posted
From what I can tell, and this may not be correct, John Stewart attacked Rick Sanchez repeatedly as being a really bad journalist who was, as noted, exemplifying the decline in standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks. If that's the case, I don't really see how it is much like griefing.
A responsible and reliable press is a key foundation of a healthy democracy. We have a constitutionally guaranteed right that the government can't interfere with the press. This grants them a great deal of freedom but it also places a strong responsibility on them. When they fail to live up to this responsibility, because of the vital nature of their role and because they are free from government censure, it is extremely important that non-governmental entities censure them for it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke.
Stewart and 'company' were noting that the guy was already a joke. I know you'll stand arm-in-arm with the guy because he went on the line with the whole Jewish Media Conspiracy, but seriously. He was a joke long before he ever got noted on Stewart's show.
Surprise surprise. Many here are willing to blame the victim in order to defend their liberal darling.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From what I can tell, and this may not be correct, John Stewart attacked Rick Sanchez repeatedly as being a really bad journalist who was, as noted, exemplifying the decline in standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks. If that's the case, I don't really see how it is much like griefing.
That's just an excuse. What exactly did Sanchez do that's so emblematic of the decline in "standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks"? How is this more credible than a bunch of dorks picking on someone they perceived to be weak?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe CNN could learn to put smarter people on the air?
I don't know about "repeatedly" attacked. I watch The Daily Show pretty regularly and I wasn't really aware of Mr. Sanchez until this incident.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Sanchez had a reputation for being a polarizing figure in news for years before his job at CNN. I suspect that's a large part of why they hired him in the first place.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Surprise surprise. Many here are willing to blame the victim in order to defend their liberal darling.
"I was a victim of my own outburst," said Sanchez, adopting Sa'eed's mental workaround. "Even though it was my own outburst, I'm still a victim! My own words, pouring out of my own mouth .. my inability to coherently form a notion of 'bigotry' .. all of this, the fault of the perpetrator of this injustice, Stewart!"
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: How is this more credible than a bunch of dorks picking on someone they perceived to be weak?
Protip: Stewart wasn't picking on him because he was perceived to be weak.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was a victim of relentless and unnecessary mockery -- and he's not a politician or a demagogue. They just didn't like his mannerisms. They were being jackasses. Anyway, Stewart knew that Sanchez was merely up and coming at CNN which is why he could afford to go after Sanchez: Stewart is more of the liberal darling who can do no wrong. No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mostly they made fun of him the same way they make fun of any news reporter who inserts him or herself into the story and acts like an idiot while doing so.
The first time I can find is 2005: Sanchez letting himself be Tasered. Not a biggie; just about every news show has done this at some point since Tasers became popular. Here Stewart makes fun of Sanchez's deduction: "It hurts." Minor ridicule.
In July they mocked him, along with many other news figures such as Anderson Cooper, Geraldo and the president of CNN, for their over-the-top hurricane coverage.
In April 2009 they were so happy that Sanchez asked a probing, difficult question that they officially retired his Taser tape (although, after showing it one last time, Stewart changed his mind).
June: Another Moment of Zen with Sanchez wanting to tag team a guest.
June again, as part of mocking many CNN newscasters bitching about Rolling Stone getting better access to Gen. McChrystal, Stewart mocked a clip of Sanchez comparing McChrystal's interview with his kids hanging out in their basement.
August 11: a Moment of Zen when Sanchez moves awkwardly from a report on American deaths in Afghanistan to "this whole Tiger Woods thing."
In September, Stewart mocked FOX, MSNBC and CNN for their coverage of Obama's midterm speech. They closed with a slam at Sanchez for his part, and for flubbing a line because his mind was on football.
And that's it, that's all the mentions I can find, many of them simple, uncommented clips of ill-chosen statements or replays of his Tasering. Sanchez is seen as part of a larger problem, the general idiocy of broadcast journalism.
So yeah, in this case I'm blaming the victim. Did The Daily Show go after Sanchez? No more than any other newscaster who speaks without thinking. Hell, the Daily Show has picked on Anderson Cooper far more than they ever picked on Sanchez. When they go after someone, you know it. Ask Jim Cramer about that.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Howard Stern, Sa'eed? Really?
