Jon Stewart was on Crossfire last week to, supposedly, promote his new book. What actually happened was he verbally bitch-slapped the hosts and "serious" news organizations in general for their "pro-wrestling" approach to debate. It was a beautiful tv moment.

I stopped watching the news all together a year ago for that very reason. I tend to get my news online now, in fact thats how I saw Stewart's appearance on CNN. You can watch the streaming video here (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831) or just google it to download the video or read a transcript. I recommend watching it if you can though, the transcript just doesn't do it justice.

What I find most interesting is the spin that's following it now, the networks are seriously on the defensive and since Stewart basically offended all broadcast news in a very public way it's getting pretty ugly.

Has anyone else seen it? any thoughts?

btw - I expected there to be a thread a mile long about this but couldn't find anything with a search so if I missed it and am just repeating another thread let me know.

God bless the Daily Show! :D

my speakers aren't working, any chance you could just tell us what happened?

top mosker,

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55440-2004Oct22.html
Title: "The Campaign of a Comedian"
Date: October 23, 2004

"There's a difference between making a point and having an agenda," Stewart says. "We don't have an agenda to change the political system. We have a more selfish agenda, to entertain ourselves. We feel a frustration with the way politics are handled and the way politics are handled within the media" . . . .

. . . . All of which means "the Jon Stewart backlash should start right about now," says Ana Marie Cox, also known as Web satirist Wonkette. "Stewart has pretty much painted a target on his chest with his 'Crossfire' appearance. To say his is just a comedy show is a cop-out in a way. He's gotten so much power. So many people look to him that you can't really be the kid in the back throwing spitballs" . . . .

. . . . Stewart disputes the notion that younger viewers turn to him for news, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center backs him up. "Daily Show" fans are more knowledgeable about current events than those of other comedy shows, the center found, rivaling newspaper readers and network news viewers.

"It's not fake news," Stewart says. "We are not newsmen, but it's jokes about real news. We don't make anything up, other than the fact we're not actually standing in Baghdad. . . . The appeal of doing the show is that it's cathartic."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55440-2004Oct22.html)

If e'er you needed proof that Wonkette is useless .... Actually, I shouldn't say that, since I don't recall ever having visited the site. Maybe I have. But more importantly, what is it with this idea of giving artists more credit than is due just to have something to whine about? Whether it's Joe Scarborough pretending Johnny Depp matters, or the chorus of folks making an industry out of fearing Michael Moore, or this idea that "So many people look to him that (he) can't really be the kid in the back throwing spitballs", it's insanity.

Did it ever occur to these folks who might constitute the "Jon Stewart backlash" that the reason they give him so much credit is that the politicians put on a farce and the news media encourages it? In other words, exactly what Stewart said on CNN?
_____________________

• Kurtz, Howard. "The Campaign of a Comedian". Washington Post, October 23, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55440-2004Oct22.html

Seeing all this on CNN was almost as surprising as seeing hardcore sex on prime-time tv. I mean, Carlson's and Begala's expressions when he called them "partisan hacks" to their faces... on live tv... on their own show was possibly the greatest thing I've ever seen on tv, I almost wept it was so beautiful.

I just couldn't believe what I was seeing, it made me think of what an intervention for an alcoholic or drug addict must be like. It was frank, uncomfortable and the persons being confronted made lame jokes and tried to change the subject. Journalists make their living out of making people uncomfortable on television, I just can't tell you how much I enjoyed seeing them squirm for once. I used to scream similar things at the tv on a daily basis.

Both sides of these "debate" shows are such blind ass kissers to their respective parties it makes my stomach turn. The fact that they consider themselves real pundits makes the whole experience even more painful. I'm sure Stewart is going to feel some pain over the next few weeks (at least) but seeing someone finally say it, on live television... ahhhh.

I have a feeling whatever backlash Stewart suffers will be balanced by others that agree with him, especially since his criticism wasn't directed at a specific party but the state of journalism as a whole.

After reading that, John Stewert just gained about 2,000 cool points.

I find it interesting that they never really addressed his concerns and they never will have to.

I had missed it, thanks for the link buffys.

