http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/video/
I’m in love.
I watched the vid – wow! Really great television.
And then the site blocked out the page. It seems to be dead now.
Since a link isn’t much of a debate (also, the video link doesn’t seem to be working), I’d like to try to frame one. (By the way, there’s a thread over in Cafe Society regarding this, with plenty of other links.)
I really like both The Daily Show and Crossfire, so I had it recorded. Definitely not what I expected - Stewart was aggressively confrontational and not his usual amiable self. For instance:
Yowza. His point was that no actual debate occurs in the media today. And Crossfire, although structured as such, is really just a series of talking points, sniping, and back-biting. My wife and I got into a discussion about this; I said that it was the inevitable course of things as they stand. With a firmly entrenched two party system, no candidate (or steward of their party) would risk a debate of the form for which Stewart was pining. Instead, we either get the candiates spewing pablum Dr. Phil (spanking?) or the overly rule laden presidential “debates”. Not to mention that it would require too much time and wouldn’t be very entertaining - more along the lines of a semester of [fill in your choice of most boring school subject]. In other words, it’s a structural problem - without overhauling large portions of the system, sound bites, bumper-sticker slogans, and style over substance will be the norm.
Am I right? If so, is this really a bad thing? If it is bad, what can be done to change it?
Sorry, I got the videos back up. I accidentally shut off service for a moment.
Added an MPEG version and working on QT for Mac types.
I’d say the first step in embracing a more productive national dialogue would be to reject the two major parties and begin new ones, focused more on workable policy than the marketing-driven, soundbite oriented, oligarchical hierarchy we have now.
Not exactly likely, I’ll grant, but…
The link seems to work again. I’m guessing it won’t last.
Great television. Stewart just dominated these two guys on the screen.
[quote]
In other words, it’s a structural problem
It’s not a structural problem with the political system. The point is that the media itself – the crossfire program specifically – is corrupt, not the political system. Stewart is annoyed that he is looked at to be a watchdog in the media – he’s someone who can say things that the regular media cannot. Why can’t the media do their jobs and ask the hard questions in a serious context that Stewart can in his comedy forum?
Actually, everything was doing just fine until I decided to do some server work simultaneously. 
At peak, my server was handling 150-250 concurrent connections, it’s now at just over 100. So it should be ok for awhile. Folks have been posting it all over the place (at my behest, as I’m stress testing my dedicated server) which is pretty nifty, IMHO.
[QUOTE=squeegee]
But it’s the parties that encourage their mutual allies in the media to stick to the prepared messages; God forbid anyone have, hear, or get an original viewpoint on an issue or problem…
I posted a GD-reply in the Cafe Society thread on this.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=281146&page=2
The short of it is – everyone on TV (except a few anonymous newsreaders on cable and local news) is either an outright or perceived partisan mouthpiece. What counts as analysis is now just repeating RNC or DNC talking points louder and more often than anyone else. I didn’t agree with much of Outfoxed but it did open my eyes to how this leakage is getting more pervasive: and easy example is Brit Hume as a newsreader during the week and then as an opinionated debate show host on the weekend.
Stewart went on Crossfire and said as much. Stewart gets all types of respect because sometimes it seems like he is the only on calling the BS out when he sees it. Even if it comes from a guest. So he went on Crossfire and he gave his spiel, challenging Carlson and Begala to come out and out debate him on their “debate” show. And they were gobsmacked, having a real antagonistic, debating guest. And they couldn’t come back and they didn’t outdebate him and they didn’t know how to treat him. Tucker’s only retort was to say that Stewart, an untrained comedian running a fake news show, couldn’t do any better than the trained and prepped journalists who do cable news when it came to interviewing Kerry. In Cafe Society, I attempt to justify this, but let me just leave it as it was a tough spot for anyone on a comedy show (you see Leno and Letterman have the same problem with unfunny guests who are looking to pander and to whom the hosts wish to pander), and Stewart was not at his best there.
