It's actually in three parts. Thiessen got about ten minutes on the show itself and then they ran out of time, so Stewart said to stick around and they'd put the rest, unedited, on the internet, which they did. Thieseen threw a little hissy fit, which I didn't really think was justified, but judge for yourself.
It's a pretty interesting debate between the two on security, terrorism, and imprisonment without charge or trial. The genesis of the debate is the so-called "Al Qaeda 7" lawyers that worked pro bono for detainees who didn't have counsel.
On the whole, I liked this debate. I agree with Stewart, but I think Thiessen made good points, and all in all, the general tone, the civility, and the respect in the debate was refreshing. They obviously disagreed, but they handled it like adults, for the most part, Thiessen got a little grumpy, but got over it soon enough. It's worth watching.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw the first part of that interview, but in what I saw, I was frustrated because I couldn't tell whether or not Thiessen had a good argument because Stewart kept interrupting him and not letting him talk.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt the same way. I think that the better solution, given Thieseen's complaints, would have been to air the rest of the interview over the next several shows.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a lot of air time. I think that Stewart did interrupt him more than I'm used to. Usually he doesn't have a problem letting his guest talk, even when they disagree.
The rest of the interview is another 20 minutes or so, and they both get some great points in. By the end of it, I wasn't 100% sure where I stood anymore.
But the second two parts of the interview are far more balanced. They both interrupt each other a bit, but mostly they both back down and let the other person talk. Did you catch the second two parts Noemon?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a Stewart supporter, and even I found him extremely frustrating because he wouldn't let Thiessen freaking talk. I felt like shouting at Stewart to shut up and let the man speak. I bet if you added it up, Thiessen got about a quarter of the talking time Stewart did. I know it's a comedy show and he doesn't have an obligation blah blah blah, but when he frames his debates with an air of authenticy and integrity that I thought was seriously lacking here it's just deceptive.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I didn't, but I have them bookmarked for watching when I have time. I agree that a full 30 minutes of air time would be a bit excessive. Maybe they could (fairly) edit the remaining 20 minutes down to 10 and just air that?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was pretty interesting, but I watched the full thing.
What struck me was how normal Marc seemed which reminded me of something that JMS commented on for Intersections in Real Time:
quote:(Question) The interrogator looked like an ordinary person.
Exactly. The banal face of evil. You look at most of the guys who ran Treblinka, or Bergen-Belsen, and they're largely ordinary looking guys, who could be accountants or repair men or car salesmen. They're *us*...and this was designed to remind us of that. The evil, mustache-twirling villain is too easy, and too far from the truth of it.
posted
Well, I don't think Marc Thiessen was evil. But I think that's an interesting point for another reason. Far too often, political debates are presented to average people as shouting, as railing, as resorting to all sorts of meaningless argumentative fallacies in order to win. But here was two guys who were passionate, yes, and talked over each other at times, yes, but stuck to the facts, totally avoided both name-calling and accusations, and were both well-informed, but fundamentally disagreed.
It emphasizes both how ubiquitous the foaming-at-the-mouth politician/pundit has become, and also why dispelling that pop culture icon is so important.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I didn't quite see it as Stewart interrupting more then usual Marc got his main ideals across and so did Stewart in the time allotted.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, but you're a totally obsessed fanboi, so your opinion is as irrelevant as that of a hardcore, brain-washed conservative.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: I'm a Stewart supporter, and even I found him extremely frustrating because he wouldn't let Thiessen freaking talk. I felt like shouting at Stewart to shut up and let the man speak. I bet if you added it up, Thiessen got about a quarter of the talking time Stewart did. I know it's a comedy show and he doesn't have an obligation blah blah blah, but when he frames his debates with an air of authenticy and integrity that I thought was seriously lacking here it's just deceptive.
I didn't watch the full interview but Thiessan talked for around 5 minutes in the clip that Lyrhawn posted. That's around half of the total clip.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost changed the channel because I could not stand listening to Mr. Thiessen speak. I thought he came of as petulant and smug. I may have developed an allergy to him, my reaction was so visceral. None of the points he was presenting were new and they are evil. I wanted Jon Stewart to interrupt him more so I could stop yelling "shutup shutup shutup you horrible man" at my TV.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You think that Thiessen is a "horrible man" because he defended the CIA's waterboarding techniques, correct?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stewart interrupts him alot, but he certainly apologized for it, I think Stewart realizes that sometimes he gets too enamored with his own points.
But I did feel like Stewart was trying to be gracious about the different views on safety, but Thiessen has not yet learned how to politely explain what his opposition believes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, it isn't so much that I thought he is a horrible man; it is that I felt he is a horrible man. I didn't know who he was when he came out (I had only been half listening) and disliked him instantly and intensely.
Once he started talking, he confirmed my instinctive reaction.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to form impressions immediately and I will say that it is uncanny how often my first impressions of people are right.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I tend to form impressions immediately and I will say that it is uncanny how often my first impressions of people are right.
Remind me to send you a video of myself talking before I go on my next interview.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two separate sentences. Two separate thoughts. Had I put them the other way 'round, I could understand your confusion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't actually confused, just poking a bit of fun at an outlook that - were it held by someone not-kmbboots, particularly of a different political slant - would be regarded with skepticism, I'll bet.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that Hannity and Beck don't care is anyone other than themselves or people holding their own viewpoint get any word out, and they NEVER let an interview go on after the allotted time. I don't believe that they have ever posted a long remainder of an interview on the web just so that the conversation can continue either.
I thought Stewart tried to keep the discussion at hind on the topics he wanted to discuss, and that Thiessen tried his best to derail the conversation, which is why it seemed lopsided. But I also think that it was very cool of Stewart to apologize and offer online time as well.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beck, in all honesty I think has some slight form of ADD. Whenever others are talking he is always figuring out how he can connect into their stream of statements. I don't fault him too much for that, it's obviously why he wants to be on radio/TV so he can talk. I myself have the same problem and I have to remind myself to shut up and just listen.
It's partially why I find forums so stimulating, you can't interrupt anybody, and they are able to post as many words as they like until they've said their piece.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit like you, kmbboots, for better or for worse, but I didn't get a bad impression of the guy at all. I liked him almost immediately. Of course, I will admit that my political leanings may be coloring my opinion a bit.
Anyway, from what I saw, I think both Steward and Thiessan had some good points. I want more dialog like this between people with opposing viewpoints.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Beck, in all honesty I think has some slight form of ADD.
He probably actually has borderline personality disorder and/or schizophrenia.
I don't like the guy, but let's not play psychologist, okay?
Considering how many times I've seen you criticize others for armchair diagnoses and self diagnoses, I'm surprised to see you go that route, Samprimary.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
