if it did, pbs would be the top news source. foxnews is most watched, yet leaves viewers poorly informed. i'm not saying it's impossible to have an intelligent news show on cable. it's just very hard. i've seen chris matthews in person and he said his ideal job would be a charlie rose-type show. yet he doesn't change because he is trying to catch cnn and fox in the ratings. it's a question of how much info- people want with their -tainment.

perhaps, though, stewart has pioneered a new ratings getter in cable news - bashing cable news. then again, the show is an easy target. i mean, the name is caps locked. but, it's interesting when the cable minions are threatened. unfortunately, it's doubtful much will change unless people stop watching these shows (but i really don't know anyone who watches them now, come to think of it).



speaking of cable news shows, what's going on with larry king lately? when i flip past the shows are laci peterson this, princess diana that. (or michael jackson.) talk about a real bottom feeder.

Just to be fair, I also think "Crossfire" is a terrible, unwatchable show. One of the worst things out there.

If you think name calling diminishes his point, then you need to lay off the estrogen pills. He made his point, we can all agree he had one, then he just made some quality television.

and powerclown, you are flagrantly misstepping your points. I insist on you getting to know more about who you talk about in the future.

I apologize if I jumped to conclusions about your stance. I guess I should have asked, instead, "How should he show his gratitude?" Isn't exercising his rights and freedoms to make fun of the administration the best gratitude he can show? Isn't that how we judge if a family member or friend likes our gifts, by using them?

Now, we have been talking exclusively of his portrayals of the Bush Administration, but he does take equally biting jabs at Kerry and his followers on his show.

I think what he was criticizing on Crossfire was their format and the formulaic format of other "debate" shows where talking heads and pundits shout over each other. He was saying that this type of political discussion does a serious disservice to intelligent discourse and helps polarize the populace. I happen to agree with him. I lump all the Bill O'Reillys, Sean Hannities, Michael Moores, James Carvilles, et al in the same dungheap of paritsan bitchfest-ers. They are not interested in truthfulness and intelligence; they are only interested in dumbing down issues to the lowest common denominator then spinning this dreck into a ratings extravaganza that makes their producers gleeful. We watch them and end up increasingly ignorant.

Janeane Garofalo was a guest on Bill O'Reilly after the Democratic Convention. O'Reilly was trying to lure her into a contradictory statement and she was refusing to take the bait. She said to him that she was tired of the mouthpieces on television and radio that play "gotcha" with their guests in a game of semantics that served no purpose other than to embarass the guest. This is done on both sides; and while Ms. Garofalo and Mr. Stewart might not be as quick to accuse liberal hosts of similar tactics, I believe they are right. How informed are we when someone like Sean Hannity is constantly yelling over his guests to quit giving detailed answers and just say yes or no. The truth is that we are not interested in detail. We're only interested in making the other side look foolish. This does not serve the betterment of our society. This was what Jon Stewart was talking about. The hosts of Crossfire were hoping for a ratings boost by having a funnyman on their show, and instead got their asses handed to them. They deserved it, too. They wanted Stewart to act like a trained monkey and instead he shit in his hand and threw it at them.

How is this showing ingratitude for his rights and freedoms?

Sorry for being so long-winded with that response.

Now, if there is any opium left, truth and enlightenment are only an hallucination away. ;)

Powerclown,
Bill Maher's previous show, "Politically Incorrect'" was not a political satire. It was almost exactly like his current show, only not as well-funded. He would have a panel of people with differing views on various political issues and discuss them. Jokes would be made but the discussions were serious. And he wasn't canned for his political views; everyone knows what his views are. He was canned for using his freedom of speech on a channel that wasn't HBO. HBO, of course, gives him a lot more freedom.

And as far as Letterman doing the same thing Stewart did...I don't see a problem with that. I would, in fact, find it very refreshing. I know a lot of people don't like to see famous "personalities" to ever break out of character, or to ever differ from how they protray themselves on their own show, but, as a guest on a political show such as Crossfire, I believe being open and honest and even critical is very brave...especially in this polarized political climate, where having opinion is fast becoming a person's downfall. Kudos to Stewart for trying to address this.

