Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

1. I agree. Crossfire except for Novak ,isn't that harmful.

[blondeatlast]

11. He's a COMEDIAN, fercheneyssake. He used an opportunity to plug

his book to go after a "news" program he so LOATHES.

And he has been very vocal on TDS in singling out "Crossfire" as an example of what's wrong with the media. THAT'S WHY HE APPEARED ON CROSSFIRE. THAT'S WHY HE WAS ASKED TO APPEAR.

He LOATHES Crossfire, and has made them the butt of his jokes for a long time now. He wasn't trying to score big points, he just did.

[Cats Against Frist]

2. I agree, I wish he would have made a more broad-based indictment

of the media, rather than just Crossfire. It is truly the "objective news" that does the most damage -- on television, at least. I do agree that Rush and Hannity need to have the hounds on their asses, though, too.

[blondeatlast]

13. Perhaps you naysayers should watch TDS more often. Stewart LOATHES

Crossfire in particular, that's why he was ASKED TO APPEAR on Crossfire.

He took a unique opportunity to deal with the target of his derision.

[Cats Against Frist]

27. I'm not a "naysayer" -- I think what he did was wonderful

and I agree with most of the posters here, that even his very gesture was a breath of fresh air. When I was watching it, however, I simply wished that he would have not TOTALLY limited it to Crossfire. I'm not giving him any negatives, just something else that I, personally, would have liked him to add. That's all.

[blondeatlast]

36. In 15 minutes, though?

I don't think it would have been possible.

[Cocoa]

3. it's not either or

his confronting Crossfire doesn't stop him from also confronting Ted Koppel, for example.

And imo, Crossfire IS very harmful, and should not be underestimated.

[blondeatlast]

17. Finally a voice of reason.

Stewart made a valid point, saying that Crossfire could be something valuable to democracy, but instead simply parrots both sides talking points, which makes it completely unnecessary.

Imagine Crossfire spending a half hour, sans the campaign talking points, discussing the issue of, say, health care. It would be both compelling and offer a wonderful public service.

But instead they are, as Jon said, simply "partisan hacks."

[spooky3]

4. Disagree with your logic.

One never knows what opportunities he will have in the future. Why wouldn't he get another shot if the audience loved it? We're dealing with a business here. And if you say, because it's run by Repugs, why would they give him a shot no matter WHAT he said yesterday?

You have to seize the opportunities when they are presented to you. My perception was that he had no intention of confronting anyone before coming on the show, but when he saw what ridiculous and ironic accusations were going to be leveled at him, he was incensed and decided it was time to speak up.

Further, he opened the door for others appearing on other shows to speak up more forcefully also. A few minutes later, Franken referred to Jon when he did the same thing to Wolfie, who promptly interrupted him.

Jon's action gives me hope that CNN will learn that at ANY time, with any guest, they could get their ineptness and bias exposed.

Finally, his comments were picked up in other places (e.g., WaPo). That extends the influence of what happened beyond the usual Crossfire audience.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ibegurpard]

41. You are correct about the "objective" media figures

However, shows like Crossfire have played a big part in the degeneration of political discourse. They have reduced the discussion of important issues to timed shouting matches.

[blondeatlast]

18. Sometimes I wonder if others watched the same show I did, or

if they've ever watched "The Daily Show."

[SayitAintSo]

32. I agree... I think this was the "coming out " party.....

for the Jon Stewart's of the world to begin aggressively, honestly and humorously attacking the sorry media that have stolen the good name of honest journalism. There are alway Monday morning quarter backs that will tell you how you could have done it better. Sometimes just beginning the dialog, and creating the opening is the most important thing. "Mission Accomplished" as far as I'm concerned.

