Menu Bar
Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Jon Stewart of the Daily Show gives Tucker Carlson what's for.
Oct 15, 2004 5:36 PM
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Now, all we need is for Jon Stewart to go over to Fox and do the same thing on one of their shows. The obvious choice would be The O'Reilly Factor with Bill "Falafel Pussy" O'Reilly.
Not like Bill hasn't already shown himself to be a total hypocrite already, though.
Not like Bill hasn't already shown himself to be a total hypocrite already, though.
By: Demolition
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
And remember, his show is lead into by puppets making crank phone calls.
By: SpawnOfThrawn
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
You would think guys like that could have defended themselfs better.. Jon really owned them
By: Big-Beaver
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
How can anyone take a man in a bow tie seriously?
But its true, the media has really become like a political version of bi-polar disorder.
But its true, the media has really become like a political version of bi-polar disorder.
By: Paelos
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
You could say the same thing about the American public I hate to say especially during these times.
By: PookiePoo
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
I posted it :P, this Jon Stewart is the best, he scores as he thinks.
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
ByteBaron beat you by 4 days on the submission but the link went dead and was hidden. This good link was used in it's place.
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Jon Stewart was extremely rude. In short, he entirely prevented any dialogue and rational discussion with his bad manners, while, paradoxically, making the point that there should be dialogue rational discussion.
"Let's discuss things rationally, you liers and demagogues, you're a tool of the political hegemony." -- Jon Stewart
"I'm pretty offended, and deep down, I probably want to kick your ass." -- thinks that other guy.
~
And the point he makes about the daily show as having an entirely separate standard than crossfine is completely absurd.
"Let's discuss things rationally, you liers and demagogues, you're a tool of the political hegemony." -- Jon Stewart
"I'm pretty offended, and deep down, I probably want to kick your ass." -- thinks that other guy.
~
And the point he makes about the daily show as having an entirely separate standard than crossfine is completely absurd.
By: q335r49
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
How is it absurd? Let's see.. The Daily Show is a COMEDY show. Crossfire is not (at least not intentionally).
By: Deadbolt13
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Actually, Carlson proved Stewart's point for him. Instead of defending his own show against Stewart's charge, he shot back with an "et tu" ad hominem attack, which is known by any serious debater to be a logical fallacy, thereby supporting Jon's point that Crossfire isn't about real debate. And even if Carlson's irrelevant "I know you are but what am I" countercharge had any merit, which it doesn't, it would *at best* (or worst) suggest that Jon might be a hypocrite; but it still wouldn't do a single thing to defend Crossfire against the original charge.
By: quisph
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Well, as funny as Jon Stewart is, even though The Daily Show is running a little dry, he's just a comic with a left-wing point of view.
By: fudrom
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
"Instead of defending his own show against Stewart's charge, he shot back with an "et tu" ad hominem attack, which is known by any serious debater to be a logical fallacy"
I'd recommend you read my post again because THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT -- there WAS no rational discussion, and this is becasue Jon Stewart didn't allow it because he was an ass.
"How is it absurd? Let's see.. The Daily Show is a COMEDY show. Crossfire is not (at least not intentionally). "
The opposition he makes between Comedy/Debate is absurd, they're both entertainment. If the implicit argument is that daily show can't be a ground for a few minutes of rational discussion because the network demands comedy, then the same can be argued for crossfine: it can't be the grounds of rational discussion because the network demands excitement. Both are ENTERTAINMENT.
Now, is, as Jon Stewart claims, Crossfire somehow more immoral than the Daily Show? Completely silly. Jon Stewart is making a moral argument but not practicing it, he is a hypocrite in the purest sense.
Fundamentally, Jon Stewart's "morality if media" argument and his tasteless holier-than-thou performance is very distasteful.
I'd recommend you read my post again because THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT -- there WAS no rational discussion, and this is becasue Jon Stewart didn't allow it because he was an ass.
"How is it absurd? Let's see.. The Daily Show is a COMEDY show. Crossfire is not (at least not intentionally). "
The opposition he makes between Comedy/Debate is absurd, they're both entertainment. If the implicit argument is that daily show can't be a ground for a few minutes of rational discussion because the network demands comedy, then the same can be argued for crossfine: it can't be the grounds of rational discussion because the network demands excitement. Both are ENTERTAINMENT.
Now, is, as Jon Stewart claims, Crossfire somehow more immoral than the Daily Show? Completely silly. Jon Stewart is making a moral argument but not practicing it, he is a hypocrite in the purest sense.
Fundamentally, Jon Stewart's "morality if media" argument and his tasteless holier-than-thou performance is very distasteful.
By: q335r49
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
How can something that's tasteless be distasteful at the same time?
By: Original_Gordon
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
How can it not be?
Jon Stewart IS a hypocrite, even though his show is a comedy, it is so blatantly biased, only people who are Kerry lovers really enjoy it.
Jon Stewart IS a hypocrite, even though his show is a comedy, it is so blatantly biased, only people who are Kerry lovers really enjoy it.
By: fudrom
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Well, it can't be. That's the point. They're mutually exclusive terms. I was trying to point out, as Octavian did, that the sentence meant nothing.
By: Original_Gordon
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
You said:
"The opposition he makes between Comedy/Debate is absurd, they're both entertainment"
Congratulations. You unwittingly stumbled upon Jon's point. News SHOULDN'T BE entertainment.
You said:
"Now, is, as Jon Stewart claims, Crossfire somehow more immoral than the Daily Show? Completely silly. Jon Stewart is making a moral argument but not practicing it, he is a hypocrite in the purest sense."
Once you understand the above distinction this statement is invalidated. Stewart is arguing that context should dictate content. Note that when he was on CNN he's suddenly less comedian and more issue-raiser....it just happened to be that the issue he felt was most important was the fact that alleged news-sources aren't raising issues anymore. His criticism is completely justified, and not at all hypocritical. If Jon Stewart were given a CNN show on which he continues to do comedy, then he'd be a hypocrite.
You said:
"Fundamentally, Jon Stewart's "morality if media" argument and his tasteless holier-than-thou performance is very distasteful"
This sentence says absolutely nothing, despite all of fancy words. It is non-sensical once you get past the abuse of vocabulary.
-MMM
"The opposition he makes between Comedy/Debate is absurd, they're both entertainment"
Congratulations. You unwittingly stumbled upon Jon's point. News SHOULDN'T BE entertainment.
You said:
"Now, is, as Jon Stewart claims, Crossfire somehow more immoral than the Daily Show? Completely silly. Jon Stewart is making a moral argument but not practicing it, he is a hypocrite in the purest sense."
Once you understand the above distinction this statement is invalidated. Stewart is arguing that context should dictate content. Note that when he was on CNN he's suddenly less comedian and more issue-raiser....it just happened to be that the issue he felt was most important was the fact that alleged news-sources aren't raising issues anymore. His criticism is completely justified, and not at all hypocritical. If Jon Stewart were given a CNN show on which he continues to do comedy, then he'd be a hypocrite.
You said:
"Fundamentally, Jon Stewart's "morality if media" argument and his tasteless holier-than-thou performance is very distasteful"
This sentence says absolutely nothing, despite all of fancy words. It is non-sensical once you get past the abuse of vocabulary.
-MMM
By: Octavian
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Buddy, you're guilty of preaching too and using $100 words instead of just saying it like it is.
Jon Stewart is just another entertainer that feels he's qualified to actually tackle a political show like Crossfire. Reminds me of Hollywood taking potshots at politics. Stewart does have a holier-than-thou attitude, what good does his show done other than bashing the president?
Jon Stewart is just another entertainer that feels he's qualified to actually tackle a political show like Crossfire. Reminds me of Hollywood taking potshots at politics. Stewart does have a holier-than-thou attitude, what good does his show done other than bashing the president?
By: fudrom
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Ok oK,, let me break this down for you:
"Fundamentally, Jon Stewart's "morality if media" argument and his tasteless holier-than-thou performance is very distasteful"
1. MORALITY OF MEDIA: Jon claims that its essential for crossfire to be moral, but not the daily show. He claims that Crossfire is immoral because it serves the powers that be, whatever those are.
2. HOLIER-THAN-THOU: Jon is on a TV show lecturing (not debating!) others about how they should run their show in a very rude way. This is called a "HOLIER-THAN-THOU" attitude.
3. DISTASTEFUL: I probably should've used DISRESPECTFUL. You wanna have a rational discussion with somebody, even someone who doesn't agree with you (gasp!), you gotta respect them.
My sentences have a LOT of meaning. My basic argument is that Jon's PERFORMANCE undermines WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY. And this sentence is about his performance.
"Fundamentally, Jon Stewart's "morality if media" argument and his tasteless holier-than-thou performance is very distasteful"
1. MORALITY OF MEDIA: Jon claims that its essential for crossfire to be moral, but not the daily show. He claims that Crossfire is immoral because it serves the powers that be, whatever those are.
2. HOLIER-THAN-THOU: Jon is on a TV show lecturing (not debating!) others about how they should run their show in a very rude way. This is called a "HOLIER-THAN-THOU" attitude.
3. DISTASTEFUL: I probably should've used DISRESPECTFUL. You wanna have a rational discussion with somebody, even someone who doesn't agree with you (gasp!), you gotta respect them.
My sentences have a LOT of meaning. My basic argument is that Jon's PERFORMANCE undermines WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY. And this sentence is about his performance.
By: q335r49
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Notice all the unsubstantiated premised you packed into that sentence:
1. Morality – Where did Jon use the word morality in the show? I remember his using the word ‘responsibility’, which is very different. The Daily Show and Crossfire have different responsibilities due to them being different kinds of shows. Stewart said primarily that Crossfire was not meeting its responsibility. And he never said that it’s ok for The Daily Show to be immoral.
