anyone see john stewart on crossfire?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i hear he called tucker carlson a dick!

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:11 (twenty-one years ago)

It sounds great. I'm just waiting for a torrent.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

wow. WOW.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

i hear he called tucker carlson a dick!

that's the least of it

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.wonkette.com/archives/breaking-jon-stewart-states-the-obvious-023528.php

Damn I wish I had seen it.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think Stewart gives a fuck anymore.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Jeez. I want a full transcript now!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

He was right on. And Tucker is a dick. It was great.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Evidently this show has been a sore spot with Stewart for years. From a CNN interview in 2002:

KURTZ: So you don't, you're not confusing yourself with a quote, "real journalist"?

STEWART: No. You guys are...

KURTZ: You're just making fun...

STEWART: You guys are confusing yourselves with real journalists.

KURTZ: Oh boy, you're loaded (UNINTELLIGIBLE) today.

STEWART: Instead of putting on shows like "CROSSFIRE" and "Gotcha" and "I'm Going To Kick Your Ass With Tucker Carlson" and "Let's Beat Up The Short Guy." That was just one that I...

KURTZ: I'm glad you're at least watching so much CNN, Jon.

STEWART: I am watching it constantly. It's driving me insane. Make the ticker stop. You're in the middle of a damn sniper story, and all of a sudden underneath it, you know, "Liza Minnelli's first VH1 show to air."

KURTZ: There's a new thing out called...

STEWART: What?

KURTZ: There's a new thing out called remote control. We'll have to get you one.

STEWART: But you're the news. That works for entertainment. People need you. Help us. Help us.

KURTZ: Thank you for making us feel needed, Jon Stewart. Thanks for sharing.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

also from that interview.

KURTZ: I could host "CROSSFIRE."

STEWART: Well, yes, you could host "CROSSFIRE." What's that got to do with journalism? I mean, that's just a couple of knuckleheads. I mean, the promo for that is Bob Novak in a boxing outfit. I mean, for God's sakes, somehow I don't imagine Edward R. Murrow ever putting on the satin robe and going, "I'll destroy you."

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I would pay good money to see this!

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

They're playing this back on Air America right now...

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Just missed it, I think.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

So did I. :(

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

the show leading into me is PUPPETS MAKING CRANK CALLS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

check the Daily Show book for its section on the media, and he pretty much does the same thing on its first page, where he starts asking "What the fuck happened?".

"You're supposed to be helping us, you indecent piles of shit! I...fuck it. Just fuck it..."

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Hm, amusing. I suspect it would mean more to me if I knew Carlson or Begala's work more, admittedly.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Paul Begala apparently looks like Kermit the Frog.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

they played a little of it in the newsbreak, which means they'll probably re-run during The Majority Report.

this makes up for the Daily Show taking the last week off...

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Does Crossfire repeat?

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:02 (twenty-one years ago)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:03 (twenty-one years ago)

here's the AP article on the book that CNN ran two days ago.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:05 (twenty-one years ago)

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.
STEWART: Well, we have civilized discourse.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

christ, this is great.

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.
STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Go ahead. Go ahead.
STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me.
CARLSON: I can tell you love it.
STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:15 (twenty-one years ago)

ARLSON: But, if Kerry gets elected, is it going to -- you have said you're voting for him. You obviously support him. It's clear. Will it be harder for you to mock his administration if he becomes president?
STEWART: No. Why would it be harder?
CARLSON: Because you support...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder. But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly.

STEWART: In terms of absurdity and their world matching up to the one that -- you know, it was interesting. President Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record.
But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd say something really effusively positive and lionizing about Stewart, but most comedians that comment on politics turn into pompous puds so quickly that I'm afraid to jinx this.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

true, but Jon has a MASSIVE amount of self-loathing, which has been keeping the pomposity in check.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)

it can't be self-loathing. See Janeane Garofalo. I think it's simply self-awareness.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

can't it be both?

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Latest on Wonkette:

"We're thinking that Tucker shouldn't have been so surprised: Stewart just was doing what politicians on that show do every day -- pander to their base. "

http://www.wonkette.com/archives/breaking-wonkette-calls-someone-tries-this-reporting-thing-023530.php

― Marcel Post (Marcel Post), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

"But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record."

Hahahahaha

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

The NRO Corner crew is apparently annoyed that he wasn't funny. I do weep.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

cool, I knew there was a reason I kept crossfire on my tivo season pass.

― teeny (teeny), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

The NRO Corner crew is apparently annoyed that he wasn't funny

Odd. I'm laughing.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:40 (twenty-one years ago)

thank god for john stewart.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:41 (twenty-one years ago)

plus I saw the word [LAUGHTER] a lot in the transcript.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:41 (twenty-one years ago)

i liked this part:

BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that...

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great.

BEGALA: It's like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front.

STEWART: I would love to see a debate show.

BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 15 October 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

There WAS a lot of laughter and the audience seemed to love it.

― Chris Marx, Friday, 15 October 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey Teeny, is there anyway you could put the show on Slsk?

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Here's a torrent

― Tucker Carlson, Friday, 15 October 2004 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

rock. got it.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 22:15 (twenty-one years ago)

awesome.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Friday, 15 October 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

God that was good.

― adam (adam), Friday, 15 October 2004 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

christ these guys never SHUT UP

also, as they were going off-air, jon loudly remarked, "this went GREAT!"

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2004 23:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Best television ever

― Andy K (Andy K), Friday, 15 October 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

how do I open or use or amplify or extract these little torrents on that site?

― tremendoid, Saturday, 16 October 2004 01:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Download and install a bittorrent client (such as this one) first.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Saturday, 16 October 2004 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll probably need to wait until I see it to judge, but the transcript makes Stewart seem very upset and angry from the start. He seems quite emotional about it, I wonder if anything happened between them before the show? It sounds good though - I'm downloading it at the moment.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Apparently Stewart just hates *Crossfire* (which is understandable to me.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:08 (twenty-one years ago)

The audience was laughing -- but it was a pretty chilly affair overall.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, before anyone starts getting their pants wet about Stewart calling Tucker a 'dick', let's remember that Tucker called Stewart a "butt boy for Kerry" about one minute earlier.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:09 (twenty-one years ago)

And it seems (again from the transcript) that because of their eagerness to speak over each other they failed to say very much at all. (x-post to Alex on SF): Why did Stewart go on the show if he hates it? Is he obligated to?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Why did Stewart go on the show if he hates it? Is he obligated to?

from the transcript:

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...