That was AWESOME! Partisan hacks. lol. I gave up on the news outlets years ago. I still watch to keep up on advertized current events.

John Stewart very litererally keeps me sane. I discovered him about 2 years ago and he was making fun of what I had been ranting and frothing about. It helps to know that you're not the only one that sees that the news media is biased, bllind, and boring. No where else will you find such candor. Mcneil News Hour is good, but hardly mainstream. The internet is where the info is, but 20+million folk aren't influenced in an instant like TV news.

Has there been other backlash? Send those naysayers to me! Crush, maim, destroy the evil ones. Protect John the just. John the light hearted. John the informed.

I like his response to who he gets for interveiws "We have civil discourse"
Many republicans come on his show. He should have owned the rights to fair and balanced.

'You are hurting America, and we need your help' he said. Shame that the 'hacks' weren't listening(or can't).

Great TV moment. Sorry I did't see it live. He should do O'reily Factor next.

"That was AWESOME!"
Yes, it was.

TM: "I find it interesting that they never really addressed his concerns and they never will have to."

...Because we don't demand it. John Stewart provided an example of how the USA can turn around from a political culture in decline. Even audience reactions on this show demonstrated a public ready to turn on duplicitous media, if provided a socially comfortable opportunity to do so. This will require that many more Americans, prominent and obscure, all demand that our political discourse get real, and that we repudiate harmful, deceitful political theatre at every opportunity.

Just as Stewart made the CNN ad-lib actors uncomfortable by running outside of the sanctioned information set, Americans as a whole unfortunately share the same resistance to confronting reality more squarely- We can't blame media for our national character, because our major media is a reflection of that self-dedluding character.

I'll be talking up John Stewart's appeal on Crossfire for honesty wherever I can, and similar public examples of patriotic concern for our national conscience and awareness. Those of us who "get it" should publicly embrace fellow Americans who speak out as Stewart did, and work to create a change of the American political climate away from superficiality and self-delusion, and toward and and toward demanding honesty. The prominent individuals who represent us in government and media are responsive to every Zeitgeist, we just haven't had a groundswell for openness in much too long. Media producers and actors are creatures of popular demand, and when the public habitually demands sincerity and honesty with a clarity and majority impossible to ignore, then we will have a media that functions to inform, and a government that is by the people- Not until.

He was already on The O'Reilly Factor. That's when B.O. (heh .... B.O.) called Stewart's viewrs "stoned slackers." Since then, as mentioned earlier, it has come out that the demographic for Daily Show viewers are better educated and make more money than the average network news or O'Reilly viewer.

For more info on O'Reilly ... http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

I should say that I've never seen the daily show, I just agree with what he said on cnn. For me fox, msnbc and cnn are equally pathetic when it comes to useful political debate. I'm not american so the actual partys involved mean very little to me. On the other hand, journalism and the way it addresses politics is the same everywhere.

Republicans? Democrats? They're just words to me but "the news" is the self appointed filter for the world. The major news organizations spend a great deal of effort telling us how serious and important they are so I'm glad someone finally pointed out (in no uncertain terms) that they have become a political version of proffessional wrestling, theatre, soap opera, etc.

I like Jon Stewart.. he's a great comedian.. and that clip was funny as hell
but he went too far twice in harassing Tucker. i don't like that at all

Yes never make fun of a republican, make fun of one and the rest come in calling you liberal sleaze.

I find it funny that they replied that Jon Stewart had a chance to make the hard questions but he didn't.....so the political shows are at the same level as his show...

I watch the daily show to maintain my sanity, although I didn’t watch the clip yet (oddly enough I had crossfire on but didn’t listen to the interview) John Stewart really makes America understand how utterly ridiculous American politics really are.

chunkylover58,

B.O. I thought 'fair and balanced' boy smelled. Funny.
Your link doesn't mention Stewart at all, bummer. That was a funny bingo card though.
I had heard of the Daily crowd demograghic before but I thought it was based off something BO said, not in an interview. link anybody?

