You know, there’s an old saying that conservatives dislike liberals’ ideas, but liberals hate conservatives as people. Threads like this make the point.
Despite disagreeing with them politically, I like Jon Stewart, I like Al Franken, I like Rachel Maddow. I think they’re all entertaining, and Stewart and Franken are very funny.
But liberals never seem to like conservative pundits. It’s not enough that they disagree with their ideas, they have to hate the person. What’s with that? Tucker’s just a guy doing a job. He’s pretty good at it, or they wouldn’t keep giving him TV shows. You can disagree with him, but ‘sniveling punk’?
As for the distinctions you are trying to draw between Carlson and the rest, I think you’re reaching. Carlson isn’t a ‘real’ journalist because he hasn’t done investigations, but Al Franken gets a pass because he’s a ‘writer’. That makes no sense. And Air America certainly passes itself off as a political network, not just entertainment.
Would you like to comb the ranks of journalists on the left and see how many of them came up through the ranks of investigative reporting?
Besides, if you haven’t seen Tucker’s show, you might want to watch it first. He’s very clearly engaging in entertainment along with political discussion. He has segments on ugly dogs and funny signs, and a straight-up comedy bit as the last segment of his show.
If you paint liberals with that broad a brush then I shudder to think what views you must hold on race, politics and other demographics.
Does it occur to you that the reason people on this board don’t like Carlson is maybe, just maybe, because they think that he is not funny or not informed or is pompous and arrogant, not because they disagree with his views? And that it may not extend to all conservatives?
While it’s valid to compare him to Anderson Cooper (who I don’t watch enough of to have an opinion of one way or the other and you’re the only person in this thread who has mentioned prior to now), comparing him to people who are not employed by news networks (which, last time I checked, Comedy Central doesn’t bill itself as) is a bit of a stretch, though even so Stewart offers much more entertaining and much more intelligent commentary on the day’s events.
I like what and who I like and I think most Dopers can say the same. I agree on many issues with Bill Maher but I can’t stand him because he strikes me as an obnoxious narcissistic jerk, and Michael Moore has been pitted by as many liberals on SDMB as he has by conservatives due to his sloppy fact reporting and outright lies. OTOH I disagree with damned near every word on politics and morality that comes out of Ben Stein’s mouth but I think that he’s hysterical as a performer and an exceptionally intelligent person- if I owned a network I’d offer him a show tomorrow. Carlson, imo, is neither talented nor brilliant and comes across as simply another member of the Lucky Sperm Club (i.e. wealthy family with connections) who landed a gig on a news network.
I know this isn’t the pit so I won’t ask you to go roger yourself with a five iron for calling me and others bigoted because we don’t agree with your assessment, but please know I’m thinking it.
*I do know that Cooper, also a silver spoon with mondo family connections, does has a degree in political science, lived in Vietnam for quite some while researching American foreign policy and has traveled much more in his work to where news happens, so I would tend to lean a bit more on his side in terms of reliability on anything serious.
Am I the only one who remembers Jon Stewart’s stand-up comedy?
[paraphrase]
**I have this Canadian friend. She said to me, “I want you to tell me the truth. What do Americans really think about Canada?”
I said, “Do you really want to know?”
She said, “Yes. Go ahead. Tell me the truth. What do you guys think about Canada?”
I said, “Well…we don’t.”
She said, “What?”
I said, “Well, we don’t think about Canada at all. We don’t want to attack you or anything. I suppose someday we’ll just show up and say ‘Canada…we need wood.’”
**
[/paraphrase]
How? I’m very politically liberal, and I said only a few posts ago that I don’t mind Carlson too much (though I did make a snarky comment about his hair). Maybe the old saying isn’t correct?
Gotta jump on the bandwagon about this comment. You and I have been listening to different conservatives. The last time I tuned in to Rush Limbaugh, he was repeatedly saying that he “loathes” liberals, that they are “beneath his contempt.” He didn’t make a distinction between the people and their ideas, at least not that I heard. Bill O’Reilly recently called newspaper editorial writers who disagreed with him about the “War on Christmas” a bunch of “vicious SOBs.” Even more sober places like OpinionJournal.com (a branch of the Wall Street Journal) can hit pretty low: every time they mention John Kerry, they refer to him as “the French-looking Massachusetts senator who, by the way, served in Vietnam.” Doesn’t sound to me like they just “dislike” his ideas. I gotta tell you, there’s a lot of hate out there towards “liberals.” Heck, in many parts of the country, calling a person a “liberal” is an insult.
Nothing. If it makes you feel better, I like Carlson better than I like Begala. Begala I just want to slap the shit out of.
My guess is you that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I think Stewart’s great, but I also never bother to take the time to watch the Daily Show for the most part. I also knew who Carlson was long before the Crossfire incident. That’s why I enjoyed the Crossfire incident so much, because he roasted both of those blowhards.
And they both come from big money. I wonder if that’s almost a pre-requisite to get into TV news these days. Anderson Cooper is the son of Gloria Vanderbilt.
I am kind of amused by Tucker Carlson and enjoyed his book. It was pretty funny.
Though I enjoy J Stewart, I thought his Crossfire moment was mean spirited. It isn’t the pundit class that is ruining the media, it is the “Access Journalist” that is not doing enough.
Recently, I read someone complaining about JS going easy on his guests. His defenders claimed that he had to do that to ensure that he could book them.
