Jon Stewart on Crossfire

[Ed Miller]

I don't know if anyone else watched this, but I did, and it ruled. Crossfire had it WAY coming.

As reported by the venerable MTV.com:

http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1492305

Here's a transcript of the show:

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

[masland]

wow, now that is awesome.

[masland]

Here is the video... priceless.

http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831&htv=12

[wacki]

Agreed, Jon Stewert rocks.

He did a very similar thing to O'reilly when he went on his show.

I give the man 2 thumbs up!

[ThePopinjay]

Here's a good quality version in torrent form (http://bitflood.org:8080/?file=791b2f5d95a54d1381b85f271b51f71e73964185)

This was one of the best and most hilarious things I've ever seen. Stewart truly made them look like fools. Anone notice the extra commercials too?

[MaxPower]

John Stewart is great.

The funniest part was where he told them that the show that leads into his is pupppets making crank phone calls.

[Chah Ngo]

I like this part:
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[El Barto]

Even NPAs should post these things in the Politics Forum. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Jon is just blathering, "a pox on both your houses", that is hardly any great performance or insight on his part.

[Ed Miller]

Even NPAs should post these things in the Politics Forum.

That's fair. Forgot that thing existed.

Jon is just blathering, "a pox on both your houses", that is hardly any great performance or insight on his part.

I disagree completely. His problem with Crossfire is exactly the same as mine... what they label "debate" is actually just a shouting match a la Jerry Springer. His comparison to pro wrestling was apt.

The problem with it is that stupid people watch the show and think what they are doing/saying is meaningful. The show is on CNN... it features several "respected" talking heads... it purports to be real, relevant journalism.

In fact, it's exactly what Stewart called it... theater. All they do is quote the latest slogans from the Karl Roves of the world at one another.

Why does it matter? I guess it doesn't. But it's a shame that, on a CNN network that already shamelessly panders to mainstream party politics, their "free-thinking debate show" is the worst offender of all.

[cardcounter0]

STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

STEWART: You need to go to one. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.

[ThaSaltCracka]

ED,
Thanks for posting the video because the transcript doesn't do it justice. I saw Stewart on O'Reilly as well, but I didn't think he was as harsh on there, but damn, Stewart sure is buring some bridges in the cable news world, but I don't think he even cares /images/graemlins/smile.gif

My favorite excerpt.

Stewart :"How old are you"
Carlson :"35"
Stewart: "and you still wear bow ties? hahaha"

[wacki]

I agree, he wasn't as harsh to O'reilly, in fact he made fun of himself way more than he dug into O'reilly.

[shemp]

I skimmed the transcript, haven't seen CF in more than ten years for more than 5 minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely. His problem with Crossfire is exactly the same as mine... what they label "debate" is actually just a shouting match a la Jerry Springer. His comparison to pro wrestling was apt.

[/ QUOTE ]

To tune into that show regularly hoping for debate and feeling pain and anger when it doesn't deliver is foolishness. It's a stupid show. It's purpose is to sell cookies or viagra or whatever. The format is an asinine simulated debate.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with it is that stupid people watch the show and think what they are doing/saying is meaningful. The show is on CNN... it features several "respected" talking heads... it purports to be real, relevant journalism.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the thing that amuses me despite it's predictability. One is worried that the other guy or the masses or whatever is/are duped daily by CF. Try not to take your superiority too seriously. Just find a better or more entertaining or more productive use of your own television viewing time.

[ QUOTE ]

In fact, it's exactly what Stewart called it... theater. All they do is quote the latest slogans from the Karl Roves of the world at one another.


[/ QUOTE ]

Shocking. And you tune in regularly why? Because you hope it will be worthwhile? Because you want to know what is being fed to the unwashed? Because the Spice Channel is on the blink? Or is it simply that watching TV is a relaxing diversion, occasionally entertaining or informative.

[ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter? I guess it doesn't. But it's a shame that, on a CNN network that already shamelessly panders to mainstream party politics, their "free-thinking debate show" is the worst offender of all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. Boy. I'm glad you enjoyed the JS appearance on CF and heard someone voice your objections to CF. Maybe you can stop watching a show you find vapid now. It does mean abdicating your position as monitor of what is being fed to the masses, but now that you are in your 30s someone else can pick up that burden.

