November 11, 2010 08:05 PM
Rachel Maddow: The Interview with Jon Stewart
DOWNLOADS: (943)
PLAYS: (7978)
Embed
Rachel Maddow talked to Jon Stewart about his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear and the perceptions that many had about what he was trying to achieve during the rally. Stewart discussed the role of the media in playing up the partisan divide in America and rather than tackling issues of corruption. They discussed the differences between what Fox and MSNBC are doing and the role that the 24/7 news cycle has had on our media.
The entire unedited interview will be posted on Rachel Maddow's blog at http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/ tomorrow morning and I'll have more of the interview posted tonight.
More of Rachel's interview with Jon below the fold.
DOWNLOADS: (354)
PLAYS: (2897)
Embed
Part 2
DOWNLOADS: (326)
PLAYS: (2453)
Embed
Part 3
DOWNLOADS: (330)
PLAYS: (2221)
Embed
Part 4
DOWNLOADS: (332)
PLAYS: (2195)
Embed
Part 5
You have a TV show and everything but Bush IS ACTUALLY a War Criminal ..so: FUCK YOU.
Asshole.
Now go cash that check.
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
You're forgetting. Bush is an American, and so by definition can never be a war criminal.
Just sayin'.
W.T.F. are you talking about?
... something that does not register with you, I take?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Tell that to the Hague.
It's amazing how unaware of themselves people can be.
OK, you disagree with Jon Stewart here. He thinks Bush is a war criminal 'only technically'. You think Bush is a fully fledged, worthy of Nurembourg war criminal. Big point of contention between the two of you.
But do you really, seriously think that he's censoring his true thoughts for a paycheck, as you implied? Is it not enough to violently disagree, you have to throw bullshit in as well?
Yeah no shit and how many people here think FDR was a great president? He caused alot more suffering with interning japanese AMERICANS. Consistency please.
Jon never said MSN is as bad as FOX. But that they are in the same media game of ramped up rhetoric. Does it matter which one is worse? Its spiraling out of control.
of the Japanese was truly horrible, but FDR was still a great president. Sadly,our ideas of race were so primitive in that time. Not an excuse or justification, mind you, it will always detract from what was a great president.
Seems like Stewart wants to move on re: Bush. Seems like Stewart cares more about politics than he does about a little thing like the rule of law and equity under judicial review, while some people think when you break international law, which is there for a pretty good reason, there should be consequences.
I think that's more a case of idealism versus realism.
It would be great to see Bush jailed for war crimes. In practice, I think any actual, serious attempts to do so are going to fail, and end up being counter-productive.
Heck, is Kucinich even trying to do that?
The point is though how does a society get comfortable with having a President commit war crimes. One way is through the media delegitimizing those who take on the powers that be. Stewart is guilty of this. He goes on and on about how lame and and trivial the media is at narrative-making, but he hypocritically contributes to the lame narrative (in this case) by making political arguments over the basis of facts and law. Stewart has become a driving force for the same institutions he rallies against.
He did say "Bush is technically a war criminal", or something like that. He also said "That's a conversation stopper, not a conversation starter", which seems pretty obviously true. If you want to have a constructive political discussion with someone who has significant differences of opinion with you, "Bush is a war criminal" isn't going to get the job done.
It's kind of like pointing out that the old testament God turned someone into a pillar of salt because they looked in the wrong direction. It's a true statement, but it's not often going to help you have a constructive conversation with a Christian about their faith.
So talking about specific contradictions in the Bible is verboten because christians can't deal with reality? So there rest of us have to pretend that Invisible Friends are a possibility to have a conversation?
This is just too much silliness... If the truth can stop a conversation flat because someone can't deal with the truth... then that person is not worth discussing anything with anyway. When someone is in such deep denial, then that's not even a conversation... it's Romper Room (No offense to Miss Nancy... but she sure was a hottie).
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Once they take you seriously and they get that you take them seriously, go for it. It's not a great starting point though. Probably the same thing goes for the phrase "Invisible Friends."
Of course, if you don't take religious people seriously than there's no point in having the conversation at all, but that eliminates a hell of a lot of people.
I like Jon Stewart and how he has taken the corporate media to task, and especially torpedoing
Tucker Carlson's career, I think he is parsing to the point of being ridiculous. He explains his analysis as the difference between climate and weather, which is a fair analogy. But to give so much of the benefit of the doubt to a sadistically incompetent sociopath such as Bush and his minions is in itself a false equivalency. The part that really got me was the analogy between Bush's rationale for Saddam Hussein's attempt to acquire WMD as a pretense for war and the idea that his son someday will buy a car. That is stretching the concept of "fairness" to the breaking point. That's like bringing on a mathmetician who says 2+2=4 and then allowing a rebuttal from someone who thinks it's 5. There is no dispute, but to pretend there is is disingenous.
The comparison to the kid and the car was weak, for sure. Stewart is good at what he does. He would not make a particularly good columnist, politician or pundit, and I think he knows that.
But to the main point, my favorite bumper sticker during the Bush presidency simply said, "We need a better president." The guy sucked at his job, and the consequences were horribly tragic. All the other stuff is extra. I'm not interested in playing psychologist or trying to figure out what his motives were or what was going on inside his head. He had terrible policies, he made terrible decisions, and it is vitally important that we as a country avoid implementing those kinds of policy ever again. That's the bottom line, and that part is much easier to get agreement on. Getting people to agree that he was also a sociopath is much harder, and doesn't gain you much.
