I usually agree, but those were among the exceptions.
Posh Spice was years ago, but still after the Spice Girls had slipped away from worldwide prominence, I was surprised to see her (and Baby Spice, who was also there). Basically, she wasn’t aware that this was a comedy show, and was offended by the skits before the interview, and Jon’s jokey manner during it.
“You Americans all think you’re so funny”
“Well, I’m no Benny Hill”
She came off as a stereotypical bitchy prima donna and Jon deftly mocked her. Baby Spice sat with a horrified forced grin and laugh.
JLH was more surreal. She was plugging Garfield and Jon asked why they were making this movie now instead of when Garfield was popular, and joked that Bill Murray was a whore for money for doing the voice work. JLH was polite enough, but again horrified. If I had to guess what happened, I’d say Jon was simply fed up with plugging crap for teh C-list on his show. JLH just happened to be on the worng show, plugging a bad movie.
I saw that episode after reading the thread on it and I didn’t think Jon really slammed Hayes. The one big thing was the joke about not enough evidence, or something like that, which was a fair joke to make. I thought Hayes took it pretty well and came out looking okay.
The whole thing has the air of a Python sketch about it.
Jon: Look, this isn’t an argument.
Crossfire: Yes it is.
Jon: No it isn’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a conclusion.
Crossfire: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Jon: Yes, but that’s not just saying “No it isn’t.”
Crossfire: Yes it is.
I don’t watch Crossfire; I just have little regard for the mainstream media in general. Is it fair to say that Crossfire’s debate amounts to professional pandery packaged as point vs. counterpoint? If that’s the case, it’s just another propoganda machine masquerading as news. Hence, Stewart’s “rudeness” is entirely appropriate. If these people are charlatans, they need to face up to it and stop pretending to be a news source of some kind, as the audience is expected to understand it. Stewart’s defense of his own show (“It’s not a news show, it’s comedy.”) would not be hypocritical at all, because he’s upfront about the conterfeit nature of his program.
It’s called “speaking truth to power,” and it has a long and honorable history. Stewart had tremendous brass balls to do it; if his motives were entirely selfish, he would have gone on the show and pimped his book like a little monkey and fed the corporate machine, and been financially rewarded in the long run for playing the part he’s been assigned. (Witness Beyonce Knowles, who has entirely and completely sold out without an apparent flicker of conscience.)
Instead, he took a huge gamble, risking pissing off the power brokers behind the scenes; he bearded the lion in its den. He wasn’t attacking Tucker and Crossfire specifically, but he got a CNN platform, and he decided to speak his entire mind. (And frankly, I would be surprised if he’s invited back on. And if he is, I’d be surprised if he accepts; he’d simply be driving up the ratings of a show, and a so-called “journalistic” vehicle, he loathes.)
Why he’s being criticized for this is simply beyond me.
I am a fan of Stewart but I think he was being disingenuous. First he came on and attacked instantly; he didn’t state his points and his reasons behind them, instead he made an emotional attack right away. Naturally the hosts would be become defensive. A different approach might have made his point better, if he did indeed have one. Instead he resorted to exactly the thing he was accusing the Crossfire hosts of: rapid fire (and clearly partisan) attacks devoid of context.
Second, if he really wants to use the “but I’m just a comedian” excuse as to why he doesn’t ask hard hitting questions, then why have politicians on his show at all? The fact is that The Daily Show is just another part of a politician’s whistlestop tour and Stewart should acknowledge that. If he is enraged enough about the state of modern journalism to go on another show and make an ass of himself, he should have the guts to make an ass of himself on his own show. The Daily Show uses politics as a form of entertainment just as Crossfire does; the delivery is just different.
If Stewart was really serious about his point he should have found a different platform or, at the very least, stepped out of the Crossfire idiom while he was criticising the show.
Have you been reading this thread? The problem is not so much that Crossfire is pure entertainment, it’s that it purports to be informative and substantive. The Daily Show apsires to none of these things (though it achieves them in spite of itself sometimes). And why can’t entertainers have politico guests if those guests are interesting? Why does Leno have Kerry ride a motorcycle onto the stage in his show? Well, it’s entertainment and PR. Does Leno have to ask tough questions? Does he need to edify the viewing audience and challenge his guests to be forthright? Of course not.