[soupkitchen]

5. Hey he was in Oz and so he pulled the Wizard's curtain.

Jon Stewart has been making this same argument on every national forum he's appeared on. And nobody was forced to pay attention.
Yesterday, he pretty much exposed Crossfire for the nonsense it is. "But that's my point," Jon Stewart pointedly reiterated, "You say things you don't believe."
Will it have any long term effect? I don't know, but it might. Maybe more influential people will have the balls to keep up the criticism. Maybe not. But I think that if you're in the lions den it doen't take much gumption to taunt the tigers. In fact, had he taken on Wolf and Candy, while on Crossfire, I think he would have come across as being craven and hypocritical; playing the same game that he rightly accused Crossfire of playing. The controversy for the sake of controversial TV, not for edification, game.
No, all and all I applaud Jon Stewart. Cut off the dick and the reproductive powers go away.

[southern democrat]

7. I feel he did good stood his ground face to face and critized their show

It was the show he was on. No need attacking anyone else who was not there to defend themselves. It was pretty evident that he was agianst the spectacle in general and Begala and Carlson are aids to it.

[blondeatlast]

8. Stewart DECIMATED Blitzer on an earlier "Daily Show."

And let's keep in mind here, he's a COMEDIAN; he's trying to make the point that the news media should be doing THEIR jobs, because too many people are getting their news from TDS.

I think it was admirable--he never even once plugged the book, he just went in with fists flying, and they never knew what hit them.

[MSgt213]

9. It's not up to Jon Stewart to fix news or news shows. That has to be done

at the corporate level and you have to have reporters and talking heads that refuse to mouthpieces for both sides. Their sole fucking job is working for us and they are failing miserably at that. Instead of working for us they all are just repeating what these people say and giving them a platform to get their message out.

[tjdee]

10. He didn't HAVE to say anything.

He's a comedian.

That's the problem.

If some of our senators or "serious" people would get on with Leslie or Candy, THEY should say what Stewart did.

He's not a seasoned politician/civic leader. He doesn't have a staff to tell him where he'd be best placed.

Stewart is under a tremendous amount of pressure--I think he has an inner conflict about what exactly his role is. He is clearly uncomfortable being the heavy, but unfortunately time and circumstance have put him in a strange spot where he has to be sometimes.

[blondeatlast]

20. So true--I wonder sometimes how the producers, writers, and

performers of TDS feel knowing that a tremendous amount of (not just young, either) people get their news from pretty much TDS ONLY.

That places a tremendous responsibility on them but they seem to carry ti off admirably.

It can't be easy reporting on what an unmitigated disaster Iraq is and still manage to be entertaining. They earned the Emmy and then some.

[Tansy_Gold]

38. I don't think people really "get their news" from TDS

I do think, however, that people who "get" the news watch TDS. As Stewart himself has said, his comedy would be meaningless if the viewer didn't already know the background. The show covers maybe two or three stories a day, four days a week. It's too parodical to be informative, either in quantity or quality.

The "news" on TDS isn't "new." what TDS presents is an off-center perspective, neither right nor left but somehow tangential (to keep with the geometry metaphor) or maybe third-dimensional.

[ibegurpard]

44. You are correct.

No one watches "The Daily Show" to GET their news. They watch it because they want to watch the ridiculous media get SKEWERED. What shocks me is the media figures don't seem to realize that THEY are the butt of the joke.

[sandnsea]

12. Disagree

Nagourney? Wilgoren? Who knows who they are?

Stewart said on a very popular show that all people like Begala and Carlson do is hype what they want to hype which makes it impossible for the American people to get real news. That is as much a problem as the rest of the media is. How in the world does the Mary Cheney story make it into a mainstream news broadcast? These asshats, that's how. I thought he was perfect and that it was damned time somebody confronted their phony political show.

Yes Pete, I know the political game and we do what we have to do. But wouldn't you rather be talking about the real issues instead of Mary freakin' Cheney?

And why is talking about our gay family members an issue anyway? We all have them.

:hi:

[bossfish]

14. But Crossfire was the show he was on...

He also took it to Ted Koppel on Nightline a few weeks ago.

By pointing his comments AT Crossfire while he was ON the show, he made Begala and Carlson directly accountable. If he goes on Crossfire and diffuses his attack then the hosts don't have to respond. Like most of us, Jon is angry at what passes for "news" in our culture.

