Fellowship 9/11 (and Jon Stewart v. CNN)

[qckbeam]

why am i not surprised that this one is still going strong. it's sad that you just don't get it qck, seinfeld i understand, but you? oh well, you can't win them all.

I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. I like Jon Stewart, I think he can be funny. However I thought he was just totally out of line on Crossfire. He was being a hypocrite, but perhaps even worse, he was being a total ass. There was no reason to go on the show with the attitude he had. There was no reason to call Tucker a dick. There was no reason to be so damn confrontational right out of the gate. There was no reason to insult the hosts of the show with his remarks. He came off looking really foolish in my opinion. I was sad to see it, especially since I had been raving to some people about how great Jon Stewart was and then this had to be their first taste of him.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Stewart sorta showed them up a bit, IMO.
They failed to defend their show or their journalism.
Stewart said "you guys are too partisan" and their only rebuttal was "well, uh... so are you!"

So, in the end, they basically said that they had just as much integrity as a show that makes fake news.

 

[KidRock]

Stewart sorta showed them up a bit, IMO.
They failed to defend their show or their journalism.
Stewart said "you guys are too partisan" and their only rebuttal was "well, uh... so are you!"

So, in the end, they basically said that they had just as much integrity as a show that makes fake news.

If by showing them up you mean insulting them and acting like a little kid then i agree.

 

[Jakeic]

Carlson insulted him as well as tried to pigeon hole him. Why is it when someone goes and does something, like trying to get influential people to stand up for the common man, he gets beat down? Why don't we celebrate that someone is fighting for us, rather than claim he is an ass and a hyprocrite because his fake news show doesn't ask hard hitting questions.

 

[rkef]

If by showing them up you mean insulting them and acting like a little kid then i agree.

Have you ever watched Crossfire, or most popular news/debate programming? They're the childish ones. I watch Crossfire, for no good reason, and all they do is take the day's talking points, for either party, and pit them against eachother, in a sort of "my dad can beat up your dad" type of playground bitchfest.

The media is, at worst, an operative for the military/industrial/political complex, and, at best, a complete waste of time.*

* Not counting the times where it's important they provide hard information (eg. a crazy gunman is shooting up a street, one block away from where you live, or it's raining fire, etc.)

BTW, I think Stewart was aware that, given the hyperactive nature of television, he would not be able to get his point across, without coming out guns-blazing. Which he did. Whether or not it affects anything, at least he got to spit in their eye .

The Daily Show is satire, minus the boring, 4minute long (?) interviews.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

If by showing them up you mean insulting them and acting like a little kid then i agree.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne

CARLSON: ...you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible.

 

[KidRock]

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne

CARLSON: ...you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible.

Carlson also didnt call him a dick.

 

[qckbeam]

Carlson insulted him as well as tried to pigeon hole him. Why is it when someone goes and does something, like trying to get influential people to stand up for the common man, he gets beat down? Why don't we celebrate that someone is fighting for us, rather than claim he is an ass and a hyprocrite because his fake news show doesn't ask hard hitting questions.

How about instead of trying to spur the media into do something Jon Stewart uses his influence and status to *gasp* do it himself! If he is so unhappy with the media, he should do something about it! He is in the position to put his money where his mouth is and start asking the tough questions of his guests. Before you give me that, "But he's a comedian, it's a comedy show qckbeam" routine, let me introduce you to Bill Maher. Bill has managed to create two shows that mix comedy, and serious political discussions very, very well. The first was called "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" and was actually shut down by the station it had been on for living up to its name. The second, and far superior, is called "Real Time with Bill Maher", and happens to be on HBO. Bill has managed to:

1) Create a very funny hour long show

2) Focus on issues by talking with guests via a panel and satellite

3) Ask the most honest, and difficult questions I've ever seen asked of a politician/star/etc. without letting them dodge it.

So how about instead of bitching, moaning and insulting how about Jon Stewart follows the route of Bill and gets serious.. He's got the show, he's got the following, he's got the talent. Question is, does he have the balls to do it himself, or is he going to leave it up to someone else?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How about instead of trying to spur the media into do something Jon Stewart uses his influence and status to *gasp* do it himself! If he is so unhappy with the media, he should do something about it! He is in the position to put his money where his mouth is and start asking the tough questions of his guests. Before you give me that, "But he's a comedian, it's a comedy show qckbeam" routine, let me introduce you to Bill Maher. Bill has managed to create two shows that mix comedy, and serious political discussions very, very well. The first was called "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" and was actually shut down by the station it had been on for living up to its name. The second, and far superior, is called "Real Time with Bill Maher", and happens to be on HBO. Bill has managed to:

1) Create a very funny hour long show

2) Focus on issues by talking with guests via a panel and satellite

3) Ask the most honest, and difficult questions I've ever seen asked of a politician/star/etc. without letting them dodge it.