[natedogg]

Stewart wants it both ways. He wants to hide behind his status as a "comedian" whenever someone confronts him as a partisan who throws softballs at Kerry, but then he wants us to take his political statements seriously as if he's something more than a mere comedian.

You can't have it both ways. Either we can't take him seriously and thus we shouldn't criticize his political stances and the way he favors Kerry, or we should accept his serious pronouncements on politics and hold him to his own standards.

Typical.

natedogg

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
Stewart wants it both ways. He wants to hide behind his status as a "comedian" whenever someone confronts him as a partisan who throws softballs at Kerry, but then he wants us to take his political statements seriously as if he's something more than a mere comedian.

You can't have it both ways. Either we can't take him seriously and thus we shouldn't criticize his political stances and the way he favors Kerry, or we should accept his serious pronouncements on politics and hold him to his own standards.

Typical.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]


As usual you hit right on the head Natedog.

Although Crossfire does suck massive donkey dick

[daryn]

i agree with you to a point. but it's not that he wants it both ways. if the guy were to attack stewart's beliefs then that would be one thing, but to attack his show is another, as it is clearly a comedy show.

[cardcounter0]

Interesting, since they are using public airwaves to pump this crap into our homes. In exchange for the free use of public property, shouldn't we require that they not turn into crap absolutely everything they touch?

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, since they are using public airwaves to pump this crap into our homes. In exchange for the free use of public property, shouldn't we require that they not turn into crap absolutely everything they touch?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that the Cable News Network was on cable?

If I'm wrong, dudgeon is still pretty cheap.

[cardcounter0]

actually most cable services are granted a monopoly by the local govt. So don't they owe something to their customers they serve, in consideration of these rights, instead of just the shareholders?

Take a course in Corporate Ethics. A good Corporation should balance the interests of the shareholders, employees, vendors, as well as the customers.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
actually most cable services are granted a monopoly by the local govt. So don't they owe something to their customers they serve, in consideration of these rights, instead of just the shareholders?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lose one platform for a rhetorical question, come up with another without blinking. It's an easy game. But is CNN the cable service being granted monopoly...?

Since sooner or later you are bound to find some grounds for your rehtorical gesture, I'll address it: I'm not sure that CNN is violating some public trust with CF. I don't watch the show, and the question doesn't interest me. From what I know of television, there is little that I find useful for anything other than entertainment or relaxation, and the public, whose champion you apparently are, appears to accept it in general and have alternatives to CNN in particular.

[ QUOTE ]
Take a course in Corporate Ethics. A good Corporation should balance the interests of the shareholders, employees, vendors, as well as the customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kewl.

[cardcounter0]

What platform did I lose? I was pointing out that the broadcast media (and cable) has been granted access to public property. The airwaves, and the cable infrastructure, belongs to the people or was able to be put into place because of public granted access.

You seem naive about the broadcast medium. CNN? Well, they were part of the Turner Corp. Turner owns a hugh chunk of AOL/TIME/Warner. Time Warner owns cable companies, studios, Viacom, networks, production facilities, etc. (and a nice chunck of ATT telephone, etc.) Just like Disney owns ABC which owns ESPN and also owns other movie studios and cable channels, etc.

Kind of like the old Standard Oil Monopoly. This huge media companies are intertwined and own the studios making the product, own the networks distributing the product, and own the cable companies that deliver the product to you home. They also own other media outlets to let you know what you should think about their product.

By the way, Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC, the govt. agency that is supposed to oversee these matters for the public interest. At the same time, Colin has become a multimillionaire on AOL/TimeWarner stock.

[shemp]

You have not written a single thing I didn't know. You have yet to offer a single argument. You continue to alternate offers of the obvious with misleading asides and rhetorical chest thumps. Rather than chase them down, let's begin at the beginning: What is my Viewpoint about CNN's Crossfire that you find Interesting and why? Be specific, rely on the text.

[Tuco]

Nate,

Whilst I LOVE your O/U's ('cept it hurts to sit on my fat wallet now), I think you are wrong here.