And, almost perfectly, the show he's on opens with the "political alert" about Mary Cheney, and who Barbra Streisand is voting for, more phony issues. So he stuck it to them. Carlson took the bait and got slaughtered. When Tucker criticized Stewart of not being tough on his comedy show, he confirmed that he is one of the wimpiest assholes ever to appear on TV.

[RafterMan]

15. Disagree

Stewart wasn't on Blitzer.

Lots of people have called out the media. The potentcy of Stewart's hit came from the fact that he called them out right to their faces while literally surrounded by them.

That picture gave a whole new meaning to the Crossfire set design for me: The guest does not have an ally on one side and an adversary on the other -- he is boxed in by media guys on both sides and he always capitulates.

Until now.

[LuminousX]

16. Jesus, he ain't he Messiah

Here is one show he watches, Crossfire, and he gets a chance to go on that show and BEGS them to please HELP AMERICA. Nothing more. Jon wasn't trying to change all of America media in 15 minutes, he just wanted to address Crossfire and ask them to HELP AMERICA.

Let's see what you do when you get your 15 minutes on Crossfire.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

23. Again I repeat, and again, and again...

Stewart LOATHES Crossfire. He attacked the object of his loathing--and did a damn fine job of it.

He decimated Blitzer when Leslie appeared on TDS.

He had FIFTEEN MINUTES, fercheneysakes. He was supposed to tople CNN in 15 minutes?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tansy_Gold]

33. One makes the most of the opportunities one is given

I've read the transcript and listened to the clips that were on Randi rhodes. I've watched TDS many times -- as often as I can -- and I've seen two or three "episodes" of Crossfire, enough to know I can't stand it.

Carlson made the comment that he and Begala expected Stewart to be funny, yet they invited him on a so-called "serious debate" program. They essentially admitted they aren't a "serious debate" program; they're entertainment, and they expect their guests to be "entertaining."

They didn't seem to have a problem with Kerry or Edwards going on Leno or Letterman. They didn't seem to have a problem (on this particular show at least) with John Kerry windsurfing or riding a motorcycle. What they do seem to have a problem with is Jon Stewart, COMEDIAN, not fitting into their pre-conceived image of him.

Worse, they projected -- and I use the word intentionally -- their own faults onto him. They accused him of not being serious on a comedy show. EXCUSE ME? They fell into the trap he had laid for them. They admitted they wanted him to be funny on a "serious" show.

They purport to be a serious debate program, allowing both sides to have their say, but they demonstrated exactly how untrue that is. They constantly talked over Stewart, interrupting him, not allowing him to have a say. That's theatre, that's Limbaugh, that's O'Reilly. That's not "news." The truth is (pun intended), they mock what they pretend to be.

Worse, however, in my mind anyway, is that Begala poses as "the liberal," but he is always subservient to Carlson. Carlson runs the show, Begala is little more than the court jester or yes man. And that's at least as big a sin as the false objectivity of the "real" newscasters like Blitzer and Brown. One can at least excuse Blitzer and Brown on the basis of their ideological/political stake in a biased presentation. How does one excuse Begala?

Carlson knows what he is and I think his audience/supporters know what he is -- a hack, a shill, a phony. Begala, on the other hand, still thinks someone will believe him to be an honest man. If anyone is a buttboy, it's Begala.

Tansy Gold

[blondeatlast]

39. I think you (and others) fail to see the point that for Stewart, on a

personal level, this was an opportunity to take the fight to something (Crossfire) he has made clear he despises.

He managed to show the potential Crossfire has at the same time he destroyed the facade of it--"Why are you hurting America?; You could do so much good with a DEBATE program, but this isn't a debate program (paraphrasing here)."

"All in all, it's just another brick (removed) from the wall."

But it's a start.

[blondeatlast]

21. In a nutshell, and brilliant, LuminousX. Thanks for the sanity, and

you clearly WATCHED the segment. I have my suspicions of those who thought he should do "more."

[jonnyblitz]

22. but he isn't a" kerry campaign hack". why should he be

expected to go after who is the most "insidious" to kerry?

