John Stewart = Losing "it"

kev

kev

CAGiversary!
John Stewart of the Daily Show has, over the last couple months, seemed to turn into more and more of the person he claims to hate. He has become a self-righteous and downright pompous at times interviewer with an incredible bias. He has always admitted to not supporting the president but he, unlike the people he has ranted about, also always did a great job of being very fair in his interviews. He questioned things and made fun of the clearly ridiculous stuff his guests spewed but he was never elitist about it.

Last night was one of Stewart's worst "interviews" I've ever seen. I do not agree with his politics but I stlil respected the guy for doing his job well. Last night he might as well have been any of the right wingers he rails about. He interviewed a virtually nobody in the world, Bernard Goldberg. Goldberg came to fame a couple years ago for writing "Bias" about broadcast news. He is a bit player otherwise. Goldman's new book is "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America" and John didn't let the guy explain any of his position instead constantly prodding Goldman on why the book wasn't about the government. Well, John, for the same reason this site is about video games and your show covers all sorts of topics. That's what the guy wanted to write.

Stewart insisted his point was right because he doesn't believe the country is screwed up; he thinks the "culture war" doesn't actually exist or, if it does, matter at all. He pointed to the fact that we don't have slavery any more to show our culture is stronger than before. Guess what John? That took a WAR to end. Civil Rights? That didn't exactly come peacefully. It took people constantly talking about it before anything even started.

Our culture has problems. There's a reason why American students lag behind most of the world and it isn't money. I teach in a poor public school and if you don't think culture is telling these kids school doesn't matter, you're nuts. 80% of my job is convincing them an education matters. That's culture pal. When Stewart gets on his soapbox and argues that it doesn't he ends up sounding like the Tucker Carlson's of the world.

I hope he watches a replay and notices how awful he came across last night.
 
You're wrong. Stewart was in fine form. Goldberg's book is intellectually shallow and Stewart called him on it. It was very similar to Stewart's Crossfire appearance in which he complain about focusing on the wrong things.

The book is also very biased which is one of the things Goldberg is complaining about.

FYI -Here is the list in order from #1 to #100

Michael Moore
Arthur Sulzberger publisher, NY Times
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Anthony Romero head of ACLU
Jimmy Carter
Margaret Marshall Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Paul Krugman columnist
Jonathan Kozol
Ralph Neas
Noam Chomsky
Dan Rather
Andrew Heyward
Mary Mapes
Ted Rall
John Edwards
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
George Soros
Howard Dean
Judge Roy Moore
Michael Newdow ...
The Unknown American Terrorist what?
Lee Bollinger former head of Michigan Law
James Kopp
Dr. Martin Haskell
Paul Begala
Julian Bond
John Green
Latrell Sprewell
Maury Povich
Jerry Springer
Bob Shrum
Bill Moyers
Jeff Danziger
Nancy Hopkins
Al Franken
Jim McDermott
Peter Singer
Scott Harshbarger
Susan Beresford
Gloria Steinem
Paul Eibeler
Dennis Kozlowski
Ken Lay
Barbara Walters
Maxine Waters
Robert Byrd
Ingrid Newkirk
John Vasconellos
Ann Pelo
Markos Moulitsas - dailydos blog
Anna Nicole Smith
Neal Shapiro
David Westin
Diane Sawyer
Ted Field
Eminem
Shirley Franklin
Ludacris
Michael Savage
Howard Stern
Amy Richards
James Wolcott
Oliver Stone
David Duke
Randall Robinson
Katherine Hanson
Matt Kunitz
Jimmy Swaggart
Phil Donahue
Ward Churchill
Barbara Kingsolver
Katha Politt
Eric Foner
Barbara Foley
Linda Hirshman
Norman Mailer
Harry Belafonte
Kitty Kelley
Tim Robbins
Laurie David
The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity
The Vicious Celebrity
The Dumb Celebrity
Chris Ofili
Sheldon Hackney
Aaron McGruder
Jane Smiley
Michael Jackson
Barbara Streisand
Kerri Dunn
Richard Timmons
Guy Velella
Courtney Love
Eve Ensler
Todd Goldman
Sheila Jackson Lee
Matthew Lesko
Rick and Kathy Hilton
 
So this is a ridulous rant about how the daily show isn't as radically liberal as it should be?

If only you people realized that the daily show isn't supposed to be a liberal talk show. IT's supposed to be a comedy show that makes fun of the news. NOT POLITICS. Of course Stewart and his liberal agenda changed all that and now the radicals on this board kiss his ass and hail him as a saviour. Hence this dumb thread.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']So this is a ridulous rant about how the daily show isn't as radically liberal as it should be?