So how about instead of bitching, moaning and insulting how about Jon Stewart follows the route of Bill and gets serious.. He's got the show, he's got the following, he's got the talent. Question is, does he have the balls to do it himself, or is he going to leave it up to someone else?

Hold up...

You're calling Stewart a hypocrite for not abandoning a lucrative job on a successful hit show, in order to start a new program modelled off of a totally different one that was cancelled?

If Stewart quit the daily show I, for one, would be pretty sad.

 

[Jakeic]

I watch real time, but there's a difference between The Daily Show and Real Time. See, The Daily Show is a FAKE NEWS PROGRAM, kind of like that paper that always has pictures of big foot, where as Real Time is a POLITICAL TALK SHOW. See, it would be fair to compare and contrast Real Time with Crossfire as far as questions are concerned, since they do the same thing. But comparing a show that claims to be FAKE NEWS with Crossfire should be insulting to the people at Crossfire.

Plus, look at Crossfire's contrasting questions segment during the interview, you'll see a well thought out diagram. A diagram that shows three questions Jon Stewart asked John Kerry, and no questions that the hosts of Crossfire would ask or have asked of anyone. That is stupid, this arguement is stupid.

Believe it or not, Jon Stewart was using his influence to try to get these guys to stop spitting out talking points, and bringing on people to spin the news. He came to them as the head of the people who are feed up with being told what, how, and when to think.

The only thing that makes the FAKE NEWS on The Daily Show more real than the rest is that they are upfront about lying, everyone else hides it.

 

[qckbeam]

Hold up...

You're calling Stewart a hypocrite for not abandoning a lucrative job on a successful hit show, in order to start a new program modelled off of a totally different one that was cancelled?

He's already got his show. He's already got an audience. He already has the recognition. Stay on Comedy Central, keep it "The Daily Show". Make some changes. Model it after Real-Time in tone and purpose. It may be a fake news show now, but who says it has to stay that way? Real-Time seeks to ask serious questions, make serious points, and get to the bottom of things, however it also has a fantastic sense of humor, and even an opening monologue done by Bill himself (he used to be in stand-up). Honestly, at least once every few minutes someone says something that will have you laughing your ass off.

Just basically, put up, or shut up. If he's going to bitch about the media being piss-poor (which I agree it pretty much is) and then not use his own show to make a difference, then he can just shut his mouth and quit his bitching because comedian or not he's no better than journalists he calls out. He's got this golden opportunity to really change things and he won't for whatever reason. I can't respect that.

 

[Jakeic]

well, jon stewart doesn't own the daily show.

now maybe if he got a show on a news network, then he could do that, and i agree, he would need to hold people responsibile, however, he isn't on a news channel, and he does do the fake news, so whether or not he asked the tough question is irrelevant.

 

[qckbeam]

well, jon stewart doesn't own the daily show.

I'm willing to bet he has some mighty strong pull when it comes to things of this nature.

 

[Jakeic]

like, "there was a daily show before you, and there will be a daily show after you" kind of thing?

He is a comedian after all, maybe he doesn't want to be a journalist?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

He's already got his show. He's already got an audience. He already has the recognition. Stay on Comedy Central, keep it "The Daily Show". Make some changes. Model it after Real-Time in tone and purpose. It may be a fake news show now, but who says it has to stay that way? Real-Time seeks to ask serious questions, make serious points, and get to the bottom of things, however it also has a fantastic sense of humor, and even an opening monologue done by Bill himself (he used to be in stand-up). Honestly, at least once every few minutes someone says something that will have you laughing your ass off.

Just basically, put up, or shut up. If he's going to bitch about the media being piss-poor (which I agree it pretty much is) and then not use his own show to make a difference, then he can just shut his mouth and quit his bitching because comedian or not he's no better than journalists he calls out. He's got this golden opportunity to really change things and he won't for whatever reason. I can't respect that.

I dunno about that argument.
That's like saying that if you think that there's too much crime, you should either sit back and take it or sign up to be a cop.

As for the co-argument that Stewart has his own show, so he could change it to be more like Maher's, that's like saying:
"well, you're already very strong and authoratative. You have no reason not to be a cop. So shut up about the rampant crime."