I'm not trying to get people to agree that he's a sociopath. His policies WERE sociopathic. He laughs at death and destruction and does not deserve the level of thoughtful consideration Stewart allows him. No to point out the absurdity of the level of intellectual contortions needed to defend republican policies is inexcusable. After 8 years of Bush and his abuse of the constitution (which he said was just a goddamn piece of paper) we now have Wingnut-job Darrell Issa claiming that Obama is the most corrupt president in recent memory. He will pursue bullshit investigations about unfounded, trivial nonsense which will be equated with unjustified war, torture, economic and environmental malfeasance, blurring the difference between the serious and the trivial. For Stewart to aid this conflation is unacceptable for a person with his intelligence and sensibilities.
It's totally excusable, because there's a pretty large block of well-meaning people out there who are defending those policies. You might convince them that they're wrong (although it might take a bit of "thoughtful consideration"), but you probably won't convince them that they're insane.
Other than that, I think we agree on the bulk of it.
with you, I think we basically agree. I just meant that Stewart is smart enough and reasonable enough that I hold him to a higher standard than say, Andrea Mitchell or David Gregory. We're cool.
Right on, fair enough.
I found that segment really cognitively dissonant. Stewart didn't even rationalize it away that well. You're either a war criminal or you're not. End of story. Just because he wasn't Pol Pot doesn't mean he's not a war criminal. And for the record, Bush did murder. He murdered over 4k American soldiers as a result of this dummied up war not to mention the civilian casualties.
I have to say, although Jon has sustained me through the bush years, I found him to be remarkably off his game last night. I agree with real_earl and Sticksman--a war criminal is a war criminal. I found Jon's refusing to cede any ground at all to Rachel on her most salient points (the proportionality of the tea party movement vs code pink) to be irritating. But, in fairness, Jon was ill and maybe just not at his best. His metaphors were off the mark and confusing.
Waste of time.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
As compared to watching some other randomly chosen half hour block of cable news, this was infinitely better.
and I gather from the first two posts that I didn't miss anything, huh?
in my farts for Fox!
The truth will set you free but can you handle the truth?
To be fair, a lot of what he said was spot on. A lot of what he said was also from the perspective of someone who has grown tired. He had some very good points, as did Rachel. It was a productive conversation but there were several points where I strongly disagree with him. On the up side, he's still more on our side than Fox.
Democracy is the road to socialism. ~ Karl Marx
Why is it important that rich media elites be on "our" side?
I think John is funny, but wildly overrated. He appeals to white college kids working on their bachelors and little else. his shtick is funny... but after awhile it wears thin because ultimately politics is serious business.
I watched the interview but turned it off after 5 minutes. it got incredibly boring and it seemed both Rachel and John we're trying to walk this polite, well behaved, tight rope. The theme of the interview could be summed up as this.
"i'm ok, they're ok, and you're ok"
sleepy......
I couldn't care less about rich. I couldn't care less about elite. What I do care about is influential, and that does matter.
What people listen to informs their perspective. Once formed, this will last an entire lifetime. That so many people listen to him, and are influenced by him, should matter to all of us. That he is generally more like us than like the right wing crazies is important.
He also has some very valid points. The rhetoric is heated up in the media to a degree never seen before, and it stays there all the time. It makes it hard to have a civil discussion, even within families. MSNBC utilizes some of this enhanced rhetoric. Keith Olbermann even admitted to that point when suspending the Worst Persons segment. Sure, they aren't as bad as Fox, which Stewart even said, but they don't help any. There was some good content in that interview.
You don't have to agree with the man 100%. In fact, it would be rather scary if everyone had the exact same opinion.
Democracy is the road to socialism. ~ Karl Marx
...and "I'm a comedian" is a cop-out. Don't pretend you're not that influential, when America votes you the new Walter Cronkite.
What kind of bubble does Stewart live in? Jon, go to Iraq and Afghanistan and ask the people what they think of George Bush. Millions dead and displaced. What kind of ignorant, isolated American are you to make that kind of statement? One that places political rhetoric above life?
And you blame MSNBC and Maher of misplaying the "false equivalence" game and then you go right ahead and try to equate Code Pink to the Tea Party?
And what does corruption mean? Does that mean corporate "legalized" corruption like Citizens United, a rigged Wall Street, a racist industrial criminal justice system, lobbyists buying politicians..., or does that mean Acorn?
Look, I think Stewart is a smart guy and has been one of the best media commentators for years now, but I think it's gone to his head and clouded his judgment. How long has he cried over the inability of Democrats and subsequently liberals to have a powerful and cogent voice and now he's just crying about how Fox is so good at propaganda we might as well admire them.
I really hope Jon takes some time to reflect and the past month and what he thinks his role should be in doing the same thing his critiques..., entertainment based on information.
Which statement are you referring to?
Look at you, foaming at the mouth. I think it's a safe assumption that Jon Stewart would agree that all of those issues (minus Acorn) are pressing.
I think you're misunderstanding how he uses the word admire. Do you think it's in the sense of 'Fox is a really great lie machine, we should all applaud this and strive to be more like it'? When he says he admires Fox I believe it's in terms of sheer success. Organizationally speaking, Fox News has its shit together. That's not an endorsement.
And Hitler made the trains run on time?
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
And, more to the point regarding Fox, Hitler was a very charismatic fellow and a great public speaker. If you are interested in how to be a political leader and get people to follow you, there's probably something to be learned from studying him.
