Jon Stewart

[Scuzz]

Fuck that. Jon Stewart's viewers are more informed about the facts of issues than any other TV "news" channel.

Your daughter picks up actual news and facts whenever Jon Stewart juxtaposes some moronic politician or media pundit's recent words with what they say before.

You've never talked to my daughter or her friends.....:)

But at least thru Stewart she gets something on current events.

[Tin Wisdom]

Ugh, that was both painful to sit through and inspiring at the same time.

Worst part? Wallace tries to call Stewart out on the (occasionally justified) point that he often hides behind an "I'm just a comedian" excuse. So then, after he's effectively gotten Stewart to admit to a liberal bias, he plays a clip from some random sketch on some random Comedy Central show because... he wanted to point out that Stewart was "just a comedian"? It's like his staff carefully prepared "gotcha" clips and he felt like he had to use every one of them, even if they contradict the point Wallace is trying to make at the time. Idiotic.

Best part? The "I've always been here" monologue. Great stuff. As an aside, I like how he maneuvered Wallace into comparing him with Mark Twain.

[Eric T Cheng]

Colbert has his moments of comedy gold, but the difference in interview styles typifies the difference in approach, Jon really does try and engage his political guests in serious discussion, and Colbert generally does not.

A lot of times Colbert gets on my nerves because, of his character, interrupts the guest in order to get a joke in rather than making a valid argument like Stewart would.

[Gus_Smedstad]

A lot of times Colbert gets on my nerves because, of his character, interrupts the guest in order to get a joke in rather than making a valid argument like Stewart would.

To be fair, Jon does this now and then as well. But Colbert does it far more often, and I agree, it's irritating.

[Houngan]

Ugh, that was both painful to sit through and inspiring at the same time.

Worst part? Wallace tries to call Stewart out on the (occasionally justified) point that he often hides behind an "I'm just a comedian" excuse. So then, after he's effectively gotten Stewart to admit to a liberal bias, he plays a clip from some random sketch on some random Comedy Central show because... he wanted to point out that Stewart was "just a comedian"? It's like his staff carefully prepared "gotcha" clips and he felt like he had to use every one of them, even if they contradict the point Wallace is trying to make at the time. Idiotic.

Best part? The "I've always been here" monologue. Great stuff. As an aside, I like how he maneuvered Wallace into comparing him with Mark Twain.

But Stewart usually makes that point to illustrate how ridiculous it is that he's the only one pointing out the gross inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and laziness of the media. The real statement is "Why on Earth aren't you disgusted with yourself? I'm a comedian for fuck's sake!" Stewart rarely presents anything factually wrong, he just finds things that are factually contraindicated and makes a dick joke. It's not like he's photoshopping pictures and trying to pass them off as legit, or doing ambush media where he grossly takes things out of context. He's pointing out how ridiculous the whole situation is and that really only takes less context, not more.

H.

[lesslucid]

I've been thinking about this a bit today.

Isn't Stewart's point about the media - that they're cheap, lazy, sensationalistic and focused on trivial crap instead of things that really matter - countered by the fact that there are actually channels through which you can get really high-quality information without all that rubbish? From what I've seen of it, for example, PBS does really great news, without all that stuff. But there's a substantial proportion of people who don't really want news - they want "newstainment" - and all the networks he's attacking are basically trying to cater to that sector of the market. The stuff they're producing may very well be ripe for satire because it's so utterly terrible, but it's not terrible because the people making it are terrible people, it's terrible because there's a great big audience out there who just want garbage. Stewart can spend another 20 years taking the piss out them but they're not going to change because there's an economic imperative to keep producing stupid fluff.

[Tin Wisdom]

But Stewart usually makes that point to illustrate how ridiculous it is that he's the only one pointing out the gross inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and laziness of the media.

Nowadays, yes. In previous years -- before he was as comfortable in his role as today -- he would seem to shrink back from serious confrontation when challenged. Certainly in the last couple years he has risen above that.

Isn't Stewart's point about the media - that they're cheap, lazy, sensationalistic and focused on trivial crap instead of things that really matter - countered by the fact that there are actually channels through which you can get really high-quality information without all that rubbish?

The fact that there are exceptions doesn't make the overall trend any less worrisome. I could toss in any crap stawman/analogy here -- cars, schools, airlines, condoms.... the trouble is not that there are quality alternatives for those who know where to look, but that the previous - almost universal - high quality of US news media has diminished to the point where you have to go out of your way to find those exceptions.

