Did anyone here just see Jon Stewart on Crossfire?
 

Damn, he was on fire, calling Carlson & Begala "hacks".

But this was my favorite part:

Carlson: "I do think you are more fun on your show. Just my opinion though."

Stewart (sheepish pause): "You know what's interesting though, you're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show."

Gotta love Tivo! Ran that back 10 times!

I wish that I had to see that. Does Crossfire reair overnight?

It was some great TV with Stewart ripping them both. Here's the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../15/cf.01.html

:lol:

when is this re-ran?

birrman54

Dude, I just read about it now and was gonna start a thread on it.

Jon Stewart is awesome. :thumbsup:

damn I miissed it. :(

I actually agreed with Stewart's point that Crossfire should be a debate show when in reality it's more about political hacks and their talking points.

What I didn't agree with was his condescending tone and him resorting to calling Tucker Carlson a dick just because he and Begala tried to defend themselves.

I just read the whole thing. Absolutely amazing! Jon Stewart has some balls. He's my hero.

It's never rerun. But if you go to the thread discussing it on dailykos, there's a BT link for the file.

Since I've never watched the Daily Show, I have to ask. Is Stewart always this much of a hypocritical ass?

what makes him a hypocrite?

His show doesn't pretend to take itself seriously, his point is that other media does, and they're failing the American people.

It has some validity to it.

birrman54

If you've never watched the Daily Show, how exactly do you know that he's being hypocritical?

Many times, yeah. Of course, he's also completely right in nearly everything he said.

das

How about this?

Neither his show nor his book is serious, they're humurous and satirical. CNN and Crossfire invite him on to be satirical, humurous, and not serious. He then gets pissed off and behaves boorishly because he wants to speak seriously and professionally.


Or how about:

He acknowledges that his show does have some relevance, that it is taken seriously by many who watch it, that it is not just some completely comedic show along the lines of Crank Yankers. He does this by endorsing a Presidential candidate. Yet when he is called on his behaviour in that serious and relevant realm, such as his interview with the man he endoresed for the Presidency, called on engaging in the same type of behaviour he accuses the mainstream press of engaging in, he resorts to the fact that he is not serious and that his show has no relevancy. Which is it?

I personally find both hypocritical, but maybe it is just me.

For those who want to watch it:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831

It's really stunning.

And I don't think he's a hypocrite. Why do comedians always have to be funny? They don't. Crossfire is a live, unscripted show. If they brought on a politican or a political pundit who cracked jokes the whole time, would you call that person a hypocrite?

Secondly, I don't see him making the point that The Daily Show is to be taken seriously. He goes out of his way to say it's not meant to be taken seriously. He says "[Crossfire] is on CNN, my show is led into by a show featuring puppets making crank phone calls! What's wrong with you?" He's clearly, clearly saying that his show is for entertainment purposes only, whereas the journalistic media have a responsibility to me more than just entertainment. Where's the hypocrisy?

Not sure I agree that his statements concerning Crossfire are correct. Nor do I agree with his assessment of the spin that comes out of the campaing staffs of the two candidates.

Regardless, I take much greater exception to his methods and to his spin. It would seem to me that he would the penultimate individual to hold politicians accountable, to call them on their bullshit. Yet when he had the golden opportunity, he didn't take it. Why not?

I also take exception to his using his show as a cop out. He wants to be serious and relevant when it suits his purposes, such as when castigating the big evil mainstream media as the voice of the disaffected, but he falls back on the notion that his show is not meant to be taken seriously or relevant. He wants to always be above reproach, skirting whichever side of the line he sees fit.

Again, maybe it is just me, but I have a problem with people that act in this manner.

His show is on Comedy Central. Maybe if you'd seen a couple of episodes you could see this for what it truly is.

P.S. Tucker Carlson IS a dick.

Really? Seriously? I didn't realise that. Thanks.

-ohbfrank-




Didn't I acknowledge that a few times already? I have a problem with his hypocritically taking advantage of that fact. It seems that his fanbase has no problem with him doing this. That's fine, I suppose.
:shrug:

:up:

Just because he is a humorist and satirist, doesn't mean he is never allowed to be serious or professional. Crossfire is supposed to be a serious show, thus when a guest is on it, they have every right to be serious.

If I were a pro football player, and was invited to be a guest on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, a humorous show, I wouldn't spend my five minutes tossing footballs into the audience; I would adapt to the show and try to tell some funny stories.

He endorsed a Presidential candidate on his show? When did you see this? I thought you have never seen The Daily Show.



Because The Daily Show is and always has been a comedy show.



He wants to be serious and relevant when on a show that is supposed to be serious and relevant. When on his show, he wants to humorous an satirical.

His criticism of journalists do not apply to him, as he is not a journalist; he is, as you implied, a humorist and satirist.

What a great read...too bad I didn't get to see this.

I agree. In addition to being a hypocrite, he also seemed like an ass without having the hilarity to back it up. Although I've never watched Crossfire, so maybe all of his comments were justified. The Crossfire guys came off pretty bad too.

I wonder if TDS will actually become watchable again once the election is over. I've been watching TDS since day 1, but I've had to stop watching in the past few months. The show has become so much more serious this year and Stewart still uses stupid fucking lines like: "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." Stewart whines about politicians not being truthful and yet he doesn't have the balls to actually admit that he and many other people take his show extremely seriously.

This is how I see it, too. While I commiserate with him for the lack of intelligent debate on Crossfire (does anyone on that show ever actually answer a question?), I was actually rather embarrassed for him. He looked like a deer in the headlights because I think he was uncomfortable trying to play both the stern critic and the sardonic insulter. He should have picked just one role.
Begala was smart to keep his mouth shut, but Carlson just solidified his supercilious blueblood weenie persona.

He's a media figure trying to have it both ways: he wants to be taken seriously, but doesn't want to be lumped in with serious media he wants to flame.

He also blames the two hosts of doing a biased job in covering the news and then promotes entirely partisan opinion.

How can you not see the hypocracy?

Lastly, the almost complete lack of content in his parade of zingers was irritating and immature. This is not Thomas Friedman here, these are not thought out positions. He was just taking the proverbial piss, not really adding anything to the discussion. That's not intelligent, that's boring.

I don't agree with everything Tucker Carlson says but try actually reading what he writes some time. He's hardly a party yes-man or a mindless drone. He takes stands. As someone who has the guts to put out serious pieces, rather than shoot potshots behind the shield of being a "satirist", I have a hell of a lot more respect for him than I do Stewart.

In the end, Stewart came off as one of those annoying grad students who doesn't really stand for anything or actually know what he's talking about. To me, he seemed more interested in making himself perceived as "controversial" or "principled", scoring some cheap points and selling a few books. That's true media hypocracy in my book.