Hmmm...I love Jon Stewart to no end, and I think what he said about Tucker Carlson and Crossfire/Hardball/Whatever was 100% spot on. Still, I wish he'd have left the topic alone after the first few minutes rather than let it permeate the entire show...Maybe he could've been more playful and a little less, well, condescending. Even if he has every right in the world to be condescending to those puppet bastards.
Then again, we're living in the age where everything's clean and unoffensive and for-the-family. There aren't any good old rivalries anymore, and maybe we could use one...It does take some balls to go on a show and attack someone, and, while you may throw a line in or two, to make clear you aren't just joking around, you really believe this. Hell, he's already called Bob Novak a douche-bag more times than I could count!
Newt Gingrich, huh? A shining example of moral rectitude and intelligent discourse from my home state -- a beacon of light for us all. If we're after emulating Newt, then I'm really scared. I guess I was just thinking in general terms, too -- not just politics.
um... y'all have gotten a little off topic in the last few responses.That's cool, but just understand I am not replying to arguments about Carville or the Coast Guard.
<>I watched that interview yesterday morning. I found the link (and first heard about the ruckus) on Fark - it was about the greatest thing I have ever seen!These shows are killing journalism by virtue of calling themselves journalists.These shows are infotainment, or as Stewart said "just theatre".There seems to be no more give and take politically anymore, anywhere.The shows have on one guy/gal from each side who spouts their platform and then pouts and rolls their eyes during the other perso's talking points. <>
If these were real debates of any kind, you might originally hear this:
Hey Tom, that is a really good point.I hadn't thought of the issue in that light before.I still think you may be wrong on the vote, but I appreciate your patience with me.Lemme do some research and we can get back together right here on TV in two weeks?
trust me, I debate my Republican friends constantly, and because I live in a firmly Democratic world... I mostly read left leaning stuff.So, when I talk to the GOP'ers (who are mostly reading right leaning stuff), I learn something most every time.My vote doesn't change, but I come away appreciating perspectives from the other side.Take for example our new blogger, the delightful, tolerant, and conservative Claire.
I don't think much of what I read on this thread is so much off topic, considering it's about someone calling a person who deserves it, a dick! The exchanges seem to reflect the polarized views of America pretty accurately.
You can only go so far specifying an opinion on one name Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson. It would be shallow to leave it there & it's my guess that the thread would have ended long before Dana, Lono, Pandora, Anon, & Hal came along.
It can offically end now since I discourage most threads from life beyond my opinion.
33 -
andy marsh
Oct 18, 2004 at 6:43 am
take a joke??? We were joking??? Well then, damn you all!!!
You know what's really bad about me forgetting the coast guard? In my present job, I work with them on a daily basis!!!
But actually, they used to be DOT and now they're dept of homeland security, so, technically, not military!
34 -
Eric Olsen
Oct 18, 2004 at 8:49 am
thanks for all the input
Dana, I agree the comments area free-for-all, but I don't have that big a problem with it, people need a place to vent as well as engage in learned discourse. But I completely disagree about the reviews - I think the overall quality is very high and that is why companies are coming to us to have their material reviewed by us.
Re Stewart, I think he could have made his point and then moved on - Carlson and Begala were willing to take the criticism and then move on - he wasn't and just came off mean-spirited by the end. I like him less now - is that what he was trying to accomplish?
The overall quality of the reviews is only OK, in my opinion. I think there should be more editing for grammar and some form of "this is the format of a review" needs to be revisited or maybe permalinked in an obvious place. There is also some (not a lot, but enough) sloppy writing. But then, I'm an English teacher, so maybe I just see it more. I personally don't think one needs to see cursing in formal writing, and reviews are formal writing. I also haven't seen cursing in opinion pages in any newspaper, online or paper, that didn't appear for the express purpose of quoting an individual who used such language. I do see a great deal of it here. I don't reference this article, which is about a quote from someone else -- but there are other articles on this site. Quite a few. That is what I meant by writing that might make a company think twice. Even Rolling Stone, last I checked (which often had cursing in it) only included it when the interviewee said it. I think perhaps there is a fine line between allowing freedom of speech and making sure writing fits acceptable journalistic standards. I suggest that we don't know where that line is at Blogcritics. But then, maybe I am in the wrong. Perhaps I have a misguided understanding of what Blogcritics is trying to do.
37 -
Eric Olsen
Oct 18, 2004 at 12:51 pm
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.
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.
40 -
D.I.
Oct 18, 2004 at 11:20 pm
"...and the Yankees are getting ready to sweep the Sox..."
by Andy Marsh, 10-24-04, 8:24
41 -
Sean
Oct 19, 2004 at 2:27 am
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.
42 -
Jeffrey
Oct 19, 2004 at 2:53 pm
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.
43 -
Eric Olsen
Oct 19, 2004 at 3:26 pm
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
44 -
Sean
Oct 19, 2004 at 3:28 pm
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.
45 -
Julie
Oct 19, 2004 at 3:56 pm
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.
46 -
Sean
Oct 19, 2004 at 5:07 pm
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.
47 -
Anon
Oct 19, 2004 at 5:16 pm
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.
Sean, you said exactly what I was trying to say, only with much more eloquence.
49 -
Sean
Oct 19, 2004 at 8:10 pm
Thanks, Dana. From one (in my case former) English teacher to another.
50 -
David
Oct 20, 2004 at 6:18 pm
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
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.
52 -
Donald
Oct 22, 2004 at 4:37 am
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.
53 -
mark
Oct 22, 2004 at 10:53 am
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.
54 -
Julie
Oct 22, 2004 at 11:03 am
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?
55 -
Sean
Oct 22, 2004 at 12:15 pm
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.
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.
