Despite the jokes, Jon Stewart is one of the best, if not the best, interviewer on TV. His depth of knowledge and insight into current affairs continues to astonish me. I knew he was the best on TV when he asked Madeline Albright what it was like to be the last Westerner in North Korea and if they were as dangerous as they were being made out to be. When was the last time you heard a thoughtful question like that on the national news? Similarly if you read the Newsweek cover story on Mr. Stewart over the summer you would know that the Daily Show has quickly become one of the most important TV shows to go on if you're involved with politics or the government.
No kidding. Clearly everyone in Washington knows it, too.
Clarke's publisher has not even booked him on one FNC show!
So? When was the last time there was thoughtful discussion on Fox? Hell, when was the last time there was a discussion on fox that didn't entail yelling at or about someone?
Fox is a total joke. Tard FUBU.
Quote:
I think we know the leaning of the daily show. I have watched them hatchet this president.
The Daily Show has long had a steady stream of the most conservative of conservative guests, including probably every conservative author they could get and even folks like Perle, Kristol, Giuliani. And they all praise the show.
Also, has there ever been an interview where Stewart has been rude at all to his guests? I certainly haven't seen it. Even with the real wack-jobs he is totally cordial. I wonder if he's ever even disagreed with a guest during the interview.
So? When was the last time there was thoughtful discussion on Fox? Hell, when was the last time there was a discussion on fox that didn't entail yelling at or about someone?
Fox is a total joke. Tard FUBU.
The Daily Show has long had a steady stream of the most conservative of conservative guests, including probably every conservative author they could get and even folks like Perle, Kristol, Giuliani. And they all praise the show.
Also, has there ever been an interview where Stewart has been rude at all to his guests? I certainly haven't seen it. Even with the real wack-jobs he is totally cordial. I wonder if he's ever even disagreed with a guest during the interview.
Well, neil cavuto has a pretty good show when I catch that. The Factor is a very good show, and on the record is also pretty good. You generalize way too much.
To you it may be a joke, but they are a news network that went from nothing to one of the, if not the most influential news networks in the world. That is not because they are a joke IMO.
As far as Stewart and interviews, now that I think about it, you may be right, the ones I have seen he is fairly cordial. The hatcheting I have seen have been during his SNL type news segments and monologues. I don't watch the show regularly, but it seems every time I have tuned to the station he was hacking at bush. I haven't kept a log or anything but it seems that it is in the range of a couple dozen times over the last few months. Maybe it was just first impressions (first 20 or so impressions). So I could very well be wrong.
I actually like his humor. It just seemed to me that he was trying to go out of his way to rip Bush IMO.
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?
Ad-Hominem attack? I thought these were no-no's.
Oh, and the Daily show interview was actually pretty good. John Stewart said (for those who have not read the book myself included) that the book is fair and balanced. The last 40'ish pages are the ones which mildly criticize big brother and the gang.
To you it may be a joke, but they are a news network that went from nothing to one of the, if not the most influential news networks in the world. That is not because they are a joke IMO.
Certainly not. It's because they pander to a segment of the population that enjoys watching right wing blow hards express mock horror and disgust at the doings of "the liberals". There will always be a big market for bullying and shouting, it's much funner to watch than reasoned analysis.
Clarke really lost points in my mind. Stewart asked some amazing questions like the spy plane incident and what hindered the WoT more, political vitriol or bureaucratic ineptitude. Clarke didn't really answer either question, but moved on to his talking points. \
However, Stewart asked some amazing questions and provided the most lucent defense of the administration I've heard to date.
I got bored with all the talking head shows a long while ago. I don't watch a lot of fox shows like The Factor and Hanity and Combs and all that. Just special report and little news updates. I think the real problem is that people aren't used to hearing something other than the political pander. God forbid Brit Hume have someone on to talk about why oil prices are so high and what little we can do about it short of pressuring OPEC to increase production. The entire discussion outside the usual Bush v Kerry context.
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?
What, with all Brit Hume's little grunts, grumbles and head shaking tacking his opinion on every story?
I like the facts. CNN is weak but at least they suck so bad at subtly injecting opinion that it doesn't seep into every single story that airs. TV news blows overall, but the two problems with fox are that a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.
In the world of TV it looks like news only in the same way a heroin junkie smokes weed to sober up.