If only you people realized that the daily show isn't supposed to be a liberal talk show. IT's supposed to be a comedy show that makes fun of the news. NOT POLITICS. Of course Stewart and his liberal agenda changed all that and now the radicals on this board kiss his ass and hail him as a saviour. Hence this dumb thread.[/QUOTE]

It seems like you're one of the few people here who don't like him, his popularity seems to span the political spectrum, just focusing on liberals.

Though I like how he complained about savage in that long list, he's really an idiot. I've listened to probably about 6-7 hours of him (plus probably equal amounts of hannity and o'riley in that time), as you don't get anything interesting on the radio in the middle of new york state. The only one of those hosts who get's even a tiny amount of respect from me is o'riley. He's conservative, thinks he's always right and too aggressive with people, but he at least makes token acknowledgement that other sides exist and have a point.

Though, scrub, can you be a liberal without being a radical?
 
[quote name='Scrubking']So this is a ridulous rant about how the daily show isn't as radically liberal as it should be?
.[/QUOTE]

no it isn't try reading it again.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It seems like you're one of the few people here who don't like him, his popularity seems to span the political spectrum, just focusing on liberals.

Though I like how he complained about savage in that long list, he's really an idiot. I've listened to probably about 6-7 hours of him (plus probably equal amounts of hannity and o'riley in that time), as you don't get anything interesting on the radio in the middle of new york state. The only one of those hosts who get's even a tiny amount of respect from me is o'riley. He's conservative, thinks he's always right and too aggressive with people, but he at least makes token acknowledgement that other sides exist and have a point.

Though, scrub, can you be a liberal without being a radical?[/QUOTE]

Count me in for not liking Stewart.

He ruined Big Daddy!:bomb:
 
[quote name='Derwood43']Count me in for not liking Stewart.

He ruined Big Daddy!:bomb:[/QUOTE]

And as we all know, ruining Big Daddy is like picking the last peanut out of a perfectly good turd! :)
 
I had heard about Goldberg's new book but this is the first time I read the list. Wow, he's not even pretending to be non-biased anymore. What a hack!
 
[quote name='kev']John Stewart of the Daily Show has, over the last couple months, seemed to turn into more and more of the person he claims to hate. He has become a self-righteous and downright pompous at times interviewer with an incredible bias. He has always admitted to not supporting the president but he, unlike the people he has ranted about, also always did a great job of being very fair in his interviews. He questioned things and made fun of the clearly ridiculous stuff his guests spewed but he was never elitist about it.

Last night was one of Stewart's worst "interviews" I've ever seen. I do not agree with his politics but I stlil respected the guy for doing his job well. Last night he might as well have been any of the right wingers he rails about. He interviewed a virtually nobody in the world, Bernard Goldman. Goldman came to fame a couple years ago for writing "Bias" about broadcast news. He is a bit player otherwise. Goldman's new book is "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America" and John didn't let the guy explain any of his position instead constantly prodding Goldman on why the book wasn't about the government. Well, John, for the same reason this site is about video games and your show covers all sorts of topics. That's what the guy wanted to write.

Stewart insisted his point was right because he doesn't believe the country is screwed up; he thinks the "culture war" doesn't actually exist or, if it does, matter at all. He pointed to the fact that we don't have slavery any more to show our culture is stronger than before. Guess what John? That took a WAR to end. Civil Rights? That didn't exactly come peacefully. It took people constantly talking about it before anything even started.

Our culture has problems. There's a reason why American students lag behind most of the world and it isn't money. I teach in a poor public school and if you don't think culture is telling these kids school doesn't matter, you're nuts. 80% of my job is convincing them an education matters. That's culture pal. When Stewart gets on his soapbox and argues that it doesn't he ends up sounding like the Tucker Carlson's of the world.

I hope he watches a replay and notices how awful he came across last night.[/QUOTE]

Goldberg made a name for himself vias Bias, in the process perpetuating the idea that our entire media is liberally slanted (even if he spent his career to that point at CBS). It doesn't matter if Goldberg's regularly considered a laughable source due to his status as a bitter ex-employee of CBS. What does matter is the audacity of this asshole, who would have remained a nobody in journalism if he didn't pen a book that helps keep us divided against each other in a false political dichotomy, in not including himself in the list of 100.
 