C'mon, that's transparent, even by your standards. And who are the overwhelming majority of Stern's listeners, of course. Anyway, Chris's 17x/5yrs is pretty decisive that you're, y'know, flat-out wrong. Well-done on his part as usual.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I removed my 17 count because I counted my paragraphs and in a few cases more than one instance was mentioned, so probably closer to 20 or so. From a show that runs 4 times a week, maybe 42-45 weeks out of the year? (Dunno how many vacation weeks they take) I'm not going to go back and look 'em up now -- gotta have some Saturday to myself -- but it wouldn't surprise me if they've picked on every CNN anchor as much, and some much more. And at that, CNN gets less heat than MSNBC and much less than FOX.
And I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
And I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Hey, for some that is pretty difficult standard.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: "Being bullied is hard for anchors to take! "
Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke. Their treatment of him was unwarranted and sick. Sanchez was not a right wing demagogue or a politician but an average joe who happened to be blessed with the looks and personality to be a news anchor and Stewart's unrelenting mockery of the man was clearly psychologically torturous to him hence his outburst. Day in and day out Sanchez must have been thinking "why me? What did I do?" but all that matters is the lolz right?
Stop making excuses. Stewart is a comedian on CC. His JOB is to make fun of people, and his critique of him was spot on.
It's not like it was hard to make fun of him. He made it fairly easy.
If he can't handle it he could always find another job. You know, one he might actually be good at, and not be putting himself forward as an expert of subjects he knows nothing about.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sanchez makes a little bit of sense here, taking responsibility for his "inartful comments" and plugging his book a bit.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Not that your whole conflation of TDS/Stewart to 4chan trolling makes any sense whatsoever anyway, but it's the 'lulz.'
And stewart's actions only superficially resemble teh lulz to people who are steadfastly ignorant of and wish to caricature his successful job lampooning and ridiculing the stupidity of our politicians and our media, using a pastiche of doddering conceptualizations of internet troll culture.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stewart *is* the problem with our media. He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate we now have shows of his type: one person giving his opinions unopposed. Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
He he he no.
Angrily banging your shoe on your table doesnt make you right.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Stewart *is* the problem with our media. He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate we now have shows of his type: one person giving his opinions unopposed. Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate..."
Crossfire wasn't debate. That was Stewart's point. It was yelling.
Sa'eed, I have listed every time Rick Sanchez was mentioned on the Daily Show. He was not targeted any more than other newscasters on CNN or otherwise. He seems to have been the only one with a problem about it, though.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Really? First of all, for the sake of argument, let's say this is true: so what? The guy runs a comedy show. Isn't the real reason you find this objectionable - and also the real reason you're so uncomfortable agreeing with Sa'eed - is that he more often takes shots at conservatives and a conservative agenda doing it, Dan_Frank?
He's not kyrptonite. His rhetoric isn't unassailable, or at least theoretically it isn't. It's not actually being assailed at all here except in theory. The very fact that he is a comedian means that yes, he can dodge substantive criticism more easily if he chooses to do so - but, y'know, Stewart seems to take substantive criticism pretty straight on - but it also makes him much easier to brush off. You can hear examples from folks like O'Reilly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
One might even say that he tends to run a comedy show on comedy central when convenient.
Stewart is a remarkable asset when it comes to the evolution and maintenance of political discourse in this country. But the fact that we were ever at a point where a comedian running a comedy show is exactly what we needed to re-rail our media and jingoistic political morass is kind of a perfect example of how pathetic the nation has gotten in this regard. That we're now down to people criticizing him for his journalistic presentation via a comedy show as though we have to look to a show on comedy central for cues into standards for journalism, we're in trouble.
To quote Stewart himself, in response to Sa'eed's remarkably clueless screed: "The show that leads into mine is puppets making crank calls. What is wrong with you?"
quote:I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Really? First of all, for the sake of argument, let's say this is true: so what? The guy runs a comedy show. Isn't the real reason you find this objectionable - and also the real reason you're so uncomfortable agreeing with Sa'eed - is that he more often takes shots at conservatives and a conservative agenda doing it, Dan_Frank?
I will never understand the double standard here of when it is and isn't okay to put words in other people's mouths. But, whatever.
Okay, so, certainly the reason I personally don't have all that much interest in/respect for Stewart is certainly that I think he is woefully wrong about many political issues/movements/people.
(I also don't see that he was ever "exactly what this country needed," but in full disclosure I almost never watch TV news, outside of occasional clips I see online. I prefer reading my news, in most cases. So maybe I just don't have a good enough concept of the dire straits Samp seems to think we were in.)
