His stunt on Crossfire was excellent. And you honestly think that Stewart is more "jackasstastic" that O'Reily?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: He got Crossfire shut down that doesn't happen unless Stewart was completely right.
Crossfire was a show in which liberals and conservatives argued against each other. Now we have shows in which a conservative or a liberal talks endlessly to a viewership that's already convinced. Which is more "hurtful" to America? Stewart never thought about alternatives to the Crossfire format when he was getting on his high horse about it.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Pfft.
quote:On October 15, 2004, Jon Stewart appeared on the program, ostensibly to promote his book America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction. Instead of focusing on the book, however, he mentioned that he had publicly criticized Crossfire in the past and disparaged the show's format and the style of arguments presented on the show. He said the program failed its responsibility to the public discourse and indulged in "partisan hackery," reducing news coverage of important issues to a series of talking points from both extremes of the political spectrum. Carlson countered Stewart's criticisms by reading examples of questions Stewart had asked of then-presidential candidate John Kerry during his recent interview on The Daily Show, such as, "How are you holding up?" and "Have you ever flip-flopped?" Carlson argued that Stewart wasn't harsh enough on Kerry and had wasted an opportunity to hold a politician accountable just like he was accusing Crossfire of doing. Stewart said that he didn't think his role as a comedian was to conduct hard-hitting interviews, observing that the show preceding his was "puppets making crank phone calls", and that if CNN was looking to Comedy Central as a role model for journalism "then we're in bad shape, fellows".
Begala defended the show on the basis that it was intended as a forum for debate, to which Stewart responded that Crossfire was closer to theater than genuine debate.[1]
quote:I would consider the Daily Show is a suitable replacement.
As a sincere replacement? As one that allows two sides of the issues to debate with integrity and passion?
I don't think that's Stewart's bag. I think he's funny-- and a pretty good interviewer-- but that's not the format.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: So because Crossfire sucked, Stewart is responsible to make a good replacement?
"Crossfire" might not have been a perfect show but it had an ideal format: both sides talked to each other. It wasn't going to get better than that. And it certainly hasn't. In fact, Gasbags Talk Endlessly To An Already Convinced Audience has been a poor substitute. And Stewart made the way for this by helping "Crossfire" get canceled.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, that's such twisted reasoning it blows my mind.
The show was bad because it split the country down the middle. It was black against white, liberal versus conservative. That's not America. It's not that polarized. Sure, O'Reily and Olberman represent extremes, but they are opinion shows. O'Reily make that very, very clear, even in this interview. Stewart is a comedian. But Crossfire spun itself as balanced, healthy discussion, which it was not. It was doomed to fail even without Stewart's scolding.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it was an ideal format, but the execution was where they failed. That wasn't honest debate from two sides arguing different ends of the spectrum on a variety of issues facing the country.
All they did was spin events in the news to one side or the other. They were participants in a process that, as Stewart said, is hurting America. The format was fine. If they wanted to make another show where reps from each side debated an issue, I'd be all for it, so long as they picked an issue and actually argued it, but that isn't what Crossfire was. It was about political jockeying. Nothing on that show was useful for the average citizen, and it served no function as far as the health of our democracy is concerned.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
They didn't talk to each other on these shows, they talked at each other. And they were so busy trying to score cheap rhetorical points, that neither side actually said anything substantive, except if it also scored a cheap rhetorical point.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to take a moment to comment on the actual original topic. I thought this was a remarkably good interview given the circumstances. I actually did find myself disagreeing with Stewart in a few places and thinking he went overboard in others (I could see O'Reilly struggling not to take the bait on multiple occasions). It mostly felt like they were talking past each other but I think some good points got made anyway.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why did people leave that interview with a better opinion of Bill O'Reily? I didn't see anything there that was all that different from his normal routine or was all that admirable.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't like how O'Reily was clearly trying to get Stewart to react to certain statement, or fall into little verbal traps. Especially since O'Reily had the advantage of post-interview editing (which he (or Fox) used to their advantage in the edited aired interview Video here (only about 12 minutes out of the what, 42 minutes of actual interview?)