Stewart’s point is that this absurdity of living from talking point to talking point is destroying America. Many perceive a decline in democracy in America, and he (and many people like spinsanity.org and factcheck.org, not to mention the ones on the left like dailyhowler.com and mediamatters.org) thinks that the absence of an active, independent, challenging media only contributes.
Perhaps this will open their eyes. I know Tucker has come out against Bush on many fronts, but he is a rare exception and this behavior doesn’t show very often in him or in any hosts in positions like his.
I salute you for making this available to so many who would have otherwise missed it.
And that was the point Jon was trying to make. If shows like Crossfire actually did their job they wouldn’t be party allies, they would be the ones to make the parties be sure they had their stories straight and told the truth.
If I had a show where I interviewed politicians my sidekick would have a computer right there at the desk to check their story even before the interviewee was finished talking. That’d keep em honest. 
And it would be great TV.
Crossfire is not a debate show it’s a circus. It could be so much more than that.
"What you hear most if you’re standing in the lobby (of Fahrenheit 9/11), listening to people, is, ‘I don’t remember seeing Bush sitting there for seven minutes,’ " Moore says. "That’s what’s shocking to people. People are like, ‘Shouldn’t I be seeing this stuff on TV for free? Why is a guy in a baseball cap with a high school education telling me this?’ "
–Rolling Stone, September 4, 2004
No problem; it’s been major geeky fun watching my server handle this load…and ask for more! Other than the 5-min downtime that my own stupidity caused, there’s been over 5,000 copies distributed from my server alone…and everyone else is mirroring it, too, including ifilm.
I’m guessing that CNN won’t make a whole lot of money selling that video transcript.
Hmm…I’d hesitate to go so far as to say the political system itself is corrupt, exactly. Personally, I do think that the two party system, as it is practiced (in all its adversarial glory), is weak in this regard. (Oh, by the way - I’d like to see an argument that the system, as it stands, is fine just the way it is. Although I don’t feel that way, I think I might be able to formulate something. Perhaps in a later post.) Even supposing a “watchdog media” that did their job, a common tactic of simply avoiding the matter (as I’ve seen GWB do in a couple news clips) is a natural result. I would tend to tie a measure of “news as entertainment” into the problem also. For instance, the other week Chris Matthews mentioned something about being in a tricky situation - it wasn’t possible for him to really roast guests, as they’re not paid to appear on his show. There’s a tension between the media and political figures - why would they willingly subject themselves to a forum in which they can expect to look bad?
Here’s what I mean by structural problems. One part of it is that the two party system is entrenched and neither party wants to upset the balance. Blame the all-or-nothing electoral college, or the vast amounts of money it takes to run for office, or allowing lawmakers to control the process (e.g., gerrymandering). Plenty of issues there. Another part of the structure is that the media depends on access to the politicos. Prior to television, it seems to me that “stumping” was a necessity. Political figures had to make the effort to get their name out and subject themselves to scrutiny. (Of course, that point of view could just be the fact that until recently, politics held no real interest for me.) Another part is that a large segment of today’s audience really only wants specious entertainment. Or maybe that’s all they have time for. At any rate, I can see pinning the blame on any of the above, while any one of them can be tweaked to change the system as it is practiced. However, given what is in place today, I see the inefficacy of debates (between candidates themselves or their advocates) as inevitable. But is it really?
I don’t see that Brit Hume is a newsreader. He hosts Special Report which I’m having trouble defining. Political discussion with a definite POV. Maybe compare it to Now with Bill Moyers? Hume appears as a panelist on Fox News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace (nee Tony Snow).
I’d consider the :30 update people newsreaders. And The Fox Report.
Hooray, finally, I see the video! (I’d heard and read it, not seen it.)
I already said a few things in the CS thread, but you know what’s really telling to me? The Crossfire audience seems to be totally behind Stewart’s critiques as well as his comedy.
I bet I’m not the only one who would LOVE to know what the three of them said to each other during the breaks. That must’ve been interesting.
BUTTBOY?
It may have been because I was under the influence, but I could have sworn I heard Jon Stewart say that he was the other guy’s “buttboy,” and then proclaim, “you wouldn’t believe what he eats!”
Is this true, or am I insane?
From the transcript: