posted
Stewart is completely unloading on both Begala and Carlson for being "bad for America," "partisan hacks" and just basically attacking the entire system.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They didn't turn his mic off in time at the end of the show, during the "pan out."
"Well, that went great!"
He sure won't be back. The was a really interesting gesture he just made, but I doubt it will make a difference. Carlson accused him of being a pushover for Kerry on The Daily Show, and Stewart pointed out that the show that leads into his is puppets making crank calls. I hope you guys saw that. Easily the best episode of Crossfire I have ever seen (though I make a point not to watch it most of the time.)
One of his best points was that, while a debate show would be great, Crossfire isn't it. Also a major point of contention, the networks' immediate travel to "spin alley" after the debates and such.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's basically where uber-partisan commentators take pot-shots at the other guy's candidate for half an hour. The usual structure:
Guy on left (Paul Begala or James Carville): Stupid irrelevant attack on the other candidate, such as "Your candidate said X last night, isn't he stupid/irresponsible/incapable of being president/hypocritical"
Guy on Right (Robert Novak or Tucker Carlson) You are so dumb for bringing up such a non-issue. Why can't we focus on the issues, and not silly irrelevant character attacks. I can't believe you would even bring that up on a serious show. Especially as your candidate said Y at this press conference which utterly PROVES that it is HE that is stupid/incapable/irresponsible/incapable of being president.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Halfway through the show they invite a member of the House of representatives (or some other political figure, but usually the house members) to join in the partisan bickering. Interrupting the other guy is par for the course, and I have never seen anybody on Crossfire EVER concede a point to the other fellow.
posted
I'm pretty sure that "Crossfire" repeats later tonight. I'll check when I get home. Sounds like one bit I really do want to see - I usually avoid the show for the very reasons Stewart gave. But they're all getting to look pretty much like "Crossfire" now - lots of guest partisan hacks shouting at each other with little real debate. Especially on MSNBC.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My father claims he watched a talk show (not "Crossfire") where Carlson was a guest. And on that show, he said he wouldn't be voting for Bush in this election. He really couldn't bring himself to vote for Kerry, but a number of things Iraq-related had left him feeling like he couldn't support Bush as a real consevative.
Anyone know if this was just "wishful thinking" on my father's part or has anyone else heard that?
It's true a lot of conservatives are really unhappy about the neo-con agenda - Pat Buchanan is a good example since he wrote a book about it. But not to the extent that he'd refuse to vote for Bush.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I was absolutely shocked today, because Carlson did make some statements (before Stewart came out) that he was dissatisfied with Bush's dealing with the National Guard and Reserve. First time I'd ever heard him say anything but the party line.
Stewart "This is political theatre. I mean... (to Carlson) how old are you?"
Carlson: Thirty (something I don't rememer exactly)
Stewart: "Okay, you are thirty years old. You wear a bow-tie. I mean, I'm obviously not saying you aren't an intelligent person, as those things are really hard to tie..."
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Stewart is absolutely right, but virtually all the TV political "debate" shows should be thrown in with crossfire. Two or more spinmasters does NOT constitute a debate, and yet the networks repeatedly try to pass it off as one. A true debate is only a success if the truth is more clear afterwards, and if the participants involved are dedicated to reason, truthfulness, and the goal of finding the correct answer rather than tricking viewers into accepting whatever side they happen to favor.
Those programs are a joke, because the politicians or pundits they put on them are so biased that they will deny any reality to try and advance their point. It's most obvious when they come out after the debates and both sides claim their candidate had won - even in the first debate when it was clear Bush had lost. And it's not just shows like crossfire - it's also political commentary in general. Why would you interview Hilary Clinton about who won? We know what she's going to say. Why would you interview Karl Rove? Why does CNN.com have a pundit's "scorecard" that always includes one pundit that blatantly leans left and one pundit that blatantly leans right? Why is the "No Spin Zone" really just a couple guys spinning things?
What happened to real, truthful, honest, objective analysis aimed not at making your side the winner, but at figuring out the truth? Can't there be a show like that?
Truthfully, I think Saturday Night Live, or The Tonight Show, and the Daily Show are almost more informative in that respect. At least it's something more than spin...
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
...And the worst part is, the parties are gradually trying to make the Presidential Debates into the same format.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing that is a sad commentary on our News networks is that watchers (or would that be 'stoners') of The Daily Show are more informed than those watching the REAL News.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think it's about time somebody had the cojones to stand up to those guys. That Jon Stewart could do it without sounding like an enraged lunatic (if anything, he won over Crossfire's own studio audience) is particularly sweet.