He was also one of the most evil bastards who ever lived, but that's a separate point.
I'm referring to Stewart's statements against calling Bush a "war criminal".
No foam here. He clarifies his remarks later in the interview, when I posted my remarks there was only the first interview up. I think it is interesting on the word choice "corruption". Seems like Stewart is a little scared to mention the other "C" word, "Corporate".
There is no misunderstanding re: his views on Fox. Stewart is doing his own conflating by criticizing MSNBC when he really should be criticizing the media institution which Rachel does a fairly good job of stating that Stewart is really a part of.
Stewart On Crossfire
He does say that the media is helping the corporations at 3:35 in the old crossfire appearance. But he doesn't go into that in much detail, and not at all in this one.
It's true that media sources that are owned by large corporations are inherently biased in favor of said corporations. You're much better off with something like the BBC, or a paper like The Christian Science Monitor or The Economist, where the parent company basically just sells papers and such, rather than being part of some huge conglomerate which includes things like military hardware companies. The corporate parentage and sources of income for a news source are a huge deal as far as any hope of them being unbiased.
A separate complaint you could make is that, for a cable news company to be profitable (based mainly on ad revenue, rather than subscriptions or donations), they need DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA, which is often at cross-purposes to being informative. Cable news thus ends up pretty much useless as far as contributing to the goal of having an informed citizenry. Jon has done quite well at pointing out the symptom on this one, but if he agrees with me on the cause he hasn't done well in connecting those dots. He's telling cable news that it should sacrifice some profit to be more informative (or perhaps that it can be informative without sacrificing profit), where I would be telling people to stop watching cable news and read good newspapers.
....the false equivalency thing for me. He danced around it some and tried to hammer home the point that it's not that both sides have equally extreme factions but that he is coming from a place of corruption vs. not corrupted. I like that idea alot I have to say. It does take the imbedded narrative of left vs. right out of the equation alot more. I'm more concerned with the impact of media on the country. The constant barrage of coverage of the right wing ideologies without the equal balance of progressive thought definitely pulls the country right. Jon can have a philosophical bubble of being outside the news media but he knows deeper that he plays a role in informing people about how to think. We need more progressive voices to counter the demonization of them. Jon admitted he's too scared to 'jump in the game'. But he's in the game like Rachel said. He just can't admit it to himself and because he's scared he's resisting the responsibility that comes with it. Maybe that's why he's acting like a tool about all this. Because his supposed position of being more neutral on it all is downplaying the fact that there's real lives at stake.
If Jon could consistently advocate for progressive causes in a serious manner as awesomely, effectively and incisively as he he uses the show to do what it does, I would love to see him do it. I don't think he can (I don't think anyone can, with the possible exceptions of Obama or Bill Clinton.).
I don't think he'd be very effective "in the game". He's very smart and very funny, but he's not good at being clear and staying on message, at least not outside the context of what his show does. He doesn't speak in talking points. I thought the intended message for his rally was a fairly simple and uncontroversial one, and look at the mixed reactions that that got!
Stewart was so accommodating to brazen evil with his overly nuanced trip down the rabbit hole of excuses for Fox News Channel, the Republican Party and George W. Bush I'm sure he could have talked his way into a coveted place last in line for the death showers at a Nazi concentration camp.
If there was a possibility of a well-thought-out debate in the first place, it's gone now.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Well, bully for you and bully for Godwin's Law.
Meanwhile, neither your M.I.A. "thoughtful debate" nor Stewart's overly nuanced trip down the rabbit hole of excuses for Fox News Channel, the Republican Party and George W. Bush has or will provide an effective defense against what they envision for the future of America.
I think he made a lot of sense.
I've been in an e-mail exchange about this. Someone wrote:
To which I replied:
(yeah, bad grammar in the middle and all)
Because arguing whether to go to war versus the pacifist argument that the nation should never go to war is arguing subjectively, based on moral principles likely not shared by people on opposite sides of the argument, and no one can win the argument. So one side can call the other a bunch of baby-murdering cavemen, while the other can respond that fucking hippies would have, through passive resistance, allowed Stalin/Mao/Hitler murder and/or enslave everyone who wasn't a lackey in the first place.
And how you think that Stewart let Fox News off the hook is a mystery to me, because he said that news organizations shouldn't be furthering these ideological arguments, but rather pointing out whether the actions that spring from the ideologies work or not, whether they're corrupt or not.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
... you can't invoke Godwin and yet continue the discussion.
Otherwise, it simply looks like you were looking for an excuse to silence the debate because you could not provide a proper retort. I am just saying....
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Stewart's curious effort to deflect culpability for disaster from policies championed virtually without exception by the Republican Party, George W. Bush and Fox News Channel to a bipartisan or nonpartisan issue of "corruption" is up there with a debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is utterly immaterial and only serves to suggest the false equivalency and "both sides are equally to blame" nonsense that contributed to younger, Democratic voters staying home in this midterm.
The reason we're in the economic mess we're in is because Republicans, Bush and Fox News Channel were to a person married to consistently failed economic policies involving less regulation and Supply-Side/Trickle Down economic policies. And no "corruption" is required for them to fail as they have failed throughout history.
Neither is any "lunacy" required for them to fail. It really doesn't matter whether a relatively lucid Republican like Lisa Murkowski pushes "Reaganomics" or Joe Miller does. It doesn't matter if Brit Hume promotes it or Glenn Beck does. The failed result will be the same and virtually every Republican politician and employee of Fox News Channel believes it is the answer to everything.
