Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

The Daily Show

Recommended Posts

Did anyone catch John Stewart promoting his new book on CNN's Crossfire last night? Here's the transcript... scroll to the bottom for Stewart's harsh indictment of Crossfire and other debate shows he thinks are "hurting America"... Also, his scalding "D" bomb attack on Tucker Carlson.

Edited by coltrane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways, Stewart is really dealing more with media criticism than politics...
Yeah, perhaps. I love the "Crossfire is hurting America" statement. laugh.gif

STEWART: Can I say something very quickly? Why do we have to fight?

STEWART: The two of you? (Crossfire hosts Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson)

STEWART: Why do you argue, the two of you?

STEWART: And I wanted to... tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad (Crossfire/partisan debating) as it's hurting America.

Stewart seems to be sharing a sentiment that has become increasingly popular in North America amongst liberals and conservatives-- and that is that all of the vigorous debating and heated political arguing is damaging the country, that the culture is being torn apart and what we need is a more civil, testosterone-free discourse to bring us back together... blah, blah... Hence the Rodney King-cant-we-all-just-get-along mantra from Stewart.

John Leo wrote an excellent article about this several months ago. Let's keep Arguing

Edited by coltrane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hosts just didn't seem to get it. Especially when Tucker Carlson was asking him about why he asked such easy questions to John Kerry.

Somebody that I was reading (I forget who) commented about The Daily Show that it isn't so much fake news show as it is a fake news show. That is, it doesn't make fun of "things in the news" as much as it makes fun of the news media in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hosts just didn't seem to get it. Especially when Tucker Carlson was asking him about why he asked such easy questions to John Kerry.

Somebody that I was reading (I forget who) commented about The Daily Show that it isn't so much fake news show as it is a fake news show. That is, it doesn't make fun of "things in the news" as much as it makes fun of the news media in general.

I remember a segment from a long time ago on the Daily Show. It was a "debate" between Steve Correll and Steven Colbert, and it consisted entirely of them shouting, "Yes!" and "No!" back and forth at eachother smile.gif

I'm completely with Stewart in his critique of shows like Crossfire and Hannity and Colmbs. Those shows are nothing but loudmouths trying to see who can shout their parties talking points the loudest. My mom listens to Hannity and Colmbs on our Worldspace radio once in a while, and every time I hear it I feel dumber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that was fascinating - it was interesting to see the discussion turn a corner when the co-hosts started realizing that Stewart was serious in his criticism. Stewart is making a valid point of course, although he ceded some of the moral high ground in referring to Carlson as a 'd***.' Politics and political debate are inevitably only semi-rational at best, and I agree that shows like these are more hurtful than helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stewart rides the fence like a pro... To avoid criticism he hides behind the "hey-we're-just-a-comedy-show" defense while at the same time goes to great lengths to make people believe that his political schtick is actually more incisive and truthful than mainstream news. Stewart and Co. are funny, but this is B.S.

The hosts just didn't seem to get it. Especially when Tucker Carlson was asking him about why he asked such easy questions to John Kerry.
Perhaps Carlson was a bit thick-skulled, but Stewart's response is once again, a cop-out. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity could see that Stewart was gushing in his ass-lathering interview with Kerry--- very uncharcteristic of Daily Show standards IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at the same time goes to great lengths to make people believe that his political schtick is actually more incisive and truthful than mainstream news.

Huh? Where do you see this in his show? Once in a while he'll do a "serious" interview, which are generally pretty good, but whenever he talks about people looking to his show for news he just kinda shakes his head.

His show is about how dumb mainstream news is, so in that sense it IS more insightful than the mainstream, but only with regards to this single issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plot thickens... Stewart will be on 60 Minutes October 24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone with an ounce of objectivity could see that Stewart was gushing in his ass-lathering interview with Kerry--- very uncharcteristic of Daily Show standards IMO.

Now that's B.S. He's softball with all his guests. He never goes as far as he could and plays nice with everyone I have ever seen him interview. Kerry was not unique. The Daily Show interview segments run the same as the segments on Letterman or Leno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comedy Central videos don't play outside the U.S., but FWIW, Dan Gifford:

As you can plainly see, Stewart admits Santelli was critical of the federal bailout money that went to fat cats. Why that got a laugh makes me wonder whether Stewart's audience warm-up includes nitrous oxide. But Stewart could not continue with that acknowledgment and still expect to rip Santelli for being a hypocrite, the most dastardly of demons in the pop pantheon of evil (except for those hypocrites on the political left, of course), because he would then be left without the necessary hypocrisy peg on which to hang Santelli for derision. So Stewart did the only thing he could do, he did a quick trick of the tongue to make the listener forget what he just said. . . .

Kyle Smith:

As I have said before, I don't watch "The Daily Show," but isn't it true that the only thing Jon Stewart has "won" is that he has successfully changed the subject? . . .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stewart is not attacking Cramer for making worthless predictions on the stock market. Cramer has been making wrong calls on the stock market for years, which is why no one on Wall Street takes him seriously. It's fun to watch him, off the top of his head, gibber about this or that company's earnings and that's that. He is hardly to blame for the stock market meltdown since nobody does what he says. If they did, there would be columns on him in the Wall Street Journal every time he says something, the same way the WSJ reports whatever Warren Buffet says.