[quote name='1modernboy']And as we all know, ruining Big Daddy is like picking the last peanut out of a perfectly good turd! :)[/QUOTE]


Nothing better than a good BM:booty:
 
Most on the right are deathly afraid to read Chomsky, and most on the left are too high to read Chomsky.

Me? Shit, I'll agree with you camoor, but good lord n' butter Chomsky's as brilliant as he is boring....zzzzzzzzzzzz.
 
I usually enjoy Stewart, but I will agree that interview was horrible. While the author missed the point and made it more political instead of a pop culture thing, Stewart seemed to ignore the social aspect of it and way overused the Barbara Streisand example. It's not just the government, it's what people do with their freedom of speech and expression too that influence the youth. Though Stewart was in the right to point out the political leanings of the book. I watched it at 1 in the morning last night, so I may have missed something(can't view media at work)

I will say I thought he did a good job when Colin Powell was on the show a while ago.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It seems like you're one of the few people here who don't like him, his popularity seems to span the political spectrum, just focusing on liberals.

Though I like how he complained about savage in that long list, he's really an idiot. I've listened to probably about 6-7 hours of him (plus probably equal amounts of hannity and o'riley in that time), as you don't get anything interesting on the radio in the middle of new york state. The only one of those hosts who get's even a tiny amount of respect from me is o'riley. He's conservative, thinks he's always right and too aggressive with people, but he at least makes token acknowledgement that other sides exist and have a point.

Though, scrub, can you be a liberal without being a radical?[/QUOTE]


I'd consider myself more liberal than republican and I, personally can't stand him. Mainly for the same reasons that the OP stated about him being pompous and too political. I could see this coming in the last election and I have a feeling its only going to get worse from here on out.

Scrubking's right, the Daily Show started out as a satirical news program but now it seems to be just an extension of comedy-political books like Al Franken (well the way he used to be anyway). Even if I consider myself a liberal I hate seeing politics when I turn on a comedy station.

We had that discussion in another thread in this forum about the liberal media bias. The problem is, in the "big 3" news programs its subtle, with the daily show they might as well run a DNC endorsement before the beginning of every episode.

Oh and since Savage was brought up. I've listened to him quite a bit myself and, wow, just wow. I can't believe that there are people out there that are so outrightly bigoted toward minorities and women that hide their beliefs behind the banner of political beliefs.
 
Well since the Republicans control all three branches of government at the moment, of course the Daily Show is making fun of them. The show wouldn't last long if they were still doing nothing but Clinton jokes.

And let's face facts here, between the changing rationales for the Iraqi war, cheerleading for the war that would make the former Iraqi spokeman blush, the bungling of all domestic policies, Karl Rove and Valerie Plame, the Terri Schiavo three-ring circus, and Rick Santorum, Republicans are just begging to be ridiculed. :lol:
 
[quote name='usickenme']You're wrong. Stewart was in fine form. Goldberg's book is intellectually shallow and Stewart called him on it. It was very similar to Stewart's Crossfire appearance in which he complain about focusing on the wrong things.
[/QUOTE]

I watched it again this morning and I'm not wrong. He did very little to call out the book as "intellectually shallow" (which you ripped right off the link in the second post btw, nice) he was targeting his complaints at the concept of the book period which he didn't even let Goldberg defend. He just stated that he didn't think anything was wrong with the culture and joked his way out of ever letting Goldberg say otherwise. It was a poor interview. He didn't rip the book for being a partisan hackjob (which I'm sure it is) he ripped the entire concept of our current culture having problems. The only problems in America are the government according to his view. I know he doesn't truly believe that. He has just become terribly self-righteous since the Crossfire thing. He usually covers it well enough but lately he's just given up on trying.
 
The problem is that, yet again, the Republicans are trying to do their little distraction song and dance. The president lied about reasons for going to war, went in with no real plan of action of how to accomplish their goals, Rove outed an undercover CIA agent as an act of political revenge against someone who told the truth, etc, etc. The Republican response? Look, Barbara Streisand said something sorta bad about America a couple of years ago! Its all her fault!

Its an absolutely pathetic distraction technique that's worked for way too long now. It simply doesn't deserve any more attention (not that it deserved any in the first place.)
 
[quote name='kev']I watched it again this morning and I'm not wrong. He did very little to call out the book as "intellectually shallow" (which you ripped right off the link in the second post btw, nice) he was targeting his complaints at the concept of the book period which he didn't even let Goldberg defend. He just stated that he didn't think anything was wrong with the culture and joked his way out of ever letting Goldberg say otherwise. It was a poor interview. He didn't rip the book for being a partisan hackjob (which I'm sure it is) he ripped the entire concept of our current culture having problems. The only problems in America are the government according to his view. I know he doesn't truly believe that. He has just become terribly self-righteous since the Crossfire thing. He usually covers it well enough but lately he's just given up on trying.[/QUOTE]

sorry but I came up with "intellectually shallow" all on my own. I keep in on my clipboard for hacks like Goldberg.