So for Stewart to sit there deflecting the issue into something nobody can prove or disprove (what is really in their cute little ideological hearts) is nothing more than giving those who are convinced Reaganomics is the answer more credibility than they deserve and another opportunity to win elections and impose it.
Even Maddow appeared to have been seduced by this fanciful "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" deflection nonsense.
I didn't see any defense of Fox, and hardly any discussion of the Republican Party. I think the "excuses" for Bush were so far as to say he was not evil, but just wrong. I'm not sure you could even say that, as earlier in the interview he concedes that Bush is "technically a war criminal".
I'm a big Stewart fan, but I think he came off as very pretentious. He downplayed his own relavance with humilty that just seemed insincere. I think his politics are clearly left of center, but he still seems to think MSNBC and FOX are two sides of the same coin.
And his suggesting that FOX is not partisan was a bit bizzare.
I think like most moderates on the left, he doesn't want to offend Republicans.
Now maybe it was because of his illness... but I thought Jon came off sanctimonious and condescending and very teacherly.
I still like and enjoy Jon... but he's just talking in circles here.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
"Fox isn't partisan.."
Are you fucking KIDDING me? John, I love your show, but on this you are just WAY wrong. You need a reality check!!
The context being that 'partisan', as agreed upon by Maddow and Stewart, relates to the parties. Stewart's point is that Fox doesn't really back liberal Republicans (think Lincoln Chaffee), but they might back a conservative Democrat (Joe Lieberman beinjg Stewart's example).
Note that Stewart did say that Fox is ideological.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
... under which the network which is employing the majority of the front runners for the 2012 GOP primaries can be construed as not being "partisan?"
The only context that can make any sense is if either Stewart said so in a key of jest, or the term "partisan" does not mean what you think it does.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Where do you think Fox News stood in the Murkowski-Miller primary in Alaska, or O'Donnell-Castle in the Delaware primary. How about the 2009 special election in NY-23, where they supported Hoffman (Conservative Party) over Dede Scozzafa (R) and Bill Owens (D)? Lieberman's indy run in 2006? They aren't playing partisan R vs. D (again, this is what Stewart said he meant by 'partisan' and this is what Maddow accepted in the 2nd video), but more conservative vs. less conservative.
Now is 'conservative' owned by the GOP? Most of the time, sure. But not always.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
You're using like a couple of very punctual exceptions to disprove a fairly significant rule?
A news "organization" providing multimillion dollar contributions to the GOP, employing over 90% of the potential front runners for the GOP presidential primaries, and proactively campaigning on the air for the GOP, etc. seems rather partisan to me. However if playing with semantics is what floats your boat, suit yourself. However, I have no clue who you think you're going to convince, with a straight face, that FOX News somehow is not partisan...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
to the Republicans. That would make them partisan. Stewart is FOS.
They've certainly helped to "purify" the GOP. But that's the thing: It's the purity that Fox cares about. Hated McCain 2000, loved McCain 2008, loved Palin '08 even more. They've been rebuilding the GOP in a way that Nelson Rockefeller and Jerry Ford wouldn't much care for.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Exactly. There might have been as many as 5 Republican congressional seat wins that Fox might deem "too liberal" for their total ideological satisfaction, but when the final tally for Republican gains is in they are NOT going to be claiming a 65 seat (or whatever) victory "minus 5". They are going to count and gloat over each and every Republican seat gain, liberal, conservative or moderate, as though it were one of their own children.
At least Malloy has the courage to speak out and paint Republicans for what they are- scum sucking fascists and white supremacists.,
I'm sure he's good at his job. And I'm sure the people on "his team" listen and feel a surge of adrenaline and say "Hurray", and the people on "the other team" listen and feel a surge of adrenaline and say "You suck!" and everyone thinks about the issues in a more helpful way and the world is a better place because of it.
sure, god forbid we offend the Republicans....
That is the minset of moderate Democrats that allowed Republicans to reclaim power.
Republicans are FASCISTS. The only way to deal with fascists is to destroy them.
Seriously? This is what, 30%, 40% of the country we're talking about? Our brothers, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins? We're supposed to "destroy them"? Not talk to them and try to pursuade them of our viewpoint? Not look for common ground like civilize human beings? Are you doing some sarcasm thing that I'm missing?
...people without kids than there is between Red States and Blue States?
That's a joke right? Neither funny, nor insightful.
Fox is ideological, but not partisan? Apparently, John has never seen Fox. Or has no idea what partisan means.
Stewart doesn't come across as particularly perceptive in this interview. His arguments are unpersuasive, at best, and either silly or stupid, at worst.
For example: Partisan
1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
I'd say that fits Fox like a glove.
Jeez, most of the leading GOP candidates for President (past, present, and future) work for Fox in some capacity. If that's not partisan, what is?
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
FOX is not blind to the Republican Party. They fondle, turn against, and then re-fondle single individuals as video snippets come out. It's not partisan so much as it's just playing politics. FOX is only blind to the moneyed interests that fund it, and those moneyed interests won't hesitate to throw each other under the bus if profits might dip.
Jon proved he is capable of nuance, unlike the commenters in this thread.
... and they said irony was dead...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Cliche lives.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
Agreed.
"Nuance?" I'd say parsing... or denial... delusion maybe? Or just sanctimonious avoidance of truth because he want's to not insult those nuanced Fox viewers.