57 -
theragnar
Oct 22, 2004 at 9:25 pm
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.
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.
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.
60 -
Hugh Black
Feb 28, 2005 at 1:55 am
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.
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.
…
Article comments
26 - Anon
Hmmm...I love Jon Stewart to no end, and I think what he said about Tucker Carlson and Crossfire/Hardball/Whatever was 100% spot on. Still, I wish he'd have left the topic alone after the first few minutes rather than let it permeate the entire show...Maybe he could've been more playful and a little less, well, condescending. Even if he has every right in the world to be condescending to those puppet bastards.
Then again, we're living in the age where everything's clean and unoffensive and for-the-family. There aren't any good old rivalries anymore, and maybe we could use one...It does take some balls to go on a show and attack someone, and, while you may throw a line in or two, to make clear you aren't just joking around, you really believe this. Hell, he's already called Bob Novak a douche-bag more times than I could count!
27 - Dana Huff
Newt Gingrich, huh? A shining example of moral rectitude and intelligent discourse from my home state -- a beacon of light for us all. If we're after emulating Newt, then I'm really scared. I guess I was just thinking in general terms, too -- not just politics.
28 - Dana Huff
Hey, Andy, you forgot to mention the Coast Guard was in your area too! Portsmouth. But then, everyone forgets the Coast Guard.
29 - Pandora
lmao this was hysterical!
I missed the sho but worship Jon Stewart. I appreciate the links!
30 - bob2112
C'mon, I think Andy can take a joke. He's retired military. Jokesters one & all. I know, I'm surrounded by them. Figure were I live yet?
31 - Lono
um... y'all have gotten a little off topic in the last few responses. That's cool, but just understand I am not replying to arguments about Carville or the Coast Guard.
<>trust me, I debate my Republican friends constantly, and because I live in a firmly Democratic world... I mostly read left leaning stuff. So, when I talk to the GOP'ers (who are mostly reading right leaning stuff), I learn something most every time. My vote doesn't change, but I come away appreciating perspectives from the other side. Take for example our new blogger, the delightful, tolerant, and conservative Claire.
We could learn from her, bloggers.
<>Vote Democrat!
Lono
32 - bob2112
I don't think much of what I read on this thread is so much off topic, considering it's about someone calling a person who deserves it, a dick! The exchanges seem to reflect the polarized views of America pretty accurately.
You can only go so far specifying an opinion on one name Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson. It would be shallow to leave it there & it's my guess that the thread would have ended long before Dana, Lono, Pandora, Anon, & Hal came along.
It can offically end now since I discourage most threads from life beyond my opinion.
33 - andy marsh
take a joke??? We were joking??? Well then, damn you all!!!
You know what's really bad about me forgetting the coast guard? In my present job, I work with them on a daily basis!!!
But actually, they used to be DOT and now they're dept of homeland security, so, technically, not military!
34 - Eric Olsen
thanks for all the input
Dana, I agree the comments area free-for-all, but I don't have that big a problem with it, people need a place to vent as well as engage in learned discourse. But I completely disagree about the reviews - I think the overall quality is very high and that is why companies are coming to us to have their material reviewed by us.
Re Stewart, I think he could have made his point and then moved on - Carlson and Begala were willing to take the criticism and then move on - he wasn't and just came off mean-spirited by the end. I like him less now - is that what he was trying to accomplish?
35 - Hal Pawluk
You don't think that "F***er Tucker" may have brought it on by calling Stewart "Kerry's butt boy?"
I agree with Carruthers that it's a wonder Stewart didn't punch Tucker's lights out.
There aren't all that many principled people around but Stewart, unlike the entire Crossfire gang, is one of them.
36 - Dana Huff
The overall quality of the reviews is only OK, in my opinion. I think there should be more editing for grammar and some form of "this is the format of a review" needs to be revisited or maybe permalinked in an obvious place. There is also some (not a lot, but enough) sloppy writing. But then, I'm an English teacher, so maybe I just see it more. I personally don't think one needs to see cursing in formal writing, and reviews are formal writing. I also haven't seen cursing in opinion pages in any newspaper, online or paper, that didn't appear for the express purpose of quoting an individual who used such language. I do see a great deal of it here. I don't reference this article, which is about a quote from someone else -- but there are other articles on this site. Quite a few. That is what I meant by writing that might make a company think twice. Even Rolling Stone, last I checked (which often had cursing in it) only included it when the interviewee said it. I think perhaps there is a fine line between allowing freedom of speech and making sure writing fits acceptable journalistic standards. I suggest that we don't know where that line is at Blogcritics. But then, maybe I am in the wrong. Perhaps I have a misguided understanding of what Blogcritics is trying to do.
37 - Eric Olsen
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.
38 - Dana Huff
Well, it appears it's like I said; I had an incorrect assumption of what Blogcritics is trying to do.
39 - Jim Carruthers
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.
40 - D.I.
"...and the Yankees are getting ready to sweep the Sox..."
by Andy Marsh, 10-24-04, 8:24
41 - Sean
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.
42 - Jeffrey
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.
43 - Eric Olsen
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
44 - Sean
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.
45 - Julie
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.
46 - Sean
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.
47 - Anon
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.
48 - Dana Huff
Sean, you said exactly what I was trying to say, only with much more eloquence.
49 - Sean
Thanks, Dana. From one (in my case former) English teacher to another.
50 - David
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
51 - Jim Carruthers
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.
52 - Donald
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.
53 - mark
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.
54 - Julie
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?
55 - Sean
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.
56 - Andrew Ian Dodge
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.
57 - theragnar
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.
58 - Aeoris
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.
59 - Silas Kain
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.
60 - Hugh Black
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.
61 - Silas Kain
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.