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Why did Stewart go on the show if he hates it?

To impart to them the error of their ways, as pious as that sounds. Stewart was basically scolding them (and deservedly so, I might add). To inform them that they're doing a disservice to their viewing public by pandering to the parties instead of remaining objective and grounded.

xpost

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, it seems like a misplaced evangelical mission - I don't think he accomplished what he went on for.

Oh, the 'butt-boy' for Kerry reminds me of the guy who was nominated to be European Commissioner or something (I don't think he got it); he claimed that Europe was run by 'bum boys' or 'butt boys' (he spoke, as Italians are inclined, in Italian) which has an obvious homosexual connotation. Though I believe in Italian it is explicit. On a vague sidetrack, one of the things I love about Buchanan is that he described Scotland as "A dark land filled with homosexuals", which is pretty funny.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, it seems like a misplaced evangelical mission - I don't think he accomplished what he went on for.

Well, Stewart has the bullet-proof vest of working for a 'fake news' show on a comedy channel -- he doesn't have to be objective or fair or even serious (which is why it was so futile for Tucker to try to pin down John on not asking Kerry any tough questions --- IT'S A COMEDY SHOW, YOU BOWTIED GOON!. By the same token, I'm sure Jon's well aware by now of the impact The Daily Show is having. Craig Kilborn never entertained such clout.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, they seemed to have a hard time comprehending the different duties of comedy and news, even if they have similar amount of influense.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:22 (twenty-one years ago)

oh please people he went on the show to plug his book.

― hstencil (hstencil), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, that too (actually, i'd completely forgotten about the book).

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 16 October 2004 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

But isn't the book doing really well anyway? I've just finished watching it - Stewart seemed much more jokey than the transcripts made him out to be, but he was clearly upset, I think. I realised part of the reason no-one got to say very much is that they have no time - that show must be 5 minutes long minus the adverts.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:05 (twenty-one years ago)

doesn't matter whether a book is "doing really well" or not, the point of publicity is to sell more copies even if it's already selling a lot. It's not like Stewart hasn't been on other shows to discuss the book!

― hstencil (hstencil), Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Stewart never mentioned the book and deliberately diverted attention away from it. It's not like shilling for it on Crossfire @ 4:30 PM was gonna propel the book to some position higher than #1 (where I believe it is).

― Chris Marx, Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:19 (twenty-one years ago)

If he has an agenda, it's not selling books. It's watching the watchmen.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:32 (twenty-one years ago)

uh yeah but I'm pretty sure that whomever booked him on "Crossfire" did it because of the interest in the book! Do you guys not understand how publicity works?

xpost - OH GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. I have to hope you're joking, Kenan.

― hstencil (hstencil), Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:34 (twenty-one years ago)

kind of.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:37 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I have no idea how publicity works. Arts and crafts, that's my bag.

The point is that whatever intention the producers thought he had for going on, Stewart's real reason was obviously to sabotage the show and use his growing clout to scold the media. I say that not because of some faith in Stewart's inherent good intentions but because it is quite obvious.

― Chris Marx, Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:52 (twenty-one years ago)

"Sabotage" is arguably an over-dramatic description, but he wasn't treating it like a standard book plug.

― Chris Marx, Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:55 (twenty-one years ago)

argh, neverfuckingmind.

― hstencil (hstencil), Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:56 (twenty-one years ago)

my thought exactly. re: you.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Saturday, 16 October 2004 03:58 (twenty-one years ago)

It's all true. Stewart has an agenda. All he cares about is money. This is obvious not from any of his actions, but because hstencil has decided that this is the way the world works.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Saturday, 16 October 2004 04:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Stence, does the fact that he was there promoting his book make his points any less valid?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 16 October 2004 04:02 (twenty-one years ago)

not at all, Alex, his points were great! I'm just saying that the point of guests on most tv shows is to plug something, that's all. It's not even like it was a normal Crossfire segment where they have two people on different sides of an issue yak about something. They invited Stewart on to talk about his book, he didn't, he made them look stupid, and I think that's great. I don't think that's grounds for beatification, though. And though I don't doubt his intentions in making Carlson look like a douche, the publicity can't hurt the book either. So it's a win-win for him either way.

Kenan you have clearly not understood what I've been trying to say, so I hope that paragraph helps. Not sure why it's so difficult.

― hstencil (hstencil), Saturday, 16 October 2004 04:07 (twenty-one years ago)

That paragraph does indeed clear up a lot of my problems with your argument.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Saturday, 16 October 2004 04:08 (twenty-one years ago)

but Jon has a MASSIVE amount of self-loathing, which has been keeping the pomposity in check.

The long tradition of Jewish comedy lives on.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Saturday, 16 October 2004 04:45 (twenty-one years ago)

the book's currently at #1 at Amazon. They even recorded a special video from Jon thanking people for coming to amazon.

and #2 at Powell's

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Saturday, 16 October 2004 05:13 (twenty-one years ago)

As noted in previous hyperactive thread that I couldn't find, you can go here for video feed of this masterwork.

― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Saturday, 16 October 2004 09:53 (twenty-one years ago)

There are a lot of different video links here.

― Curry Dish, Saturday, 16 October 2004 10:19 (twenty-one years ago)

the book is currently #1 on the NYTimes bestseller list for non-fiction.

it has some interesting company up there, too.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Saturday, 16 October 2004 12:08 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831&htv=12&htv=12

it fucking rocked.

― papa november (papa november), Saturday, 16 October 2004 12:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Can you imagine what it would've been like if Bob Novak had been there?