John only proved he can pseudo-intellectually avoid claiming or appointing any real responsibility.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
for which he criticizes CNN. When a protester says Bush is a "war criminal," by Stewart's own admission, she is "technically correct," even though he may not like the effect on our political discourse. When armed right wing teabaggers show up at rallies and say President Obama is a Nazi, a Muslim, and not an American, they are technically incorrect. Moreover, at least one GOP Senate candidate and one would-be GOP House Member's chief of staff are on record calling for "2nd Amendment remedies" and "bullets" if voting doesn't go their way. And then there is the head stomping, targeting and killing of doctors who perform abortions, and other violence against civilians committed by those on the right in the name of political ideology. That's the definition of terrorism.
There's just no equivalence between the kinds of statements and actions taken on the right and those on the left as far as dragging down political discourse into incivility and extremism, and Stewart is right there with CNN and other media outlets who seek to create a false equivalence, I guess to make their presentations simple and symmetrical.
He wasn't talking about the protesters, but the coverage, and the way the coverage is full of outrage...And when the outrage gets bombastic on one end of the spectrum, the other side feels it's got to turn its bombast up to 11. And then pass the outrage baton to the next anchor, who turns it up to 12, the next to 13.....And by the time the volume is at 20, there's a lot of outrage about something that isn't news any longer...And there was a lot of other news- real news that could actually point to where there's real corruption of ideology going on, and it gets missed.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
But the bombast of the right wing media will sway more and more voters - especially if the main stream media just lays there or has no dramatic punch. On the one hand you have drama. On the other hand you have no drama. Think Fonzie vs Richie Cunningham from Happy Days. One makes an impact, and the other blends into the background.
It's one thing to say "Arms races are bad", but on the other hand, if your opponent is going to be in the arms race, you probably should be too.
On the third hand, if your arms race is about who can have the shrillest and most attention-whorish news race, there's no reason anyone should watch either of you, rather than just reading a decent paper every Sunday, and switching the paper up from time to time.
...should be just like the entertainment divisions? Simon Cowell should be producing the news, making the editorial decisions based on flashy LCDs?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Just another grifter, getting a big paycheque, taking the rest of us for a ride.
No more.
The Faux Noise is not partisan line was a dead give away. I never watched Stewert before this and I certainly never will after this interview.
from, but think he's being a little too kind when it comes to the right wing. Their rhetoric is far more vitriolic and violent, as well as their capacity to foment real acts of violence. The evidence is out there. What's worse is that these radical fringes have made their way into the mainstream right, which I think Rachel tried to point out. When the GOP establishment refuses to reject some of these wild accusations and conspiracy theories, there's no real distinction between the right wing lunatic fringe and the establishment right. I also think Jon has it backward's about Fox. Fox is more partisan than ideological. The proof is when Bush was president. If Fox was really ideologically conservative, they would have been far far more critical of Bush. Fox is a political operation whose 2 primary goals are to get Republicans elected and to make a profit. That would make them partisan, not ideological.
I had to switch channels when he said FoxNews wasn't partisan. They would never criticize a right wing politician. They'll defend them to the limit - even if they start acting less right wing than they'd like. Just look at their defense of Christie (R-NJ).
Did they not criticize the republicans who voted for the stimulus bill?
The bubble we all are being coraled into is the clear screen in front of you. First off the show was boring. Maddow and Stewart at their worst.
On what ever source you watch, what is wrong with the 24/7 news cycle is that not only is it slanted -- it is incredibly narrow.
I had to switch channels. Too much parsing.
Which is why newspapers work and cable news does not.
Like many, how the news media does or doesn't work is a pretty complicated subject. If you don't parse, you won't end up discussing it very well. If you do parse, may people will change the channel.
In the newspaper, if you think something is too detailed and you read a different part or you go live your life, they already have your money, and the ratings don't go down. That's why they don't need nearly as many shouting heads and car chases.
I know that Jon wants to hide behind his claim that his show is a comedy show, but that strikes me the same as when athletes say they aren't role models. Athletes have an affect on kids who look up to them, and Jon has an affect. So I would like him to stop saying, "But we're just a comedy show."
I watched part of the interview, and what struck me is that Jon could not frame an argument from beginning to end in a clear way. Rachel has had that kind of training for her doctorate. At times, Jon struck me as someone with mush for brains. Don't mean it as harsh as it sounds. Rambling, stopped in the middle of a sentence to explain himself or make himself clearer, but the affect was a lack of clarity.
I'm tired of him giving FoxNews compliments. Something like, "They do what they do well." Well, what they're doing isn't good. They're actively destroying America. Serial killers can do what they do well, but do we really need to point that out? So I'd like him to stop saying nice things about FoxNews.
I liked Bill Maher at first, but I got tired of him after a while. Rather than challenge guests, he stooped to make jokes. Maybe it's taking me longer to have the same reaction to Jon S. One thing about Bill, though, is that he does very well in interviews with Larry King. At least he has a less comedic tone.
I do agree with one thing Jon said. The 24 hour news cycle doesn't serve the country well. Just think how long it took for some of the legislation to actually come to a vote in the first 2 years of Obama's administration. But the news organizations have to come up with things to talk about. Every little thing becomes a crisis. And where does that leave us when we actually have a crisis? I've always thought that one of the reasons FoxNews is the way it is, is that they are the National Enquirer of "news". They have to make things up to fill all that time. And people are glued to the TV, lapping it all up. They'll believe anything about the Democrats, like we're mutant or we can't think logically or we hate America.