The stuff they're producing may very well be ripe for satire because it's so utterly terrible, but it's not terrible because the people making it are terrible people, it's terrible because there's a great big audience out there who just want garbage.

Yeah, that's a tougher nut to crack. Stewart made a great point about the 24/7 networks being ideal for a 9/11 event but pretty much useless for the vast majority of the time unless it's given over to "infotainment" commentary.

[Zylon]

There's a fundamental difference between producing garbage (fluff, filler, what-have-you), and producing garbage that's biased to the point of being deliberately dishonest.

[MattKeil]

The fact that there are exceptions doesn't make the overall trend any less worrisome. I could toss in any crap stawman/analogy here -- cars, schools, airlines, condoms.... the trouble is not that there are quality alternatives for those who know where to look, but that the previous - almost universal - high quality of US news media has diminished to the point where you have to go out of your way to find those exceptions.

This is an excellent point. By way of illustration, watch the film Network and consider that in its day it was considered outrageous exaggeration. Today you can pretty much find real life show equivalents of the "crazy" shows they put on in the film.

[Anti-Bunny]

I like the part where Jon Stewart goes into an angry and completely on-point rant about the 24 hour news networks and how Fox viewers are the most uninformed. Wallace's retort? "Can we talk about your network?" and then airs a clip from the roast of Pamela Anderson and talks about how he was forced to watch South Park for the interview. Unbelievable.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...news-are-most/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-jon-stewart/

Huh.

[Enidigm]

Jon Stewart really throws the typical Rushite conservative into a funk. They don't really know how to fit him into their world view. They can't just turn it back around on himself like they do "real" news networks and destroy him with soundbites because he's not "news", and they want to just write him off as a liberal "infotainment"; yet he's too influential to dismiss, and he interviews basically anyone brave enough to come on his show. He also possess more cachet in the beltway than most of Fox's shows, which irritates them all to no end. And although it's not immediately obvious, he's far more sophisticated than anything on Olbermann or Maddow.

[rhinohelix]

Jon Stewart really throws the typical Rushite conservative into a funk. They don't really know how to fit him into their world view. They can't just turn it back around on himself like they do "real" news networks and destroy him with soundbites because he's not "news", and they want to just write him off as a liberal "infotainment"; yet he's too influential to dismiss, and he interviews basically anyone brave enough to come on his show. He also possess more cachet in the beltway than most of Fox's shows, which irritates them all to no end. And although it's not immediately obvious, he's far more sophisticated than anything on Olbermann or Maddow.

I don't think the typical Rush conservative any trouble on where to place Stewart on the media spectrum. The best conservatives can hope for from Stewart is that he won't attack them and in some unusual cases accidentally end up on the same side of the fence. Even on the show post-first Weiner press conference, Stewart is taking shots at Fox News. Much like O'Reilly, Stewart makes no bones about his leanings; the format and his personal character, however, don't allow him to be doctrinaire in his presentation. He has to make his presentations funny and the comedic potential of events directs the show.

I can totally imagine Enidigm's version playing out just like that in the liberal movie version, though. Scene: Rushite Conservative HQ. Men standing around a table with miniatures representing media figures. Lackey: "Sir, I don't know what to do with this Jon Stewart figure! He's just 'infotainment' but has Washington cache!" Leader, twirling mustache: "Damn, neither do I." [cue dramatic music]

[Calelari]

Watching tonight's show, it has become clear to me that Kristen Schaal has grown on me. I nearly think I want to have her babies.

[liquorice]

She really is fantastic. Have you not seen Flight of the Conchords?

[ckessel]

Sarah Vowell was on as a correspondent last night. Ugh, truly horrible. She showed her nervousness, very stiff teleprompter reading, really bad. Too bad, because I've liked her when she was a guest.

[jerri blank]

Why does the Daily Show need another sort of geeky-looking, baby-talking woman with a lisp? Kristen Schaal has that covered pretty well.

[ckessel]

Why does the Daily Show need another sort of geeky-looking, baby-talking woman with a lisp? Kristen Schaal has that covered pretty well.

Good question. My only guess is they thought she was funny and wanted to try her out. In interviews and guest appearances on other shows, she has been pretty entertaining. She just didn't work in a scripted skit.