The thing is, Goldberg couldn't defend the book because he wants it both ways. He wants to say it is a hard look at the cultural slide of America and then he then turns it into a book of lists in which mostly liberal people who are screwing america. The book wasn't called "Is there a culture war in America" so I don't fault Stewart for taking up that arguement.

I suggest you view it one more time and find where stewart says he didn't think there was anything the culture? He says the "culture war" is a red herring. Stewart said he excepts culture to get worse because we need more stimuli. He also said "I don't disagree that certain broadcast limits have been lessened or weakended over the years but there is a larger issue of people in power creating problems". Stewart is consistant speaking in relative terms.

What you say Stewart says and what he actually says doesn't match. Sorry.

Besides it is his show..he can direct the discussion.
 
I finally watched the interview, and it's clearly the audience that fucks things up, not Stewart. Stewart is playing the role of irreverent prick, and that's how he interviews everyone. What kinds of statements or questions lead you to believe that his treatment of Goldberg was any different than another guest?

The crowd for TDS are fans of Jon Stewart, are almost certainly liberal, and, if they don't know Goldberg's literary past, the subtitle of the book he's hawking ("Al Franken is #37") is a pretty solid symbolic indicator of how they're going to react to him (and how he wants to be perceived).

Goldberg completely ignored, if you want to take this interview seriously, the fact that so many of the people Goldberg singles out in the book (Streisand, for instance) have conservative counterparts (Charlie Daniels) that Goldberg ignored. Go back and look at that list, and consider how many lefties are included, while their right-wing equivalents are nowhere to be found.

Michael Moore, Ted Rall, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Kitty Kelley: Where are Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, John O'Neill, Peggy Noonan, etc? Where's Ed Motherfucking Klein?

Howard Dean? Where's Ken Mehlman?

Harry Belafonte, Barbara Streisand, Tim Robbins? Where are Charlie Daniels, Gary Sinise, Dennis Miller?

Dan Rather? My ass, where is John Gibson, who in the past week has expressed his interest, on air, to see terrorists attack France? Who's fucking up America?

OP, you're just wrong. Goldberg is a man who recognizes who his consumer base is (just like Jon Stewart). He was upset because the audience laughed in his face when trying to defend why Ludacris is ruining the country and politicians are disturbingly underrepresented in this text (unless they're democrats like Dean, John Edwards, and Ted Kennedy; where are Bush, Cheney, Rove, Negroponte, Rice, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et al).

Goldberg would have you believe that the parents of Paris Hilton, Ludacris, Eminem, and such terrible, hateful and most certainly parasitic people as Jesse Jackson and George Soros are far worse and far more dangerous than anyone in this administration. As I've become fond of saying, my ass.

This book is a piece of shit partisan hatchet job that distracts the mongoloids willing to plop $25 down on the thing from the fact that our administration is self-serving, lying, clueless, and willing to exploit our military for their vindicitveness and the financial betterment of the already financially well-off. Do you think that Paris Hilton sucking a cock on the internet is worse than near 1,800 dead soldiers?

This book is a piece of shit, and the audience was smart to it. Don't be mad at Stewart, he behaved as he always behaves (smarmy). Don't be mad at the audience because they're far smarter than those who watch the O'Reilly Factor. Be ashamed that this is the kind of text that is making the political rounds, and that people take the impending doom courtesy of Hollywood celebrities seriously.

Go watch Teletubbies if you're so offended.
 
Way OT: Why do idiots pick on Ludacris? He's pretty much a goofball, and although clearly a misogynist, doesn't take himself seriously and doesn't portray himself as tough and as dangerous as other Hip-Hop stars. O'Reilly wanted to boycott Pepsi (?) when Ludacris signed a deal with them to sell soda. Why aren't they more offended by people like (and I may get this wrong, since I know squat about Hip-Hop) 50 Cent or any of the Cash Money Records guys (Birdman, C-Murder, umm....and the other guys)? I dunno, but picking on Ludacris is like picking on the least dangerous Hip-Hop star out there, ya know?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I dunno, but picking on Ludacris is like picking on the least dangerous Hip-Hop star out there, ya know?[/QUOTE]

It's like the time Eminem tried to start a feud with Moby.