One thing I didn’t understand about the episode (I’ve only read the transcript) - why on earth was the audience laughing? Didn’t they recognize that by attending a taping they were supporting the very product Stewart was condemning? “Yeah, this show sucks, ha-ha!” I found that part surreal.
I think part of the problem is that the genres of entertainment and news have fuzzed the boundaries between them so much that it’s hard to tell one from the other anymore. It used to be that the Sunday pundit shows actually were edifying and tough for the politicos to be on. And they got much respect for being on them, too. Shows like Meet the Press and the oldCrossfire were respected fora where candidates and politicians got asked tough questions, in front of the public. Shows like The Capitol Gang were watched for the all-around perspectives of pundits from all political schools, and were actually interesting and insightful.
Now, the networks and production companies have blurred the lines in the name of profit. “We’ll turn our news division into infotainment central if it’ll add to the bottom line!”
Journalists used to have a duty to be adversarial with the government, because they were supposed to be the watchdogs who kept us safe from excess in the public sphere. Now, they’ve been bribed with big juicy steaks and couldn’t care less.
This raises the question: What is their job? Stewart seemed to be asserting that their job is to create and present a substantive debate show. If this is their job, and if they are not doing this, it is difficult to defend the statement that they are doing their jobs.
If you (any of you, that is, not just Sam Stone) would like to present an argument that either that is not their job, or that they are in fact creating and presenting a substantive debate show, I invite you to do so now.
Huh. The 12% down figure was in the news just a couple of days ago. I guess someone’s wrong. Or they’re talking about different measurements or demographics or something.
If he did choose the wrong approach, that’s not being disingeneous, that’s just making a mistake. As I noted before, I came into the show late; but, I didn’t see Stewart being partisan. He was giving preferential treatment to the guy who isn’t Tucker and that made sense because Tucker was being a total asshat. I didn’t see him making rapid fire partisan attacks sans context. He was being quite clear, hammering one point, and completely in context: The news media, and specifically in this case Crossfire, are doing harm by keeping the news to specious, sound-byte rhetoric instead of substantial debate.
Stewart is right when he makes the claim that Crossfire and other shows like it aren’t debate in any meaningful sense. And I do know a little about debate, because I won actual debate trophies for my undergrad university and even qualified for nationals. Nothing in the format precludes shows like Crossfire from being meaty and entertaining.
Also as I mentioned before, it may be that TDS has, through its success, put itself in the position of having to be more responsible. Here’s the irony, however: It is substantial in comparison to many news shows out there. Being substantial doesn’t mean attacking everybody in sight. It’s more than fine to be nice to a guest if he’s utilizing the interview to elicit explanations and insights that are meaningful and less superficial. Though I can’t recall anything from memory, I know that I’ve seen him ask many questions and get responses that are more fit for a C-SPAN debate than a cable comedy channel—or a commercial, cable news channel.
Lastly, I think he did step outside the Crossfire idiom when he was on the show. He wasn’t playing their game.
The points that I though Jon was trying to make were that the media in general (and Crossfire specifically) are puppets and purchased time for the parties concerned. That the media is not making the effort to verify the facts that are spouted out by the pundits and are not willing to confront them on the nonsense that they speak.
During the Oct 20 Daily Show, they had Batman graphics superimposed over the candidates recent speech soundbites with descriptions like ‘fib’, ‘glib’, ‘exaggeration’, etc. Obviously the Daily Show is doing this in a way that is meant to be humourous, but I think that this is what Jon is wanting the mainstream media to be doing for ‘the guys out there mowing the grass’.
They also had a reporter (Ed Helm?) at one of the debates and going to Spin Alley (after the debate) and trying to get straight answers from the pundits whose job it is to further their own agenda. Of course he didn’t get his answer, but it highlighted the media frenzy trying to get their ‘facts’ from this source rather than trying real journalism.
Ted Koppel and the Nightline interview
I’ve also gone back to the Koppel Nightline interview transcript where Jon was trying to say the same thing. I didn’t see anything that Ted should’ve been offended by, as he was not attacked personally, nor does it sound like he was offended by the alleged good natured interview he had on the Daily Show afterwards. I am confused by the Crossfire assertion that Jon ‘shouldn’t have done that to Ted Koppel.’