But I did like how they both knew they were playing a game. Sending out little statements or verbal jabs, trying to get the other to respond. (e.g. O'Reily in passing mentions the ridiculous budget and Stewart says "I'm I just supposed to let that go?" only semi-jokingly).
I would really love to see O'Reily come on the Daily Show and be interviewed for 40 minutes and see how the Daily Show could spin it. Editing is a remarkable thing (Brazil, anyone? ).
I didn't gain admiration for O'Reily, but I didn't lose any either.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an earnestness to Stewart when he is being interviewed that I think is not absent on his show, but not nearly as strong. His interview on Crossfire really was him saying a true thing without any guile.
That doesn't mean he doesn't twist the truth to make it funny on his show, but only the very best liars come across the way Stewart did on The O'Reilly Factor.
I really liked the statement where Stewart said in essence regarding Fox News, "You have taken a few legitimate concerns regarding President Obama and turned them into a full fledged nation wide panic attack."
I kinda wish Stewart hadn't let O'Reilly misunderstand his question, "What do you mean by 'everyman'?" Conservative pundits spend so much time addressing liberal disingenuous open mindedness, elitism, snobbery, and working class contempt. But they fail again and again to stop the equally loathsome sin of calling out and addressing anti-intellectualism in their own base, as well as claims that to be a 'Real American' you must not achieve advanced degrees, or spend your time reading certain kinds of literature by certain kinds of people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's distressing to me that it seems that for a significant section of the Republican base pursuing advanced education or even thinking about and/or presenting things in a complex manner is becoming "acting liberal."
Not just for the obvious reasons, but because there are many "conservative" ideas that I think are either a good idea or at least provide important points for contemplation. It does a disservice to them and to discourse in our country for people to hold them as shallow, emotional concepts rather than as developed ideas.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's distressing to me that it seems that for a significant section of the Republican base pursuing advanced education or even thinking about and/or presenting things in a complex manner is becoming "acting liberal."
On a closely related note, it's been suggested that typecasting of academia as liberal may be causing academia to be liberal, as it causes conservatives to avoid the field.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'd like to take a moment to comment on the actual original topic. I thought this was a remarkably good interview given the circumstances. I actually did find myself disagreeing with Stewart in a few places and thinking he went overboard in others (I could see O'Reilly struggling not to take the bait on multiple occasions). It mostly felt like they were talking past each other but I think some good points got made anyway.
Interestingly enough, a Gawker review of the interview took the opposite stance. They criticized O'Reilly for not responding to Jon Stewart's points, noting that he said "did your writers come up with that" instead of rebutting it.
posted
Oh I definitely disagreed with O'Reilly in many places and thought he dodged a lot of questions and was just plain wrong in others, but it didn't happen as much as I expected it to.
The "Real American" question was the one where I think Stewart dropped the ball. His answer was "well, every section of America is filled with a variety of people", which, well, yeah duh. But that doesn't mean that different parts of the country don't have different vibes, and he missed the opportunity to make what I think is the REAL point, that there's no such thing as a "real" American, period.
I did like the line "Jon, you're losing touch." "Dude, you LIVE IN A CASTLE!"
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, there were a few places (talking about Global Warming in particular) where Jon came across to me as trying to dodge the question. Again this isn't a "I think Jon failed horribly and Bill did great," just that Jon didn't do quite as well as I was hoping for him to and Bill impressed me more than I expected.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the global warming question: It seems to me that what Stewart was doing was trying to avoid setting himself up as an expert in the field. I think that was wise, because it sends the statement that unqualified people have no business telling the experts how wrong they are.
For those arguing that Crossfire was better than current "news" shows because it was a debate: No it wasn't. It was a bullfight, in which the guests (who were selected to represent opposite positions on a topic) were not allowed by the picadors (hosts) to actually debate the subject and come to a conclusion. Anytime the guests appeared to be coming to an agreement the picadors would chime in with the very same kind of vitriol that the current conservative pundits use to stir up emotion and polarize their audience. The reason this was so bad is that people watching the show could easily come to believe that this was a reasonable format for a debate, and that therefore, debate is nothing more than two people refusing to come to terms with each other.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).
