Well Played, Jon Stewart, Well Played.
DrSuredeath
Join Date: 2002-11-11 Member: 8217Members
Join Date: 2002-11-11 Member: 8217Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Jon bitchslapped Crossfire.</div> <a href='http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831' target='_blank'>http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831</a>
This is the most awesome thing.
Enough with the left extremist yelling at the right extremist show.
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345407512/qid=1097935660/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-6585738-0483207?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>My recommended reading on the subject</a>
The author was frustrated by how everything have to have two sides. Eg. Her colleague was invited to talk about holocaust at a local news program, on the condition that Holocaust denier be given and equal time.
Very good read.
This is the most awesome thing.
Enough with the left extremist yelling at the right extremist show.
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345407512/qid=1097935660/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-6585738-0483207?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>My recommended reading on the subject</a>
The author was frustrated by how everything have to have two sides. Eg. Her colleague was invited to talk about holocaust at a local news program, on the condition that Holocaust denier be given and equal time.
Very good read.
Comments
I'm growingly convinced that in enough time, Jon Stewart is going to be the most important man in politics.
Edit: in case you don't want to sell your immortal soul to be able to watch it, Slashdot has bittorrent links .<a href='http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/16/0351247&threshold=-1&tid=149&tid=129&tid=133' target='_blank'>Slashdot</a>
As one Slashdotter put it, <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It was like watching a man stomp on the heads of puppies with steel toed boots.
Except the puppies were Carlson and Begala and the boots were Truth, so it was cool.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is, he's right. The reason the Daily Show is so funny is because of rediculous talking heads like Carlson and Begala. Satire works by emphisizing the absurd, but the absurdities can't just be created out of thin air. There was a poll a little while ago that shows that people who watch the Daily Show are more educated and politically aware than other television viewers.
Most political commentators are nothing more than spigots for party rhetoric. It was nice to see Stewart call them on it and refuse to play the game they wanted him to. Rather than work into their poor quality setups so he can make a funny, he said, "No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey." That's ballsy and I respect the hell out of him for it.
That guys bowtie **** me off.
He obviously enjoys the Daily Show though, so maybe its best if he stays there. What if the man got into office, and hated it? He might lose his (amazing) sense of humor.
Well yes, I can't imagine a viewer that commonly watches cops or the simpsons would even have an interest in political issues.
That's a bit like saying that people who read playboy magazines tend to be more sexual. I mean duh.
Even still, I don't think Jon Stewert is that smart, and in his little trouncing he did absolutely nothing other than name off random things that could be true...
Not one example from a guy who watches crossfire everyday?
Where's the rolleye's smilie when you need it?
AH, found it
<img src='http://teamcri.net/forums/uploads/post-60-1094780770.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
For someone who says they don't ask the right type of questions when canadates are on the show, niether did he ask them anything good or provactive.
Although, he did call them "bad" and called the right wing dude a "d ick"
Ohh, impressive...
<img src='http://teamcri.net/forums/uploads/post-60-1094780770.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Even still, I don't think Jon Stewert is that smart, and in his little trouncing he did absolutely nothing other than name off random things that could be true...
Not one example from a guy who watches crossfire everyday?
Where's the rolleye's smilie when you need it?
AH, found it
For someone who says they don't ask the right type of questions when canadates are on the show, niether did he ask them anything good or provactive.
Although, he did call them "bad" and called the right wing dude a "d ick"
Ohh, impressive... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not the thoroughness of his arguments that is impressive. Its the fact that he had the balls to say on public tv the thoughts that most of us have about national American media. For a half hour there, he broke the the unreality doublethink bubble that seems to saturate national news and brought things back down.
And that's exactly the point. It's all theater, there's no content there, yelling and screaming for 30 seconds per issue doesn't get any actual information across. The job of those two is not to inform the public or even to sway the public, their job is to entertain, which is not what they are telling the public they are doing. The Daily Show is at least honest when it tells you it's the fake news, Crossfire wants you to believe they're real news even when they're just actors trying to draw ratings.
While anyone can argue (quite truthfully) that most debate across the media is shallow and tactless, the only alternative is to be spoonfed information through a blatantly biased media. The truth isn't something the average american has the resources or the time to discover, it's what the media tells us is true. While the media itself could use some housecleaning, no one has any clue how to do it, which brings us to the ultimate problem with Mr. Stewart's reasoning: The problem is obvious, but do you have a solution?
To put it simply, if we don't argue about it, we'd have to have already agreed on it.
Even still, I don't think Jon Stewert is that smart, and in his little trouncing he did absolutely nothing other than name off random things that could be true...
Not one example from a guy who watches crossfire everyday?