He doesn't care if you take his political statements seriously or not. He was attacking their CREDIBILITY, not their politics. Two different things.

Tuco.

[cardcounter0]

I actually don't find anything interesting about your viewpoint at all. Nevermind. I momentarily thought you had something interesting to say, but you don't. Maybe it was just something I ate giving me a little gas.

[ArchAngel71857]

That was awesome.

How old are you?

34.

And you wear a bowtie.


-AA

[shemp]

To review.

1) I offer my opinion on Ed's.

2) Without addressing my opinion, you interject a rhetorical tangent propped upon a misleading statement. I correct you, but still address your main point by stating my opinion of such.

3) You respond with another misleading statement, continued blather, and a lecture on corporate ethics (something I apparently can't understand). I again offer correction and address your main point.

4) Now, in Full Superscillious Twit Mode, you blather, still not addressing what I've said, but rather relying upon my ignorance and naivete as a point of disembarkation for things that apparently need saying about media conglomerates. I respond by trying to get you to actually take a position contra to what I've written.

5) You lose interest -- taking the hard way out, by changing the sense of "interesting" that you originally used as a sneer in an attempt to score yet another cheap point.

Congrats

*plonk*

[Lazymeatball]

Crossfire used to be a decent show with Bill Press and Robert Novak who are both old school respected journalists as far as I can tell. Then the battle of the cable news networks broke out and FoxNews ended up cleaning up in the ratings.
This is when Crossfire changed formats to try to compete, started having a live audience , started encouraging the yelling matches, and invited Bow-tie boy and Begala. Coincidentally, it is also when I and many other viewers stopped watching CNN, opting for FoxNews instead.

It seems to me that the liberal Stewart is in no way going to embrace the competition of multiple networks after he finds out that FoxNews is dominating, so he feels that CNN is the last bastion of hope for his utopian idea of fair journalism. Of course the problem is, CNN has never been a totally hard hitting and unbiased source of news, it's just they were the only game in town for some time. He's clutching onto something that never existed.

That being said, can you think of one person you respect who wears a bow tie in modern times? Examples include, Carlson from CNN, Ross Perot, Michael Richards in the movie "Problem Child," some goofball at my vet school, and Steve Jobbs at one point.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
Crossfire used to be a decent show with Bill Press and Robert Novak who are both old school respected journalists as far as I can tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as, "used to be decent", maybe you've changed more than it. I've thought it was a chimpfest for as long as I can remember having an opinion. That you think Bill Press was a journalist is kind of spooky.

[tolbiny]

"You can't have it both ways. Either we can't take him seriously and thus we shouldn't criticize his political stances and the way he favors Kerry, or we should accept his serious pronouncements on politics and hold him to his own standards."

Stewart's show is a comedy, it bills itself as a comedy, and they constantly make fun of themselves. If you watch the show as a credible news source it is because you are ignoring the fact that it is not, they don't claim to be. Crossfire claims to be a debate show, jon stewart is attacking them for being theatrical and not a debate show in reality. He feels that they are intentionally misleading their audiences for ratings. He is pointing out his belief that they could do a much better job at a debate show than they currently are.

[Lazymeatball]

I was really more of a Novak fan

[astroglide]

raj? i like the guy but it's in spite of the bowtie.

[JC21]

[ QUOTE ]
Stewart wants it both ways. He wants to hide behind his status as a "comedian" whenever someone confronts him as a partisan who throws softballs at Kerry, but then he wants us to take his political statements seriously as if he's something more than a mere comedian.

You can't have it both ways. Either we can't take him seriously and thus we shouldn't criticize his political stances and the way he favors Kerry, or we should accept his serious pronouncements on politics and hold him to his own standards. What he does want people to hear is his criticism of the media, and in this case, his political stance is irrelevent.

Typical.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]Daily Show is making fun of the media more than it makes fun of politics. And likewise, Stewart is criticizing the media, not the politicians. It's not his job to criticize the politicians. People aren't supposed to take his political pronouncements seriously, and Stewart doesn't expect us to. It is his criticism of the media that Stewart wants to express, and in this case, his political stance is irrelevent.

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, can you think of one person you respect who wears a bow tie in modern times?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ben Stein - "Anyone?"