Hypewaders,

I'm not so sure that the major media outlets will allow an honest, free exchange of ideas. Why have a monopoly if you refuse to promelgate your agenda? Where would they start their mia culpa? We're sorry we have been white washing the 'news' for at least the last generation, please prepare for frank nonbiased discussion on the events of the day.
I don't think the public can be held accountable to the fall of truth in American journalism. I view the public as a victim here. The elite own and operate the media machine. Pacifica stations(free speech tv, democracyNOW) are nearly the sole 'voice' for unfiltered reporting(beside the rare live feeds, and nods to cspan). I enjoy John Stewart so much because he is the only voice of decension against the system. But I completely agree that it was a 'good start', of only those that write the anchors checks would agree with us.

buffys,

Sorry to hear the same state of media affairs is rampant where you are to.
I used to watch 'the National' and 'BBC world news american edition', while these are still better than US, they both have declined over the past few years. Sports, weather, sensationalism= American News. I understand the Italian dictator Berlisconi owns all of Italys media. Perportionally the same is true here in the US. Bush is arm in arm with Berlisconi. --Insanely elite gnashes teeth and pulls his hair.

but he went too far twice in harassing Tucker. i don't like that at all

Did you notice Begala's half-assed responses? The thing is that Tucker Carlson is one of the most simplistic pundits on television. Perhaps he just didn't get it, but he treated Stewart's plea as a comedy routine at first--

STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...
CARLSON: How do you pay?
STEWART: The people -- not well.
BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.
STEWART: But you can sleep at night.


And we can't fault Tucker for that; after all, you invite on your show a comedian who is entirely critical of your show, and you should easily be able to expect him to pander to those aspects of your show he's known for ont liking. And that's not nearly as sarcastic as it sounds; punditworld really is that simplistic, and that, of course, is part of the problem.

It's an interesting convergence for Stewart: Why should he play nice? He gets to do what he does, and that naturally includes (demands) what he said to Begala and Carlson. And the CNN team could have played a better ballgame, but Carlson especially just spun off into the usual routine.

CARLSON: It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... up on the screen.
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: No, no, no, here's the point.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: If that's your goal.
CARLSON: It's not.
STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.
CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show.
STEWART: Right.
CARLSON: Let me suggest why he wants to come on your show.
STEWART: Well, we have civilized discourse.

Now, I look at the opportunities Carlson had to make substantial retorts and it's quite obviously clear that common interpretations of journalistic integrity have no place in his work.

They went on to argue about the questions Stewart asked Kerry. Now, Carlson--who has a college degree, can write news and analysis articles, and even books--ought to know that the reason politicians do the Daily Show is not to answer substantial questions, but to present themselves in a less-official light. It's akin to Bill Clinton's playing the saxophone. Why didn't Dr. Phil ask John Kerry harder questions about foreign policy? Because it's not Dr. Phil's job to do so.

And Carlson ought to be able to understand the difference. And if he wishes to make light of the cable-television "news" medium's--and the general media at large's-- reliance on talking points, the failure of the media to go beyond the surface ....

You know, Stewart also included Hardball, and there's a particularly sad example from the MSNBC side of things: between Matthews (by his perception of journalistic necessity) and Olbermann (by accident, it seems), and a network print partner--Newsweek--the Swift Boat Veterans have been shown to have zero credibility, yet even MSNBC still gives them play.

So Carlson turned it into one of his political arguments, recycled horsepucky--partisan hackery this time in defense of "journalists" too lazy to look beyond the party desk's memoranda--by awarding Stewart some unspecified quantity of journalistic integrity and attempting to crucify him on it.

CARLSON: Didn't you feel like -- you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?
STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: It sounded that way. It did.
STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.
CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you.
STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.
CARLSON: No, the opportunity to...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you're holding politicians' feet to fire, I think that's disingenuous. I think you're...
CARLSON: "How are you holding up?" I mean, come on.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: No, no, no. But my role isn't, I don't think...
CARLSON: But you can ask him a real question, don't you think, instead of saying...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I don't think I have to. By the way, I also asked him, "Were you in Cambodia?" But I didn't really care.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Because I don't care, because I think it's stupid.
CARLSON: I can tell.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: We're here to love you, not confront you.

Stewart has a point: Carlson's defense seems to necessitate the presumption that CNN and Comedy Central carry the same journalistic weight. Now, even I pause to consider Stewart's influence, but that is only what viewers and critics give him. Still unaddressed is the idea that if CNN and Comedy Central carry the same journalistic weight, How did this happen?