You can criticise the police without becoming an officer yourself.


Edit bonus:

Carlson also didnt call him a dick.

Right, he only called him an ass-sniffing unlikeable suck-up while simultaneously talking down to him just because he's a comedian.
But he never said 'dick', so it's totally professional.

 

[qckbeam]

like, "there was a daily show before you, and there will be a daily show after you" kind of thing?

He is a comedian after all, maybe he doesn't want to be a journalist?

Fine then, that's just fine. If he wants to spout off criticism, keep his show strictly comedy (which it isn't really, I've seen it make some excellent points he just needs to kick it up a few notches), and let this golden opportunity to do what he says the media fails to pass him by, that's his decision and he can obviously do what he pleases. I just can't respect a decision of inaction on his part after all his complaining.

You can criticise the police without becoming an officer yourself.

Yes, you're right. I'm a regular citizen however. Most people are regular citizens. Even most comedians are just regular citizens. It's like Jon Stewart has the ability to seriously aid in cleaning up crime if he wants to. He's already there; he has the means to round up all sorts of criminals. He could reform the system, or at least help to reform it. He just won't do it for whatever reason. He'd rather yell at the cops than take any action himself.

 

[Jakeic]

he is acting, what do you think critsizing these shows is, why do you think he is a guest on these shows?

I still don't get why it isn't insulting to compare Crossfire to The Daily Show.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I still don't get why it isn't insulting to compare Crossfire to The Daily Show.

I don't get how the Crossfire guys thought they weren't insulting themselves by comparing their own journalistic integrity to that of the Daily Show.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I don't get how the Crossfire guys thought they weren't insulting themselves by comparing their own journalistic integrity to that of the Daily Show.

shows you what caricatures begala and carlson really are huh?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yes, you're right. I'm a regular citizen however. Most people are regular citizens. Even most comedians are just regular citizens. It's like Jon Stewart has the ability to seriously aid in cleaning up crime if he wants to. He's already there; he has the means to round up all sorts of criminals. He could reform the system, or at least help to reform it. He just won't do it for whatever reason. He'd rather yell at the cops than take any action himself.

The problem, however, is that the police in this example are doing a crummy job.

When the police are getting lazy, do we implore them to try harder, or do we wait for vigilantes to replace them while complaining that there aren't enough vigilantes?

It's not unreasonable to ask for journalists to act more like journalists, rather than to ask comedians to act more like journalists.

By becoming journalists, those people chose to be journalists and to accept the criticism that comes with the job.
Stewart doesn't want to become a journalist, so why must he become one?

 

[qckbeam]

The problem, however, is that the police in this example are doing a crummy job.

When the police are getting lazy, do we implore them to try harder, or do we wait for vigilantes to replace them while complaining that there aren't enough vigilantes?

It's not unreasonable to ask for journalists to act more like journalists, rather than to ask comedians to act more like journalists.

By becoming journalists, those people chose to be journalists and to accept the criticism that comes with the job.
Stewart doesn't want to become a journalist, so why must he become one?

You're right. I agree with you on the media today. They are lazy, they do a pretty bad job for the most part. It isn't unreasonable in any way to criticize them. More should be demanded of them; I agree. However, if you are a person in a position to change things yourself, like Jon Stewart is, and you don't act but instead complain, you are just being stupid about things. He IS in a position to change things, he won't do it; he'd rather complain about the guys currently botching the job. It bugs me in the same way the US bugs me when it comes to nuclear arms. We tell other people to give up their nukes, yet we aren't really willing to give up our own. We have this golden opportunity to lead by example and we won't, we'd rather just tell other people what to do. We can just keep it that way, nothing is going to happen, but damn it, what an opportunity we are giving up.

Now having said that he doesn't have to do anything. He can go about doing what it is he's doing. I really do understand your point. Jon is a comedian and not a journalist. He isn't bound to report the news or get to the bottom of things like the media is. He can't be held to the same standards. His duty isn't to ask serious questions, or do anything, other than get a few laughs out of people. It just really bothers me that someone like Jon could let this opportunity to lead pass him by. It's such a terrible waste

Anyways, I hope I made my point and was clear. I love Jon, he can be a really funny guy. I've always liked him. Just this really bothers me. I'm going to bed. I've never been looking down the barrel of your gun Mecha. Tis tiring Goodnight

 

[Hapless]

Let me just interject here to say that I read in Time Magazine (or U.S. News and World Report, can't remember for sure) that a large percentage of 18-34 year olds get their political news from the Daily Show, and that people who watched the Daily Show were more likely know more about the campaigns than someone who does not watch The Daily Show. IF this is truly the case (my memory s a bit fuzzy), does that not suggest Jon Stewart may be something of a.............................journalist?