― Andy K (Andy K), Saturday, 16 October 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

even better

― Vic (Vic), Saturday, 16 October 2004 13:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Or if James Carville had been there as well.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Saturday, 16 October 2004 13:56 (twenty-one years ago)

JS deserves beatification for his Victoria Beckham interview alone.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Saturday, 16 October 2004 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

you can watch it here in lo-fi quicktime:

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater231.html

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Saturday, 16 October 2004 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

"lo-fi quicktime" sounds like it should be a striking oxymoron.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 16 October 2004 18:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Jon has already gone on record as refusing to have Bob Novak on his show.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Saturday, 16 October 2004 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Good for him. The less air time Novak gets the better (and that's not censorhip, that's just the need to put that festering little evil troll in his place).

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 16 October 2004 18:31 (twenty-one years ago)

from here

Stewart continued: "I would not have him on the show. I have standards. I wouldn't do it. He shouldn't be on television. CNN should not have him on the air. He should not be amongst civilized people."

plenty of great quotes in that one.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Saturday, 16 October 2004 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"lo-fi quicktime" sounds like it should be a striking oxymoron.

the picture quality is a bit crappy, that's all I'm saying. how is this relevant to anything?

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Saturday, 16 October 2004 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)

uh yeah but I'm pretty sure that whomever booked him on "Crossfire" did it because of the interest in the book! Do you guys not understand how publicity works?

it's not exactly difficult to get on Crossfire

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 16 October 2004 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

As funny as it all is, sometimes Stewart seems like he's on the verge of breaking down when he talks about the media and the government. Like there's only so much cynicism that can build up inside before he blows up. If something good doesn't happen soon, he might go nuts.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Saturday, 16 October 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

"decorum. always, decorum."

I'm just saying that the point of guests on most tv shows is to plug something, that's all.

most guests don't have their own tv shows every night of the week. Jon Stewart is not most people in television or politics. and I doubt very many of his intended book-purchasers watch Crossfire.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 16 October 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

If something good doesn't happen soon, he might go nuts.

all the more reason to hope Kerry wins

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 16 October 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

but Jon has a MASSIVE amount of self-loathing, which has been keeping the pomposity in check.

The long tradition of Jewish comedy lives on.

what?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 16 October 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I guarantee Stewart will voice our collective primal scream if he doesn't.

(x-post)

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 16 October 2004 21:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Stewart seems like he's on the verge of breaking down when he talks about the media and the government

he's trying to access beliefs in the importance of these things that media cynics beat out of all of us. it's a performance - an act equal and opposite to Tucker Carlson's attempt to pretend that politics don't matter that much and he's not really a mean little shit.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 16 October 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Windows stream: http://mediamatters.org/items/200410160003

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Saturday, 16 October 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

stewart's final comment/jab at carlson = golden!

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Sunday, 17 October 2004 05:11 (twenty-one years ago)

but Jon has a MASSIVE amount of self-loathing, which has been keeping the pomposity in check.
uh

The long tradition of Jewish comedy lives on.

what?

-- gabbneb (gabbne...), October 16th, 2004.

so you've never heard of woody allen?

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Sunday, 17 October 2004 05:15 (twenty-one years ago)

jon doesn't want to belong to any club that would have him as a member.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 05:24 (twenty-one years ago)

someone do a groucho marx-jon stewart photoshop mashup now. please.

― lemin (lemin), Sunday, 17 October 2004 05:37 (twenty-one years ago)

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Oct/200410178063514609035689.jpg

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Sunday, 17 October 2004 08:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Good grief, what a storm in a teacup! The whole thing was a schtick. Didn't Bob Newhart or someone have a mock-aggro act like this too? Didn't even Johnny Carson do this kind of harmless puppy banter when comedians came on his show? It's about as convincing as the TV wrestling they mentioned at one point. 'How old are you? And you wear a bow-tie!' Do you really think they came to blows in the green room afterwards? You're talking as if it was all ad libbed, from-the-heart stuff! I thought you were all Gen Y, totally sussed to showbiz and immune to advertising. Apparently not. Yes, Stewart's book was mentioned, as was the fact that it's at number one in the bestseller list. I hate to say it, but h.stencil on the money. And Stewart in it.

― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 17 October 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.legalforensics.co.uk/images/bomb2.gif

― :|, Sunday, 17 October 2004 13:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Honestly, if this election has laid to rest the old chestnut about political apathy increasing, this thread has laid to rest the notion that people are getting more cynical about the media. But that applies to me too, because I tuned into the thread and watched the clip expecting to see someone 'saying the unsayable' on prime time TV. But Janet Jackson's right boob can relax: it still holds the 'subversive of the year' trophy.

― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 17 October 2004 13:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I hope you don't mean the act of showing a nipple on TV was subversive, Momus, because that's just silly. I mean, if you turn to almost any channel at almost any time of day you can see people dressed in ways that are so provocative that they may as well be showing a nipple; worse, the outrage that people are spilling over the nipple is every bit as mock as the outrage you're piling on Stewart here.

I don't disagree that Stewart appearing on Crossfile was still a handy little promotional tool for his book (and his show), but I think it did go further than that, because the points he was making about much of the media discussion being theatrical and staged--no matter how staged his own act was--connected. I think the end result of the Janet fiasco was that a whole pile of teens and ex-teens got to walk around the next day saying "I saw Janet Jackson's tit!"

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Sunday, 17 October 2004 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, in the fight between Janet Jackson's tit and Stewart's show -- and in the context of American puritanism -- I actually do think a woman's breast is more radical a glimpse of 'the other'. But then I am silly, if that means thinking in ways that don't get heard on Crossfire.

― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 17 October 2004 15:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, in the fight between Janet Jackson's tit and Stewart's show -- and in the context of American puritanism -- I actually do think a woman's breast is more radical a glimpse of 'the other'.

somebody send him every episode of Charlie's Angels please k thanx bye.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Sunday, 17 October 2004 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

The hosts of Crossfire (I can't even remember their names) certainly did not enjoy themeselves. That much was clear. I think you give them far too much credit, Momus.

― Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 17 October 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

have you seen the daily show, momus? in the past year, it has become a television program as much about media criticism as comedy. it's very premise is a parody of television news, but as the stakes have grown higher, stewart and his writers have changed the rules, starting with media critiques and then adding laugh tracks to the end. he's certainly as qualified to comment on the media as kurtz or wolff, and by cloaking his barbs in comedy, he has more room with which to criticize. i have met jon stewart several times -- we sent to the same college, and he and my best friend's older brother were very close for years -- and what i saw in that appearance was frustration and an opportunity to do away with the "comedy" part of comedy central and to just say what he means. if carlson and begala had engaged him in any way other than shouting him down (a tv news staple) i think he would have offered a piqued critique. but instead it fell into the same old shit. still, i have all the more respect for stewart for saying this.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Sunday, 17 October 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

if carlson and begala had engaged him in any way other than shouting him down (a tv news staple) i think he would have offered a piqued critique. but instead it fell into the same old shit.
I think that's the big problem with his appearance on Crossfire, and not only why it wasn't effective but why it needed to be said in the first place. Like Stewart, I've watched Crossfire and found myself wondering with hurting head why I bother: it's people with positions that might benefit from some sort of actual debate, but instead these people who might otherwise be reasonable are egged into becoming yelling buffoons who cut off any discussion at a point where it's getting interesting.

I'm actually surprised that Stewart got in as much criticism as he actually did; there were some sections where both Begala and Carlson were actually listening (or pretending to listen while they sat there steaming). If it were truly a debate show, like Begala suggested, I think Stewart could have taken it into areas that really would have been much more subversive...subversive to the MEDIA, anyhow.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Sunday, 17 October 2004 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not saying I don't like or admire Stewart. The clips of his show that I've seen seem fine. But this whole thing -- of people on shows criticizing each other's shows on their shows -- seems to me exactly the same as Robbie Williams' new single 'Radio', a radio-friendly radio single which criticizes the radio. It's totally meta, and a self-referential waste of time.

― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 17 October 2004 19:00 (twenty-one years ago)

No, meta is the mutual cock and ball licking that goes on during most talk shows, even when pundits "argue about the issues." A comedian going on a talk show to promote a book and then saying that he genuinely hates the fact that they are hacks and wishes they would do their job is refreshing. Which is why it has gotten so much play.

I could only watch about 5 minutes of Bob Shrum and Ken "Douchbag" Mehlman on Meet the Press this morning before I had to turn it off or my ears would start bleeding. Shrum is "one of ours" but jesus I've seen more intelligent discourse on a playground.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Sunday, 17 October 2004 19:17 (twenty-one years ago)

To criticize is less meta than to praise? I don't buy that. It doesn't break out of the circle of commentary on commentary.

― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 17 October 2004 19:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but they weren't just criticising each other's shows - when the shows have opposing ideological positions it becomes more than just comparing ratings. The discussion they were having (or Stewart was trying to have) was about the media as a political object not just an entertainment medium.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Sunday, 17 October 2004 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously Nick, how can you be cynical about Jon Stewart when there's shit like this in the world?

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:04 (twenty-one years ago)

broken link

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

seems to me exactly the same as Robbie Williams' new single 'Radio', a radio-friendly radio single which criticizes the radio. It's totally meta, and a self-referential waste of time.

Maybe if I were a regular Crossfire view who loves the show and tuned in one day to see this, you'd have some sort of a point. But I'm not, and most people who have seen this or read the transcript aren't the core audience for Crossfire, and are therefore probably more receptive to Stewarts larger point, which is or course that the media, who are supposed to be stewards of representative democracy, have sunk to the level of circus performers. And the story and the transcripts are everywhere. Stewart's not just going on Crossfire to say these things, and he knew that going in. He's going on television to throw his weight around, because he knows people pay attention when he talks. He could have been on any of a dozen shows.

Uless you're arguing that using the media to criticize the media is invalid, which would be a bad argument.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

momus, you don't seem to be able to grasp that stewart's appearance can be, and was, both. it was meta, but for most people uninterested in media studies who don't think about television that way, it broke the spell. that's why it's getting bittorrented out the wazoo and being discussed at length on every single web site i visit, regardless of normal subject matter.

if you choose to place firm limits on how sincere you believe other celebs are capable of being, then of course you'll miss what so many people saw plain as day.

― fortunate hazel (f. hazel), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Uless you're arguing that using the media to criticize the media is invalid, which would be a bad argument.

I think I wrote a couple of interesting things about that on the television criticism thread.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)

if it's a covert attempt to sell the book, if it's just stewart schtick, if it's an exhausting example of metametametamedia analysis, i don't think it changes the situation (it maybe makes it more interesting to talk about) - someone making what we all can agree is a *good point* about the level of media discourse (on crossfire specifically - a show we don't get here so can't comment on that, but in american media, generally). had jon's intentions been proved honorable (which i suspect they were), i can't see this as having turned out any differently (for the record, i *don't* think it's particularly incendiary)

― m. (mitchlnw), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

It's totally meta, and a self-referential waste of time.
-- Momus (nic...), October 17th, 2004.

Jon Stewart has a news show that makes fun of news shows. You realize this right? You do know that he's a meta-anchor, and his job is completely meta?

Honestly, you sound like the people who criticized Farenheit 911 for being "propaganda."

― David Allen (David Allen), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

You did. From the television criticism thread:

it happens that this article is about what happened when Bourdieu appeared on such a show, Schneidermann's, and was set up as he expected: he knew that he wouldn't be allowed to make his point so he prepared himself to let the journalists play their usual game (cuts, interruptions, spinning, etc) and wanted to say, after a while, that they were perfectly illustrating what he was on about but in this particular incident he've been sort of bullied until the end of the show and couldn't even deliver this hack properly

But that's not what happened at all on Crossfire. Stewart has enough understanding of the medium to be able to manipulate it to make his points, which is also what's great about his show.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post to sebastian.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

And besides, I'd throw all theory out the window in light of the fact that he was saying things that don't often get said on TV at all anymore. The media has a responsibility to keep the public informed. That's what he said. A working democracy depends on responsible journalism. Nothing feels "meta" about that at all, not to me.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

god, i don't know how *strictly* relevant this is, but i've got 'meet the press' on in the background now, and they're trying to press (heh) this republican senator (jim devitte, is that his name?) into saying whether or not he agrees with his own previous comments that gays and single mothers aren't fit to be teachers, and he's repeatedly apologizing for *distracting* from "other, more important issues", but not for the substance of his argument (which he flat out isn't gonna touch)!

i suppose discourse requires willing participants

― m. (mitchlnw), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

But I'm not, and most people who have seen this or read the transcript aren't the core audience for Crossfire, and are therefore probably more receptive to Stewarts larger point

I'm not even sure if that's strictly true...was the audience there because it was Crossfire or were they there because it was Jon Stewart? If the latter, you're definitely on point but if the studio audience was there because it was Crossfire, then Stewart's criticism still wasn't a waste of time, because they seemed to be solidly on his side the whole time.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, either way, everyone loves righteous indignation, which he was projecting through his pores.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

most people who have seen this or read the transcript aren't the core audience for Crossfire

does a better forum exist to say what jon said, one where he isn't partially preaching to the converted? should he start taking hostages?

