Jon Stewart on Crossfire

[Chaerophon]

It speaks for itself.

Bitorrent here:

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/15/jon_s...ts_crossfi.html

Transcript here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...cf.01.html

[Zarathustra]

Thank you for the heads up on this one!

Now I have to go take a look at his book.

[LiquidDamage]

It's very sad, isn't it? The Crossfire hosts kept trying to somehow attack back by saying Jon was sucking up to Kerry when he interviewed him.

Even after repeatedly explaining that his show is a comedy show, that it comes on after puppets making crank calls, they still repeatedly tried this, and refused to accept the fact that it is their responsibility, not his, to inform the public by holding politicians' feet to the fire.

I love Jon Stewart. It's sad that his words on Crossfire will have no effect on them. I'm sure he went home and had a good cry after realizing how pointless it all was. :(

[bernard shakey]

[quote=LiquidDamage,Oct 18 2004, 03:53 AM]
It's very sad, isn't it?

To say the least! I also think Jon's the best. He has got to be, by far, the smartest man on television. But whats saddest of all is I actually get more news watching a half hour comedy show than I ever could watching 8 hours on an all "news" network, And its because of shows like this! I never would have watched it if I hadn't happened to notice Stewart's name in the program description. I sat there actually cheering out loud hearing him say out loud what we all know. it's time to get rid of the partisan hacks and put some news on the news networks!

Bravo Mr. Stewart

[Kevin]

Thanks for the links. I had heard about it, and I was glad to be able to see it.

They just didn't get Jon's point at all.

FYI for those who haven't seen/read it, it is worth the download to get all the proper inflections of what is being said.

[Mithrandir]

While I agree with the main points Jon Stewart is making (and am utterly flabbergasted that Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson seem unable to grasp that the journalistic integrity of the Daily Show is != what Crossifre *should* be), I think that he is selling himself short in some ways. Yes, he is not "required" to go harder/tougher on Kerry because he does, afterall, host a comedy show and not a high-level politically-charged debate show like Crossfire is supposed to be. However, he certainly could have easily asked tougher and more pointed questions and been well-within his rights and responsibilities.

That said, Jon Stewart has done some fantastic interviews in the past. I really enjoyed Desmond Tutu, Bill O'Reilly (even if he is a whiney baby, the interview was entertaining), Ted Koppel, Kissinger, Marc Racicot, etc.

I can semi-respect Carlson saying Jon Stewart went "too easy" on Kerry, but I absolutely have zero respect for the notion that the Daily Show has just as stringent journalistic responsibilities as Crossfire (or CNN, or Fox NEWS, or whatever).

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

One's a Gong Show that centers on newsworthy events.

The other's a News Show that centers on Gong-worthy events.

... and someone should loosen the bow-tie around Tucker's neck, so they can pull the stick out of his ass.

[Jester]

"... and someone should loosen the bow-tie around Tucker's neck, so they can pull the stick out of his ass."

Oh, so *that's* what "log cabin republican" means.

Jester

[Zarathustra]

However, he certainly could have easily asked tougher and more pointed questions and been well-within his rights and responsibilities.
[right][snapback]57696[/snapback][/right]

I agree that it was within his rights... but his responsibilities? To say such questions are his responsibility means he was wrong in refraining from those questions - shirking his duty, so to speak - and I don't agree.

[Mithrandir]

I agree that it was within his rights... but his responsibilities?  To say such questions are his responsibility means he was wrong in refraining from those questions - shirking his duty, so to speak - and I don't agree.
[right][snapback]57712[/snapback][/right]

Being within your rights and being within your responsibilities are two completely different things.

For example, it is within the rights of any journalist to put his own personal slant and/or opinion on the news when he or she is reporting it. It is not within their responsibility to do so however, since it is they are supposed to report the news in a fair and unbiased manner so that the individual can form their own opinions.

In Jon Stewart's case, he would not be outside the bounds of his rights or responsibility to ask more substantial (or "pointed", if you will) questions to his higher-profile guests. I'm not saying that I dislike the interviews he conducts (quite to the contray in fact for the vast majority of them), but there could certainly be more substance to them if he so desired.