So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
And I'll freely admit that I am probably more annoyed by the clown nose behavior than I would be if he was a snarky conservative comedian/newscaster. Because I'm in agreement with the people whose arguments he deflects with the clown nose. If you're someone who thinks those arguments are just stupid ramblings from some right wing jerk then you'd be less bothered when Stewart deflects it with a joke instead of a response (like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But the fact that we were ever at a point where a comedian running a comedy show is exactly what we needed to re-rail our media and jingoistic political morass is kind of a perfect example of how pathetic the nation has gotten in this regard. That we're now down to people criticizing him for his journalistic presentation via a comedy show as though we have to look to a show on comedy central for cues into standards for journalism, we're in trouble.
See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
I think it's actually completely childish to dislike someone because you disagree with their political agenda. I don't dislike rush limbaugh because he has a political agenda I disagree with. I dislike him, or anyone, whose chosen tactics pollute newsmedia with lies and disinformation to advance that political agenda.
This disconnect, now that I think about it, could have a lot to do with why you'll stick up for someone like Breitbart as a credible source.
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Stewart's integrity as a host of a comedy show does much better when you let him speak for himself, as opposed to letting droves of hypothetical kids speak for him.
But what the kids have right is that stewart's influence on newsmedia is positive — moreso than most people in our country who should be shouldering the responsibility of respectable journalism, and aren't.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
I think it's actually completely childish to dislike someone because you disagree with their political agenda. I don't dislike rush limbaugh because he has a political agenda I disagree with. I dislike him, or anyone, whose chosen tactics pollute newsmedia with lies and disinformation to advance that political agenda.
This disconnect, now that I think about it, could have a lot to do with why you'll stick up for someone like Breitbart as a credible source.
Sorry, I thought it was self-evident that you see lies and disinformation when you look at people with a political agenda you disagree with.
Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, I thought it was self-evident that you see lies and disinformation when you look at people with a political agenda you disagree with.
Let's try this again, and see if you get it any better: I see lies and disinformation when I look at people who engage in the spreading of lies and disinformation. This can be for people for whom I generally find agreement or disagreement with when it comes to shared political goals.
I dislike people for being serial misinformers. I respect people who have political agendas I disagree with, but do so without polluting newsmedia with lies and disinformation. I don't dislike them simply because of the political disagreement. This is different and unambiguously better than what you are saying you do.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At what point does someone smearing an individual or group by mischaracterizing their position become "lies and disinformation?"
Edit: I really thought this was self-evident in the original context, but I guess not.
When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda. I felt the word "agenda" implied that he was willing to twist things to further his goal, whereas if I'd just said he "has an admitted bias" or something similar, that would be more of a neutral observation that he is not pretending to be nonpartisan.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda.
Ok! Let's say for now that this is how he operates. Given that premise, do you not like Breitbart for doing so in a completely blatant and callous fashion?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will never understand the double standard here of when it is and isn't okay to put words in other people's mouths. But, whatever.
Let me be more clear, then: you were criticizing Stewart and suggesting it was somehow unfair that he 'takes off and puts on the clown nose when convenient'. But the guy runs a comedy show on Comedy Central.
If professional politicians and professional news anchors cannot handle someone on that network, Dan_Frank? If you think there's something unfair about that? Then I submit that your real problem isn't actually that something Stewart is doing is unfair, and I stand by that.
quote:...(like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
Do you want to actually examine the Crossfire event? Sure, there was some snark. That's not all it was, though.
quote: But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Who considers him a journalist? Does he even credit himself a journalist? Does he insist he be considered a journalist? You're putting up a straw man here. Some of his points ought to be taken seriously, but just because he's a comic doesn't mean you just get to say, "Well, he's got a clown nose on, I don't have to listen."
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Who? Can you point to someone who does, and is also taken seriously? Please note that 'better than many hacks on mainstream media' =/ excellent journalist.
quote:Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Hey, words and mouths.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I say I don't like that he has a political agenda, what I mean is that he conveniently ignores or misrepresents things to further that agenda.
Ok! Let's say for now that this is how he operates. Given that premise, do you not like Breitbart for doing so in a completely blatant and callous fashion?
