My point exactly.

Stewart was criticizing Crossfire, a show that from it's very premise is intended to contain biased opinions. The two hosts even introduce themselves as being from the Left and Right respectively. The criticism of news media bias is aimed at news shows, which are intended to be objective, and not at editorial shows that wear their bias on their sleves.

Again, Stewart's criticism wasn't that the hosts are biased. His criticism was that instead of doing serious debate of the issues from opposing sides, the hosts instead rapidly devolve into spouting off political spin and talking points from their respective parties. It's no surprise that they do that, political spin is much more charged and theatrical, and thus more entertaining, than reasoned and civilized debate. It's just that what they do doesn't add anything useful to the political conciousness of America, and may indead hurt it.

his point is that the media needs accountability. Just being a watchdog for a liberal issue doesn't make you a liberal. In todays media, everything the anchorman says is taken for fact. Innocent until proven guilty is a lost cause. "no comment" is now a synonym for admitting guilt. Why should Kerry have to waste his time fighting hacks like the swiftboat veterans? Why didn't the media do a background check before bringing up ficticious charges?

I used to watch Crossfire, and I was surprised to hear that Stewart still watches since it became unbearable for me for the same reasons he brought up on the show. The thing that disgusts me is that the media covers politics like it is a game/horse race instead of a life and world changing issue, and the issue of bias is a red herring, they don't care enough to be biased. They will happily spout off mischaracterizations and lies if they are juicy enough and make the game more interesting. The media knows that Kerry was not even on the top ten of most liberal senators according to the National Journal; but if they start correcting things like that, or mentioning that Bush was going to veto the 87 billion spending bill that Kerry voted for, they might seem biased by showing an inequity in the level of deception (and they assume that we aren't capable of processing so many details anyway). I'm not saying that Kerry's side doesn't distort or massage the facts either, I've seen the stuff at Factcheck.org, but the side that does it more has a distinct advantage when the press is afraid to call them on it.
The best resource I've found for media criticism is a blog called The Daily Howler (http://dailyhowler.com) - I highly recommend it and wish Stewart would bring the guy on TDS.

Direct link to the video:
http://mediamatters.org/static/video...e-20041015.wmv
(from: http://mediamatters.org/items/200410160003)

More sources:
http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/video/

----

Just watched the clip and wasn't surprised. Stewart was brilliant and cut through the typical partisan bullsh*t that plagues all of the news organizations from CNN to Fox. People have become so dependant up these talking heads that they are unable to form their own opinions based on the issues they actually care about. Jon Stewart is the only person on television willing to go against the current media system and reveal politics for what it is: spin, double-talk, and mud-slinging.

He does need to work on his landing though. His awkward silence as the interview ended was pretty weak. His words just sort of trailed off as he realized how what he was saying sounded. He was great until the audience Q&A segment.

Here is my opinion.

I don't see anything wrong with what Jon Stewart did, but instead of how he went about doing so.

What in particular about how he did it do you disagree with? His delivery? That he did it on their show?

I have no problem with him going on there and doing what he did. I only wish he had done so in a more professional way.

I think it's obvious that he actually believed and cared about what he was saying.

So yes, just his delivery.

Yes and no(at least I'm honest). Either way, I just think comics like him jump back and forth between "take me serious" and "I'm just a comic!" when it fits them.....

...and whether he likes it or not, people Do...unfortunately.... take him seriously and they DO ltake note of his political slant. When thse comics are spending most of the time bashing Bush for this and that in their comedy bits,granted Bush has given them lots of material, the public does take note.

Dude, back off. I dont' believe that.

:up:


I agree with Stewart about holding the media accountable and that they often DO influence the public in a bad way.

I know this. But it seems to me that both sides vomiting their party lines on air in a "news show" where THEY CLEARLY admit...that both hosts are partisan...is what it is. Who can't filter through the BS to make their own choices? Maybe John missed the point of Crossfire?

He knows that is the point of Crossfire, but what he's saying is that it does the public a disservice when the media fails to be the purveyor of truth and lazily resorts to "This side says this, and the other side says this." The general public doesn't have either the time or will to find out the truth when they are being spun; so we need the media to keep it from getting to the point where 60% of poll respondents think we have established that Saddam was behind 9-11 and to prevent the spinmeisters from thinking they can get away with lies and mischaracterizations. If we had a responsible press corps, we would more informed and responsible citizens.

Again, I understand what he said. I don't want to keep repeating myself.

The point of Crossfire is to have opposing viewpoints, one from the right, one from the left. The show is obstensibly about people with different viewpoints debating the issues of the day. That's not the problem. Everyone agrees this is what Crossfire should be about.

The problem, as Jon Stewart puts it, is that instead of engaging in actual debate, the host quickly degrade into spin and simply mouth off the talking points of their respective parties. They don't engage in reasoned, rational debate, or even actual thought. It's just two sides shouting spin for a half hour, and may the loudest one win. It adds nothing to the political disourse, and may actually be hurting it since by airing it, CNN as a news source is giving this kind of spin credibility.

While I hate bringing him up in regards to Bush, The Daily Show bashed the HELL out of Clinton too.

Whomever is in power gets the attention...if Kerry wins I expect them to be just as mocking.

As for your "comics can't be serious" I say take Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks is a good actor with a wide range of abilities. He also seems pretty humble and realitively nice. However, he has experience with World War II history through "Band of Brothers" and the space program with "Apollo 13" and "From the Earth to the Moon," so if he talks about those things, I'd listen. He has an understanding of it that I'm sure a lot of people who were a part of those events don't have.

People like Britney Spears or the Dixie Chicks or even Bruce Springsteen aren't really equipped to speak about politics, as I've seen no evidence they have an understanding of what they are talking about. But I feel Jon Stewart does and he's worth listening to.

that was awesome!

This is the one time I can remember that Jon Stewart actually grilled his guest. And in this particular instance, the guest was doing exactly what he was talking about on Crossfire, spewing party talking points without knowing any facts to support what he was saying. Normally, whether they are democrat or republican, Jon will have a friendly discussion with them.

Even after the first presidential debate when talking with Giuliani, who also fell back on talking points, Jon still did a decent job of holding his tongue and remaining civil, resulting in some pretty awkward moments, when you could tell it was driving him nuts... :)

:thumbsup:

Exactly, It was a pretty clear point yet neither Carlson or Begala got it, or at least neither of them admitted to getting it.

That's unfortunate that you write off people who watch the daily show. I watch it, i'm what the media calls an "informed voter." In fact i believe neilsen ratings show that the daily show has a high viewer count of informed voters. That's besides the point, the fact is theres no unbiased place to go and get our news. I go to many places to get my news: CNN, The Economist, the Daily Show, SNL. The funny thing about the DAily show is that you have to have a good knowledge base of current affairs to understand the comedy.

I agree that Stewart came off more as a concerned citizen than the host of the daily show. In fact when he said "you need to come work for us." the hosts thought daily show, he meant US citizens.

Yes. A recent poll showed that most DS viewers are very educated. This makes sense, considering that the jokes on the DS wouldn't make a lot of sense to politically uninformed viewers.

Ummm...he is...he's on television.

What?

yeah, it weekend update on SNL considered "the media" too?