And when that method--an effective favorite and always a good one to have at hand when recycling talking points--failed, Begala tried to rescue the show and Carlson alike, but like I said, it was half-assed. The Weather Channel?

And what, was Carlson borrowing from the Sciforums crowd?

CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I'm sorry. I think you're a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring . . . .

You can tell that flippancy irritated Stewart, who launched into the bow-tie digression. Carlson, for his part, can't figure out what to do but get nastier while ... recycling the anemic points:
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: What is wrong with you?
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you -- when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.
STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago.

Butt boy? Now there's some civilized discourse.

And Stewart persisted:: How can Carlson continue to call Stewart out on what journalistic integrity? The question is fair--What is Tucker's malfunction?

What's it like to have dinner with Stewart? Jon Stewart should go to journalism school?

I mean, Begala makes a response in there: "I don't think so at all". It's the only substantial response made by either he or Carlson that I've yet found. Yet the point went unexplored:

BEGALA: . . . . They actually believe what they're saying. They want to persuade you. That's what they're trying to do by spinning. But I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy.

(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I think they believe President Bush would do a better job.

And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I don't think so at all.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: OK. We'll be right back.

Carlson is problematic. Somebody had to tell him. I mean, is it disrespectful to tell him he's a dick? Perhaps. But what if it's the truth? I mean, what are we supposed to think when Carlson hops onto other shows and continues the recycling of empty talking points? Sure, he's one of many, but he's the one that chose to make that stand. Begala was as whipped as Colmes in this one. And Carlson ... well, he could have just taken the lumps and gotten on with a more substantial, less-damaging segment, but he didn't want to. He wanted to go after Stewart. He wanted to hide his own journalistic failings by inventing some form of journalistic integrity to demand of Jon Stewart.

And that's just ridiculous. If Carlson wants a show on Comedy Central, his spin on the news might actually get some play. But he's on CNN, the Cable News Network. All Crossfire is these days is ad space. One guy comes on with some talking points, another guy recites other talking points, and nobody during any argument ever makes a real point except by accident.

And CNN is great in that aspect. It's hilarious to watch James Carville take out his earpiece, remove his microphone, and just sit there scowling because he's upset with someone on the other end. The melodramatic façade of punditry is much like a soap opera, much like pro wrestling. And that's fine, but stop telling us it's news and stop telling people it's important. I wouldn't mind it so much, but there are folks out there--voters, even--who think of "context" as a profane word, and they tend to repeat what they hear on the news. Is it too much to ask, since society insists on protecting the press, that the press give its part in return? It's a social contract between institutions: the people and the press.

Carlson has no use for that contract. Stewart is merely asking Crossfire, Hardball, and others to please live up to that contract.

The other night, at his event in Seattle, Michael Moore pointed out that in July, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post finally did something obvious: he took the reported tail number of the bin Laden plane and checked into it. Turns out it was the White House press corps charter jet. And while Moore certainly had something to say about the audacity of such a stunt, he also had something to say about the fact that it only took the press three years to figure it out. And that, it seems, is because Frank Lautenberg--a politician--asked for, received, and released that information, including the passenger manifest.

I mean, really ....

Is it too much to ask that journalists live up to their end of the deal? I don't think so. In the meantime, Tucker Carlson seems to think his journalistic obligations are defined by Comedy Central, or something. Maybe Carlson honestly believes he's being honest, but by what measure?
____________________

• Transcript portions from CNN.com. See http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

The thing is that Tucker Carlson is one of the most simplistic pundits on television.
So, what's the true nature of a power high gained by bitch-slapping a retard?

In this case, public service.

But, of course.

It's your nature.

So, what's the true nature of a power high gained by bitch-slapping a retard?

I think the point is he was bitch-slapping the industry in general, not just CNN and certainly not just tucker carlson. The only reason he focused on carlson was because begala barely said anything.

In this case, public service.

Hahahaha! I had to post my laughter so tiassa posts more quips.

John Stewart is a smart man... only problem, he gives out his views in a comical fasion.