What, with all Brit Hume's little grunts, grumbles and head shaking tacking his opinion on every story?
I like the facts. CNN is weak but at least they suck so bad at subtly injecting opinion that it doesn't seep into every single story that airs. TV news blows overall, but the two problems with fox are that a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.
In the world of TV it looks like news only in the same way a heroin junkie smokes weed to sober up.
Facial expressions?
Those things can be interpreted any way you want, that is by no means a measure of credibility. I just watched an interview by him and I saw none of that. I was even looking for it. Was I missing something? The guy really seems to have one expression. I really don't know where you get this stuff.
a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.
Mr. Murdoch has made quite a bit of money by people who find "that crap" entertaining.
As for an opinion column---it is more subconsious than anything--not giving their politcal views the turpentine and corncob treatment must be a relief to their viewers.
But then I don't watch televsion.
I think also that most people don't understand marketing, don't undertstand basic rehtoric techniques, and don't recognized cheap sniping techniques, as in when "the news" isn't that Bush "went to the WTO meeting and and gave a speech...bla bla bla" it's "today teh Bush admisitration responded to allegations that....bla bla bla." So when a conservative listens to NPR and winces they may not really understand why. Hey, they're just reporting the news!
It's all one big sham. Most of you guys in these forums think your salvation rests with one political party or another, when in reality they are two groups of ENORMOUSLY weathy people who work in the same mysteroius ways, and make the same mysterious money, from the same lobbyists or backroom deals.
Oh Bush is a cocksucker, he's big money form out east...bla bla bla.....
....but then you look at Kerry and his wife, her money, and her connections.
What a crock! (and of course if's just about one man, in one brach of goverment) oh, sure. It's so easy to be distracted, so easy to fall for the redirection---these people in these poitcal juntas are getting wealthy in representative postions, doesn't that sound odd?
And now, one political machine and it's 5-to-1 advantage in the popular media, is engaging in every single cheap editing, scripting, camera angle, body language, and phrasing techniqe to smear the other party and doing it with a straight face---while calling FoxNews "partisan" and feigning shock.
!
Granted this is not new, and it is WAY tamer than in 18th-19th century, but I guess no one is learning the lessons of the past.
As for an opinion column---it is more subconsious than anything--not giving their politcal views the turpentine and corncob treatment must be a relief to their viewers.
Except that Murdoch and Ailes specifically created it to be a platform for right-wing opinions. That's the whole point of the channel. But Fox viewers also aren't the kinds of folks that bother to pick up printed word to read them talk about it.
Fox succeeds because it is crap. It panders to the lowest common denominator. Entertainment on fox consists of arguments and yelling. It literally takes Jerry Springer and lays it over current events. It's the exact same model. It elicits an emotional response from the viewer and little else.
This is also seen in their obvious policy to have anchors grunt and make stupid little comments about every story, a technique designed to connect to the viewer emotionally and at the same time instill and reinforce the values that FOX is *openly* trying to promote. Every piece of info comes with an opinion.
Fox news is to news what jerry springer is to relationships. Literally. That's why it's successful.
Contrast it to the Daily Show where the entertainment comes in light-hearted witty comments and skits. The interviews are about giving the guest a platform, and they get that platform no matter how wacky the ideas. Entertainment comes from information sprinkled with little jokes that make everyone laugh, including the guests, and serve to keep the interviews from becoming too dry.
Why do you think the Daily Show is getting such a big following? Because Jerry Springer and FOX are trash TV.
I know, giant, I know. Fox on an entertainment level is the worst sort of trash. But the ambient mode of approaching the right in America in the popular media for decades has been the very subtle "responded to allegations" framing, which wears on a large segement of America. You don't see this because you frame "the news" differently than the right does. But it gets REALLY annoying to hear political hit pieces, consrtucted using the tools of marketing, presented as news. It took an outsider and a demagoge to give the poeple what they want.
Just think, that market has laid there for years, and no one (as in The Passion's suprise success) dared venture in and take those profits.
Clarke really lost points in my mind. Stewart asked some amazing questions like the spy plane incident and what hindered the WoT more, political vitriol or bureaucratic ineptitude. Clarke didn't really answer either question, but moved on to his talking points. \
However, Stewart asked some amazing questions and provided the most lucent defense of the administration I've heard to date.
