Jump to content

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart


  • Please log in to reply

51623 replies to this topic

#5821

beastiegirl

beastiegirl

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:14 PM

That's fair, formergr. He might have been trying, and it got lost in all the "crosstalk."

And also questioned why Jon was attacking Ted Koppel, who's just doing his job. But he did say "I'm a hack."


Sorry, I'm confused. When was Jon attacking Ted Koppel? Did I miss that? Also, was Carville saying he, Carville, was a hack? That's funny.

Nice of Novak to show up a day later instead of facing Jon head-on. Guess that hip's not so bad after all.

one saying basically Jon sucks and I'm capable of hearing the talking points and making my own decision.


And there we have what's so dangerous about "talking points" and the very argument Jon is making: if that's all you hear, and all you base your decision on, you're making a potentially dangerously underinformed choice. I disagree with Jon that news shows ought to have a point of view, but I do agree that they should challenge misinformation when they hear it, and not be afraid they're going to be called unpatriotic or whatever pejorative TPTB choose to throw at them that week.

Edited by beastiegirl, Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:24 PM.

  • 0

#5822

Major Misfit

Major Misfit

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:19 PM

Also Carville, said that Jon was funny, but a pompous ass.


Pot. Kettle. Black, Carville.

Novak said that Jon was not funny, not informed.


Oh, Douchebag of Liberty ... shut it.
  • 0

#5823

Mowgli

Mowgli

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:20 PM

And also questioned why Jon was attacking Ted Koppel,


Carville seemed so shocked that anyone would criticize Ted Koppel. He repeated it a couple of times even though no one had even mentioned Koppel during Jon's CF appearance.

Did James and the Douchebag even watch Jon's interview? I bet they didn't.

And, seriously, was I out of the room when someone declared Koppel a national treasure, the ultimate word on truth, and a journalist totally beyond reproach?

In his conversation with Jon on "Nightline", Koppel wouldn't even acknowledge Jon's point that there's an important difference between real "facts" and the lies that the spinmeisters tell us as if they are facts. He was in total denial that Jon's criticism (basic Journalism 101) had any merit at all.

These smug tv reporters do some good work, some times. But...beyond criticism? The hell?

Edited by Mowgli, Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:21 PM.

  • 0

#5824

quotidian

quotidian

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:38 PM

Major Misfit, if I could word your post any harder, I'd sprain something.

And if Jon's not informed, it's because *they* aren't doing their fucking jobs. Jon's the one who said he watched CNN all day, douchebag.

ETA: Wonkette summarizes the genesis of anti-Stewart backlash nicely in the Drudge audience report. Because we need to not question the media's inability to do its job, you know... now more than ever.

Edited by quotidian, Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:50 PM.

  • 0

#5825

vellma

vellma

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:44 PM

Also, was Carville saying he, Carville, was a hack? That's funny.


Yes, Carville fully admitted to being a hack, but only to contrast himself with Ted Koppel, who is above reproach, according to Carville.
  • 0

#5826

agamemnon

agamemnon

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 4:50 PM

Jon was completely correct IMO when he stated that they were hurting America. These shows are about ratings\entertainment and not the news or about finding the truth. This is why John Kerry is viewed as a flip-flopper when President Bush has flip-flopped as much as a cook at IHOP. But instead of calling bs on it, these shows just continue to repeat over and over again the party lines. The media in this country has become a disgrace and it’s about time that someone called them on it.

This is the Jon I wanted to see on the O'Reilly Factor. I wanted him to tell off that pompous, phone sex having bully, the backlash be damned. The media is going to be hard on Jon for it, but they have to because they cannot admit he’s right even when all the empirical evidence points to Jon being absolutely correct in his assessment. Jon feels the same frustration that I have been feeling for years and to see someone actually call these hacks on it was awe inspiring, at least to me.

Jon may be the “funny guy from the fake news” but he’s still a concerned American at heart and if he’s willing to take on these blowhards for what they are doing to this country I will stand behind him 100%. Hell, I may even throw in that extra 10% I was saving for work.
  • 0

#5827

shd

shd

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 5:05 PM

They chose two emails, one saying basically Jon sucks and I'm capable of hearing the talking points and making my own decision. The other was just a thanks for letting Jon speak. Now why did they choose not to read two truly opposing letters?

vellma, I think in THEIR minds, those WERE opposing letters. They didn't want to show anything more positive about Jon's appearance than "Thank you for letting him have his say". Which, when you think about it, says nothing positive about Jon, only something positive about how "open-minded" Crossfire is.

Novak said that Jon was not funny, not informed.