[incapsulated]

24. I believe that Crossfire's ratings are better

Than either Wolf or Zahn.

Getting the message out to the most viewers is what is important, because there is no way that Jon Stewart is single-handedly going to change the media, by appearing on any show and saying what he did.

Stewart made a heartfelt and honest appeal. He is an entertainer and a viewer and a citizen. He did us all a favor and I thank him for it.

It's up to ourselves and our elected officials to change the way the media operates in this country, not Jon.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[incapsulated]

30. You seemed...

To place a good deal of importance on what Jon did by suggesting that he missed a "great opportunity" to make his point to the worst offenders in the media. Which suggests that his statements would have an impact, no?

My point was that it isn't his obligation to do anything other than make us laugh, and if he does something more directly political, to criticize the way in which he does it, as if he should strategize the whole thing like a politician or activist, is a bit much to ask. He is a comedian, he is on our side, and he scored one for the team when we didn't even ask. I'll just say "thanks, Jon!"

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. What do you mean

"partisan shows"? What do you think Begala was trying to put over, when he concluded the show with his designation of himself as the Left and Fratboy as the Right! Re-e-e-l balanced!

Are you saying the "serious" newscasters, such as Blitzer and Crowley are *not* "partisan hacks"! You don't seem too politically savvy, if you don't see them as "hacks" and at least as "partisan" as Begala and Fratboy.

What's more the strong mix of positive and negative emotional engagement of the audience, clearly excited by Stewart's courageously truculent honesty, is the kind of stuff the media folk on both sides would die for.

[Tansy_Gold]

47. Did you say it was up to him? Yes, you did.

You said he "wasted" an opportunity. You're implying that he should have done better, and "better" means -- by your definition -- taking it to the level of attacking all the so-called news media. In other words, he had the responsibility for fixing all the problems.

He didn't "waste" it. He didn't step up to the plate with three runners on and no outs and let three straight hanging curves whiff right by him. Maybe he didn't hit a grand slam or even a bases-clearing double, but he didn't strike out, either.

He caught Carlson and Begala off guard. They looked like idiots. And I have a feeling they're going to look like even bigger idiots after Monday's Daily Show.

Stewart showed the kind of courage a lot more of us -- present company not excluded -- ought to have. He took the fight right to the enemy. How can you call that a "wasted" opportunity? Going on Crossfire and lambasting Blitzer would have been kind of like, uh, going to Iraq to get Osama bin Laden.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. I think one chips away a bit at a time

Going after Crossfire and pointing out that they LIE about being a debate show is a start...

[unfrigginreal]

29. Pete, how about getting some of your circle to nail Wolf or Candy or Paula

They get a hell of a lot more opportunities than Stewart does. The guy was heroic for taking the stand the way he did and deserves nothing but praise. If only some of the Democratic Insiders would show the balls that Stewart did yesterday we'd be in much better shape.

[incapsulated]

31. A-fucking-men! n/t

[blondeatlast]

35. Great minds, heh?

I just can't bring myself to type or say THAT word, unless I'm really upset.

If I do type or say it--duck and cover!

[incapsulated]

37. heh...

I say it and type it so much, it's lost it's impact!

Better your way. :hi:

[blondeatlast]

34. A-effing-men to that! nt

[0007]

40. LOL! In a perfect we don't live. Jon did very well.

Give credit where's it due

[Dr Fate]

42. John was not interviewed by those people you named.

He took on the folks who were right in front of him.

I agree that Wolf, etc are more deserving of a "lecture" about media ethics- but Stewart was not being interviewed by them- I am sure he would do the same w/ them.

[IIgnoreNobody]

43. It's like blaming US soldiers in Baghdad for not capturing Osama

it's not their fault they are in the wrong place to fight the most important battle, so they do they best job they can in the place they are in.

[Generic Other]

45. The wise FOOL is a familiar figure

When he speaks with wisdom, his words are seen as the ramblings of a fool by the blind, deaf and dumb.

[Joe Chi Minh]

48. Well said, matey.