http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:16:57 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-123331 Left-wing morality, Hugh? How dare you imply that left wingers are immoral by virtue of their beliefs. So some of his "crotch humor" may be over the top, that doesn't make him the epitome of slime. Stewart made valid points on Crossfire. and Carlson doesn't need you to come to his rescue. He handled it very well on his own. The cable news stations say they are presenting these shows to educate the public and allow a forum for political discussion. The "pompous little smart alecs" are those in positions of broadcast management who have used bait and switch on the viewing audience. It's all about ratings and advertising revenue, Hugh. Stewart has never made out that his show was anything more than satire of current events. Through humor the show succeeds to facilitate some people to take a second look and pay attention to what's going on in this country. We're not a society of lemmings, Hugh. You don't like Stewart, change the channel...to FOX News. 123331@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:16:57 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-123329 Jon Stewart is mostly just a hack for left-wing morality. That is where his most outrageous hot buttons lie. His preoccupation with jr. high school crotch humor is quite telling. On this Crossfire interview he was arrogant, smug and went after the semi-conservative Carlson almost exclusively. Was he being funny when he made his adolescent comments about Carlson's tie (same one Senator Paul Simon wore)or when he called Carlson a dirty name? He had already said he was not on there to be funny, so I guess he is just a filthy little jerk. He couches his left-wing politics in 'humor' so that he does not have to defend his fringe beliefs. He is actually the epitiomy of a "d!$&" if you ask most people. What an utter fake this pompous little smart alec is. 123329@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:55:53 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-123142 Right on, Aeoris. Jon doesn't take himself all that seriously which affords him the opportunity to go out on a limb. We need more of that in the public arena. Tucker Carlson may be an ass at times but he does call them like he sees them. Carville is a comedy on wheels while Begala and Novak are a disgrace to commentators everywhere. Bill O'Reilly was never credible to me. His start on the national broadcasting scene was in tabloid journalism which made him a perfect addition to FOX News. The one that does surprise me is Britt Hume. Here is a guy who had a great newspaper column and was a welcome member of the ABC News team. When he went over to FOX News he sold out his journalist friends, his own family and soul to Murdoch. Mike Wallace must cringe when he thinks of his son being part of that propaganda machine. Back to Stewart. You're right, he and his viewers are intelligent. Through humor he dares to challenge the status quo where others fail. Bill Maher comes close to being another Jon Stewart but has dropped the ball by taking himself too seriously. 123142@blogcritics.org Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:17:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-123139 I thought Jon Stewart was brilliant on Crossfire. He felt that he had a great opportunity to tell them what bad their debates were and how bad they were hurting America. The fact that Jon called Carson a dick must be placed in the context. Carson said " I thought you were going to be funny. Come on! Be funny!!" This is more like an insult. As if Jon's only role is to be funny on demand. As if he has no brains. That was a big mistake. Jon is actually the most intelligent TV host on air now. His jokes are intelligent and he knows that his audience is intelligent. I thought that the hosts of Crossfire were very rude and deserved everything that Jon said to them. Also another fact that was scary is when they told Jon that he had a responsibility to ask good questions to John Kerry. I mean, don't they know what Comedy Central is??? And John Kerry did not come on his show to feel like at the Billy O'Reilly Factor. This is exactly why he refused to go there. He wanted to show people that he also has a humor. These TV people must understand that Jon is one of the rare people who has the guts to speak out loud about how bad things are going right now. They should not think that they can invite Jon just to make them laugh. Anyways, there was more to cry about on Crossfire than to laugh. I admire Jon's lucidity and intelligence. He also was perfect on the O'Reilly Factor. Bill was attacking him all the time and Jon did not get distabilized at all. This is the fun thing about Jon. When you have him on a show, you never know what he is going to say. 123139@blogcritics.org Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:04:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-92666 Stewart handed Carlson his ass in small pieces. And he is correct, Crossfire is simply bad theater, very very bad theater. Novak, after outing a CIA agent, should have his head on a pike over the gate of the city. 92666@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:25:13 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-92527 I think both Carlson and Stewart are both total knobs. Tucker is a complete twit and always has been. Stewart used to be funny, but isn't anymore. He is now just shrill. 