I assume this is in reference the the Sherrod incident? It's questionable. I think that if Breitbart had the full video, and edited it down to paint Sherrod as a racist, then yeah, that's slimy and I would dislike him for that. Unequivocally. Does this surprise you? I personally don't think that she's as much of a reformed racist as you think she is, Samp, but that's irrelevant here. The original video lacks some context, and that type of selective editing is wrong.
I don't think any compelling evidence that this is actually what happened has been presented. Has it?
I've seen him say that he was given the video as he presented it. Furthermore, I've seen him say that the audience (full of NAACP members) reaction to Sherrod's tale of past racism is another notable issue, and one not altered by the full video; they didn't know what the punchline was going to be, and most of the audience seemed tickled that Sherrod had mistreated a white farmer who acted "superior" to her.
So, I currently think Breitbart is a pretty cool guy. And you think he's scum. Because you think he's twisting the facts to support his agenda, and I don't.
Which was sort of my point. Honestly, I believe very few people actually think "Yeah, this guy is twisting the facts to make his point, but I like his point, so he's alright."
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If professional politicians and professional news anchors cannot handle someone on that network, Dan_Frank? If you think there's something unfair about that? Then I submit that your real problem isn't actually that something Stewart is doing is unfair, and I stand by that.
I'm honestly not sure I'm parsing this correctly, so tell me if my answer is not really addressing your statement.
I don't really care if people can or can't "handle" Stewart. I don't have a problem with what he did to Sanchez. I don't have a specific problem with him going after conservative figures. My problem is the idea is mostly in regard to the times he has gone on lengthy lectures or debates with people—the crossfire incident of course, but he also went on O'Reilly and there are examples in heated interviews on his own show as well—where he flips back and forth between seriously confronting someone else and then deflecting responses because he's just a comedian.
This is not applicable to all of his show, the rest of which is just a politically biased comedy show that doesn't purport to be telling the truth (though on a tangential note, I wish less kids like Blayne put him on such a pedestal.) Like I said, I was only leaping off of what I felt was a grain of truth Sa'eed touched on. I don't even think applies with regards to the topic of this post (Sanchez.)
quote:
quote:...(like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
Do you want to actually examine the Crossfire event? Sure, there was some snark. That's not all it was, though.
But, that's my point. He was trying to be serious, but when people responded to that he fell back on "I'm just a comedian."
quote:
quote: But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Who considers him a journalist? Does he even credit himself a journalist? Does he insist he be considered a journalist? You're putting up a straw man here. Some of his points ought to be taken seriously, but just because he's a comic doesn't mean you just get to say, "Well, he's got a clown nose on, I don't have to listen."
I think journalist was probably the wrong word, you're right. But I do think that, at least some of the time, he wants to be taken seriously as a political commentator.
quote:
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Who? Can you point to someone who does, and is also taken seriously? Please note that 'better than many hacks on mainstream media' =/ excellent journalist.
Well, that's fair. If thinking he's better than most people on mainstream media doesn't actually equate to thinking he's a great [strike]journalist[/strike] political commentator, then I doubt I could point to anyone. That was really all I was driving at.
quote:
quote:Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Hey, words and mouths.
Yeah, for sure. Sorry about that.
PS: Rakeesh, would you mind just calling me Dan? I cringe every time I see that stupid underscore. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, that's my point. He was trying to be serious, but when people responded to that he fell back on "I'm just a comedian."
More accurately he said, "I run a comedy show, you are supposed to be a news program."
People give him the credibility of a newsman, which is why he was voted the most trusted man in America. But as long as he isn't putting on airs on his show and maintains that he is running a comedy show he does not really step into the news niche.
He makes salient points, and he also does all the things he complains that news companies do. But he does it for laughs. News organizations do it and cynically call it honest reporting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if he does the same thing, how does that make him the most trusted man? That's the sort of thing I don't get.
There's something to be said for self-reflection, of course, but if the thing you recognize in yourself is something you condemn others for doing... how are you better?
That's the thing... it's one thing to be a hack and to admit it and be funny. It's another thing to be a hack and admit it and be funny... except when you want to be taken seriously. That seems disingenuous to me.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I assume this is in reference the the Sherrod incident?
This is in reference to Breitbart. The guy who will openly claim that his goal is to take down the left by whatever means he has, then turns around and selects and keeps people like this to slander them.
quote:So, I currently think Breitbart is a pretty cool guy. And you think he's scum. Because you think he's twisting the facts to support his agenda, and I don't.