2. Holier than thou – There are some problems with this one. Firstly, you said he was lecturing rather than debating. I really don’t know how you can make this distinction when both sides were asking questions of the other, and both had opportunities to speak. I think you are trying to make this distinction (perhaps subconsciously) in favour of the word lecturing, as ‘lecturing’ is a more negatively emotive term. You also said he was very rude. I didn’t think he was, and I can’t be bothered going through all the things that he didn’t do which could have classified him as being ‘rude’. You made the charge, so you’re going to have to provide some evidence if you want this point to be accepted.
3. Disrespectful – Yeah, you’ve got to have respect. But again, provide some evidence that Stewart was disrespectful, keeping in mind the antagonism he received from the hosts as the show progressed (I’m thinking about the ‘You’re as big a dick…’ comment).
Well, in the end, your sentence still has little meaning. It’s full of value judgements.
1. Morality – Where did Jon use the word morality in the show? I remember his using the word ‘responsibility’, which is very different. The Daily Show and Crossfire have different responsibilities due to them being different kinds of shows. Stewart said primarily that Crossfire was not meeting its responsibility. And he never said that it’s ok for The Daily Show to be immoral.
2. Holier than thou – There are some problems with this one. Firstly, you said he was lecturing rather than debating. I really don’t know how you can make this distinction when both sides were asking questions of the other, and both had opportunities to speak. I think you are trying to make this distinction (perhaps subconsciously) in favour of the word lecturing, as ‘lecturing’ is a more negatively emotive term. You also said he was very rude. I didn’t think he was, and I can’t be bothered going through all the things that he didn’t do which could have classified him as being ‘rude’. You made the charge, so you’re going to have to provide some evidence if you want this point to be accepted.
3. Disrespectful – Yeah, you’ve got to have respect. But again, provide some evidence that Stewart was disrespectful, keeping in mind the antagonism he received from the hosts as the show progressed (I’m thinking about the ‘You’re as big a dick…’ comment).
Well, in the end, your sentence still has little meaning. It’s full of value judgements.
By: Original_Gordon
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Get a room, you two! This is just the Internet. A university is a better place to have a passionate debate about shit.
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Alright, Jon Stewart, I think, made some very good points, but due to the lack of stucture in this "debate show" neither side could fully present his own side. That, in and of itself, supports Stewart's argument. If this was truly a debate show why is there no moderator? It's because real debates are boring to watch, they are not entertaining (interesting maybe) and they do not grab ratings. Crossfire is successful because it relys on conflict, not rational discussion. It quickly moves from whos arguments are stronger to who can get more words in edgewise.
I would like to point out that Tucker Carlson brought was originally trying to say that the reason John Kerry went on the Daily Show and not a show like Crossfire was because he knew he would not be asked any hard-hitting questions. Carlson was just trying to point out that Jon Stewart had an opportunity that they didn't to lay into Kerry but instead was his... "monkey."
However he was misunderstood and didn't bother to push that strong argument forward, and just ended up acting like dick.
I would like to point out that Tucker Carlson brought was originally trying to say that the reason John Kerry went on the Daily Show and not a show like Crossfire was because he knew he would not be asked any hard-hitting questions. Carlson was just trying to point out that Jon Stewart had an opportunity that they didn't to lay into Kerry but instead was his... "monkey."
However he was misunderstood and didn't bother to push that strong argument forward, and just ended up acting like dick.
By: archangel42883
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
Man ... if my sentences didn't have meaning, then you'd be arguing against ... nothing, nobody? Great job being offensive, and great job concentrating on the semantics rather than may arguments
... ass.
later, ass
... ass.
later, ass
By: q335r49
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
I wasn't trying to be offensive. I disagreed with what you said, and so I told you what I thought was wrong with it, without the use of any name-calling. In retrospect I was a fairly blunt and for that, I apologize. To make things clear, I thought that the arguments you were making were based almost entirely upon how you ‘felt’ Stewart behaved. If people can’t agree with your premises, then they can’t agree with your arguments. I tried to highlight the things you were assuming, yet unfortunately I seem to have done nothing more than angered you.
By: Original_Gordon
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
john stewart has been my hero this election year.... i think this is great the networks suck!!!
By: danmanmayer
Re: Jon Stewart Owns Crossfire
John Stewart is my freaking hero. I liked his show before this incident, but he has really impressed me to the point of shock. He embodies the kind of person that every regular guy wishes would be in office; an honest one. His jokes are only to keep peoples attention in a world of short attention spans. The thing I love about him is he speaks plainly, no big words to try and pedistal himself as some sort of "better than you" information icon. Instead he does what a true leader would do, speak on behalf of the people. Even if you are a Bush supporter, there has got to be a time in the past where even you were thinking "man this guy is a prick sometimes". Yet in a world of pride and political lines, no one wants to admit when they are bieng just plain stupid. Comics like John Stewart don't have to be so defensive or neutral. People in higher places could learn a lot from him.
By: maxdiggy