 

[Jakeic]

Let me just interject here to say that I read in Time Magazine (or U.S. News and World Report, can't remember for sure) that a large percentage of 18-34 year olds get their political news from the Daily Show, and that people who watched the Daily Show were more likely know more about the campaigns than someone who does not watch The Daily Show. IF this is truly the case (my memory s a bit fuzzy), does that not suggest Jon Stewart may be something of a.............................journalist?

was it they watched only the daily show? because if it wasn't that, then it doesn't necesarily describe the viewers of the daily show being more afluent before they watched the daily show or afterwards.

 

[Sprafa]

The thing is Jon Stewart can be a hypocrit. But he's still right.

 

[Jakeic]

i'll go ahead and take it to the next level...your face is right.

that's what i call elevated discourse.

 

[Sprafa]

i'll go ahead and take it to the next level...your face is right.

that's what i call elevated discourse.

:upstare:

 

[Lil' Timmy]

i'll go ahead and take it to the next level...your face is right.

ooooohhh!!! daaaammmnnn!!

btw, very good point sprafa

 

[Gunner]

Do you guys always hijack threads like this? FFS c'mon it's getting so ****ing annoying that every ****ing thread turns into this.

 

[Sprafa]

Do you guys always hijack threads like this? FFS c'mon it's getting so ****ing annoying that every ****ing thread turns into this.

It's not me, it's the gloglebag army.

 

[Mr.Reak]

I would elect Jon Stewart for a president, that’s for sure. I mean to beat those two hacks on their own show, call one of them a dick, laugh at lame bowtie and get away with it… well Jon is a genius. No wonder Daily Show is the funniest thing on TV right now.

 

[Korgoth]

and to seinfeld calling the 9/11 piece a good piece of satire, wouldn't it help to see the film that its drawing satire from before calling it good?

 

[seinfeldrules]

and to seinfeld calling the 9/11 piece a good piece of satire, wouldn't it help to see the film that its drawing satire from before calling it good?

Seen most of it bud. Just need to finish up the last 1/4 of the movie. Moore's voice is too boring to finish it all in one, two, or three sittings.

 

[qckbeam]

Seen most of it bud. Just need to finish up the last 1/4 of the movie. Moore's voice is too boring to finish it all in one, two, or three sittings.

The content wasn't enough to get you through the whole, what was it, two hours the film runs for?

 

[Korgoth]

Seen most of it bud. Just need to finish up the last 1/4 of the movie. Moore's voice is too boring to finish it all in one, two, or three sittings.

Well if you have seen some of it then I retract my last comment, wasn't aware that you've watched it partly, sorry. I was wrong.
:cheers:

 

[CptStern]

seinfeldrules is watching F9/11 in much the same way the rest of us would watch a pro-nazi movie ..with a mixture of disgust and indignation .....his opinion was decided before watching the movie, so it's a bit of a lost cause anyways

 

[seinfeldrules]

The content wasn't enough to get you through the whole, what was it, two hours the film runs for?

haha nope. I actually, gasp, agree with him partly on the Saudi part of the movie. I think the connections to Bush are BS, but we are too tightly involved with nation too involved with terrorism.

 

[Neutrino]

haha nope. I actually, gasp, agree with him partly on the Saudi part of the movie. I think the connections to Bush are BS, but we are too tightly involved with nation too involved with terrorism.

As long as we're talking about Fahrenheit 9/11 I found a very good link about it.

I think it should be required reading for anyone who watches it.

http://www.newsaic.com/f911index.html

Footnote Fahrenheit is an independent, non-partisan guide to help you answer these and many other questions raised in Fahrenheit 9/11.

 

[SidewinderX]

yeah, as was stated before, the bigger thing is not whether Jon is a hypocrit, it's that's he's right.

 

[seinfeldrules]

As long as we're talking about Fahrenheit 9/11 I found a very good link about it.

I think it should be required reading for anyone who watches it.

http://www.newsaic.com/f911index.html

I prefer to use my own alternative sources of reading, thanks anyways.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

What? More random internet pages trying to disclose Bush or Kerry? This is amazing! I'm starting to believe Partisan Behavior is more exclusive in foreign countries then it is our own.

Thats okay, im still waiting for our good friends from 1983, Public Enemy Numba One, to make their stand...