I forget the logical term for what you just did. However If A Then B does not translate to If B Then A. He didn't say that anyone who doesn't like the show is ignorant of current events, just explained why if you don't follow current events you wouldn't have a shot at enjoying the show.

I responded to a statement that can be interpreted in two different ways.

I responded to it by stating that it does not apply to me as stated.

My response was a direct response to the statement as worded. I have no idea how the statement was intended.

If the show seems partisan it's because Bush makes for a fairly easy target.

I mean, imagine if Dan Quayle had become president...

Clinton tended to get more sympathetic laughs. I mean, come on, that was just a funny situation.

I just watched a video, and dang, Stewart was pretty powerful.

However, when he pleaded to the guys when they went on a comercial break, it seemed almost pathetic of him.

I'm calling you on this irate. Jon Stewart is not contributing to the destruction of political discussion by hosting a political satire show. His role in the media is well defined by his own actions as well as the content of his show, not to mention it's placement and network. He stays within his boundaries of political cynic. To say he is a hypocrite for encouraging positive change in the validity of reputable news sources is absurd. In fact, he is doing so well in his job of examining both sides of the election with a crictical eye that people are beginning to take him seriously. Jon Stewart is doing a better job than reputable news shows at keeping perspective on political process, and not merely regurgitating (very) minor issues. Our "entertainment culture" pushes for more news, more information all the time. By reporting everything, the important issues become obscured (suspected kerry war record flaws? or that BIG issue with him calling his security a son of a bitch on the ski hill). These points should not hold more importance than positions on economic policy or personal freedoms.

Now, for Stewart to ignore the influence he holds with his show would be plain stupid. He wants Kerry to win, and it shows. The fact that he does satire on both candidates merely shows his position is not set in stone. Stewart also addresses the problems he attempted to mention on Crossfire on his own show. He does it in a lighthearted way, just like the rest of the issues he brings up. All in all I see a very intelligent man hosting this satire show.

That's why he went on crossfire. I don't believe he was trying to change the minds of the hosts, but to help make people watching aware that a lot of crossfire is simply theatre (I haven't seen any arguement against this). People that believed they were being informed on two perpectives of an issue have simply been confirming their own beliefs. Just the fact there has been so much discussion on this goes to show there is a problem with the media, and disscussion will be one of the best ways to implement change.

John Stewart is not denying his role in the media. He has gained influence from his role and is using it to the best of his abilities to effect change in what he sees as a flawed system.

clearing up my meaning above for art and others on that tangent: stewart has said in interviews (charlie rose, larry king, etc) whilst plugging the new book that they assume a high level of knowledge in current events and the nature of broadcast news in their viewers when they write the show. they don't expect people who don't watch the news to get the tounge in cheek lampooning of the style of broadcasting, or the content in the satire. the writers, who have also been on a few talk shows, have echoed this. this trend is also played out in the nieslen demographic research recently used by comedy central's PR department when they responded to bill o'reilly's calling the daily show viewers 'stoned slackers' by showing that they were in fact more educated and more aware of current events than the viewers of the o'reilly factor.

honestly, it makes sense, if you watch 24 hour news networks, you are more likely to be misinformed. the endless regurgitation of spin disguised as analysis drowns out what little fact based reporting there is. clearly the whole media has made a huge mistake in representing john kerry to the public, when just 90 minutes of air time talking issues in the first debate cause such a dramatic spike in his public perception ratings. instead of focusing on the issues, the 24hournets are focusing on the spin and the rest of the media suffers from the pack race and trickle down. that's all stewart was trying to say, and it is clear that many out there on both sides of the spin agree based upon how certain demographics are dropping out of those products and going to alternative information sources.

Jon: How old are you?

Tucker: 35

Jon: And you wear a bow tie.

Millions of people throughout the world have wanted to set-spike that one home to Tucker's face.

Regardless of whatever spin we want to make of this, let's have a moment of silence to honor Jon for that wonderful moment.

skier,

first off, i wouldn't use the point that stewart pokes fun at both sides to prove that he has an open mind or isn't married to a certain agenda. let's not forget that he has a vested interest in telling as many jokes as he can. the more people laugh, the more people watch his show and buy his books. more laughs = more dollars. stewart is many things, but a capitalist chiefly among them.

i think we're arguing two separate points here. your response was based on the premise that stewart was running a political satire show plain-and-simple and should be afforded the accompaning degrees of seriousness and accountability.

i will sidestep your premise by countering that political satire no longer exists in the way that it once did. we agree that The Daily Show is intended to be primarily satirical entertainment, and we've both argued that Crossfire and its ilk are also entertainment oriented programs. So, if the whole gamut from a comedian's sniping to allegedly serious political discussion is acknowledged to be entertainment... from what vantage point do we defend one show as being purely satirical if it is endemic to the way we view all televised political discourse?