That statement couldn't be further from the truth. Bill Mahrer is an asshole compared to Jon Stewart, Howard Stern isn't even remotely like Jon. He doesn't call himself a politico-comedian, he doesn't have to, he was a fairly successful stand-up comic before getting on the Daily Show. He isn't full of himself, and he isn't Michael Moore. Just because he's voting for Kerry doesn't mean he's a bad person. Just because he knows political shows like Crossfire, the O'Reilly Factor, and almost every other show are completely worthless, and then goes on national television and says it doesn't make him a bad person, it just means he actually has the guts to stand up on national television and say what everyone knows.

It was obviously throughtout your posts in this entire topic you have no idea what you're talking about, because the Daily Show doesn't just have some of the funniest jokes of Bush on television, but the best (and sometimes it seems like the only) John Kerry jokes on television have been said by *GASP* Jon Stewart. And he hasn't said them reluctently, or act like he's forced to say them, he enjoys doing it.

He's one of the few voices of reason on television. You should try listening to him before you make such baseless judgements.

[QUOTE=Halx]If you think name calling diminishes his point, then you need to lay off the estrogen pills. He made his point, we can all agree he had one, then he just made some quality television.[QUOTE]

well, name calling is not a staple of intelligent debate technique. it brings the discussion down a level. i thought this notion was generally accepted.

maybe it was an apt evaluation of those guys, but his presentation is slightly less effective as a result. i don't think i'm being effeminate here, i'm simply making an observation.

Loved the clip and am loving the discussion that is going on here. I agree with many things you had to say in that last post JumpinJesus.

The elections have come down to a battle of marketing departments and many Americans are being turned off from the whole process. The platitudes, the gross oversimplifications, the deliberate spin on everything mentioned all have cheapened the substance behind the party's arguments. I think Stewart is in an excellent position to point out these flaws as he and his show make a living in pointing out these flaws on a day to day basis. He brought that viewpoint to a more "serious" show that primarily focuses on displaying the two major party's spins for a living. Understandably the hosts of Crossfire were upset by what Stewart was saying, but they could have done a much better job of debating the substance to Stewart’s argument. Their primary tact was to attempt to laugh it off and to criticize TDS for softballing their guests. Stewart does not normally ask the “pointed” questions that Crossfire believes he needs to, but I have always thought that he does do a good job of getting his guest’s to open up in ways that other shows don’t allow them to. Stewart was making the point that his show “The Fake News” has its place, but that he is disturbed by the fact that the “real” news shows are doing a poor job of staying real.

I don't think Stewart has the answers, but he is at least helping to point out many flaws in the system and in the media. I sure hope that doesn't mean he has to head to Mexico as some would suggest. I don't get that country's TV programming and would miss him dearly. Though I suppose some would suggest I should head there too.

Halx, thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. At the same time, I couldn't disagree with you more. The Jon Stewarts of the world are nothing new in the theater of political satire. You've seen one, you've seen them all. There are only new generations with minds of clean slate. The question is whether the entertainer's style is one that appeals to you. His doesn't.

doc, I used to watch Politically Incorrect. I enjoyed it. I'm too much of a cheap lazy bastard to get a cable box and catch his new show on HBO. But I know his schtick. And I believe it comparable to Stewarts. Funny, but I like Bill Mahrer, but I don't like Stewart. It just boils down to the fact that I don't find Jon Stewart very funny. I probably would have thought his performance on CNN completely subversive, triumphant and hysterical if I thought the guy was funny. Be he just ain't funny to me.

BigGov, you wouldn't be the president of the Jon Stewart Fan Club by chance? Who said that him voting for Kerry makes him a bad person, heheheh! Who said that running his mouth on Crossfire makes him a bad person? Not me. I said he was a weasel, I didn't say he was an axe murderer. More power to him if he thinks he proved something by standing up to CNN. Its not my problem that you think I don't know what I'm talking about. I think I know what I'm talking about, I've been around a bit. It might be your problem though that you find his version of liberal left political commentary so illuminating and humorous. I would question your sense of humor, sir. But, on the other hand, I'm glad for you that his sensibilities mesh with yours. You will allow me my right to change the channel I trust.