Which was sort of my point. Honestly, I believe very few people actually think "Yeah, this guy is twisting the facts to make his point, but I like his point, so he's alright."
The reason why I think breitbart is a serial misinformer is because there's a surplus of evidence that he is a serial misinformer. The only thing I see your point making is that you're favorably impressionable to his claims because he's conservative, and you would like to claim that I'm guilty of the same level of bias.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dan, if I'm reading you right, what's bothering you is the apparent sidestepping Stewart does between being a journalistic force and merely a comedian, as convenient, yes? Acts like a reporter when he wants to and hides behind the clown nose when called on it?
If so, I urge you to look up "satire." The Wikipedia definition will do: "Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon."
Is he hoping to cause change with his humor? Hell, yes. Judging from what I've seen, he wants journalism that actually reports facts and not hearsay, that investigates corruption instead of trumped up scandal, that serves the public good rather than terrifies or titillates its audience for ratings and higher ad rates.
Every one of the Rick Sanchez bits I listed above was TDS laughing at how CNN and its reporters chooses to report the news. And this is why people like The Daily Show and trust Stewart, because many of them are also fed up with media they can no longer trust to act like journalists.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
I think this is a good point, especially the bold section. Perhaps you're right.
I do think that I am less annoyed by Colbert because I feel like he gets his point across without getting sanctimonious.
Chris, you understand me correctly in your first paragraph, but as you go on I feel less like you do. As I said a second ago, I find Colbert less objectionable because he generally sticks to his shtick the whole time. I feel like Stewart sometimes wobbles between what I would consider satire, and simple lecturing. The former, though I don't always agree with it, is nevertheless funny and often insightful. It's the latter that annoys me, because of the clown nosing. Do you get what I mean? Been a long day packing boxes for our move, so I feel a little burnt out. This may be less legible than I think it is.
Samp: I feel like you basically sidestepped my question, sooo... I guess we're done for now? Edit: Samp, at the time of this writing, the link Media Matters provides to Big Government has nothing. I imagine I could probably find a cache to show he used to be there, but as of this moment I can't find any trace of Kevin Pezzi on BigGovernment.com. So... yeah. But I sort of doubt this will change your opinion much.
posted
From what I've seen, the clown nosing that John Stewart does comes about when he makes an (often valid) criticism of someone and they come back with "Well, what about you?"
And that's sort of the point of this. First, "Well, what about you?" is not a valid defense of something that you've done wrong. For some reason, we accept this excuse from the people like politicians and journalists who should be held to the highest standards when we would not accept it from our 10 year old children.
Second, people who have these responsibilities are asking, in response to them not living up to it, why the host of a comedy news show whose primary purpose is to make people laugh isn't living up to the much higher responsibilities that they have.
John Stewart should not be among the most trusted source of news. It should not be the case that people who watch the Daily Show are better informed that those who watch the "real" news networks. That this is the case is because of massive failures of those networks in living up to their responsibilities. But because they've left a wasteland of credibility and reliable information doesn't mean that when The Daily Show has as a secondary effect doing a better job in these areas, it elevates The Daily Show into a real news show.
---
I'll add a personal observation. Fox News is a terribly irresponsible news organization. They are constantly presenting examples of this.
When they do, and it gets brought up here or elsewhere, it seems like there are two linked responses.
First, there's the absurdly childish and personally irresponsible "Well, CNN and MSNBC are bad too." And second, there's the noting that Fox News is by far the most popular of the cable news channels.
Think about that. Can you see why that actually speaks very badly about a large number of "conservatives"?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Squicky, I see what you're saying. That's an interesting perspective.
Re: Fox News...
I think I'm positively disposed towards Fox News, but with one significant caveat. I don't actually have cable television. I don't watch the channel with anything approaching regularity. I only occasionally watch clips from shows posted online (the same is true for my Daily Show exposure, except that I also sometimes watch it if I'm at a friend-with-cable's house, since it's the news show of choice for many of my friends.)
Anyway, since my primary exposure to Fox is when someone posts a clip from it, there's really no way for me to know if those clips are representative of the standard level of quality. So, I don't really have any desire to argue that Fox is or is not a great news station, unless you really, really want to. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dan: I'm sure he wasn't trying to get that title. It's just the perception people have. If you sat down with Stewart and said, "Should I take your news show seriously?" He'd be the first to say "No, it's there to entertain people."