― m. (mitchlnw), Sunday, 17 October 2004 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

(i gotta say, tho, there is a teensy bit of irony here.. "hey, listen to this!! someone's critized the need of the american media to package and compress nuanced issues into 30 second sound bites! where's the bittorrent? this is taking too long!! where's the quicktime?? WHERE'S THE FUCKING QUICKTIME???!!?)

― m. (mitchlnw), Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not the size, it's the amount of truth contained.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

so we're defining 'the core audience [they have an audience?] for Crossfire' as something other than the people who actually watch Crossfire?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

huh? No, I'm saying the bittorrent people are more interested in this than people who actually watch Crossfire.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

gabbneb: only if we're being self-defeatingly cynical enough to suggest that everyone who tuned into (or happened to see) that episode of crossfire did so only to watch jon stewart make fun of crossfire

― m. (mitchlnw), Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

There be some quicktime links here:
http://www.wonkette.com/

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

hee hee

― m. (mitchlnw), Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:53 (twenty-one years ago)

What might have been his larger point if he could have expressed himself in a place making possible a civilized discourse?

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Same point, only not geared as specifically to Crossfire.

― Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

We have time to elaborate, ex: what might be the reciepe for a real debate on tv? Is such a thing even possible, without risking to hurt the interests of the network's boss? etc

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Sunday, 17 October 2004 22:02 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not that they're worried about the networks' interests but rather the shows often amount to regurgitation of the talking points and way that the candidates have framed the discourse. PBS does a good job but 1) no one watches PBS and 2) they just gave a show to Tucker Carlson where he can "do whatever he wants".

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

has anyone seen that show? the surprising thing about Tucker Carlson is that he's said some very interesting anti-Bush things away from Crossfire, but that just makes his willingness to take a cheque to play a GOP hack on TV that much more pathetic.

― Symplistic (shmuel), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:06 (twenty-one years ago)

What might have been his larger point if he could have expressed himself in a place making possible a civilized discourse?

He would've been on PBS and we wouldn't have this discussion.

ps. on Tucker Carlson's show Friday night the first guest was Bob Suskind, talking about his big "Bush is a fundie wacko" piece in today's Times.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 05:20 (twenty-one years ago)

oh I just realized I just said what Aaron W said. But yeah.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 18 October 2004 05:21 (twenty-one years ago)

The BBC's blogger Kevin Anderson agrees with most of you here:

'While I'm sure there were some red faces over at CNN - some out of embarrassment and some out of anger - this was the best debate of the political season. It's scary and highly entertaining when truth breaks out on television. Wow, something real on TV as opposed to reality TV!'

The political truth in question here being not a discussion about, for instance, whether British troops in Iraq should come under direct US control if Britons don't have a vote in the US elections, but whether a guy wearing a bow tie is a 'dick' or not. Wow, something real on TV: TV itself!

Two anchors getting tangled without touching the bedrock. If that was 'truth breaking out on television' and 'the best debate of the political season' we're completely fucked.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 18 October 2004 06:16 (twenty-one years ago)

'the best debate of the political season' we're completely fucked.

yup, that's 'bout the size of it. welcome to American Mass Media 2K4.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Monday, 18 October 2004 08:48 (twenty-one years ago)

The question that Stewart asked very clearly was whether our press corps holds our politicians' feet to the fire over substantive issues like Iraq, or if they are accomplices in a charade which allows power to operate unchecked.

I think it's interesting that Momus decries this question as insubstantive, as if television is just a gauzy film through which we view the hazy outline of bedrock reality. Considering that most Americans have never visited Iraq, nor met George Bush or John Kerry, the reporting of these things seems to me like a very important issue to discuss.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Monday, 18 October 2004 09:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Tracer Hand OTM

― C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Monday, 18 October 2004 11:15 (twenty-one years ago)

In other words, a substantive debate on "the issues" must include a debate on how the majority of the population understands those issues.

― C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Monday, 18 October 2004 11:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus is just jealous that Stewart is being hailed as a media gadfly. Really, Nick, Stewart just served exactly the same function on Crossfire that you perenially pretend to (and very occasionally do) serve on ILX.

― J (Jay), Monday, 18 October 2004 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously Nick, how can you be cynical about Jon Stewart when there's shit like this in the world?
-- Aaron W (nineoclockdro...), October 17th, 2004. (later) (link)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
broken link

-- Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (jdsalmo...), October 17th, 2004. (later) (link)

WHO WILL SAVE OUR CHILDREN FROM THE BROKEN LINKS???? JON STEWART YOU ARE OUR ONLY HOPE!!!

Oh wait, the link's not broken. Never mind.

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Monday, 18 October 2004 13:03 (twenty-one years ago)

But Janet Jackson's right boob can relax: it still holds the 'subversive of the year' trophy.
Should Jon Stewart have had a wardrobe malfunction?

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Monday, 18 October 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Some small tennis shorts and no underwear, perhaps?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Monday, 18 October 2004 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)

"Jon Stewarts Wardrobe provided by Popout of Beverly Hills"

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Monday, 18 October 2004 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

clicking on the msnbc link gives me thus:

File not found.

Our Web servers cannot find the page or file you asked for.

The link you followed may be broken or expired.

Go to our MSNBC home page, the NBC Sports home page, or try searching our Archives.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Monday, 18 October 2004 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Drudge has a story up now about Daily Show losing ratings...I guess they're scrambling to find something to make Jon look bad.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Monday, 18 October 2004 14:18 (twenty-one years ago)

The MSNBC link works fine for me.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Monday, 18 October 2004 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

What's with the bowtie on that jerk?