If you read my whole post you'll see that that's not all they compared Daily Show viewers to:

Anyways, part of the reason for this is that most of the time stations like CNN report on the campaigns and what they did each day as opposed to what they stand for. What they tested for was knowledge of issues - of what the candidates stood for - and that is where Daily Show viewers came out ahead. I have no doubt that if they tested on things regarding swift boat veterans and other non-issue things, that national news watchers would fare better.

powerclown, honestly, how many times have you watched the Daily Show? Comparing Jon Stewart to Bill Maher is really damaging the credibility of your argument. They're nothing alike.

I just watched the Crossfire segment, from the Fark link, and have enjoyed reading the spirited debate about Stewart's appearance in particular, and his idealogy in general. I think the guy is funny myself, though others here obviously do not. As for the point he was trying to make on Crossfire, I think it was pretty simple. Shows like that simply reiterate the talking points of the respective sides, as opposed to debating the MERITS of each of the various issues taken on either side, and Stewart's point was that this isn't only disingenuous, it's a waste of time. Take Iraq, for example. After 9-11, Bush or any other person in his position (Kerry admittedly included) could not have risked ignoring multiple intelligence sources unanimously indicating that Saddam had WMD's. Better to attack that threat abroad rather than to defend it here. As for a coalition, the U.N., France, Germany and Russia were too invested in Saddam and the food for oil scam, among other things, to join with the U.S., whether it had been Bush, Kerry, or even John Stewart doing the asking. Perhaps Bush could have somehow communicated to Saddam that he really would take the U.S. to war against him, but I doubt it, since there had been nothing but empty threats over the preceding decade. It isn't fair to attack Bush based on the benefit of hindsight...he had every right to rely on the intelligence and his advisors. On the other hand, there wasn't a workable plan "to win the peace", to use Kerry's words. I fault Bush for that but not a lot, because any plan for peace would be problematic...I certainly haven't heard anything from Kerry that truly suggests he'd have done any better. Kerry has a plan for everything, but these "plans" are painted in very large strokes. The simple fact is that after removing Saddam, there would have been no workable way of instituting a democratic regime sufficiently strong to avoid a power vacuum and civil war, while at the same time getting out of the country quickly enough to be seen as liberators and not occupiers.

I think Stewart's point (or mine anyway) is that we need for each side to be examined on the underlying assumptions and the accuracy of them. It would be beating a dead horse now, but I'd still like to hear Kerry try to explain, in specific terms, how he could have "won the peace" under the specific circumstances which we were presented with. Any debater worth his or her salt could take Bush or Kerry to task on the issue, and make it clear (whether either of them would admit it or not) that the decision to go to war instead of ignoring the WMD threat was justifiable and that the war could be "won", in the sense that Saddam would be removed, but that the aftermath would inevitably result some variation of the cluster fuck we're currently to try to resolve. I would like to see similar examination and debate on the primary issues, including jobs, immigration, homeland security, equal rights, etc.

Peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned. 2 stand-up comedians-turned-talkshow-political-pundits/satirists/what-have-you's wailing against The Machine all the way to the bank is all. If I'm wrong, it's my loss. I'm willing to risk it. I will risk the fall.

Jon Stewart is an unfunny man. Just like Adam Sandler is an unfunny man. Just like Ashton Kutcher is a non-entity actor. Just like Jessica Simpson has the most beautiful pair of full, golden breasts on planet Earth. I find Chris Rock's political observations funnier than Jon Stewart's. Jon Stewart does not speak for me. He is not representative of me. I do not laugh smugly along with Jon Stewart when Jon Stewart rails against The Machine. I do not guffaw when Jon Stewart caricatures cynical political processes. I do not nod my head in solemn agreement when Jon Stewart points out banal hypocrisies. I do not worship at the Altar of Jon Stewart. There are others I look to for my infotainment. That is all. Now carry on. THE END

I quote only a snippet of your response to say this:

I may disagree with you politically, but you're posting some of the funniest things I've read in this thread.*




*Not as funny as Jon Stewart, but still funny. ;)

you're not willing to risk it. right now you are falling. the ground is rushing towards you, but you refuse to look down. good thing this is just a metaphor, eh?