[Chaerophon]

In Jon Stewart's case, he would not be outside the bounds of his rights or responsibility

Bottom line: Jon Stewart's only real responsibility is to his network, and that 'responsibility' is to fulfill his contract. If he ceases to do so, then the network has the right to find someone else to do the job. In some 'normative' sense, one could, perhaps, argue that he has a responsibility to his viewers. In actual fact, no real obligation actually exists. He hasn't set that standard for himself - he hopes to please them with his critical satire, but he does not project himself as an authority. If he wanted to, he could summarily alter the show's format, behave like a boring partisan hack with little or no wit, and not 'betray any responsibility' to the public in any meaningful sense. The consequence would probably be the end of his popularity, but that's the point. Jon Stewart's job is to entertain. He does not pretend to be a journalist. In his capacity at the Daily Show, he is no different than Letterman or Leno - at root, he is an entertainer. Well, perhaps 'satirist' is more accurate... whatever.

One could argue that Crossfire, too, is intended only as entertainment. In that case, one would be wrong. 1.) CNN is a news network and the 'crossfire team' pass themselves off as authoritative political analysts and 2.) they're not very entertaining. The hosts of crossfire are truly engaged 'political' people who are actively involved in the 'political' scene. They pass themselves off as being representative of ideological perspectives; consequently, they refuse to engage in any real dialogue or debate outside of a tired, theatrical obstinacy. Ignorance, I suppose you could call it. They contend at the outset of each show that they will "deal with the issues", and yet they do nothing but reduce the issues to bickery and partisan nonsense. They bring nothing to the public discourse, but portray themselves as arguing from the center of it. Many viewers see them as authorities, representatives of political opinion (if they weren't situated as such, then why would anyone watch them?) and yet they prattle on like children. They position themselves as men of journalistic and political integrity, and then reduce their subject to a contest of egos. THEY have a responsibility. It is a responsibility that comes, not only from their position as 'journalists', but with the public expectations that they have brought upon themselves.

Jon Stewart's only 'responsibility' is laid out in his contract; a big part of it is to bring in the ratings - seems he's doing quite well in that regard. The idiots on Crossfire don't even come CLOSE to living up to theirs. I've seen Jon Stewart ask tough questions before, I've seen him engage guests in real, interactive debate, despite the fact that he has no 'responsibility' to do so. I can't say the same for the Crossfire team, despite the fact that this is the supposed task that they mean to fulfill. The 'tough questions' are calculated ambushes and the 'debate' is far from meaningful.

[kandrathe]

I think Jon's points were made, even though they tried to shut him up. Who in their right mind would want to go on a show like "Crossfire", where your positions are ignored, and then the show ends with "Spin Alley" where your opponent gets to reiterate their starting position. Debate? Discussion of the issues? Concede a point. No. He nailed it with "Partisan Hackery".

I loved his sincere plee "Please stop hurting America."

[Mithrandir]

If he wanted to, he could summarily alter the show's format, behave like a boring partisan hack with little or no wit, and not 'betray any responsibility' to the public in any meaningful sense.

Since when does asking more substantial questions to certain people he is interviewing make him a "partisan hack"? Who says that he can't be funny and entertaining while dealing with hard issues?

I think you're selling the man short.

Jon Stewart's only 'responsibility' is laid out in his contract; a big part of it is to bring in the ratings - seems he's doing quite well in that regard.  The idiots on Crossfire don't even come CLOSE to living up to theirs.  I've seen Jon Stewart ask tough questions before, I've seen him engage guests in real, interactive debate, despite the fact that he has no 'responsibility' to do so.  I can't say the same for the Crossfire team, despite the fact that this is the supposed task that they mean to fulfill.  The 'tough questions' are calculated ambushes and the 'debate' is far from meaningful.
[right][snapback]57716[/snapback][/right]

No one in this thread so far has said that Jon Stewart hasn't had good interviews in the past (quite to the contrary in fact). No one has said that it's his responsibility to ask tough questions. No one has denied that Crossfire is, in general, a burning cesspool of idiocy.