― 57 7th (calstars), Monday, 18 October 2004 20:26 (twenty-one years ago)

What's with the bowtie on that jerk?

As a perennially bow-tie-wearing liberal I would take offense at that kind of shallow remark were it not for the enormous amount of bad taste Mr. Carlson uses for his tie selection.

― Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 18 October 2004 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry, nothing against bow ties. Usually you see them on Dems, though.

― 57 7th (calstars), Monday, 18 October 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

and mo rocca...

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Monday, 18 October 2004 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)

re: tucker's show on PBS

Its always intriguing to me how republican flacks can get on PBS and their civility increases exponentially. David Brooks does this on the Newshour all the time and sometimes comes off as (gasp) likeable.

― still bevens (bscrubbins), Monday, 18 October 2004 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

That's 'cause they're better at condescension than Democrats.

― Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 18 October 2004 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

David Brooks comes off as nearly "likeable" in the Times too. Unfortunately, he's a partisan hack (as his recent bullshit on Mary Cheney on Friday proves only too well. . . Safire's even worse today in the Times actually, but really he's just a slightly older, meaner Brooks.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 18 October 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

As far as hackery goes, Safire is way worse than Brooks. But I'll take "On Language" over Brooks's pseduo-sociology any day.

― C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 00:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show was really funny tonight... "What did I do on Friday? I got a haircut.... hmm something else... oh, I called someone a dick on national tv." Later he said, "to be fair I think all four of them are dicks, not just Tucker Carlson."

So, I loathe David Brooks, even on PBS... It's like I can predict what he's about to say just by the smarmy look on his face.

Thanks for fixin the link.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 02:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Michael White, why do you wear bow ties? Do you crave attention?

― Orville Redenbacher, Tuesday, 19 October 2004 02:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll tell you one thing I found absolutely extraordinary about Stewart on Crossfire. When asked what he thought about the lump spotted in Bush's jacket in the first debate, he came up completely blank. 'Lump?' He'd never heard anything about it. This is a man who makes comedy about TV and politics, and he hadn't heard about that rumour, despite the fact that everyone from Joe Blogger to the BBC reported it? Isn't he paying attention? Where does he get his material? Is it being radioed in to him from advisors in a back room? Does he have a lump in his jacket too?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 06:59 (twenty-one years ago)

re: Jon Stewart not knowing about the mike/hump issue as Momus mentions above, I wondered the same thing myself while watching the show tonight, and I wonder if he didn't know about it because the show was not happening last week. But it seems strange that such an informed dude (it is his job to know about these "daily" political happenings) would be unaware just because he was not going into work on the show one week.

As a side note (an x-post I believe you call them): doesn't it seem like a strange choice for the Daily Show to take a week off during the most heated political time of year (esp. this year)?

― scout, Tuesday, 19 October 2004 08:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Was last night's a repeat? I couldn't be bothered to stay up.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:10 (twenty-one years ago)

As a side note (an x-post I believe you call them)

(nope. a x-post is a crosspost, when you're addressing the post before the last.)

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I like how they wrapped up the show last night with a soundbite of Robert Novak, douchebag of freedom.

― Leon Czolgosz in NYC (Nicole), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he was bluffing, about not knowing about the bump.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I follow things very closely, Nick, and I hadn't heard of this rumor either. I think he (as I did) may have filtered this into the 'not credible' pile before skimming past the article.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought the same thing.

x-post

― Leon Czolgosz in NYC (Nicole), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

he was totally bluffing.

so has anyone noticed that since friday, the drudge report has had at least one piece of "news" blasting stewart each day? today they quote his convocation speech at william & mary. yesterday that his ratings have dropped a small amount. etc. etc. he's a threat!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, bluffing. He sort of did it again too there:

CARLSON: Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?

STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.

CARLSON: Oh, OK.

STEWART: What do you think?

BEGALA: Let me change the subject.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he's paying attention, but he's also bullshit-proof.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:57 (twenty-one years ago)

from here
Interestingly, Stewart’s tirade wasn't motivated by partisan bickering, but by disgust with the political argument show itself, which he claimed is “hurting America.” A bold statement from a man who starred in Big Daddy, but we digress. A surprised and uncomfortable Carlson tried to defend his show (and his bowtie), but managed only limited success on both counts.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Big Daddy? That's relevant? Ok, *now* we can talk about the media meta-criticising the media.

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Has anyone else noticed how ANGRY he's seemed the last few nights? I mean, much more than usual? It's kind of a turn-off.

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, that's what I was saying above before the 'it's just an act' people started in (which I disagree with, but there's nothing you can argue either way).

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think it's an act, I think he's angry. I think he's always been angry. Most good comics are constantly angry. The issue is how well he's controlling it now vs. before.

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, if he were Bill Hicks, he could get angry and I wouldn't care (though I'd be much more inclined to disagree with his points, given the combative way in which they were delivered.) But he's Jon Stewart instead, and lovable and self-depricating is his "thing," and while he's still funny, he's somehow less so because he's breaking out of his established persona. Just a little, mind you, but enough to notice.

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Kepp in mind, I've been watching this show for years and years, before the 200 election, really since the day he cam eon it and even before (yes, I watched Craig Kilbourne... sorry). Every shift in attitude to this point has looked like growth. This feels more like some kind of unleashing, and it's a little ugly.

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:16 (twenty-one years ago)

2000 election... the 200 election was decided by human sacrifice. I didn't watch it.

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Stewart's anger is fully appropriate given the circumstances and timing. Election is coming up, all free-thinking people should be angry and ready to hit the streets with torches should the votes be fixed again.

― Richard K (Richard K), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 03:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but his audience is the choir, isn't it? And even if it's not as of late, I don't think that's justification for making his show more abrasive (nor for the opposite, mind you). I mean, anyone who wasn't already watching habitually would turn it off for sure during the past couple of weeks of shows, which is fine. But *I've* almost turned it off a few times in the last couple weeks, and I'm as close to a lifetime view as Jon has got.

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 04:00 (twenty-one years ago)

view = viewer

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 04:01 (twenty-one years ago)

he had to have been bluffing about the lump because they made jokes about it on the daily show over a week ago, I think

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I only wish this segment went on longer. Amazing.

