Otheadp said:
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