[Jason McCullough]

It's interesting how much comedians get a pass on acting ability; as long as you're funny doing your regular thing, they'll give you an amazingly serious shot.

[briankoontz]

I've been thinking about this a bit today.

Isn't Stewart's point about the media - that they're cheap, lazy, sensationalistic and focused on trivial crap instead of things that really matter - countered by the fact that there are actually channels through which you can get really high-quality information without all that rubbish? From what I've seen of it, for example, PBS does really great news, without all that stuff. But there's a substantial proportion of people who don't really want news - they want "newstainment" - and all the networks he's attacking are basically trying to cater to that sector of the market. The stuff they're producing may very well be ripe for satire because it's so utterly terrible, but it's not terrible because the people making it are terrible people, it's terrible because there's a great big audience out there who just want garbage. Stewart can spend another 20 years taking the piss out them but they're not going to change because there's an economic imperative to keep producing stupid fluff.

Right, but it's a vicious circle, a downward spiral.

People want garbage because they want to be validated in their opinion that the world is garbage.

Once they want garbage the world can be made even worse with no objection, then people will re-adjust their opinion of what constitutes garbage, and the world can be made worse yet.

It's the same reason people eat junk food or drink alcohol (or smoke cigarettes or other unhealthy activities). People want their consumption to match how they feel. They feel shitty, so they consume shit.

Then the market can claim, with cynical accuracy, that they are merely giving people what they want with junk media.

The problem is, it's not what people REALLY want. People really want to be healthy, and they really want facts. But they've been dominated by despair into believing they want otherwise.

So then the question becomes how one breaks through the wall of despair, both inside oneself and inside others.

The downward spiral is the path of least resistance. The rulers obviously won't stop us from following it - it's precisely what they want. The people obviously won't stop us from following it - it's precisely what they THINK they want.

The common way that people pretend to break through the wall is to act happy. Another common way is to gain material possessions. The thinking goes - I'm rich, THEREFORE I'm happy.

Among the poor religion is the popular pretend-solution. So it's "I trust in God, THEREFORE I'm happy".

The unfortunate truth in the civilized world is that people are not aware of who they are. They think they want one thing, and really want something else. They can't understand what they really want because that understanding makes it less likely that they'll achieve what they want, or so they believe. So reality remains elusive for people, and they lead miserable lives while always having a glimmer of true understanding underneath, a glimmer they dare not admit to themselves.

That's possibly the greatest value of the Occupy movements. In some cases they allow people the space to discover, many for the first time in their lives, who they are. They allow people to lose their fear, of the rulers, of truth, of themselves.

[John Reynolds]

Never change, Brian, never change.

[Ben Sones]

He won't. At least not without therapy and medication.

[Houngan]

Good Lord, Oliver's interview with Herman Cain last night was an instant classic. I have no idea why he subjected himself to that, but it's one of the best things I've seen in a while.

[Black Isis]

Good Lord, Oliver's interview with Herman Cain last night was an instant classic. I have no idea why he subjected himself to that, but it's one of the best things I've seen in a while.

Colbert's interview last night was similarly brutal.

[Destarius]

Good Lord, Oliver's interview with Herman Cain last night was an instant classic. I have no idea why he subjected himself to that, but it's one of the best things I've seen in a while.

I found it too painful to watch. It bordered on public humiliation, and I have no stomach for that being done to anyone, even clowns.

[Canuck]

I'm pretty sure Cain was in on the whole thing. In fact I think Herman Cain may be one of the greatest showmen of our days and had the whole country fooled for months.

[Papageno]

Colbert's interview last night was similarly brutal.

I didn't watch. Whom did Colbert interview? Also Cain?

[WarrenM]

I found it too painful to watch. It bordered on public humiliation, and I have no stomach for that being done to anyone, even clowns.

When they say The Daily Show wants to interview you, you know what you're getting into. If you don't know, you're too out of touch to matter.

[Black Isis]

I didn't watch. Whom did Colbert interview? Also Cain?

Colbert interviewed the former head of the Texas Board of Ed, who was leading the charge to remove evolution from textbooks and other sorts of insanity.

[Destarius]

If you don't know, you're too out of touch to matter.

We're talking about Herman Cain here. It's like picking an intellectual fight with a cripple.

[Omniscia]

We're talking about Herman Cain here. It's like picking an intellectual fight with a cripple.

Are you saying cripples can't be intellectuals?