Well, they did have that fancy graphic of Jon’s softball questions to Kerry. I don’t know how long it takes them to set something like that up, or if it’s added in post, or what, though.
Bottom line: they invited Jon Stewart on their show to express his opinion. His opinion was: you guys suck. I don’t see the problem with that.
I’d wager that stuff is prepared ahead of time.
Oh, one other thing… The Daily Show has done a segment at least a couple of times where two children will read a transcript from a political talk show like Crossfire. It’s a very clever little thing that makes it clear how dumb and childish these shows can get. So again, if these guys didn’t think Jon Stewart was going to mock their show, it’s their own fault for not listening to him.
Having FINALLY seen the video, it’s apparent to me that while he lectures both of them, Tucker Carlson is the one he really lays into (because Carlson seemed a lot more offended by his comments). It didn’t really hit me that he went on the guy’s show and called him a dick on air. The things you can get away with when you’re a comedian… 
So you’re going to withdraw all support and stop watching his show because you think this breach of manners is worse than a TV show that exists only to pander to what is worst and most lazy about human nature (ie that we care more about bread and circuses than we do about boring old PBS)?
This is the kind of loyalty to TV that came up when Michael Moore made political statements on the Acadamy Awards. I don’t understand it.
The argument seems to be that a person can say whatever he or she wants, they just shouldn’t say it on a TV show they don’t own. Because even though TV shows are admittedly commercial enterprises and the bottom line is profit, it’s very important to stay within the boundaries that the show purports to inhabit. So if it’s an “Awards Show” people have to stick to appreciating the award, and if it’s a “shitty infotainment fake debate show” people should stick to the shitty fake debate. To break the illusion is in some way unkind. To the show. It hurts the show’s feelings? This is the part I don’t understand. Because a TV show has no feelings and you can say anything you want about it and nobody will cry or get hurt.
It does make sense that TV producers only care about ratings and ad revenue and will constantly push the boundaries of less immediate ideals to grab attention in an escalating circus, but that’s because it’s a system and it operates on its own momentum. But when you see regular people getting offended on behalf of a TV show…It’s how Homer Simpson thinks. Crossfire has more of a right to kind treatment in its own stuido than Jon Stewart has to say what he really thinks of it while he’s physically there. Even though Crossfire is not a person and has no feelings and exists only to make money.
Crossfire is an idea. Jon Stewart is a human being. But a smart, thoughtful, attractive individual, who is demonstrably speaking as a sincerely concerned citizen should keep his mouth shut, because a TV show is *like a person’s house * and the TV hosts are like *people who have invited you into their home. * And it is rude to criticize someone in his own home.
This has been pointed out before, but some really scary things emerged from this:
-The guys on Crossfire apparently think Stewart’s show is based around making fun of politicians, when actually it’s mostly based on making fun of the media. How could they fail to understand that? That’s frickin scary.
-Tucker Carlson and Begala both actually seemed to defend the idea that partisan hacks actually believe everything they say… even though they each in other contexts have pounced on and discussed in depth how this isn’t true. In other words, they were willing to be just as insincere as the political operatives they claim are sincere.
Another interesting contrast: Stewart’s line of work is based mostly around being able to puncture and laugh at absurdity. Begala and Carlson’s work is mostly about trying to maintain a straight face through talking point absurdity.
ISiddiqui there is a problem with your objection. You are claiming that Jon Stewart was being a bad guest but also that the media is in it for the money, which means they are in it for the ratings. Does it not stand to reason then that anything a guest does that increases ratings is being a good guest, even if it involves being a prick to the hosts?
Second, as mentioned by pokey TV is a weird thing, especially when it comes to etiquette. I don’t think that a show’s typical format is as strong a social contract as the actual rules of behavior between guests and hosts in person. The social contract for interviews is highly disfunctional and seems to boil down to “Don’t get us in trouble with the FCC.” Beyond that the treatment that hosts give guests and vice versa is a sick free for all that varies in intensity from show to show, from the absolute fluff of “Live with Regis and Kelly” to the heated exchanges of “The O’Reilly Factor.”
I can see that you don’t like Stewart being mean, but he has an agenda and arguments for it and he is not shy about delivering these arguments when given a chance. No one is willing to actually argue with him, to actually give him an answer to one of his questions, and so it seems that his frustration is growing and his willingness to press the issue is increasing.
Good post, but I don’t think it helps the ratings of Crossfire. I’m not sure how many people actually watched the show as it happened and I don’t think the nature of the debate will help gain the show NEW viewers (the old ones will stay).
I agree that treatment of hosts to guest does seem to vary by the show, but I haven’t seen too often guests lecture their hosts about the type of show they put on (the only other one that comes to mind readily is more of a rant against the individual when Madonna came on the Letterman show and cursed him out).
As for the other posters, it seems we just have a difference of opinion on this issue. You won’t change my POV and I won’t change yours. So I’ll just drop it, k?
Jon Stewart’s problem with them isn’t that they engage in heated debate. That could work very well as a format for a show, which would be perhaps more entertaining and less informative than a regular news show. Again, an analogy to the SDMB works - we have areas where people get facts, discuss frivilous issues, debate serious topics, and simply sling mud and insults. Imagine that the SDMB were your only source of information, and there were no GQ or GD - that’s what we get from TV right now. And I don’t see why their “sides” should correspond to political parties. Do there guys work for the political parties or for a news channel? What we need is debate reflecting different points of view that dissects the spin from politicians, not merely amplifies it.