Nothing like going up against a vegan pacifist to prove your manhood :lol:

I notice that O'Reilly never picks on the exploitative trash coming out of Fox entertainment (Glutton Bowl and That 70s Show come to mind...)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Way OT: Why do idiots pick on Ludacris? He's pretty much a goofball, and although clearly a misogynist, doesn't take himself seriously and doesn't portray himself as tough and as dangerous as other Hip-Hop stars. O'Reilly wanted to boycott Pepsi (?) when Ludacris signed a deal with them to sell soda. Why aren't they more offended by people like (and I may get this wrong, since I know squat about Hip-Hop) 50 Cent or any of the Cash Money Records guys (Birdman, C-Murder, umm....and the other guys)? I dunno, but picking on Ludacris is like picking on the least dangerous Hip-Hop star out there, ya know?[/QUOTE]

I don't think C-Murder is on Cash Money.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I finally watched the interview, and it's clearly the audience that fucks things up, not Stewart. Stewart is playing the role of irreverent prick, and that's how he interviews everyone. What kinds of statements or questions lead you to believe that his treatment of Goldberg was any different than another guest?

[/QUOTE]

Out of all the comments on this topic this is about the most wrong. You think he treats every guest that way? Watch the episode where he has someone like Howard Dean on, then say that. He hardly even ask questions, let alone anything near confrontational or even difficult and those interviews aren't really that funny IMO. It's obvious he leans left but if he wants to play the journalism game then he should act like a decent journalist and actually ask some interesting questions. Hell he doesn't even act the same way he did with Goldberg when it's a celebrity on there.

Stewart is a hypocrite cut and dry. He acts like there's this huge problem with today's media being polarized and his show is an equal offender. Then he often tries to pass it off as saying it's not really a news show, clearly ignoring the fact that his own audience even admits to viewing the show for their daily intake of news. And remember when the Daily show had bits and stories that involved something other than politics? I sure do, but now even some whole episodes are just revolving around politics or political guests/topics. The show is supposed to be funny and I don't even watch it that much anymore because I know ahead of time about 80% of the jokes will be based on politics and to me political jokes get old real quick.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Out of all the comments on this topic this is about the most wrong. You think he treats every guest that way? Watch the episode where he has someone like Howard Dean on, then say that. He hardly even ask questions, let alone anything near confrontational or even difficult and those interviews aren't really that funny IMO. It's obvious he leans left but if he wants to play the journalism game then he should act like a decent journalist and actually ask some interesting questions. Hell he doesn't even act the same way he did with Goldberg when it's a celebrity on there.

Stewart is a hypocrite cut and dry. He acts like there's this huge problem with today's media being polarized and his show is an equal offender. Then he often tries to pass it off as saying it's not really a news show, clearly ignoring the fact that his own audience even admits to viewing the show for their daily intake of news. And remember when the Daily show had bits and stories that involved something other than politics? I sure do, but now even some whole episodes are just revolving around politics or political guests/topics. The show is supposed to be funny and I don't even watch it that much anymore because I know ahead of time about 80% of the jokes will be based on politics and to me political jokes get old real quick.[/QUOTE]

I think you're on to something, and I'm not going to completely disagree with you. However, it was the audience that outed Goldberg as a fraud, and Goldberg reacted badly to it, while Stewart used it to his advantage. I would like to think that, if Dean had some piece of shit book to sell, Stewart would call him on it. Go back and watch it, and tell me that Stewart is the one who gets hostile or inquisitive first. I simply don't see it, as he's laughing while telling Goldberg that his books is a compilation of distractions meant to keep our minds off of real issues that matter in this world. Bernard Goldberg and the audience are just as responsible for the outcome of this interview as Jon Stewart is.
 
[quote name='camoor']LOL Howard Stern (Oh no, fart jokes on the radio!)

And Noam Chomsky is one of the most brilliant men alive today.[/QUOTE]

I attended a chomsky speech (the campus SPHR was hosting him), being smart doesn't mean you can't be a smart wacko.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I attended a chomsky speech (the campus SPHR was hosting him), being smart doesn't mean you can't be a smart wacko.[/QUOTE]

Chomsky has a great deal of courage, and he speaks his mind. What do you specifically disagree with him on?
 