I think Stewart’s point there was, hey, the Daily Show is NOT supposed to be legitimate news-it’s a comedy show. And it’s really sad when a fucking FAKE news show is considered more trustworthy than the real news programs. So, he said, “Hey, you guys, you know, you’re doing a disservice to the public. I’m a comedian, I shouldn’t be doing YOUR job.” And then Tucker Carlson started whining about him not being funny, and Stewart kicked his ass like a red-headed stepchild.
Stewart is not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be. He’s easy on guests he likes and he’s tough on guests he doesn’t like (in truth, generally conservatives). Carlson, Begala and the other useless pundits like to pretend that they are informing the public, but they’re not. They do nothing constructive. Which is fine, but they need to get off their pedestals.
And that’s bullshit from Stewart, and one of the things I hate most about the Daily Show. He does plenty of ‘serious’ interviews. When he has guests on who’s point of view he agrees with, he lobs softball questions and lets them knock 'em out of the park. He had John Edwards announce his candidacy on his show, for God’s sake.
But whenever he’s got a guest who he disagrees with, he takes cheap shots and if the guest tries to answer back, Stewart gives him that “MOI?” schtick, cracks a joke, and changes the subject. He tries to play it both ways - he’s a serious interviewer when it suits his purposes, and a comedian when it doesn’t.
And while some of his stuff is ‘fake news’, most of it is real news, with sarcastic or humorous commentary.
But worst of all is that he goes on another show that has its own schtick, then has the balls to attack the hosts and call them names for doing pretty much what he does, just in a different venue. "Crossfire’ stopped being a serious debate show about ten years ago. Stewart’s appearance on that show lacked class and was his worst moment, in my opinion. It also showed his worst side, which is that he can come off as a smug ass at times who thinks he’s smarter than his guests.
That said, I like Jon Stewart, and I watch the Daily Show regularly. It’s a fun half hour. But he’s not God, and just because he goes after someone you don’t like doesn’t make his behaviour acceptable. I couldn’t stand Crossfire. When it morphed from a serious debate show into the political equivalent of the Jerry Springer show, I stopped watching. But that doesn’t make Stewart’s unfunny performance as a public scold any more acceptable.
Stewart has interviewed Zell Miller, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and other conservatives and has been exceptionally, one might even say disappointingly, respectful with them. It’s not just those he agrees with. He in fact told Miller (words to the effect of) “We agree on nothing, but I think you’re a good man”. And his eating of Tucker’s lunch was just a prime “reality TV” moment (and I’ll admit I got strangely turned on by Tucker talking about buttboys throughout the exchange).
More trivia about Anderson Cooper (other than the “it’s pretty well known he’s a homo and he sorta kinda accidentally outed himself when interviewing Jerry Falwell” thing [if you don’t know what I’m talking about just google the two names]): he was at and in the room with his brother the day that his full brother “like Thelma and Louise did when they got the blues/swan dove into the courtyard of the Gracie Mew”- i.e. calmly walked off of their mother’s 30th floor balcony. His half-brothers are the sons of Leopold Stokowski, born when Gloria V. was in her mid 20s and Leopold was in his early 70s.
AFAICT, the whole point of the “attack” was that “doing pretty much what he does” is inappropriate in that “different venue”.
You may feel it inconsistent or unfair that Stewart blends “straight” journalism and comedy in a proportion that differs depending on the views of the person he’s talking to, but at least the whole shtick is officially classified as a comedy show. Doing that kind of thing in the “venue” of what is billed as straight-up news or debate or political analysis rather than comedy IS inappropriate.
And if the venue in question has degenerated from the journalistic format that it claims to maintain, as you say “Crossfire” had done in becoming a sort of political Jerry Springer Show while still being marketed as political debate, all the more reason for a public figure to call them on it publicly.
On the contrary, Stewart often comes across as “soft” because he tries to do what shows like “Crossfire” never do–that is, he tries to have a reasonable discussion and find common ground.
For example, consider his interview with Rick Santorum. If I had the chance to interview Santorum, my obvious inclination would be to spend the whole time telling him what a wanker he is, or at the very least explaining to him why he is wrong about much of what he believes. I would make my points, he would reassert his, and the only takeaway point from the discussion would be that Santorum and I disagree.
Stewart, on the other hand, had a very respectful interview with Santorum. It was obvious that they disagreed on just about everything, so there was no need to yell talking points at one another. Instead of pretending like he could convince Santorum to accept his arguments, Stewart tried his best to come up with something that he and Santorum could agree about. It didn’t work very well; Santorum is obviously not used to such discussions, and you could argue that he has a vested interest in making sure he doesn’t agree with Jon about anything.
This is a huge problem with politics–we have poisoned the middle ground. The point of political debate should be to find something most people can agree about and move forward with it, but the current polarized climate makes it dangerous to show any signs of compromise. Stewart criticized “Crossfire” and its ilk for feeding into this phenomenon, when they could be the primary forum for finding common ground. So I don’t think it’s right to say that Stewart does the same thing in a different venue; I don’t think he does the same thing at all, or at least he doesn’t anymore.
Tucker’s a nincompoop and a dunderhead. The only show he belongs on is What Not to Wear. I don’t take him seriously because I don’t have enough respect for him to wade through the 90% partisan hack comments in order to hear the 10% of what he says that could possibly be worthwhile.
The chorus of “liberals are mean” really loses a lot of punch when you consider Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Coulter are on the other side of the fence. I don’t recall a liberal commentator expressing a wish that terrorists had leveled a newspaper office building. Give me a conservative that has some neurons connected to each other like George Will and I’ll listen to what he has to say. If all they want to do is spew venom like O’Reilly does I’ll just turn the channel.