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 17:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Regarding "the lump" - I think Jon's point while on the show is that that kind of discussion is totally irrelevant and is a disservice to the process. So whether he truly wasn't clear on what the guy was asking or if he was playing stupid to avoid answering the question, ?who gives a fuck about the lump..

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

He is on "60 minutes" tonight. Apparently he didn't show them any mercy.

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Sunday, 24 October 2004 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

People seem to be picking and choosing what Stewart was sincere and bluffing about. He was sincere about his rage, but bluffing about the lump? Was his bluff about the lump perhaps a part of his sincere rage? Was he bluffing about both his rage and the lump? Was he lumpy with sincerity about his rage? Enraged by his own sincere lump-ignorance? Etc.

― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 24 October 2004 21:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I've noticed this too, and it sits poorly with me. I think it's all part of a process of clinging desperately to scanty facts proving the whole thing wasn't a stunt; that Santa Claus really does exist, and that Jon Stewart is a guileless, upstanding, and noble defender of the right(left) cause.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Sunday, 24 October 2004 21:44 (twenty-one years ago)

But if he had made jokes about the 'lump' before he was on the show, surely he had to be ignoring the question, rather than not knowing about it. And if it was an act, and it was just for controversy, they're all great actors. Stewart looked genuinely upset. Not that I really care either way - it's not that big an event, it seems silly to fake, and silly to argue about.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Sunday, 24 October 2004 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

he's on right now

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Sunday, 24 October 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't see it (i read the early transcript) and it seems the reason Stewart deflected the bump issue was because he was there to trash the Crossfire show, not GWB. I'm sure he saw that as an attempt to turn him onto Bush and off X-fire.

― nickn (nickn), Monday, 25 October 2004 03:35 (twenty-one years ago)

i finally just saw this, and it really left with me a bad taste in my mouth. stewart, who i like very much, presented his *totally correct* opinion in a totally smug, snipy way. i cant really parse his sarcasm in this case, but i can only assume that he was sincere in his pleas for crossfire to "stop hurting the nation". there IS a problem with how crossfire potrays the news, but there is also a problem with stewart putting himself on such a pedestal when, in his own show (clearly a comedy show, but nonetheless), he treats politicians from the right very differently than politicians from the left. i dont have any problem with jon stewart doing that - he is NOT intended to be americas news source - but i do have a problem with him coming on crossfire as this moral crusader. he called carlson disingenuous, but the way he wrung his hands to them seemed totally disingenuous to me. if he had presented his case more objectively, it would have been a powerful statement. as it stands, it still makes me think a lot about crossfire's role in the media (so maybe this was his point, and if so, he succeeded in that way...). it also makes me think that jon stewart can be a little bitch sometimes.

― peter smith (plsmith), Monday, 25 October 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven't been watching the Daily Show for very long, but he seems pretty centrist to me. The politicians on the right happen to be in power right now, which makes them more public, which makes them easier to pick on. They also happen to be bat-shit crazy, many of them. So of course it's easier to pick on the right. But he's gotten some Kerry jabs in and I believe he will have plenty to needle him on when he gets elected.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 25 October 2004 20:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he's upset with crossfire for never revealing how they really feel, and only repeating talking points, rather than having a core set of principles and getting upset with any politician that deviates from them regradless of party. Stewart is a liberal, but he's always polite to his conservative guests (telling the crowd not to boo or applaud his laugh lines), and he is sincere in stating his beliefs when he talks to either libs or cons. Also, my unscientific observation is that he has way more righties than lefties on his show. So the crossfire denunciation wasn't about left or right, it was about media insincerity.

― Sympatico (shmuel), Monday, 25 October 2004 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't think jon stewart's issue with crossfire is their insincerity but rather that they serve no purpose. they pretend to be this "hard hitting news show" but really they just yell left & right talking points at one another and don't give anyone a chance to explain issues & stances on a meaningful level. it seems like in the american news these days people either ask non-questions (like on the today show or whatever, just pander to the politician's point of view and give them a chance to reiterate their talking points) or berrate them entirely, thus not letting them speak or only giving them enough time to spew half a talking point before moving onto something else. there is no, as stewart said, 'civilized discourse'.

that said, despite being on comedy central, stewart really has an opportunity to implement that himself. it's a comedy show, yes, but as he has the chance to improve political journalism -- why not take it? if you're going to have john kerry on the show you might as well ask him something that matters -- and show people what you MEAN by civilized discourse. lead by example. it's much easier to say, "american news is shit!" than to actually do something about it.

― j c (j c), Monday, 25 October 2004 22:02 (twenty-one years ago)

He was cowed by Kerry. It was too big a guest for him. There are plenty of people, however, that he's not cowed by, and ends up engaging in something approaching civilized discourse, or at least making them look like asses by asking questions he knows they won't answer.

― Hank Tenbeer (kenan), Monday, 25 October 2004 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)

that's true, but then i wouldn't be impressed with tucker carlson if he managed to ask great questions and engage in civilized discourse -- except when he had a guest on with political clout.

― j c (j c), Monday, 25 October 2004 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

John's guests have political clout, they're just not the headliners.

― Hank Tenbeer (kenan), Monday, 25 October 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

For instance, he's not cowed at all by Bill O'Reilly.

― Hank Tenbeer (kenan), Monday, 25 October 2004 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

is there a single journalist in america cowed by bill o'reilly? it's one thing to challenge people who you've no or little respect for -- and who everyone routinely challenges -- and quite another to seriously question someone who other people aren't. and bill o'reilly didn't really say anything on stewart's show anyway, so insofar as creating an intelligent & civilized discourse there, he failed.

and yeah yeah it's supposed to be a comedy show, i know. and it's not as if bill o'reilly would answer questions for ANYONE without bullshitting... but it just seems like before stewart goes out on a crusade to better the media he could start with his own show.