92527@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:47:16 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-92515 Donald, I'm not a conservative and am voting for Kerry, but one has to be honest. The Daily Show has taken sides, have they not? They have serious people on their show who affect our lives and when it suits the politics of the people who make the show, they ask serious, pointed questions and expect answers. Why would Jon Stewart hide from this obvious fact? Polls, I'm told, demonstrate that a large number of young people rely on Jon Stewart for their news. Stewart has posed for the cover of Time/Newsweek (one or the other) and comes on shows like Nightline and Crossfire, and yet he claims to loathe the serious attention he receives? Crossfire is no less an entertainment show than the Daily Show; the Daily Show is no less about REAL news than Crossfire. However, has John Kerry been on Crossfire lately? Kerry went on the Daily Show because he knew that he would find a friendly venue. And Stewart did not let him down. Is Tucker Carlson NOT supposed to point this out when the guy's done nothing but insult him? I viewed the Stewart vs. Carlson show on Crossfire as something like a boxing match where both fighters knocked each other out at the same time. Demonstrating that, though perfectly matched, neither one deserved to be in the ring as "boxers", a WWF cagematch, perhaps, but not a boxing ring. You can't turn seriousness off or on to suit yourself. This is called stepping into the breach. 92515@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:15:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-92479 I didn't mean to imply by my comments on the john kerry interview that I don't think that Cross fire is stupid. I agree with everything Jon said to them and it had to be said by someone. Has anyone heard the rumour that he's broadcasting live on election nite and is it true? 92479@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:03:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-92476 Stewart is 100% right about Crossfire. They have a chance to intelligently debate real issues, and instead they just pit these people against each other in a sort of fixed fight. 92476@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:53:13 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-92419 I consider myself conservative and often dont agree with Jon Stewarts personal views, as he often pokes fun at my religion. But on crossfire he finally said what I have always wanted to say. Somebody finally told those idiots the truth of what they do. When was the last time you heard them debate something important? Healthcare, the economy? NEVER, I dont think its ever happened. If you honestly think that Jon Stewart needed to ask John Kerry hard meaninful questions you have him mistaken for Barbara Walters. The questions he asked directly made fun of the media, and it was FUNNY. He obviously doesnt take himself too seriously in fact he is the most self depreciating media personality Ive seen. I believe he saw an injustice to US as a public and called it out. Carlson is a wanker... and Novak should be in jail for blowing the cover of an undercover CIA agent. Carlson and friends want you to miss the real point on this issue... Dont. 92419@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:37:56 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91998 Regarding the "softball" questions for Kerry, this reminds me of Lenny Bruce during his New York obscenity trial, where he tried to object that not only was the cop on the witness stand misrepresenting his material, he was doing it badly. If the people at "I'll Kick Your Ass" want to present themselves as comedians, then be funny. But they try to present themselves as "journalists", though they do no journalism. I would note that they have not denied being partisan hacks. Instead, all the outrage has been along the lines of "how dare this man not be funny, which is what we called him for, to shill his funny book, instead, he says we're just holding a pissing contest". They are nothing more than fluffers for the party machine. 91998@blogcritics.org Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:38:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91995 Let me get this straight - Jon Stewart goes on T.V. to pointedly ask that the media shape up and start being more credible and holding our officials more accountable.... And you freaking people want to criticize him for hit?! Haven't any of you noticed how BAD our media is?! I mean, we're a nation that feeds off of USA Today and then go to BBC when we want a credible newssource. And yes, the great irony is that some people actually get news from the Daily Show (which Stewart publicly decries as a failure of our own REAL news sources). Jon Stewart did something good for us. Regardless of what his true motives are (or what you think they are) - people who stand up should be supported by us. Not bashed and criticized. The media will do that for us. Lets not help them 91995@blogcritics.org Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:18:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91800 Thanks, Dana. From one (in my case former) English teacher to another. 91800@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:10:02 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91762 Sean, you said exactly what I was trying to say, only with much more eloquence. 91762@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:35:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91757 I agree with you all to some point... I love the show, and I don't care if Jon wants to vote for Kerry or Bush or Nader. A comedian with an agenda isn't too concerning to me...after all, they've said they're only job is to make the show funny, and I agree. But I feel that the bipartisanship leading up to the election is actually damaging the quality of the show. Instead of knowing I can tune in at 11 for a good laugh at ALL those politcians, I have a nagging feeling the entire time that they are nearly becoming one of the media they apparently despise. They used to be a relatively equal-opportunity offender, but now it's obvious even in the difference between interivews with Democrats and Republicans. I don't like it one bit. They can do whatever they want with the show, but when it starts to interfere with the quality, I start to complain. 