**ISiddiqui ** suggests that a code of courtesy should prevail on these television programs (one in which, strangely enough, it is okay for Stewart to talk trash about Crossfire behind its back but not to its face). But one of Stewart’s main points was that these news shows, and the media in general, do not hold politicians’ feet to the fire, and you can’t do that by being nicey-nice. Stewart’s Crossfire appearance revealed the extent to which Crossfire is not designed to accommodate real debate–as soon as he strayed from the anticipated “script,” they (especially Carlson) became interested only in shutting him down.
I love Crossfire. I love The Daily Show.
Now that I’ve discovered the hosts from the respective shows hate each other, I feel so conflicted.
Jon Stewart’s comments will fall on deaf ears unless they see some strong viewer feedback. If you want to write to the Crossfire staff, either to back up Jon Stewart (or to denounce him, I suppose) here’s a link.
I’m composing a reply right now. They want me to check a box indicating wether my comment is positive or negative. I’m writing to praise Jon Stewart for bitchslapping their correspondents around like a pair of two-dollar crack whores. Is that a negative response, or a positive response?
I saw the clip and really had to wonder why they asked him on in the first place given his obvious disdain for the show and the way it’s conducted. I think the person who scheduled him for that show did expect him to be an entertaining little monkey. If that person was not one of the hosts they may well be unemployed at this point.
But that aside, even though some of Stewart’s points had some merit, pointing out that the CNN “Crossfire” television show is political theatre is about as profound as pointing out that pro wrestling is fixed. Cable news is a business, and eyeballs are the coin of the realm. Crossfire has every right to conduct their show how they wish to. If Stewart wants to lecture Crossfire for not living up to his standards for incisive, hard-hitting debate, and basically being a partisan yammer fest, let him propose a better way. IRRC he was asked this “What specifically would you do” question in the interview, and he basically waved his arms around and said essentially, “That’s your job, I’m a comedy show”.
Beyond all this, I think a portion of Stewart’s position re calling for a show that would have REAL debate, was either disingenuous or naive, maybe both. People in power and journalists do a delicate and intricate dance of self-interest. If there is objectively nothing to gain in an interview, but being flayed alive, and made to look foolish, it is unlikely that that show would get many truly serious and influential players on either side of question to come on, and at some point the model fails. People have choices, even powerful people, and one of those choices is not to be mercilessly grilled about their policy positions by people they do not directly answer to.
His show is vastly entertaining, and it’s nice that Stewart makes a living mocking this all too mockable minuet of self-interest, but calling out Crossfire hosts as bums for their infotainment sins, and lack of purity is a little bit cynical and/or ignorant on his part.
So, what you wanted to do was rant and be agreed with.
Since it turned out that almost no one agreed with you in any way, rather than considering tthat you might be wrong, you’re leaving the thread and debate.
If you’re attached to being ignorant, why bother being on this board?
Which is where the responsibility of the public comes in.
In many countries (and notably the UK), politicians are expected to be accountable, and to be held to account by their opponents, by the press and by the public. A politician who avoids appearing anywhere they might actually be asked an awkward question will look bad IF the press and public call them on their evasiveness. Tony Blair has faced questioning by audiences on live television and by interviewers (although I note he avoids the notoriously rabid *Today *and *Newsnight *programmes, preferring the softball questioning of David Frost on Sunday morning television). The public has to demand that the leaders answer questions either directly or by proxy; to let them off the hook is to fail one’s responsibility as a citizen.
I wonder what would happen if they let Jeremy Paxman interview Kerry and Bush. Certainly ratings wouldn’t be an issue…
For a show centered on debate, I was appalled at the hosts’ total lack of debating chops. They didn’t even put up a fight. They could have at least made him define his terms, or get him to give some examples…somthing! Instead, they just sat there.
I disagree. It’s not his responsibility to “fix” Crossfire, anymore than it was Jonathan Swift’s responsibility to solve the Irish potato famine. Nor, for that matter, is it the media’s responsibility to fix government. In all three cases, it is that person’s responsibility to point out when something isn’t working, not to repair it themselves.
Of course they act out of self-interest. That’s the entire problem. The press has a specific, very important role to play in the health of the republic. Instead of fulfilling this role, they are acting out of self-interest. Evidentally, this really pisses off Jon Stewart.
If we had a real press in this country, a refusal to be interviewed would be as damning as the worst possible interview a pol could give. As it is, though, we have so forgotten what real “hard-hitting” journalism is that people believe Bill O’Reilly when he starts bleating about his show being a “no-spin zone.”
It’s absolutely cynical, and deservedly so.
I have seen CNNs’ Crossfire, though not the one with Jon Stewart. Ron Kuby and Curtis Sliwa on New York’s WABC does better debates than Crossfire, and the two aren’t belters from the Beltway; one is a Kunstler Nut and the other a brawler from Brooklyn. But they are more effective.
You are right that, for you and for me and for many others, it isn’t at all an in-depth analysis to point out that Crossfire is theater.
But Tucker Carlson’s reaction to that statement, his defensiveness, his insecurity, his hostility, is proof that, as “unprofound” as you consider Jon Stewart’s comment, it was received by a person who wasn’t prepared to hear it. Carlson is the media equivalent of a professional wrestler and he doesn’t realize it. Pointing that out to him in his own forum, where he thinks he’s king, might not be “profound”, but it sure as hell was powerful. Jon Stewart ruled that show, and although his criticism wasn’t original, it was extremely relevant.