Xap: I thought he made it pretty clear that he was condemning all "debate" shows of this type. He just focused his ire on Crossfire because that's the show he happened to be on. Heh... now that I think about it, that in itself is rather remarkable. Most people expressing such a viewpoint would probably throw in some token compliment to the Crossfire guys, but (reaffirming his own point) Stewart refused to buy into that sort of obsequious back-patting. Good for him.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My father claims he watched a talk show (not "Crossfire") where Carlson was a guest. And on that show, he said he wouldn't be voting for Bush in this election. He really couldn't bring himself to vote for Kerry, but a number of things Iraq-related had left him feeling like he couldn't support Bush as a real consevative.
He has a show shown around here on PBS; I've seen it only once, but the time I saw it, I recall him saying that fiscal conservatives "can't take Bush seriously" (paraphrased) because of his policies (the phrase "spending is out of control" or something similar was used either in agreement with him or by him, I can't remember). From watching Crossfire, I too get the impression that Carlson is not thrilled with Bush.
[EDIT] And as for Jon Stewert... that video (the link was posted here once) that was supposedly a parody of the Repub. Convention video comes to mind Personally, his statement about shows like Crossfire aiding to polarize the country hits the nail on the head: there's too much "Your party was stupid handling Issue X!" "Oh? Well, your party was stupid handling Issue Y!" and so forth and not enough discussion.
--j_k
[ October 16, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just watched that Crossfire again. Thanks so much for that bittorrent link.
I now have about thirty times the respect for Stewart that I did before. I still dislike how incredibly partisan his show is, but there is certainy an argument to be made. he IS a comedy show and it IS easier to mock those in power. Nevertheless, his show also became almost exclusively political only during the last year or two, so we don't know how hard he will lampoon Democrats.
Either way, what he said really needed to be said.... but I doubt it will be heard.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Stewart himself pointed out that his comedy hinges on the absurdity of the Powers That Be. While it's definitely true that his liberal leanings manifest themselves in how he interviews his guests, I think the main reason the Daily Show has seemed so vehemently anti-Bush lately is simply because Bush is the current President, a president whose policies are extremely controversial.
My read on Jon Stewart isn't so much that he's excessively zealous about his own political beliefs as much as he is someone who genuinely cares about politics, and who believes very strongly that our democracy has the potential to be greater than it currently is. That's why he's so outspoken when it comes to stuff that REALLY pisses him off, like Crossfire (and media corruption in general).
quote:CARLSON: Right. But of the nine guys running, who do you think was best. Do you think he was the best, the most impressive?
STEWART: The most impressive?
CARLSON: Yes.
STEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: I enjoyed his way of speaking.
I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: CROSSFIRE.
STEWART: Or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass" or...
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Will jump on it.
In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: We have noticed.
STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: But in its defense...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.
CARLSON: Yes.
STEWART: Stop.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.
BEGALA: OK. Now
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...
CARLSON: How do you pay?
STEWART: The people -- not well.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.
STEWART: But you can sleep at night.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Wait, Jon, let me tell you something valuable that I think we do that I'd like to see you...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Something valuable?
CARLSON: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I would like to hear it.
CARLSON: And I'll tell you.
When politicians come on...
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... up on the screen.
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: No, no, no, here's the point.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: If that's your goal.
CARLSON: It's not.
STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.
CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show.
STEWART: Right.
CARLSON: Let me suggest why he wants to come on your show.
posted
The BitTorrent link doesn't work, btw. It just downloads something in a second and won't open. How do I work it?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem with Crossfire, beyond the partisan sniping which seems to happen everywhere, is the implicit underlying assumption that 2 people can adequately represent all sides of every political issue.
As much as I hate the stupid short political quiz, if it raises awareness that political though is not a linear continuum it will have served some use.
posted
Lalo, you need a bittorrent software to do this. Check out www.suprnova.org. It isn't all "legal" stuff but some of it is. The software is, at least.
Good luck!
Oh, and having watched a bit since downloading...yeeesh! Go John!
posted
I think the most telling thing about this exchange was that they didn't even try to defend their actions. They did pretty much what partisans often do when faced with problems in their own side, they attacked their accuser.
"You guys are failing in your responsibilities to the American people and hurting them and the political process in general."
"Oh yeah, well you didn't ask John Kerry hard questions."
What does the response have to do with the first statement? Not a darn thing really, it's just a tactic to distract you from the fact that the first statement is totally correct. If you then start arguing about whether or not the response is actually true, it doesn't matter if you win or lose that arguement, the apologist has won by removing the focus from the original thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ehh, I dunno. Crossfie is theatre. I have not been impressed with Begala ever, and Carlson seems more independent out of that format than he is on Crossfire; not Novak independent, but independent.
At its root, Stewart's complaint is that Crossfire is theatre instead of debate, but judging from the transcript (didn't see the show, read the transcript) he didn't cut right to the heart of the complaint. He's potentially not a strong debater himself, IMO, based on what I read there. Of course, he's not being paid to debate, but to entertain, but I'd say that's kind of what Carlson and Begala are being paid for.