Our news has become such a big joke, it makes his show look credible and serious at times. The interviews with the correspondents are loaded with "Gotcha Questions." His commentary his filled with invective and bias so as to generate laughs. He's definitely a good person in my book, so is Colbert, and they both have opinions on politics that come out a bit. But they are primarily shows designed to poke fun at the news as it exists today.
It's no different then Carlin making fun of beliefs. After awhile, he starts to sound like a philosopher.
I think this is a good point, especially the bold section. Perhaps you're right.
I do think that I am less annoyed by Colbert because I feel like he gets his point across without getting sanctimonious.
Chris, you understand me correctly in your first paragraph, but as you go on I feel less like you do. As I said a second ago, I find Colbert less objectionable because he generally sticks to his shtick the whole time. I feel like Stewart sometimes wobbles between what I would consider satire, and simple lecturing. The former, though I don't always agree with it, is nevertheless funny and often insightful. It's the latter that annoys me, because of the clown nosing. Do you get what I mean? Been a long day packing boxes for our move, so I feel a little burnt out. This may be less legible than I think it is.
Samp: I feel like you basically sidestepped my question, sooo... I guess we're done for now? Edit: Samp, at the time of this writing, the link Media Matters provides to Big Government has nothing. I imagine I could probably find a cache to show he used to be there, but as of this moment I can't find any trace of Kevin Pezzi on BigGovernment.com. So... yeah. But I sort of doubt this will change your opinion much.
Never seen Colbert when he does "The Word" segments do you.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Substantive. Thank you.
What else do you want from you guessing that 'we're done here?' I wasn't, personally, but I can't stop you from deciding you're done.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: If you want to keep going, we can, but I have to say it's a little bit frustrating when you, as far as I can tell, ignore most of what I say to you. The only significant time we discussed Breitbart previously was re: Sherrod, but apparently that's not what you want to discuss. Okay.
So you suggest that because Breitbart hired, and kept on staff, some guy who seems like a narcissistic douchebag, that proves he isn't credible. Except he apparently didn't keep the guy on staff, because he's not currently on their list of contributors. So... I'm really not sure what your point is, now.
If you'd like to keep discussing it, okay, go for it.
Blayne: like Fox and the Daily Show, mostly I watch clips of Colbert online. However, my recollection of the Word is that it's a parody of sanctimonious lecturing, done in character (I thought it was directly riffing off of something O'Reilly does. Was I wrong on that?), so that's not quite what I'm talking about re: Stewart. But perhaps I'm misremembering. Does Colbert break character during the Word segments and rail against conservatives?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You do realize that is what satire is right? Lecturing and being critical via wit and sardonic praise?
He's praising the right/conservatives incharacter but in such a way that his sarcasm is unmistakably condemnation for their position/actions.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Blayne, I understand what Colbert does and it has nothing to do with what I'm complaining about re: Stewart.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You have this false comparison happening where your complaining about Stewart but praising Colbert when they're saying essentially the same thing but in different ways.
IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize that I'm not complaining about Stewart with regards to the majority of his show, right?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is that sometimes Stewart seems to break character and let his personal frustration come out, rather than couching it in satire.
Colbert rarely breaks character.
He's done so twice, that I can recall. Once, when Stephen Colbert refused to interview the Gorillaz and instead sent out Steve Colbert to do it.
And at the end of Colbert's Congressional testimony, when asked why he chose to speak up on the issue: "I like talking about people who don’t have any power. and this seems like one of the least powerful people in the united states are migrant workers who come and do our work, but don’t have any rights as a result, and yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave, and that’s an interesting contradiction to me and, you know what so ever you do for the least of my brothers and these seem like the least of our brothers right now, a lot of people are least of the brothers right now because the economy is so hard and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them, but migrant workers suffer and have no rights."
Thing is, Stewart isn't playing a character, and the times he's really gone after other news media without joking was when he wasn't behind the Daily Show desk. When he was invited onto Crossfire, apparently they expected him to be a funny bit they could move past and instead he told them, earnestly, exactly what he thought of the show and its habit of preferring noise over substance. But when I watch the bit, I really get the sense that he was hoping to convince them to change their ways and become a force for good journalism. Reportedly he stayed for hours afterward in the Crossfire offices, talking to them. The decision to close the show down was the networks; they could just as easily have retooled it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