I didn't mind the talking points.
The interview was actually pretty interesting. Nothing that we didn't already know, but it was indeed interesting.
Comments
Originally posted by HOM
Despite the jokes, Jon Stewart is one of the best, if not the best, interviewer on TV. His depth of knowledge and insight into current affairs continues to astonish me. I knew he was the best on TV when he asked Madeline Albright what it was like to be the last Westerner in North Korea and if they were as dangerous as they were being made out to be. When was the last time you heard a thoughtful question like that on the national news? Similarly if you read the Newsweek cover story on Mr. Stewart over the summer you would know that the Daily Show has quickly become one of the most important TV shows to go on if you're involved with politics or the government.
No kidding. Clearly everyone in Washington knows it, too.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Clarke's publisher has not even booked him on one FNC show!
So? When was the last time there was thoughtful discussion on Fox? Hell, when was the last time there was a discussion on fox that didn't entail yelling at or about someone?
Fox is a total joke. Tard FUBU.
I think we know the leaning of the daily show. I have watched them hatchet this president.
The Daily Show has long had a steady stream of the most conservative of conservative guests, including probably every conservative author they could get and even folks like Perle, Kristol, Giuliani. And they all praise the show.
Also, has there ever been an interview where Stewart has been rude at all to his guests? I certainly haven't seen it. Even with the real wack-jobs he is totally cordial. I wonder if he's ever even disagreed with a guest during the interview.
Originally posted by giant
So? When was the last time there was thoughtful discussion on Fox? Hell, when was the last time there was a discussion on fox that didn't entail yelling at or about someone?
Fox is a total joke. Tard FUBU.
The Daily Show has long had a steady stream of the most conservative of conservative guests, including probably every conservative author they could get and even folks like Perle, Kristol, Giuliani. And they all praise the show.
Also, has there ever been an interview where Stewart has been rude at all to his guests? I certainly haven't seen it. Even with the real wack-jobs he is totally cordial. I wonder if he's ever even disagreed with a guest during the interview.
Well, neil cavuto has a pretty good show when I catch that. The Factor is a very good show, and on the record is also pretty good. You generalize way too much.
To you it may be a joke, but they are a news network that went from nothing to one of the, if not the most influential news networks in the world. That is not because they are a joke IMO.
As far as Stewart and interviews, now that I think about it, you may be right, the ones I have seen he is fairly cordial. The hatcheting I have seen have been during his SNL type news segments and monologues. I don't watch the show regularly, but it seems every time I have tuned to the station he was hacking at bush. I haven't kept a log or anything but it seems that it is in the range of a couple dozen times over the last few months. Maybe it was just first impressions (first 20 or so impressions). So I could very well be wrong.
I actually like his humor. It just seemed to me that he was trying to go out of his way to rip Bush IMO.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It just seemed to me that he was trying to go out of his way to rip Bush IMO.
He hardly has to go out of his way. The material practically writes itself.
Originally posted by giant
So? When was the last time there was thoughtful discussion on Fox? ....
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?
Originally posted by Scott
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?
Ad-Hominem attack? I thought these were no-no's.
Oh, and the Daily show interview was actually pretty good. John Stewart said (for those who have not read the book myself included) that the book is fair and balanced. The last 40'ish pages are the ones which mildly criticize big brother and the gang.
Originally posted by NaplesX
To you it may be a joke, but they are a news network that went from nothing to one of the, if not the most influential news networks in the world. That is not because they are a joke IMO.
Certainly not. It's because they pander to a segment of the population that enjoys watching right wing blow hards express mock horror and disgust at the doings of "the liberals". There will always be a big market for bullying and shouting, it's much funner to watch than reasoned analysis.
However, Stewart asked some amazing questions and provided the most lucent defense of the administration I've heard to date.
Originally posted by Scott
Giant's a big tough guy. He can take it.
lol I'd say you are correct.
Originally posted by Scott
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?
What, with all Brit Hume's little grunts, grumbles and head shaking tacking his opinion on every story?
I like the facts. CNN is weak but at least they suck so bad at subtly injecting opinion that it doesn't seep into every single story that airs. TV news blows overall, but the two problems with fox are that a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.
In the world of TV it looks like news only in the same way a heroin junkie smokes weed to sober up.