I'll watch the whole interview in these clips, but I don't see anything good from this.
I noticed this in "The Rally to Restore Sanity". It should have been "The Rally to Restore Clarity".
I agree. Stewart seemed to be saying that all is in this grey area , nothing is black or white , that all of " this " is orchestrated by the MSM and cable television , I thought he came off a little flaky . Maddow did not challenge him or press him , she was on the defensive in regards to herself and her show , if this was supposed to be a serious interview she was real weak , she was sucking up and not wanting to ruffle any feathers which I understand , him being such a popular cult figure . It doesn't matter , much to do about nothing . I like em both .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
That's a good point. He says a lot of insightful stuff I think, but he doesn't really have the skill at pulling things together and being clear and concise. When he says "there is a left vs right fight, but the more interesting fight is about corruption", it's not at all clear to me what he's talking about. Possibly this:
Picture or very possibly not.
Even his central thesis (or one of them) for his whole daily show career, "Cable News Sucks", which is a very important point, is something he hasn't really gotten to in the clarity you would like.
I think this hurt him a bit on his Crossfire appearance. It was good, but it could have been a lot better if he had been clearer on exactly why it wasn't a real debate show and wasn't helpful. Of course, it's hard to make a detailed case like that with two hosts interrupting you, often with nonsense, every 5 or 10 seconds...
to be completely out of his element when he's not in 'comedy' mode. In interview after interview, he tries so hard to search for the right words, that it makes him look awfully timid and unsure of himself. He's like a lot of people on the left; overly concerned about being politically correct and not offending anyone...............it muddles the message.Just say what you want to say and move on!
It's very frustrating to watch him outside of TDS.
Honestly, it just comes across as thoughtful and unrehearsed to me.
People reject Stewart's claim to be a comedian, not a politician. And they find him terribly short as a politician. Many are outraged. Pump up the volume against this fake.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
First Larry King, now this, I kind of get the picture now with Stewart.
Hey Jon, if FOX and MSNBC are simply two sides of the same coin then why not be interviewed by "journalists" like Hannity or Glen Beck? I'm sure they'd love to hear your insight on FOX & Friends. Oh, that's right, they hate your left wing guts so your only real avenue is MSNBC and CNN. Why do you suppose that is?
Take my advice Jon, retire before you turn into another Dennis Miller.
George Bush IS a war criminal.
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
...whenever I pause a C&L video, I can never restart it, but must "rewind" all the way to the beginning?
"Oh yeah well he *is* a war criminal, asshole!" and your "He *is* a role model!"
Vociferousness is not his style. I can understand why you disagree with him, but what are you so pissed about? I think he's a funny dude, and we basically agree, but I don't get my panties in a bunch when he fails to leap across the desk and throttle the shit out of Eric Cantor, despite the fact that such an action would prompt a post-euphoric undergarment change in this viewer.
Delete
I come away from watching the daily show feeling good because I feel like I'm not alone. The comedy manages to simultaneously take the edge off and be shamelessly insightful. Reading these comments it looks to me like many of you want Stewart to be something he never claimed to be. I have no doubt that he knows EXACTLY how much influence he has, and he has a lot. He has this influence because he's not shrill and he treats his guests with respect, even the ones we know he must absolutely despise. Rachel cannot get ANY republicans on her show. Rachel is serious news and she does it well; she is smart and well prepared...precisely why conservatives won't go. They will go on the daily show because Stewart is safe. Yet Stewart still manages to get in some of the best points in the media. Why? Read the Art of War. Sun Tzu says it's important to allow your enemy a line of retreat, otherwise each man will fight like ten men who have nothing left to lose: he allows them to make their points and not get beaten up. Is this infuriating to me? F**K yeah! But without this decorum, this gracious social contract, there would be no conversation at all. Like it or not, there is a whole 'nother group of people out there who DO NOT SEE IT LIKE WE DO and we will NEVER be able to resolve our differences and find a workable compromise unless we discuss it. Rachel BEGS for this conversation from the right, but they don't bite. Again, Sun Tzu: they don't need to fight that battle because they chose the battlefield and it isn't on TRMS--its on Faux--and the daily show.
I really wanted Stewart to kick some ass at his rally. But his rally was never about that; it was about insanity--doing something again and again and expecting a different result.
Stewart is precisely correct in trying to promote discourse and conversation, because without actual conversation and a willingness to put the gun down (and I am talking about liberals too because I have also thought of a few "second amendment remedies lately"--don't pretend you haven't had those same thoughts) nothing is EVER going to change.
Just like torture, beating someone up for their beliefs will NEVER bring them around to your side. It will only convince them that they were right about you in the first place.
With his rally Stewart demonstrated--to him & and all the isolated and lonely progressives out there that we're not crazy, and we're not alone, and that we MUST engage in civil discourse with "the enemy" in order to effect change. Otherwise, if we continue down this road, there will be massive civil unrest.
Stewart is a political satirist. He does what he does and he does it well. People want him to "get on the field." If he did get on the field, he will lose his power. No more guests, no more influence, no more conversation. HE IS THE ONLY ONE who is an actual progressive that can get the GOP on his show. He's not hiding behind his comedy, he knows his show attracts views and interest from an demographic that doesn't care and steers them to Rachel Maddow.