Jon Stewart definitely could ask more tough questions while still maintaining his normal high level of comedy and satire. You said yourself in the above quoted paragraph that he has asked tough questions to guests before while still being entertaining... so how are we in disagreement at all? Is it really so bad to think "Gee, that Kerry interview was pretty good, but I sure wish Stewart had hit some more substantial issues." Hell, the show has poked fun at Dr. Phil and Regis for asking "silly" or "dumb" questions to Kerry and/or Bush when they had them on their respective shows. In reality though, the questions the aforementioned interviewers asked were about as substantial as the normal questions Stewart asks to *his* guests.

I still love the Daily Show, but it sure seems like they're being just a little bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

[Guest]

No he cant ask harder question, quit being silly.

His show depends on getting guests and since it isnt a "news" show guests wont come if the questions are too hard.

But thats ok, because Stewart repeatedly tells his own audience that its NOT new its entertainment.

[Count Duckula]

No he cant ask harder question, quit being silly.

He could if he wanted to, nothing's stopping him from doing so, least of all you. As the Daily Show isn't in the same category as Crossfire and doesn't service the same audience as Crossfire, Stewart and crew don't have to adhere to the same standards that news programs like Crossfire should. Fair and balanced news coverage, my fat Jewish ass.

His show depends on getting guests and since it isnt a "news" show guests wont come if the questions are too hard.

Have you ever seen the Daily Show and seen Jon's charisma? This ain't the Tonight Show. Or is it another case of opening your mouth without thinking again?

[Occhidiangela]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...cf.01.html
[right][snapback]57673[/snapback][/right]

I wish I had seen that, however, I never watch Crossfire for some of the very reasons that John Stewart points to: They suck at what they allegedly do, which is journalism, they are rude, and there is no debate, just exchange of spin.

Stewart is able to make me laugh now and again, on those rare occasions that I get home in time to watch The Daily Show.

Occhi

[Zippyy]

You can also stream the clip here: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831

Jon Stewart - 1

Paul Begala - 0

Tucker Carlson - prick

[kandrathe]

He could if he wanted to, nothing's stopping him from doing so, least of all you. As the Daily Show isn't in the same category as Crossfire and doesn't service the same audience as Crossfire, Stewart and crew don't have to adhere to the same standards that news programs like Crossfire should. Fair and balanced news coverage, my fat Jewish ass.
Have you ever seen the Daily Show and seen Jon's charisma? This ain't the Tonight Show. Or is it another case of opening your mouth without thinking again?
[right][snapback]57744[/snapback][/right]

When things get too close to serious, they are no longer comedy. You risk becoming a pseudo-comedic farce, like that guy who fell off the face of the earth, Bill Maher and his show Politically Incorrect. Being somewhat centrist on issues (meaning I think there is some middle ground), that show often left me grimacing, rather than grinning.

In local news, "Al Franken announced in November 2003 that he was considering moving back to Minnesota, his home state, in order to run for the Senate seat held by Wellstone's successor, Republican Norm Coleman, in the 2008 election. Now that his youngest daughter has left for college, such a move is more appealing to him. He has also said that he'd take lessons from Democratic New York senator Hillary Clinton on how to run for Senator."

The debates should be more interesting.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

like that guy who fell off the face of the earth, Bill Maher and his show Politically Incorrect.

Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO

I'll concede that he's more overtly partisan than Jon Stewart, but I still find him an interesting fellow to listen to. As always, one must sift through to find the gems of truth... but I've always appreciated a good sense of humor.

[bernard shakey]

Hell, the show has poked fun at Dr. Phil and Regis for asking "silly" or "dumb" questions to Kerry and/or Bush when they had them on their respective shows.

Sort of but not quite, What they were really doing was making fun of Kerry and Bush for being on a show that they knew would ask ONLY "silly" or "dumb" questions. Which is why crossfire et all is what it is. they wouldn't get guests if they actually had to answer tough questions. There's to many places to go where they don't.

By the way Stewart will be on 60 minutes tonight(Sunday,10/24) The show was taped before crossfire, but evidently some of the same topics come up. Should be interesting.