(And, for those who can't bear to have a sentence end with a preposition: Of course, he's not being paid to debate, but to entertain, but I'd say that's kind of for what Carlson and Begala are being paid.)
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's basically where uber-partisan commentators take pot-shots at the other guy's candidate for half an hour. The usual structure:
Guy on left (Paul Begala or James Carville): Stupid irrelevant attack on the other candidate, such as "Your candidate said X last night, isn't he stupid/irresponsible/incapable of being president/hypocritical"
Guy on Right (Robert Novak or Tucker Carlson) You are so dumb for bringing up such a non-issue. Why can't we focus on the issues, and not silly irrelevant character attacks. I can't believe you would even bring that up on a serious show. Especially as your candidate said Y at this press conference which utterly PROVES that it is HE that is stupid/incapable/irresponsible/incapable of being president.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Halfway through the show they invite a member of the House of representatives (or some other political figure, but usually the house members) to join in the partisan bickering. Interrupting the other guy is par for the course, and I have never seen anybody on Crossfire EVER concede a point to the other fellow.
You ain't missing much.
Minus concessions,which does occasionally happen if people are reminded that doing so is 'cool', you have just described 99% of the posts on Ornery these days.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as a follow-up. If any of you watched the Daily Show monday night, Stewart related the story of his Crossfire appearance with an update of a famous quote attributed to Winston Churchill.
quote:I told the their show blows, and they told me I wasn't being funny. To which I replied "you're right. I'm not. But tomorrow, I will go back to being funny. And your show... will still blow.
posted
They are part of a business that sells one thing: consumers. Television exists to sell consumers to advertisers who give them money for access to those eyes. It is theatre. It's all theatre. It's nice and it's sweet when something noble creeps in, but I don't understand the "shocked and outrage." Of course it's theatre.
What Stewart is saying is that their highest value shouldn't be to those that are putting them on the air - in other words, delivering those eyes so the network has something to sell - but instead to the people. I think that was the most telling; remark of the exchange - "How do the people pay?" "Not well, but you can sleep at night."
I think they are all entertainers and therefore don't really care what they say about each other - this is at about the same level as the Lindsay Lohan/Hilary Duff fued, as far I'm concerned - but I don't think much of people who urgently demand that other people live up to values and standards that they refuse to.
In other words, if Jon Stewart believes he knows a better way, he should try to do it instead of hiding behind the premise of his show. What's that name for a critic? "Someone who knows the way but cannot drive the car."
---
Crossfire is Hilary Duff and Jon Stewart is Lindsay Lohan. Same music, different words.
posted
katherina - by those standards no one could possibly criticize anyone else unless the person complaining could personally do a better job. That's not terribly practical, frankly.
And Stewart has suggested better ways for the media to present the facts, several times, in different interviews. Paraphrased, it boils down to "don't tell me what people thought about Politician A's speech, tell me what the speech said and how accurate it was." I would suggest that in this case Jon is Lindsay Lohan and he is baffled why Peter Jennings (for example) is trying to be Hilary Duff instead of being something more useful, like, say, Peter Jennings.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the populace apparently prefers the theater to the reality. Or at least those in charge of the media conglomerates think they do, which is effectively the same thing.
[ October 20, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read about this, and the statements I see people cheering for and the parts of the interview that are recounted and crowed over are not the parts where Jon urges them to work for the people; it's the parts of the interview where he tells them they suck and calls wosshisname a ****. Snaps for the princess, I guess.
-----
That's kind of the hobgoblin of all criticism, isn't it? Movie, book, any other critics included. It's always easier to tear apart than it is to build.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just finished watching this, and yeah, there was a moment when I said to myself, "I would vote for this guy if he ran for president." But thinking about it, it just doesn't work. I will, however, read his book.
What's great is that the entire thing read as comedy. It was insanely sophisticated comedy rising over the heads of the people present. Even if Jon Stewart didn't know that he was playing for laughs, it was still comedy.
That said, I do agree with the points he brought forth, the whole partisanship injuring a democracy idea. He could definitely have expressed it better, but I lean on Stewart to be a funnyguy, not a politician.
The problem is I just don't see any way for people NOT to be partisan. The mere fact that we have parties makes it just plain happen.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All criticism? No. I think you're being far too general.
There is such a thing as constructive criticism. I cannot write a decent headline to save my life, but I can usually tell a good one after I see it. A friend of mine is still working on writing columns and admits to major problems writing stories, but he has an unerring ability to point out problems with mine (which is why I use him as a "first reader" with many thing).
If someone has a strength you do not possess, and you can see how they could use it more effectively, is it wrong to point it out? Always?