[quote name='camoor']Chomsky has a great deal of courage, and he speaks his mind. What do you specifically disagree with him on?[/QUOTE]

While I don't think he's a wacko, I think that people interpret all of his writings as full-on endorsements of anarchism (what he calls "social libertarianism"). I have a few friends who are poorly politically informed, some of whom think anarchism is a great idea. While I don't fully agree or disagree with the idea, the notion they have (while i can't say anything for Chomsky in this regard) fails to take into account the tremendous social uprooting and problems caused by an immediate transition into anarchism ("where will we go to get hamburgers now?"). They don't seem to think that a slow transition is more benevolent to our society. fuckin' black bloc'ers.

Then again, to show that the political spectrum is more of a circle than a spectrum (that extremist ideologies on the left are closer to extremist ideologies on the right than anything else), they're all gun-toting libertarians now (they hate my "big government love").

Chomsky's a fantastic critic; he holds historical/political data the way people can rattle off trivia about professional sports at the drop of a hat.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Out of all the comments on this topic this is about the most wrong. You think he treats every guest that way? Watch the episode where he has someone like Howard Dean on, then say that. He hardly even ask questions, let alone anything near confrontational or even difficult and those interviews aren't really that funny IMO. It's obvious he leans left but if he wants to play the journalism game then he should act like a decent journalist and actually ask some interesting questions. Hell he doesn't even act the same way he did with Goldberg when it's a celebrity on there.

Stewart is a hypocrite cut and dry. He acts like there's this huge problem with today's media being polarized and his show is an equal offender. Then he often tries to pass it off as saying it's not really a news show, clearly ignoring the fact that his own audience even admits to viewing the show for their daily intake of news. And remember when the Daily show had bits and stories that involved something other than politics? I sure do, but now even some whole episodes are just revolving around politics or political guests/topics. The show is supposed to be funny and I don't even watch it that much anymore because I know ahead of time about 80% of the jokes will be based on politics and to me political jokes get old real quick.[/QUOTE]
:applause:

Stewart is clearly a liberal. I can remember when he had a radical liberal on his show and did not care that the guest reffered to conservatives as "neo cons" and even joined in the name calling himself. And whenever he has a conservative on he acts sarcastic and makes fun of everything they say. The best evidence of his political leanings is how radical liberals kiss his ass and worship him.

Steward killed the daily show. I used to like the daily show a lot until he turned it into a radical, political piece of shit.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']:applause:

Stewart is clearly a liberal. I can remember when he had a radical liberal on his show and did not care that the guest reffered to conservatives as "neo cons" and even joined in the name calling himself. And whenever he has a conservative on he acts sarcastic and makes fun of everything they say. The best evidence of his political leanings is how radical liberals kiss his ass and worship him.

Steward killed the daily show. I used to like the daily show a lot until he turned it into a radical, political piece of shit.[/QUOTE]
Is "Neo Con" really a negative term? I wasn't aware.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Stewart is clearly a liberal. I can remember when he had a radical liberal on his show and did not care that the guest reffered to conservatives as "neo cons" and even joined in the name calling himself. And whenever he has a conservative on he acts sarcastic and makes fun of everything they say. The best evidence of his political leanings is how radical liberals kiss his ass and worship him.[/QUOTE]
When did "neo cons" become a perjorative? I've heard it used in many news stories to distinguish the current administration from traditional fiscal conservatives. Granted, I would never want to be called one, but I don't think it qualifies as the new "N" word. :lol:
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Is "Neo Con" really a negative term? I wasn't aware.[/QUOTE]

Let's just say that the guest wasn't using the term to warm up to conservatives.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Let's just say that the guest wasn't using the term to warm up to conservatives.[/QUOTE]
So it's not a bad term then. It just gets used the way conservatives use "liberal". :lol:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Let's just say that the guest wasn't using the term to warm up to conservatives.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps by your interpretation. It sounds pretty neutral to me. Like someone else noted, it's simply a way of distinguishing the past/present conservative mentality.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Let's just say that the guest wasn't using the term to warm up to conservatives.[/QUOTE]

Oh, balls. You can piss and moan about it if it is inaccurate (Karl Rove eats the placentas of Jewish babies for breakfast!), but now you're getting uptight about an *accurate* depiction? p'shaw! I hope you get just as uptight when Goldberg uses the term "liberal" to describe...my god, liberals!
 
Now, this is coming from someone who considers himself a conservative for the most part, but I think Stewart was right to call Goldberg out on it, and for that matter, after seeing it, it was nowhere near as bad as some of you are making it out to be. You made it seem like Goldberg could never get a word in, where he did get to say things, he just wasn't making a coherent argument against what Stewart was saying. He was in no way acting out of how he normally acts towards his guests who aren't big name liberals, like when Kerry was on. That's how Stewart is. Get over it.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, but I think Stewart was completely right about how Goldberg was writing the book. There's no way you can look past the fact that Goldberg was leaving out conservatives who were the exact counterpoint to the liberals he listed. The book, from what I've heard, truly is just a hackjob meant to say "Liberals suck and are ruining America."
 