Ok, I'm going to talk like Jon here.

I'll be honest here. I didn't read the rest of the thread because I don't care. But I must say, I'm glad Jon finally owned that show. For a while now, I've felt similar to the way he does (not exactly, but similar), and I'm glad he came out and put the foor down on those two fools. I'm glad he called them Partisan hacks, and I'm glad he basically called them morons. I think Jon Stewart is one of the best things to happen to politics in a while, and I think HE actually asks the questions that need to be ask. For those of you that deny me, just watch his shows, he asks these questions secretly; in a way that gets the guest to answer them more freely. Anyways, that's my .2 cents.

This is about Jon Stweart on Crossfire, not whether you think he's funny or not. Your opinion of his comedical prowess is MOOT, at least in this discussion.

I think you'd better read the initial post again. That is that shows the direction of the thread.

If you're going to correct someone...be sure your right. Of course I read the original post. It was about Crossfire where Jon Stewart was the guest. It had nothing to do with how powerclown thinks that Jon Stewart is not funny on the Daily Show. Mkay?

No, not "Mkay". My post basically had the same feel and content as the first thread. Yes, I added some of my thoughts on Jon's comedy, but I also stayed with the topic.

Thanks.

Hahaha, I wasn't refering to your post. I was refering to powerclown (as was mentioned in the 6:07 post). I was never refering to you. I just now read your post, and it seems fine. Sheesh.

Ok, I apologize then, lol. It REALLY seemed like you were talking to me and I honestly couldn't see why. Sorry again.

I'm watching it again after reading the transcript, and it's confirmed my long held suspiscions that his humor is all about tone and timing. Seeing and hearing him conveys a lot more than just reading a transcript.

that aside, it doesn't matter who he is or what channel his show is on. if david letterman were to appear on crossfire I would expect him to be prepared to be serious. Crossfire is supposedly a debate show, not a variety show. If you invite a comic onto a debate show expecting him to just tell a few jokes and plug his book you deserve to get reamed... scratch that, if you're so proud of how serious your debate show is, you shouldn't be bringing comedians onto it at all.

Crossfire thought stewart would be a good guest to sit between the left and the right and interject funny ribs about both as he let the "grown ups" hash it out. did he surprise you when he called these guys out for their bipartisan hackery? did you expect him to make some silly entendres about cheney's daughter and bill o'reilly's vibrator? Is he hiding behind his network to excuse himself from asking pointed questions, or is it actually unfair to try and hold a show on comedy central to the same standards as CNN. Part of the reason so many young people fashion their political views after what they hear on the daily show is because the show puts to words the absurdity of the way things are. it's painful to see so many adults act so childish.

shame on you for looking to a debate show for comedy, and a comedy show for seriousness.

The crying shame here is that this thread is just like that show. We've spent 2 pages talking about the daily show, and jon stewart.

Rather than respond to the charge that they were political hacks, the bow tied one flipped it back to Jon's questions. And it works. It's clear it's not a debate - the other person's point can't be acknowledged and built upon - there's a schedule to keep, dammit. And prebuilt pictures of Stewart's questions to Kerry to show.

It seems clear that many people (in this thread) hear the points Jon was making on the show. And some great comments. But somehow the bulk of the conversation (of the show, and of the thread) is not on those points. It becomes who interrupts the best, who talks loudest, and who can tangent the best.

Sad.

Nothing sad about it.
Threads move in ways unpredictable and that's as it should be.
People have their own thoughts and make decisions on what they choose to emphasize. We decide what is important to us in a thread and then respond to it. It's not as if the points made here were far off the topic. They were not.