― j c (j c), Monday, 25 October 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I was a little annoyed by Stewart's pomposity and self-importance on CF but enjoyed seeing Begala and Carlson squirm was well worth it. The 'I'm not going to be your monkey,' line was classic. I like jc's point above. DS is about mocking the increasingly vapid coverage of the news in this country. Even when disingenuous, Stewart is funny. CF is neither funny, nor informative. It dreates more heat than light and Stewart was right to give them shit 'cause almost no other guests can afford to do that now. Re: the bump. Stewart did mention it at one point on DS, but since all the jokes were obvious and already all over the web, I think he decided to go with the downplay. I mean, these guys do use teleprompters for speeches and calling Bush dumb is hardly news.

― Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 25 October 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

The politicians on the right happen to be in power right now, which makes them more public, which makes them easier to pick on. They also happen to be bat-shit crazy, many of them.
I think that post required some bold reposting, because it is so damned true....and all the Republican voters need to come to grips with this.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Tuesday, 26 October 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

"Guano Loco" is what I say in front of mixed company.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 26 October 2004 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

http://morrisseymusic.com/images/mozstewart.jpg

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Thursday, 28 October 2004 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I caught that today. Man's got good taste.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 October 2004 02:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Some fangirl made that shirt for him! (Not me.)

― Mary (Mary), Thursday, 28 October 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

It took me a few seconds to realize who that was.

I saw the clip of him on C-SPAN, and I realized what might have already been mentioned on this thread: The reason he isn't "serious" about how he feels about shows like Crossfire on the Daily Show is because that wouldn't be funny, and the Daily Show has to remain funny if it is going to have any viewers. He can throw in a few jabs, but he can't be serious in any sustained way on his show -- it just doesn't work there.

That is, however, what Crossfire (and C-SPAN) are supposed to be about -- serious talk about serious issues. And that's why he had to do what he did on their show, rather than on his own show.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 28 October 2004 05:34 (twenty-one years ago)

classic stuff. i fear that it is not going to spark much of a movement in the mainstream media, though.

― Jay Kid (Jay K), Thursday, 28 October 2004 09:32 (twenty-one years ago)

two months pass...

Ha ha, owned.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

CNN will probably fold "Crossfire" into its other programming, perhaps as an occasional segment on the daytime show "Inside Politics," said Jonathan Klein, who was appointed in late November as chief executive of CNN's U.S. network.
Klein on Wednesday told Carlson, one of the four "Crossfire" hosts, that CNN would not be offering him a new contract. Carlson has reportedly been talking with MSNBC about a prime-time opening replacing Deborah Norville.
Carlson did not immediately return a call to his cell phone for comment.
The bow-tied wearing conservative pundit got into a public tussle last fall with comic Jon Stewart, who has been critical of cable political programs that devolve into shoutfests.

"I guess I come down more firmly in the Jon Stewart camp," Klein told The Associated Press.

HA HA HA HA

― Leon the Fatboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

"I doubt that when the president sits down with his advisers they scream at him to bring him up to date on all of the issues," he said. "I don't know why we don't treat the audience with the same respect."

PWNED

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

That's awesome!

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

"Welcome to 'Inside Edition'! I'm Tucker Carlson (please someone kill me)."

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

RIP

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha ha ha, gabbneb.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:37 (twenty-one years ago)

It's time to pour a 40.

― Leon the Fatboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:37 (twenty-one years ago)

If only we had that gif animation.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/1anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/1anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/1anew.gif

― Carl Winslow and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/22anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/22anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/22anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/22anew.gif

― Carl Winslow and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/3anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/3anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/3anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/3anew.gif http://tvdance.com/bush-gore/images/3anew.gif

― Carl Winslow and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:25 (twenty-one years ago)

thwak!

http://www.maximonline.com/entertainment/articles/images/3698_1.jpg

― cathy berberian (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Now a title bout with Bob Novak!

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:50 (twenty-one years ago)

the goggles &c.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:53 (twenty-one years ago)

How long before he shows up on FOX "news"?

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

he's already got a pbs show.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

i doubt carlson will be on fox news. they don't need his pussy ass.

― miccio (miccio), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)

He's the one with the purse, right? (XP)

― Carl Winslow and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Tucker Carlson occupies the same role for conservatives in the media landscape that Colmes does for liberals. Colmes is a pale-faced, paint-by-numbers loser whose only job is to be a believable liberal for people who live in trailers. Carlson is CNN's idea of a conservative. His right-wing ideas come from his changeable, expensive brains instead of his stomach. In the same way that the helpless, ineffectual Colmes is a reassuring image to hardcore conservatives, Carlson puts a soothing face on conservatism for educated East-coast progressives—because even the biggest neo-Marxist wanker from Brown takes one look at Carlson and sees the one man in America he would feel sure of being able to kick the shit out of in a back alley.This is an excellent article about him.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:15 (twenty-one years ago)

uh no, not at all

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I'd bet that even you, gabbneb, could kick the shit out of Carlson in a back alley.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Mo Rocca could totally beat the snot out of Tucker Carlson.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Does anybody on Fox News rock a bowtie? Bowties point towards the ears where neckties focus the eye down low. I'd think Fox News wouldn't want a conservative around who doesn't let his nuts hang.

― miccio (miccio), Thursday, 6 January 2005 01:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Tucker could take me. He's pretty mean. In fact, I'd love to see Tucker take Mo Rocca. I'd love to see Novak take Mo Rocca.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

seriously, he's pretty fit-looking

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 01:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay you can stop.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Thursday, 6 January 2005 01:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Mo Rocca is possibly one of the coolest men alive:

http://pedanticbohemian.home.comcast.net/morocks.jpg

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Thursday, 6 January 2005 01:50 (twenty-one years ago)

(I think I'm glad I never actually have seen Crossfire -- or any political show these days, actually. It would be bad for my peace of mind. Hmm, a thought for a new thread...)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 6 January 2005 02:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Mo Rocca is the devil

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 03:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, Larry King likes him

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 January 2005 03:55 (twenty-one years ago)

http://bontv.web.infoseek.co.jp/images/pete4.jpg

Carlson has been P3T3 BUR|\|ZD!

― donut christ (donut), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:10 (twenty-one years ago)

"AND I!!!!"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 6 January 2005 04:13 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, I'm going to waste more time by making up a PWNED pic of Carlson, just because..

Mo Rocca = Farnsworth Bentley

― daria g (daria g), Thursday, 6 January 2005 06:00 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.