He always has a good point to get across either way.

Truest Comedy and Tragedy are never far removed.

Truest comedy.....

It is the same as saying that blacks like fried chicken.....
True or not, I find it very wrong to use race as a comical outlet.
Yet it is accepted in the stand up comedy world.

It may be funny to some, but it still divides us as ONE Species. Which is wrong...

It gets worse.... A black person can make fun of whites, but a white cannot make fun of a black without being "BOOed off stage."


Everyone falls into 2 catagorys: Either the world is a joke to them, or everything they say or belive is too serious. Is there some sort of medium? People will always be offended by something....

I love comedy and stand ups.... but is laughter really the best way to unify all mankind as ONE?

John Stewart said on a CSPAN interview that when the show stops doing funny the show will be over.
I agree, true tragic titilation. Comics are historically able to broach subjects the mainstream won't touch. Pryor did the same thing in the 70's.

As for the race thing, same thing. The comically bad 'tough crowd' regularly banters about racism. I watch it like a train wreck, mesmerizingly awful.

I started watching Stewart when Bill Maher show went off the air. Very politically incorrect, but I thought a great show.

Stewart's audience is more educated than the mainstream news media. This is similarly tragically comical.

McCain-Stewart for president 08

Tucker Carlson compares CNN to Comedy Central; George Bush compares undecided voters to insects ... is the right wing really that clipped? What the hell is going on here?

At any rate, it occurs to me that folks who agree that the political discourse as played out through our news media is disgraceful ought to email CNN and ask them directly what business they have calling themselves a news network if their journalistic credibility is comparable to Comedy Central.

I mean, I try to look at it from CNN's point of view, and while the Stewart episode probably does bump ratings, one of the company's employees just defended his job by disparaging the network on national television.

If enough people remind CNN of this, Carlson's contract might not be renewed, and Tucker's scourge against thought and communication might begin its appropriate decline.

Maybe CNN doesn't need reminding, but still, it's an excellent opportunity to ridicule them. I'm still arguing over whether or not I really want to be that petty and minute, but as I sat listening to George Carlin answer for Keith Olbermann the question of Stewart's propriety, it struck me again how downright strange Carlson's performance was.

Begala may have been dickless for that show, but as Alan Colmes shows, every network needs a eunuch.

Ha, I was watching the daily show back when Greg Kinnear was the host. The Daily Show is not really news, it news-comedy, basic news made funny. If you want to know what going on in the world watch news or better yet read news or listen to news. If you want to laugh at what’s going on in the world watch the Daily Show. :)

Ha, I was playing basketball against Greg Kinnear (I lost) when he was a snobby kid in Beirut.

ooh wait it was not Greg Kinnear, my bad, what the fuck was his name?

edit:
after looking it up it was Craig Kilborn! sorry got my talk show hosts confused. :o
http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/daily-show/

That's right- Now I remember, Kinnear (the fouling bastard) was the host of the forgettable, regrettable Talk Soup- a milestone in American infotaintment.

The Daily Show is becoming more important with a lot of top-level people on the program. So the Daily Show is walking a thin rope between news and comedy.

It gets worse.... A black person can make fun of whites, but a white cannot make fun of a black without being "BOOed off stage."
Or maybe it's just that white people do a lot more crap that is stupid. You won't see black people line up at 7 am the day after thanksgiving running in to buy a stereo on sale. You won't see a black person lock their doors while driving through a white neighborhood. You won't see....

I love comedy and stand ups.... but is laughter really the best way to unify all mankind as ONE?
Absolutely. If we don't laugh, we get pissed and then the bombs and the guns and the deaths.

The crucial difference between Stewart and real news networks is just that; they're real news networks. Stewert proclaims to be entertainment; he's "theatre." Crossfire and their ilk are theatre masquerading as news.

Ha, I was watching the daily show back when Greg Kinnear was the host.

Greg Kinnear? He never hosted the Daily show, sorry. You're probably thinking of Craig Kilborn.

. . . right, and you already pointed that out for yourself, DOH! See it pays to read the whole thread before responding, sorry!

Last edited by Mystech : Today at 02:56 AM. Reason: I'm a very stupid and short sighted person.