Whether you, I, or Jon Stewart likes it or not... there are a lot of people who get their news and base their votes off his show. If it's all entertainment, surely there must be some point where Stewart stops hiding behind his format and starts taking responsibility for his show's impact if he sees fit to criticize other entertainers for not being as positive an influence as they could be.

So again, I think it is innaccurate to characterize stewart as an outside satirist commenting on another industry. He has made himself a part of the same machine, just on the extreme buffoonery side of things. we've lost the separation between sober political news and entertainment. with this new paradigm comes new responsibility from our brand-new entertainers and a renewed awareness among the voting public.

I know this has kindof gone in circles, but from what I got from watching this, your last 2 paragraphs are *exactly* what he's talking about. His show was created to criticize and be funny. The fact that it can and/or is held up to the same standards as news programs that 1) are not on "Comedy Central" and 2) are advertised as, and *supposed* to be serious news programs, or that people even watch it to get anything other than a laugh, is a serious problem.

uhh...your statement has almost nothing to do with his. read it again...he's not saying that if you do follow current events and watch the news, it IS funny....just that if you don't, it's not funny.

just cuz the guy has a different take than you doesn't mean you have to strip his statement of its context and misinterpret it...

/tired of all the spinning....

and if anyone wants to begin to be informed about everyday, mainstream news, come discover what millions of americans already know about -- NPR -- not saying there's no spin, because it's there, but you really have to look for it. and when you find it, you'll find you're more keen to the other networks' attempts at "news"

bodymassage3,

i believe the difference lies in that skier seems to be proposing that stewart is on the outside as a satirist looking in on the issue, while i believe stewart to be on the inside pointing fingers at everyone else just like him.

Although I doubt that anything that I write will change your mind (does anyone's mind ever get changed by the arguments in this forum?), the Daily Show is most definitely satire and they have a good record of lampooning everyone in power regardless of party.

This thread evokes the whole "athlete/role model" thing, with one crucial difference. No kid dreaming of a career as a journalist is following in the footsteps of Jon Stewart...now, a potential comedian is another story.

that's because jon stewart is a horrible man, and a hypocrite.

/just wanted to take away the kneejerk anti-stewart reaction to what you posted

it seems to me like a lot of peopl here are more interested in plastering stewart as a hypocrite rather than refuting his point, his reason for going onto crossfire in the first place...

KEEP IT CIVIL FOLKS. Don't mock others' opinions, I don't care how strongly you disagree with them....


Anyway, I just wanted to provide a link to Jon Stewart on Fresh Air on NPR. It's an approximately 40 minute interview, and very interesting.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4054791

i know you were just trying to provoke, but you're exactly right. i, for one, am not arguing with stewart's point in the interview... just that he could benefit from taking his own advice.

Michael Badnarik looks like a pimp in that shot. That's all I can contribute.

Also, that Stewart is on an intellectual lecture mission with these guest appearances he makes. He was on Charlie Rose, and you can see how passionate he gets talking about the problems with media in the US. He talked about how it would be good to create a show that specifically unspins ... from both sides. I guess his own show is sort of doing that to a degree, but I think he was talking about creating a network that was designed to counter the spin from both sides, aggressively. Whereas, he says what we have now is some networks that are naturally centrist, and thus "liberal" in the eyes of a "with us or against us" administration-influenced status quo, and then on the other side, you have aggressively conservative organizations seeking to explicitly pull the discourse to the right, like fox & whathaveyou.

Stewart talked about his experience on Crossfire on The Daily Show. Hilarious, and well worth watching.

http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2653047

Wow. Thanks, SM. I despaired when I saw the link was ifilm, but i screwed up my courage, and it was well worth it. "Tomorrow I'll go back to being funny and your show will still blow."

So, there are two main groupings of media...

the first is in the center but demonized by the right.
the second has a mission to further an agressive right-wing agenda.

i'm pretty sure i know where this is going...
thanks for chiming in jon.

i seem to have been mis-taken. my last post wasn't meant to piss anyone off - just making a point, however sarcasm-laden it was.

I've gotta find the torrent of this. I can't believe I missed it.