Last points: Bush, war criminal? Yeah, he knows. But he's right, it is a conversation stopper. Faux news? Yes, he's right. They do what they do REALLY well. His saying that is actually a slam because he knows they are a bald faced propaganda arm for the GOP. Demonizing and minimizing your enemy only makes them stronger. What do we tell our kids about making fun of the kids they don't like? Yeah, that's right.
Fox News is a business. It's ONLY about making money. MSNBC is in the SAME business. We may like what they say, and they may say it "nicer" but they are in that same business. These companies have created a PRODUCT for our consumption. They will continue to make that product for as long as it is profitable. If you want to change the product, you need to change the market. It is just supply and demand: Nobody will make a product unless there is a market.
Peace.
Awesome post!
Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. Jon knows he has influence, and we're expecting too much. Not sure I agree, but let's say for the sake of argument that you are. He opens himself up for this kind of criticism by on the one hand being a comedian on his show - and on the other hand being a pundit during interviews. He gives opinions about FoxNews. He gives opinions about CNN and MSNBC. He gives opinions about Bush, Obama. If he gives forth these kinds of opinions and acts like someone who appears on Countdown as a political pundit/expert, then he should be willing to accept the fact that a lot of people are going to be very disappointed wtih him. And his viewers shouldn't feel the need to defend him.
Re. engaging the opposition: I thought that was what Obama was trying to do during his first 2 years. Didn't get him anywhere. The right wing doesn't want to engage. They're in their little cocoon with their closed-minded opinons about the left. Believe me, I'm the only liberal in a family of far-right people. There is no way to talk to them. Nothing can open their minds to the fact that FoxNews is filling their minds with lies. No amount of "engagement" by me, you, or any Democrat is going to stop these people from wanting to crush all opposition. This is something that you need to realize. The right has access to Sun Tsu too you know.
All I can say is your experience with your family is different from mine with right-leaning people that I know. Ultimately, a big echo chamber full of people talking to others who agree with them is pointless, whether on the left or the right. If you can't reach anybody on the other side, you won't get anywhere.
Now, there's a difference between what Obama should do and what you or I should do. He is dealing with elected officials, while we are dealing with normal human beings. The later are hopefully open to compromise; the former have shown themselves not to be.
my experiences are similar to appnzllr, although slightly more mixed. I've given books and literature to some centrist friends who fell for the Reaganomics bullshit but were open minded enought to read them and saw them change their perspective. Mind you, these are lifelong friends with whom I have solid friendships. Although most in my family are center to center-left,I've had no such luck with the hard-core righties. No amount of facts, figures, websites, university studies or evidence will convince them otherwise. Most of the time, it's middle age, middle class white guys (like myself) on the job who can't or won't accept reality. I've actually had discussions like the following: No WMD found in Iraq? That's because Saddam shipped them into Syria. China is drilling for oil off the coast of Florida! That's outrageous, although totally false. How dare the networks send their anchors to cover candidate Obama's trip to the Middle East! The Anointed One! Well, he was the Democratic nominee, and they covered McCain's trip as well. When the Bushes and St. Ronnie Reagan ran up 9 trillion of our 13 trillion dollar debt it's because of embedded liberals in government. And on it goes...
because they believe in what he says;they have adopted his perspective as their own, and I'm sure--especially after so many years out in front of audiences--that he's used to audience dissatisfaction. It is just part of the job.
As for Obama engaging with the opposition: NO it didn't work at all, but the situations are not the same. To govern, there must be consensus. Unless it is a dictatorship, this is an absolute. The only reason you would NOT work toward a general consensus is if your goal was NOT to govern--but to RULE. The GOP doesn't need to compromise; their ideological mythology only gets more stronger the more they refuse to compromise. They benefit politically from their inaction, which has the effect of hurting their constituents (while making them more desirable in their eyes). This allows them to be quite open about their obstructionism and even publicly crow about it. They have managed to create a very romantic persona for themselves. And their goal is the consolidation of power. They are behaving EXACTLY like a business. The reason for every business is profit, and the surest way to maximize profit is monopoly; therefore it is the unacknowledged goal of every business to eliminate the competition and become a monopoly. The GOP wants to be a political monopoly. Actually, even the dems want this, but I think they are not so organized and unified in thought, and perhaps they also recognize that the quest for monopoly is ultimately a fools errand because a monopoly will eventually collapse under it's own weight.
So of course the GOP won't cooperate see the light; it is not in what they see as their best interest. As for a family of right-wings? I feel your pain; there is no way to convince them, at least in a single conversation, anyway. But somehow, we have to show them. little by little they may be convinced, but only if you have their trust, and even then it is difficult.
are not equally represented in the US. Although liberals are the majority, conservatives control MSM. That's why you seldom see staunch liberals interviewed on prominent TV shows. Liberals are often blocked from participating in important debates concerning healthcare, climate change, war, etc. Code Pink members are removed from conservative gatherings rather than given a chance to express their views and explain their reasons for calling bush, cheney, rumsfeld et al "war criminals!".
Their homeworld was a place called Earth, located in an uninteresting part of the galaxy. They had an expression: pride goeth before a fall. Their pride was their undoing. I know. I was there....They did not listen, of course. Arrogant men never do.
In what country are liberals the majority? Certainly not in the U.S. 20% of Americans identify themselves as liberal whereas 40-41% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative." The problem with that is some portion of the latter are not conservative at all; they are reactionaries.