Originally posted by giant
What, with all Brit Hume's little grunts, grumbles and head shaking tacking his opinion on every story?
I like the facts. CNN is weak but at least they suck so bad at subtly injecting opinion that it doesn't seep into every single story that airs. TV news blows overall, but the two problems with fox are that a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.
In the world of TV it looks like news only in the same way a heroin junkie smokes weed to sober up.
Facial expressions?
Those things can be interpreted any way you want, that is by no means a measure of credibility. I just watched an interview by him and I saw none of that. I was even looking for it. Was I missing something? The guy really seems to have one expression. I really don't know where you get this stuff.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Was I missing something?
As usual.
Originally posted by giant
As usual.
What was I missing, be more specific, if you can.
Originally posted by Scott
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?
Doesn't this post breach the new guidelines?
Originally posted by giant
a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.
Mr. Murdoch has made quite a bit of money by people who find "that crap" entertaining.
As for an opinion column---it is more subconsious than anything--not giving their politcal views the turpentine and corncob treatment must be a relief to their viewers.
But then I don't watch televsion.
I think also that most people don't understand marketing, don't undertstand basic rehtoric techniques, and don't recognized cheap sniping techniques, as in when "the news" isn't that Bush "went to the WTO meeting and and gave a speech...bla bla bla" it's "today teh Bush admisitration responded to allegations that....bla bla bla." So when a conservative listens to NPR and winces they may not really understand why. Hey, they're just reporting the news!
It's all one big sham. Most of you guys in these forums think your salvation rests with one political party or another, when in reality they are two groups of ENORMOUSLY weathy people who work in the same mysteroius ways, and make the same mysterious money, from the same lobbyists or backroom deals.
Oh Bush is a cocksucker, he's big money form out east...bla bla bla.....
....but then you look at Kerry and his wife, her money, and her connections.
What a crock! (and of course if's just about one man, in one brach of goverment) oh, sure. It's so easy to be distracted, so easy to fall for the redirection---these people in these poitcal juntas are getting wealthy in representative postions, doesn't that sound odd?
And now, one political machine and it's 5-to-1 advantage in the popular media, is engaging in every single cheap editing, scripting, camera angle, body language, and phrasing techniqe to smear the other party and doing it with a straight face---while calling FoxNews "partisan" and feigning shock.
!
Granted this is not new, and it is WAY tamer than in 18th-19th century, but I guess no one is learning the lessons of the past.
This is not sane.
Originally posted by dmz
As for an opinion column---it is more subconsious than anything--not giving their politcal views the turpentine and corncob treatment must be a relief to their viewers.
Except that Murdoch and Ailes specifically created it to be a platform for right-wing opinions. That's the whole point of the channel. But Fox viewers also aren't the kinds of folks that bother to pick up printed word to read them talk about it.
Fox succeeds because it is crap. It panders to the lowest common denominator. Entertainment on fox consists of arguments and yelling. It literally takes Jerry Springer and lays it over current events. It's the exact same model. It elicits an emotional response from the viewer and little else.
This is also seen in their obvious policy to have anchors grunt and make stupid little comments about every story, a technique designed to connect to the viewer emotionally and at the same time instill and reinforce the values that FOX is *openly* trying to promote. Every piece of info comes with an opinion.
Fox news is to news what jerry springer is to relationships. Literally. That's why it's successful.
Contrast it to the Daily Show where the entertainment comes in light-hearted witty comments and skits. The interviews are about giving the guest a platform, and they get that platform no matter how wacky the ideas. Entertainment comes from information sprinkled with little jokes that make everyone laugh, including the guests, and serve to keep the interviews from becoming too dry.
Why do you think the Daily Show is getting such a big following? Because Jerry Springer and FOX are trash TV.
Just think, that market has laid there for years, and no one (as in The Passion's suprise success) dared venture in and take those profits.
Originally posted by HOM
Clarke really lost points in my mind. Stewart asked some amazing questions like the spy plane incident and what hindered the WoT more, political vitriol or bureaucratic ineptitude. Clarke didn't really answer either question, but moved on to his talking points.
However, Stewart asked some amazing questions and provided the most lucent defense of the administration I've heard to date.
I didn't mind the talking points.
The interview was actually pretty interesting. Nothing that we didn't already know, but it was indeed interesting.