Where's the rolleye's smilie when you need it?
AH, found it
For someone who says they don't ask the right type of questions when canadates are on the show, niether did he ask them anything good or provactive.
Although, he did call them "bad" and called the right wing dude a "d ick"
Ohh, impressive... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not the thoroughness of his arguments that is impressive. Its the fact that he had the balls to say on public tv the thoughts that most of us have about national American media. For a half hour there, he broke the the unreality doublethink bubble that seems to saturate national news and brought things back down. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then maybe it wasn't impressive for me because I'm so used to standing outside of the crowd it doesn't even phase me anymore.
The guy had great delivery, and for 30 minute, he made the problem seeringly clear, but in a matter of weeks, we'd have all forgotten about it and would've returned to the haven of political debate we all love. In short: Balls, yes. Important? No.
There is a difference between an argument and a debate. In a debate there are rules of order, there are turns, people don't speak over each other, usually there is little yelling, both sides are given all the time needed to explain their positions. A debate is quite different from what we see in the media today, which is simply arguing. There can be a dialouge on issues without the tone devolving into name-calling and sound-byte spewing.
Be practical in this - keep in mind that shows that don't capture viewers don't air.
Be practical in this - keep in mind that shows that don't capture viewers don't air. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without having actually watched the "browbeating" yet (it's still downloading), I'd be willing to give a partial answer to that question.
I think the issue, in the minds of corporate producers, isn't simply "more viewers more viewers," it's an issue of margin. An hour-long documentary going in depth on a topic, getting all the "sides," displaying concrete examples and anecdotes is likely quite expensive and at the very least timeconsuming. A roundtable talk show with a gaggle of blowhards is very simple to produce and not very expensive, i'd imagine, considering that the likely number of vacuous nincompoops willing to go on air and spew nonsense probably drives their market price down.
A cleverly produced documentary that doesn't get viewers will not recoup its costs in advertising dollars. A roundtable will probably cover its costs in the first couple "breaks."
When one side thinks candidate A is a saint and candidate B is satan, and the other side thinks the opposite, there can be no debate. There's nothing to talk about. The two sides are in completely different worlds.
These worlds aren't remotely accurate reflections of reality. They are the result of our abysmal media coverage. Both sides of the political debate try to demonize eachother, which is natural, it's in their best interest. But if everything were working properly, the media would be there to reign this in. Instead, the media panders to it. Polical coverage has degenerated into either parroting the statements out of context of one candidate against the other, or covering polls. They simply aren't promoting the information we need to have a functioning democracy.
Even more so than some of his words, Jon Stewart's whole posture and appearance reflected this. He looked like he had just woken up into a horrible dream that he could barely believe, stammering and pleading, and he perfectly conveyed the exasperation that many Americans feel about our political process.
You’re absolutely right, his posture seemed to say more then anything about how he and many Americans feel.
The last 15 seconds of that clip are so symbolic, and I didn't catch this until the 2nd time I watched it.
Jon is sitting there, <i>in the middle</i>, with this incredibly exasperated look of disbelief on his face and the hosts go "from the left I'm ****** and from the right I'm ******"
The background is two different colors for each side and Jon is smack dab in the middle...amazingly symbolic, you have to wonder if he realized this or it just worked out that way.
That's why I never watch any 'political' shows. There's always one fat guy, one 'corporate' woman, some guy in glasses and someone else all just bantering on, talking over eachother while some 'host' tries half-heatedly to make it look like they're giving unbiased, useful information.
Woot, civilized debate <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
Woot, civilized debate <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I agree, especially on the O'Reily Factor, and Crossfire. Jon Stuart is right about how these "debates" on CNN don't even teach you anything, because it's not about issues at all.
It's about one guy saying "I TOLD U SO" to another guy that is, by human nature, saying the same thing back. It is biased because it is teaching American Society that it doesn't matter if you have the right or wrong answer, you just have to sling mud as harder at the other guy, and have an extremely narcicistic point of view to win.
I just finished reading the transcripts and from what I can tell, american television is in bad shape <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> (though I already picked that one up from Buffy and "angel")
You’re absolutely right, his posture seemed to say more then anything about how he and many Americans feel.
The last 15 seconds of that clip are so symbolic, and I didn't catch this until the 2nd time I watched it.
Jon is sitting there, <i>in the middle</i>, with this incredibly exasperated look of disbelief on his face and the hosts go "from the left I'm ****** and from the right I'm ******"
The background is two different colors for each side and Jon is smack dab in the middle...amazingly symbolic, you have to wonder if he realized this or it just worked out that way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Going back and looking on it, you are right. That look and position is just... bleh, it's a shame people will probably end up forgetting it in the end.