When I was watching the show and saw that, I thought, "Great. I hope this doesn't turn into a constant flame war between Jon and Novak now." But will Jon really be able to ignore the fact that Novak said that about him?
  • 0

#5828

quotidian

quotidian

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 5:14 PM

Because in "giving him his say", CF also was very thorough in allowing JS to explain and back up his arguments about the media in detail, as well. Except not.

You kids in j-school certainly have your work cut out for you now, because not only do media pundits have their own work to do throwing talking points at each other, they live to defend unassailable!news!anchors. (Now get the hell off my lawn!)
  • 0

#5829

jjenni

jjenni

    Video Archivist

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 5:26 PM

Jon feels the same frustration that I have been feeling for years and to see someone actually call these hacks on it was awe inspiring, at least to me.


Exactly. GOD! And what just kills me, is these "news" hounds criticizing John the next day just. don't. get it. The Daily Show is not a satirizing the politicians, it's satirizing the bloody media. That's the point of the freaking show. And Crossfire knew that John Stewart had specifically mocked Crossfire by name on his show before. So, how on earth are they so surprised and offended that he went on their show and told them to their faces what he's been saying for years? Is it so shocking that he would actually have the guts to call them out on their "turf" instead of hiding behind his own show to critcize them?
  • 0

#5830

Hasbro

Hasbro

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 5:51 PM

I imagine the TDS backlash will strike full force if Kerry wins. In the tight election I'm sure some neo-cons would blame him in part for getting "stoned slackers" to vote.
  • 0

#5831

LADreamr

LADreamr

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 5:53 PM

But will Jon really be able to ignore the fact that Novak said that about him?

I think we'll hear tonight that Novak is a Douchebag for Ignorance ... who eats babies.
  • 0

#5832

catrina

catrina

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 6:09 PM

Hmmm...blog reaction is about what I thought it would be. Seems a lot of people seem to be going back, again and again, to the point that Jon can critique the news and then fail to be "important" himself. "Clown nose on, clown nose off."

But I kind of think that misses the point, I truly do. No matter what you say about The Daily Show, it does not have an investigative newsroom. They have no resources, nor are they trained to do anything but put on an "entertaining" show. Now The Daily Show doesn't really make any pretense of giving you stuff that's good for you, it just sort of evolved over a the last year or so that people realized they were eating broccoli all along! But they thought it was candy! So suddenly it was like "Well stop pretending to be candy and just be broccoli," said the real broccoli. "But you don't get my point said candy Stewart! If I say I'm broccoli than people won't want to eat me. Plus, its not like I pretended I was better than I was, you all just decided you liked the taste of me. But now you want to make me into you. But I'm still candy and your still broccoli."

The difference between Crossfire (or let's get ambitious, The O'Reilly Factor) and The Daily Show, is one is pretending to be broccoli, and the other isn't.
  • 0

#5833

Paper Chaser

Paper Chaser

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 6:19 PM

catrina, that has to be one of the most entertaining posts I've read in a while. And also correct in its logic. Funny and insightful...hmmm..

Damn, you just made me eat broccoli and I thought it was candy!
  • 0

#5834

phxchic

phxchic

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 6:46 PM

Dammit! I'm not supposed to eat broccoli because it counteracts my Synthroid. What am I gonna do now?!?
  • 0

#5835

Zelfitz

Zelfitz

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 6:51 PM

CNN's Tucker Carlson, Jon Stewart feuding
  • 0

#5836

memememe76

memememe76

    Stalker

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 6:58 PM

Carlson noted that many of the great comedians kept their political opinions to themselves, not for fear of offending anyone, but because it could hurt their art.


Like who? The last thing I need to do is to hear him lecture on the history of comedy.
  • 0

#5837

lemondust

lemondust

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 6:59 PM

It's more like broccoli with cheese.
  • 0

#5838

cjgurl427

cjgurl427

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 7:01 PM

Nah, phxchic, you're cool. The Daily Show isn't actually broccoli; it's candy infused with broccoli-like nutrients. That's why so many people don't even bother to eat broccoli anymore; "I get all my news - I mean, nutrients - from candy!" Especially now that people are realizing that broccoli isn't that good for you, anyway.

I think this metaphor has gone too far.

Edited by cjgurl427, Oct 18, 2004 @ 7:02 PM.

  • 0

#5839

lemondust

lemondust

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 7:02 PM

What comedian could he think he's talking about? Jay Leno? To me, someone great is George Carlin, and he's hardly kept his opinions in check.
  • 0

#5840

pianodan

pianodan

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 7:03 PM

My head is starting to hurt from considering The Daily Show's true place in the info-media-pundi-tainment world... :)

I agree that "Stewart backlash" is coming, perhaps sooner than we thought. But I can't imagine a "hit piece" as postulated by catrina. Who could hate Jon, except those in cable news, who know now that his disdain wasn't just a joke? Disgruntled former writers? No way.