Maybe I'm the only one that thinks this thread just isn't about Goldberg, I could could give a crap about Goldberg to be honest, I'm not gonna read his book because I don't much care for him or believe what he has to say. I think this thread is more about Stewart though. Watch this intrerview with Michael Moore, whom I consider just a big of a hack in his field as Goldberg, I think it's fair to say that these were mostly softball questions that played straight to Moore. Nothing was nearly as confrontational as when Goldberg, or other conservatives guests, are on.

http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/michaelmoore/6-24-04-michaelmoore-all.mov

Plenty of things could've been said to Moore which weren't, or take fellow bias author Al Franken's interview, Stewart a comedian himself, does more laughing than asking any questions and he he does talk it's not to say anything to challenge Franken's ideas or point of view. I like this interview with Chuck Schumer, a Democrat that's Senator in New York, but I dunno that I'd call him a big-time liberal.

http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/nov2004/nov032004/11-03-04-schumer1of2.mov

Some more nice, easy questions there. I especially like the part where he talks about his understanding of the apparent importance of the culture war, something a mere 7 or 8 months he doesn't apparently believe in or thinks matters much.

I don't really consider myself too much of a liberal or a conservative, in tis situation that doesn't even matter because I think most everyone on the Daily can be very funny, yet anymore it seems to be the same basic joke over and over. However I'm more of a person who doesn't put much faith arrogant hypocrites either, a category I think Stewart has fell into as of late. He goes on places like Crossfire to discuss how polarized media hurts America, but has a very polarized opinion and TV presentation himself. Notice when Moore says Stewart does the same things as him he doesn't exactly deny it. Speaking of which, how can he say the culture war in the media makes so little difference when all he has to do is look to his crowd to see people that aer obviously influenced politically by our media? To me that doesn't make too much sense. So in respone to the actual topic of whether or not Stewart is losing "it", if you asked me that, I'd say yes he is.
 
So the satirical comedy show isn't fair and balanced. The show is set up to make fun of the people in power and unfortunately right now, it's the Republicans. Congratulations! You won the election. Now suffer your slings and arrows.

The only thing people are losing around here is a sense of humor.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I don't really consider myself too much of a liberal or a conservative[/QUOTE]

Noone does*, because you would change if you did.

* Although it must be tough for Scrubking to shove his head that far up his posterior.
 
[quote name='camoor']Chomsky has a great deal of courage, and he speaks his mind. What do you specifically disagree with him on?[/QUOTE]

Well, one major issue I have with chomsky (outside of the realm of politics, but is an important issue in psychology and linguistics) is his insistance (or at least until relatively recently) that other animals lack any form of language (which evidence clearly suggests otherwise), and his ideas seem to often work against improvements in animal treatment in research.

Chomsky seems to have adopted an attitude like malkins (who uses her ethnicity to support racial profiling and japanese internment), where he attacks "radical new york jews" and similar things in ways that would cause problems for non jews, another issue I have is his apparent support for some known holocause deniers. There also the issue of apparent tacit support of the khmer rouge and his attack on u.s. defense of bosnians.

But, the speech that I saw (which focused on Iraq and palestine, since it was being hosted by a palestinian rights group), it's essentially how far he goes, and from what else I've seen that tends to be the issue with him and the issue I have with many radicals. I agree with the base principles, they just go way too far.
 
I love how a fake news show on Comedy Central is somehow held up to the same standards as "real" news. I blame Fox.
 
Like it or not people find more worth in the Daily Show than in anything the 'real' media offers. So again in a way Stewart has the unenviable position of being a symbol of how the media SHOULD be.

The Goldberg interview reminded me of Tucker Carlson trying to get Stewart to be his monkey and hopefully Stewart will not behave like that again. I like his show because its more or less honest (unless John Kerry or Moore is on) and tries to be fair...but that interview was nothing like the TDS I've come to know and love.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's like the time Eminem tried to start a feud with Moby.