[ October 20, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not wrong to point it out. It is wrong to call them crude names and crow afterwards about how you insulted them. That's what makes it a fluffy fued instead of constructive criticism.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. I agree he would have made his point far more effectively if he had kept his cool on their show.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although, to be fair, he largely kept his cool until Tucker repeatedly called him Kerry's "butt boy". If you watch the segment, this becomes much clearer (IMO) than in the transcript.
And Jon Stewart has a point: he's comedy, these debate shows purport to get to the tough issues, and really try to nail politicians to the wall. He feels that they really are just parroting party lines. He's asking, as a citizen, to have these people stop doing what their doing, and to try to be more constructive themselves. At least, that's how I saw it. His show is satire, not intended to be a real information source... I think there's irony here, considering Jon Stewart has NEVER attempted to proclaim himself or his show to be any sort of serious news show. He's not a journalist, and openly admits to just pretending to be one on a show that admits to just pretending to be a news show.
Kat, are you asking that Jon create a show that follows the format he wishes the others would?
posted
Katrina, aren't you basically saying that only TV journalists should criticise TV journalists?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kat, are you asking that Jon create a show that follows the format he wishes the others would?
You know, I'd love to see that. He's in the business, he does a show about politics, he has the connections to make it happen, and it's something that feels strongly and idealistic about. Yes, I would love to him do it, for many reasons. If he succeeded - if he made the show that he berated the hosts of crossfire for not making - then everyone wins. If it doesn't succeed, then it's shadenfruedey heaven.
Foust: No, it would be impossible and unwise to limit criticism to those areas. But Jon lost his cool, threw a fit, and then crowed about it afterwards. It is one thing to criticize and another thing entirely to brag on your own show about how you humiliated the person you criticized. That kind of thing belongs in games, in sports and in show business fueds - in things that don't really matter. If it matters, then act like a gentleman instead of a 17-year-old football player. His own behavior belied his argument.
posted
When I watch him rag on the networks in The Daily Show, sure I laugh, but mostly, I get his point. Comedians are always saying in interviews that their talent is fed by negative emotions like anger and loneliness. Stewart is a comedian who communicates his anger in the only way he knows how: comedy. And he really is angry. Watch any episode of TDS and you'll see it. He's angry at the media. He's angry that the system is so damned broken nowadays that what passes for honest debate is actually partisan hackery, as he calls it. I wasn't surprised at all to see him get angry on Crossfire. On Comedy Central, humor is the medium to get his point across. In the lion's den, sarcasm and wit will not get his message across. Be it aired on Comedy Central or on CNN, his message is that this current era of partisanship passing as news needs to end, NOW.
He came on with an agenda and controlled the interview from the get go. It was a brilliant piece of discourse.
Why?
Because he trapped them in a corner. If Crossfire is important and all about political debate and journalistic [This is CNN], then Tucker Carlson whining about the fact that if he doesn't need a civics lesson, etc. totally betrayed the elitist, self importance of the show (yes, we already knew that, but in the context of the Stewart interview it's all that more pointed).
If Crossfire is simply entertaining television and theatre, then Stewart showed that that its theatrics are pretty dumb. When faced with a real performer both hosts wilted and failed.
At the best Crossfire fails both as theatre and as political discourse. At the worst -- maybe Stewart's words were actually heartfelt. Maybe Crossfire is bad for America. Maybe a civics lesson is just what people need.
The jaded commentators are all yawning and talking about how boring it is when actors, comedians and writers stick their noses in politics, and yet, at least for me, there's this nagging feeling that he could be both sincere in his plea and -- right.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But Jon lost his cool, threw a fit, and then crowed about it afterwards."
Are you kidding, Katie? He came on the show with the express purpose of criticizing their format, and did so in a way that subverted their style AND exposed exactly the behaviors he wanted to criticize in the first place.
He's the first person I've ever seen on Crossfire who not only managed to speak his mind but got them to speak their minds, too -- and for that he will have my eternal and undying respect.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention, when he got back to his show, things had started to take off. The blogosphere had exploded with links to the torrent and the transcript, it had been the single most watched clip on ifilm that day, the AP released a blurb about it, the Washington Post had a story. It would have been a vast disappointment had he NOT said something about it. And, being on a comedy show, he said it in a very funny way. I don't think you could really describe that as "crowing" about it.
By the way, the Crossfire folks all mentioned it too, for their next two shows.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit I haven't seen it. As a matter of fact, I've never seen an episode of either show. The recap of the show on his own show the next sounded like it, though. Repeating the monkey comment, "Tomorrow I'll be funny, but your show will still be crap."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Personally, his statement about shows like Crossfire aiding to polarize the country hits the nail on the head: there's too much "Your party was stupid handling Issue X!" "Oh? Well, your party was stupid handling Issue Y!" and so forth and not enough discussion.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