91757@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:16:28 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91754 And I agree with you regarding the Kerry interview. Stewart could have retained his credibility if he had simply said, "I throw softballs at Kerry because I want him to win." He cares more about this than the perception that his show is fair; or that it fearlessly puctures the balloons of ALL those in power. It doesn't, which makes Stewart, well, just another partisan hack serving his own Master. 91754@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:07:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91715 I agree with you Sean. I watch the daily show whenever I can stay up (it's on at midnite where I am in Canada) and love satire. But I agreed with Tucker, in that I was really upset when Jon didn't really question John Kerry. Yes, it's a comedy show, yes it's fake news...but for most other guests, I find he's a better interviewer than the news shows. An example would be his interview last night with Ed Koch. Satire isn't just comedy, it's comedy with purpose. Giving politicians an easy ride and asking them the question they want to be asked goes completely against the goals of satire. I was very disappointed in the Kerry interview. 91715@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:56:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91704 Stewart wants to have it both ways: to be taken seriously but then to fall back on, "hey, I'm just a comedian." He can't. I have no doubt that Stewart and co. regard what they do as satire, and I wouldn't disagree. But whoever said that satire is not meant to be taken seriously? By definition, in fact, it's intent is to instruct or correct. I don't watch Crossfire but I do watch the Daily Show almost every night. Seeing Stewart on Crossfire, which I watched online, did more damage to his reputation than to Tucker Carlson's, an unfortunate result because Stewart had a serious and valuable point to make but chose instead to behave like some irate and self-righteous college student. 91704@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:28:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91702 for all Stewart's accusations of "theater" and the like regarding these sensationalistic confrontation shows, he did the exact same thing himself when placed in that position - I think he was the real dick here, completely apart from the validity of his accusations 91702@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:26:30 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91693 Sean, on some level I have to agree with you. In the end the whole name-calling (including Butt Boy) served no purpose and distracts from a valid message by Jon. To add to the point now James Carville has called Jon a jerk. Well, he did succeed at getting cohesiveness on one issue with the talking heads. Although he is correct with his point Jon may have leaped onto a minion black-list of the media's with that appearance thus ending what could have been a good campaign. 91693@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:53:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91534 Jon Stewart's schtick is a total Letterman ripoff, and anyone who remembers Letterman in his glory days will know what I am talking about. Stewart is the least funny part of the show. Fortunately, the rest of the show is hysterical. And calling someone a "dick" and ridiculing a guy's bow tie is hardly a triumph of rhetoric or substance. Over at Daily Kos you'd think Stewart was Joe Welch and Carlson was Joe McCarthy. What's really funny is the revelation that Stewart actually does take himself seriously. 91534@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:27:50 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91515 "...and the Yankees are getting ready to sweep the Sox..." by Andy Marsh, 10-24-04, 8:24 91515@blogcritics.org Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:20:28 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91421 Eric, the missing point isn't that Jon Stewart called Mr. Carlson a "dick", but that fancy lad berated Stewart for not being "funny". Is that like, I'm a clown, I make you laugh, "funny"? He should give thanks that all Jon Stewart did was belittle everything he does as fatuous nonsense. He could have wound up in a shallow grave somewhere in New Jersey. 91421@blogcritics.org Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:06:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91415 Well, it appears it's like I said; I had an incorrect assumption of what Blogcritics is trying to do. 91415@blogcritics.org Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:49:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/17/145717.php#comment-91308 Dana, I agree our editing could always be better. I try to catch spelling and obvious grammatical errors but certainly don't always succeed. We very much need a real copy editor, and this is something we are working on right now. However, the reviews we actually share ARE all edited per mainstream publication standards. I have made it clear that if the writer wants a review to be shared it must approximate these standards. However, the scope of writing on Blogcritics IS much broader than what is acceptable at a mainstream publication; I see this as a strength, not a weakness. We are more flexible, allow more personal expression and encourage writers to find their own voices. We are a hybrid, and one that I hope will continue to improve across the board, as it has steadily done throughout our existence. 91308@blogcritics.org Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:51:04 EDT