Nothing like going up against a vegan pacifist to prove your manhood :lol:

I notice that O'Reilly never picks on the exploitative trash coming out of Fox entertainment (Glutton Bowl and That 70s Show come to mind...)[/QUOTE]

Don't forget one of the biggest pieces of trash EVER that Fox put out: "The Swan". GOD I fucking hate that show. Tear a bunch of normal women down who got some problems they could fix somewhat from excersize and turn them into Barbie. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Plastic Surgery when it's used for restorative reasons but otherwise no, at least for the most part. If a woman wants to get Breast Surgery to make herself feel better than so be it, just don't go overboard. I remember those Jenny Jones shows where she'd get it too big and look like a skank clotheswise or just dress scantily.
Oh and another couple of shows are "Married By America" and "I Want To Marry A Millionaire".
Btw I have bad news. Someone told me Fox is launching a reality channel called "Fox Reality Channel" or something like that. Jeez just fucking burn that channel down along with E! for the most part since Stern is leaving and I don't know how good "Talk Soup" is anymore.
Wow alonzo. Some of that stuff I don't agree with Chomsky on. shudders. What's this about Malkin and the Internment camps btw? However I think I will read some of his and Zinn's stuff. Btw why isn't Zinn listed in that book? Also I agree it's once again biased because all he lists are Liberals for the most part.
On a separate note I wish Hannity would go on the Daily Show as well as Coulture since Stewart would fucking RIP them apart!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Chomsky seems to have adopted an attitude like malkins (who uses her ethnicity to support racial profiling and japanese internment), where he attacks "radical new york jews" and similar things in ways that would cause problems for non jews, another issue I have is his apparent support for some known holocause deniers. There also the issue of apparent tacit support of the khmer rouge and his attack on u.s. defense of bosnians.

But, the speech that I saw (which focused on Iraq and palestine, since it was being hosted by a palestinian rights group), it's essentially how far he goes, and from what else I've seen that tends to be the issue with him and the issue I have with many radicals. I agree with the base principles, they just go way too far.[/QUOTE]

LOL I was just talking about politics.

Yeah, he does have some out-there ideas but I like his core philosophy. I don't think there are many people that I agree 100% with.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Don't forget one of the biggest pieces of trash EVER that Fox put out: "The Swan". GOD I fucking hate that show. Tear a bunch of normal women down who got some problems they could fix somewhat from excersize and turn them into Barbie. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Plastic Surgery when it's used for restorative reasons but otherwise no, at least for the most part. If a woman wants to get Breast Surgery to make herself feel better than so be it, just don't go overboard. I remember those Jenny Jones shows where she'd get it too big and look like a skank clotheswise or just dress scantily.
Oh and another couple of shows are "Married By America" and "I Want To Marry A Millionaire".
Btw I have bad news. Someone told me Fox is launching a reality channel called "Fox Reality Channel" or something like that. Jeez just fucking burn that channel down along with E! for the most part since Stern is leaving and I don't know how good "Talk Soup" is anymore.
Wow alonzo. Some of that stuff I don't agree with Chomsky on. shudders. What's this about Malkin and the Internment camps btw? However I think I will read some of his and Zinn's stuff. Btw why isn't Zinn listed in that book? Also I agree it's once again biased because all he lists are Liberals for the most part.
On a separate note I wish Hannity would go on the Daily Show as well as Coulture since Stewart would fucking RIP them apart![/QUOTE]


Forgot to show you this earlier, since you asked. Here's malkins own site speaking about her book defending japanese internment and racial profiling: http://michellemalkin.com/aboutidoi.htm

If you want to read a book decrying the loss of personal freedom in wartime America, this is the wrong book. If you want to read a book about the history of institutional discrimination against minorities in America, you’re out of luck again. Bookstores, library shelves, and classrooms are already filled with pedantic tomes, legal analyses, and educational propaganda along these conventional lines.

In Defense of Internment provides a radical departure from the predominant literature of civil liberties absolutism. It offers a defense of the most reviled wartime policies in American history: the evacuation, relocation, and internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II (three separate actions which are commonly lumped under the umbrella term “internment”). My book is also a defense of racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality profiling (widely differing measures that are commonly lumped under the umbrella term “racial profiling”) now being taken or contemplated during today’s War on Terror.

I was compelled to write this book after watching ethnic activists, historians, and politicians repeatedly play the World War II internment card after the September 11 attacks. The Bush Administration’s critics have equated every reasonable measure to interrogate, track, detain, and deport potential terrorists with the “racist” and “unjustified” World War II internment policies of President Roosevelt. To make amends for this “shameful blot” on our history, both Japanese-American and Arab/Muslim-American activists argue against any and all uses of race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in shaping current homeland security policies. Misguided guilt about the past continues to hamper our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top