Stewart is, I believe, attacking Cramer because Cramer said something that is pretty much undeniable: that the new president has been horrible for the stock market, destroying trillions of dollars of wealth on a Wall Street that stabilized and indeed perked up in the weeks before his inauguration. Cramer may say this in a loudmouth way, and Cramer may have been wrong every time he's tried to predict the future. . . .

But none of that means Cramer's wrong when he simply repeats the facts about what is going on right now. Charles Gasparino is a respected Wall Street reporter and his sources tell him Obama is driving them absolutely nuts -- even the guys who voted for Obama, of whom there are quite a few on the Street. Economists broadly supported Obama last fall and now give him low grades, according to this survey of 49 of them. Of course, the White House wants to change the subject from Obama's failures to Limbaugh, Cramer, et al, which is why Obama's flack is praising Jon Stewart.

Where are Jon Stewart's sources? Where are his Wall Street guys saying that Obama has been great for increasing the wealth of this country? If you think he's wrong, you have to rebut his argument -- not change the subject to whatever Cramer said last year or make fun of him making pies on Martha Stewart's show. . . .

I had never hear of Cramer before this affair, but it sounds to me like people may be taking both of these guys (Cramer and Stewart) way too seriously.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Cramer is a lousy prognosticator, but all of this is ironic because it's about two Democrats fighting over Obama's finance policy. Cramer's a famous Dem in business TV. I believe he cut his TV teeth as a foil for Larry Kudlow in Kudlow's comeback from being fired from Bear Stearns for drug problems. I watched a few times for kudlow, but Cramer drove me nuts with his screaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kyle Smith:

As I have said before, I don't watch "The Daily Show," but isn't it true that the only thing Jon Stewart has "won" is that he has successfully changed the subject? . . .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stewart is not attacking Cramer for making worthless predictions on the stock market. Cramer has been making wrong calls on the stock market for years, which is why no one on Wall Street takes him seriously. It's fun to watch him, off the top of his head, gibber about this or that company's earnings and that's that. He is hardly to blame for the stock market meltdown since nobody does what he says. If they did, there would be columns on him in the Wall Street Journal every time he says something, the same way the WSJ reports whatever Warren Buffet says.

Stewart is, I believe, attacking Cramer because Cramer said something that is pretty much undeniable: that the new president has been horrible for the stock market, destroying trillions of dollars of wealth on a Wall Street that stabilized and indeed perked up in the weeks before his inauguration. Cramer may say this in a loudmouth way, and Cramer may have been wrong every time he's tried to predict the future. . . .

But none of that means Cramer's wrong when he simply repeats the facts about what is going on right now. Charles Gasparino is a respected Wall Street reporter and his sources tell him Obama is driving them absolutely nuts -- even the guys who voted for Obama, of whom there are quite a few on the Street. Economists broadly supported Obama last fall and now give him low grades, according to this survey of 49 of them. Of course, the White House wants to change the subject from Obama's failures to Limbaugh, Cramer, et al, which is why Obama's flack is praising Jon Stewart.

Where are Jon Stewart's sources? Where are his Wall Street guys saying that Obama has been great for increasing the wealth of this country? If you think he's wrong, you have to rebut his argument -- not change the subject to whatever Cramer said last year or make fun of him making pies on Martha Stewart's show. . . .

I had never hear of Cramer before this affair, but it sounds to me like people may be taking both of these guys (Cramer and Stewart) way too seriously.

At least in all of the Cramer-specific Daily Show stuff, Stewart's never even *mentioned* Obama or policy or anything that would give anyone reason to believe that this is all about somehow protecting Obama. I don't watch the Daily Show every day because I don't get Comedy Central, but I've been following alot of the Stewart/Cramer stuff, and I've never even seen Obama's name brought up. Me thinks there is someone trying to change the subject here, but it looks to me like it's Kyle Smith, not Stewart. He criticizes Stewart for an argument that Stewart's not even making, and doesn't address any of the arguments that Stewart is making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

popechild wrote:

: At least in all of the Cramer-specific Daily Show stuff, Stewart's never even *mentioned* Obama . . .

The theory I've been hearing (and not just from Smith) is that CRAMER mentioned Obama -- on his own show, not Stewart's, if I remember correctly -- and that this is why Stewart narrowed his focus on Cramer as opposed to all the other financial pundits out there.

Alan Thomas wrote:

: This isn't a partisan issue . . .

Agreed -- as Rich noted, this is a fight between two Democrats, and not a fight between a Democrat and a Republican. But all of that is not to say that loyalty to the leader couldn't be an issue here, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to remember what movie I saw Jim Cramer on in the past year. It never came to me, so I looked it up. The answer is Iron Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kyle Smith:

As I have said before, I don't watch "The Daily Show," but isn't it true that the only thing Jon Stewart has "won" is that he has successfully changed the subject? . . .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stewart is not attacking Cramer for making worthless predictions on the stock market. Cramer has been making wrong calls on the stock market for years, which is why no one on Wall Street takes him seriously. It's fun to watch him, off the top of his head, gibber about this or that company's earnings and that's that. He is hardly to blame for the stock market meltdown since nobody does what he says. If they did, there would be columns on him in the Wall Street Journal every time he says something, the same way the WSJ reports whatever Warren Buffet says.