Glenn Beck, DeMint, Palin, Bachmann and their tea party are reactionaries, not because they react to policies they don't like (we all do that), but because that's what people on the far right are called. Unfortunately, pollsters haven't incorporated that language yet, so there is no way to break down who is what on the right.
Your comments mirror the conservative media watchdogs, MRC with their complaints that MSM is too liberal. Not because I'm conservative, but because I'm objective, I agree with them to an extent. The problem with their criticism is that they don't criticize the obvious bias on Fox. The answer to liberal bias isn't conservative bias, it's objectivity. CNN is aiming for that; the Total News Network concept will work to achieve it.
"The antidote to bad speech is more speech." ~~J.S. Mill
Stewart's point that FoxNews is not partisan but ideological is incorrect. FoxNews is both. It is ideological. Their goal is ideological, since they are trying to "purify" the Republican Party and push it more to the right. (The contributed to the campaigns of far-right candidates.) But they will not openly criticize any Republican, even if they start acting like a moderate. They did not criticize Bush. They defend Christie. And the more they argue for their ideology, the more right-wing the country becomes.
At least not as far as the news relates to the government. If they did, they might actually let slip that conservative actions don't jibe with stated conservative ideology.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
only this time the "middle class" are the SLAVES. The OUTRAGE is not there thanks to the Media - the OUTRAGE is there FOR A REASON ! Plus the RECESSION makes it worse ...
About Stewart - HE FUCKED UP ! And instead of admitting it, he was ready to SMUDGE the truth so he doesn't look too bad. He defended that "war bully" Bush Jr., and was ready to PROVE that Nixon is not a crook if that would have helped him ...
Get your lemonade, watch the traitors hang
Congress' TREASON have no boundaries, so does M$M's brainwashing/sidetracking
Republicans for Voldemort
Government does work, just not for YOU. Government work ONLY on the behalf of the Tycoons
Repeal stupid
try this one stewart:
July 25, 2003:
Executive Intelligence Review
Cheneys Shadow Government
Comes into the Sunlight
https://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3029ch...
larouchepub? Why wasn't that given attention?
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Get over it. Schultz, Maddow and Keith are far left. No question about it. You might disagree but it's a fact. Not that it's a bad thing. Left is better than right. But they have spent way to much time trying to defend themselves as moderate. The fact is, including people here, has compared Bush to Hitler. That was Stewart's point. HIS POINT! The words. Ratigan DID have on his show a person on the left that said an armed revolution may be needed. Doesn't represent the entire left, does it?
I'm pro gun, pro choice. But I consider myself left because I agree with 70 percent of liberal causes. I believe in lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich. But I believe in order to keep jobs here, we have to give corporations tax breaks. Hate away. But if we don't they will keep moving jobs. It's a fact. They'll move them anyway, but at a lower pace. Your proposing ideas that are not a reality. You're living in a fantasy world. You are clueless about how the rich will react. Protest, petitions and boycotts will not and do not work no matter how hard you stomp your feet and hold your breath. They simply don't care. Grow up and realize this is the way America works.
Go ahead mods and delete away.
is intended to be a factual statement
shows how far right the country has moved. You may disagree, but that's the fact. KO is not left, he's more of a libertarian. With Schulz referring to anti choice groups as "Pro life," he's not left either. Maddow may be left, but not "far left."
If you want to see far left, look toward Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn Hugo Chavez. KO and ES don't have a patch on them.
me-oww!
There is confusion about the difference between leftist reformers (liberals) and leftist radicals (socialists, communists and many anarchists). To call liberals like Olbermann and Maddow "far" left doesn't show how for the country has moved to the right as much as it shows how little Americans understand how political orientations are ordered.
Lawrence O'Donnell recently proclaimed himself to be a socialist on the far left. Obviously we're talking about a continuum here where liberal becomes indistinguishable from radical. That's where the old fashioned progressives seem to be most comfortable.
For details, see the political taxonomy shown here:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/201...
"The antidote to bad speech is more speech." ~~J.S. Mill
It appalled me when Stewart told Maddow she was all wet for wanting Dubya prosecuted for war crimes; after all, when we think of war crimes, we think of Pol Pot. I don't. I think of the Balkan fanatics who slaughtered many thousands of their neighbors. The only difference is that we will never know exactly how many deaths there've been both from an unnecessary war and wholesale violations of the U.S. Constitution, treaties with other nations, and the United States Code. Since Dubya saw to it that the U.S. never became a member of the World Court, nations like Spain have no way of extradicting or otherwise exercising jurisdiction over George W., unless by the hardly satisfactory trial in absentia. Or by now he would have been locked up in The Hague (or at least Madrid). Stewart doesn't get it. A war crime is a war crime is a war crime. Bush has owned up to waterboarding. Need more be said? (His claim that he did it on a lawyer's advice usually will not even work in a civil court.) It's time we brought Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and the rest of them before a court of justice.
"Respect for the rights of others is peace." --Benito Juarez
that WAS NOT Stewart's rally, it was Colbert's rally - DEMANDED by the INTERNET ! And they DEMANDED TRUTHINESS - NOT "Democrats are as TERRORISTS as Republicans" or "Democrats constantly LIE as much as Republicans" ... so let's make the ISSUE about something TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Get your lemonade, watch the traitors hang
Congress' TREASON have no boundaries, so does M$M's brainwashing/sidetracking
Republicans for Voldemort
Government does work, just not for YOU. Government work ONLY on the behalf of the Tycoons
Repeal stupid
Comments are closed on this entry