Re: Drudge, "CNN cleaning up the transcript" means cleaning up as in editing the transcript from "rush" to "final" form. Not cleaning up as in censoring. I hope. And a 7% ratings drop is hardly cause for concern. Didn't August have the Dem convention, as well as the Clinton-Cruise double whammy?

Some more Crossfire reaction:
This DailyKos diary has a whole mess of links to the video, plus lots of Jon-related articles.
Today's Crossfire transcript, scroll to bottom for Jon content. Carville really seems to think Jon "attacked" Koppel - in fact, Jon was just making the same points with Ted (on Nightline, on TDS and in the current TV Guide) that he tried to make on Crossfire. Novak? I've heard that he's a douchebag.
TVNewser blog spoke to Tucker on Friday. (Two entries below that, "an emailer" is me. Toot, toot.)
  • 0

#5841

memememe76

memememe76

    Stalker

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 7:16 PM

Whether or not Jay Leno is a great commedian is debatable (hate his show, love his stand-up) but Leno has already stated he will be voting for Kerry.
  • 0

#5842

Ingresgumball

Ingresgumball

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 7:25 PM

Bill Maher decribed his brand of infotainment as the meatball you wrap around the pill you give the dog.
  • 0

#5843

jjenni

jjenni

    Video Archivist

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 7:42 PM

"You're selling out," [Carlson] said. "If you are a satirist or an acute social observer, and he is, and all of a sudden you suspend disbelief on someone or suck up rather than prod or poke someone, people will look at you and say, `Even if I agree with you, I don't like it,'"


Ok, this quote would be ironic, if it weren't so painfully sad. How can he say this about John, and not realize that that's exactly what John did by going on his show and calling him out? John is a social satarist of the media, so he went on a news show, and instead of "suspending his disbelief" or "sucking up" to them, he "poked" and "prodded" them about their shoddy journalism. If he would have traded jokes and just talked up his book, then it would have been selling out. But he did what I look for John Stewart to do - commented on the absurdity of these spin shows.
  • 0

#5844

becauseIcan

becauseIcan

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 8:52 PM

Whether or not Jay Leno is a great commedian is debatable (hate his show, love his stand-up) but Leno has already stated he will be voting for Kerry


I hate Jay Leno's show and stand-up and not only is he voting for Kerry, but he does a substantial amount of (bad) political jokes each night, as does Letterman. As do lots of great stand-up comedians. I would say the best stand-ups have done social commentary and that at some point usually includes some degree of politics

Besides Carlson needs to look up the word satirist sometime if he doesn't get that Jon's Stewart job as one is pricking the powers/conventions of the Media and Politics. What a dick.

I think Jon came on Crossfire, ready to give his point, but I didn't see him getting, uh, testy, until Tucker started getting personal, then Jon took the gloves off.

Having re-watched the clip today, I don't think that Jon not only didn't have time to back-up his point, I don't see how he could have gotten a word in edgewise. To me this did nothing so much as prove Jon's point. He had something to say, but instead of allowing him to give a well-reasoned response and have real debate about it, Tucker had to keep yelling/interrupting Jon constantly and then insulting him. It quickly turned into theatre and what points Jon did make, he had to fight to make over the din of TC's yapping.

I am always thrilled when it's a new TDS, but I can't wait to see if Jon says anything. Maybe TC can get his own name? too bad Douchbag For Liberty is aptly being filled elswhere. Maybe Ward of Douchebag? Boy Douchebag?
  • 0

#5845

shd

shd

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 9:02 PM

Now The Daily Show doesn't really make any pretense of giving you stuff that's good for you, it just sort of evolved over a the last year or so that people realized they were eating broccoli all along! But they thought it was candy! So suddenly it was like "Well stop pretending to be candy and just be broccoli," said the real broccoli. "But you don't get my point said candy Stewart! If I say I'm broccoli than people won't want to eat me. Plus, its not like I pretended I was better than I was, you all just decided you liked the taste of me. But now you want to make me into you. But I'm still candy and your still broccoli."

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have our next episode of "Veggie Tales"!
  • 0

#5846

NeuroSpud

NeuroSpud

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 9:45 PM

Maybe TC can get his own name? too bad Douchbag For Liberty is aptly being filled elswhere. Maybe Ward of Douchebag? Boy Douchebag?


The Douchebag Dauphin?
  • 0

#5847

catrina

catrina

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 9:51 PM

Heh. Yeah, it true that some analogies can only be carried so far.