Stewart is, I believe, attacking Cramer because Cramer said something that is pretty much undeniable: that the new president has been horrible for the stock market, destroying trillions of dollars of wealth on a Wall Street that stabilized and indeed perked up in the weeks before his inauguration. Cramer may say this in a loudmouth way, and Cramer may have been wrong every time he's tried to predict the future. . . .

But none of that means Cramer's wrong when he simply repeats the facts about what is going on right now. Charles Gasparino is a respected Wall Street reporter and his sources tell him Obama is driving them absolutely nuts -- even the guys who voted for Obama, of whom there are quite a few on the Street. Economists broadly supported Obama last fall and now give him low grades, according to this survey of 49 of them. Of course, the White House wants to change the subject from Obama's failures to Limbaugh, Cramer, et al, which is why Obama's flack is praising Jon Stewart.

Where are Jon Stewart's sources? Where are his Wall Street guys saying that Obama has been great for increasing the wealth of this country? If you think he's wrong, you have to rebut his argument -- not change the subject to whatever Cramer said last year or make fun of him making pies on Martha Stewart's show. . . .

I had never hear of Cramer before this affair, but it sounds to me like people may be taking both of these guys (Cramer and Stewart) way too seriously.

At least in all of the Cramer-specific Daily Show stuff, Stewart's never even *mentioned* Obama or policy or anything that would give anyone reason to believe that this is all about somehow protecting Obama. I don't watch the Daily Show every day because I don't get Comedy Central, but I've been following alot of the Stewart/Cramer stuff, and I've never even seen Obama's name brought up. Me thinks there is someone trying to change the subject here, but it looks to me like it's Kyle Smith, not Stewart. He criticizes Stewart for an argument that Stewart's not even making, and doesn't address any of the arguments that Stewart is making.

I think it's amusing when politicos/pundits try to take on Stewart. They can't win. He hosts a comedy show. Sure, he uses that to his advantage and skewers his targets sometimes fairly, sometimes not as per his own views. But when they try to offer a "serious" rebuttal, it just makes them look like humorless doofuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darryl A. Armstrong wrote:

: I think it's amusing when politicos/pundits try to take on Stewart. They can't win. He hosts a comedy show. Sure, he uses that to his advantage and skewers his targets sometimes fairly, sometimes not as per his own views. But when they try to offer a "serious" rebuttal, it just makes them look like humorless doofuses.

Except, of course, when people take Stewart himself so seriously. (Whether Stewart HIMSELF takes himself so seriously is another question, I guess.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report regularly. Stewart v. Cramer was great TV. Cramer came across as whiny (and guilty), but how could he not? On the one hand, at times I respect Stewart's apparently genuine righteous anger. Sometimes it seems like he's the only one actually speaking truth to power and actually holding other media types accountable.

But like the Tucker Carlson episode, I think it's disingenuous of him to say "Hey, don't take us seriously. We're just a fake news show.". The days of TDS being about quirky old ladies in Alabama or some guy who's dream was do "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" as interpretive dance (ie. mean spirited mockery of everyday people) are over. They know people take them seriously now and they're proud of it. I mean, come on. They put it right out there in the opening credits, "More people get their news from The Daily Show ...".

Edited by Backrow Baptist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backrow Baptist wrote:

: . . . speaking truth to power . . .

Dear Lord, I am tired of that phrase. Especially when it is applied to alleged truth-speakers who are, themselves, power.

Not saying you're the one doing the applying in this case, necessarily. But many people HAVE been applying it to Stewart and others of his ilk, and it rankles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darryl A. Armstrong wrote:

: I think it's amusing when politicos/pundits try to take on Stewart. They can't win. He hosts a comedy show. Sure, he uses that to his advantage and skewers his targets sometimes fairly, sometimes not as per his own views. But when they try to offer a "serious" rebuttal, it just makes them look like humorless doofuses.

Except, of course, when people take Stewart himself so seriously. (Whether Stewart HIMSELF takes himself so seriously is another question, I guess.)

I guess that's part of the genius(?) of the show. He gets to play coy behind a mask of humor (and at times is very funny) while at the same time be perceived as a legitimate voice for the people. Personally, I prefer the Colbert Report (sometimes Stewart really grates my nerves), but at times like this, I think Stewart actually manages to create, as Backrow Baptist says, "great TV." Whatever his motivations and whatever his ultimate role is, Stewart manages to bring an alternative point of view - sometimes legitimate concerns - to the popular discussion.

Edited by Darryl A. Armstrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darryl A. Armstrong wrote:

: I guess that's part of the genius(?) of the show. He gets to play coy behind a mask of humor (and at times is very funny) while at the same time be perceived as a legitimate voice for the people.

He gets to "play" something while being "perceived" as something else? Hmmm. That doesn't sound too different from this assessment of what Stewart is up to:

In the movie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...