I've thought about this issue (of whether Jon Stewart has some news responsibility) for a while now and I just can't seem to make a case that he does. I understand the feeling that by always saying he's a comedian, it can seem like a cop out, but let's consider the argument.

Let's say we agree that Jon Stewart, despite having no training in news media, has somehow morphed to the point of being a full-fledged media critic with all the responsibilities it entails. So if a Bill Clinton or a Tom Delay appears on his show, he's got a responsiblity to ask them tough questions. 1) What responsibility are we exactly spelling out here? That he must make fun of Republican 50% of the time and Democrats 50%? 2) Where does these new responsibilities leave his interviews? Must they be some kind of mutant combination of hard-hitting yet entertaining? Remember that 7 out of 15 interviews are with actors or entertainers who carry no political content (actual statstic based on a three-week survey conducted in March). So are these new responsibilities of being a "hard-hitting journalist" (and again, he has no training in this area) supposed to clash with his equally valid job of being an entertainer? Granted we all have our favorite interviews Jon conducted (Henry Bonilla) but the really tough questions he asks are actually pretty few and far between. 3) Assuming Stewart does have some sort of media critic responsibility to the public...who is the monitor of that? Does the The Daily Show need an ombudsman? Should the Columbia Journalism Review be viewing his program for fairness and accuracy? Or is this something that only takes place "in the marketplace of ideas?"

I think if you accept the idea that Stewart does have some responsibility towards his viewers to 'ask tough questions' I'm not sure where this path leads. I feel like we've suddenly asked the ice cream man to teach math because he has some skill at it. I would like to point out that not everyone really can be a journalist. Just looking at Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala are examples of what happens when you start thinking that everyone who works in the media is a journalist. They conduct interviews...and yet they're not really good at it either.

And there's sort of another dimension to all this. Stewart has never said he was really any good at conducting interviews. It's not like he's been bragging about it. Moreover he's basically said in interviews he wiffed the Kerry interview, which is the one that everyone is dogging him over. So he admitted that, yeah, he didn't do such a great job because it was neither informative or entertaining. The real strenght of the show is actually the newsy bits, which he has help on. And if Stewart isn't the best interviewer, I think some of the value in his interviews is the guests he has on. Desmond Tutu, Richard Clark, Carol Moseley-Braun. Its really more about exposure to people that some of us would never have seen on TV in other places because we're not watching the news. So say what you will about the interviews...TDS books the guests. If Stewart made a point of being all confrontational to his guests and only asked "hard-hitting questions" I doubt he'd get the guests that he does. So yeah, he's basically like Larry King. But that's pretty much all Stewart has signed up for. If every once in a while he hits one out of the park, good for him and us. But its like we all expect him to suddenly be Babe Ruth...or some kind of baseball hitting guy (I don't really know sports all that well). He never said he was. What I'm hearing from people is what a lot of politicians say to reporters. "Well if your so critical why don't you run for office?" There is some kind of collective thought that Stewart can't critique the media (or politics I guess...but he does seem to be mostly a news critic) without needing to join it.

And don't get me wrong. If The Daily Show was on CNN (Not CNN International, which is weird), I would have a harder time defending his show. If his show was part of the CBS News Department I would have a hard time defending his show. But, let's face facts. It's is on a network called Comedy Central. Jon Stewart is the Ice Cream Man (or candy seller) who's everyone said was good with numbers so they asked him to teach math. I don't doubt that Stewart has the right instincts to be a journalist...if he wanted to. But I don't see him really stepping into that role in any meaningful sense. He's aping that role, and I think its confusing people because...well...sometimes he does do it better than those he's aping. But not all the time. He bats like .250 but people find it amazing he can hit at all.

Edited by catrina, Oct 18, 2004 @ 9:55 PM.

  • 0

#5848

Ingresgumball

Ingresgumball

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 9:52 PM

The Douchebag Dauphin?

Or retro, after the shampoo: Gee, Your Twat Smells Teutonic!

Edited by Ingresgumball, Oct 19, 2004 @ 2:02 AM.

  • 0

#5849

jstilwe

jstilwe

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 10:17 PM

They told me that I wasn't being funny. Which is true. But tomorrow, I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow.

I think they pissed him off.

I particularly liked how he had to slam them every couple of minutes, apropos of nothing, like he couldn't help himself. Hee!

Edited by jstilwe, Oct 18, 2004 @ 10:23 PM.

  • 0

#5850

NeuroSpud

NeuroSpud

Posted Oct 18, 2004 @ 10:44 PM

Gee, Your Cunt Smells Teutonic!


I'm lost. Am I missing something?
  • 0