It was a beautiful tribute indeed. Also a bit surreal, as I was surprised at how strongly Stewart had been affected – I would have been exactly the same way, but I’m a known misty-eyed softie and fanatical dog lover. So now I feel that Stewart and I are kindred spirits over our love of dogs.
I thought it was a great lead-up to a wonderful Moment of Zen. When our last dog died, some of my neighbors didn’t know right away, and, even months later, I’d tear up when they asked, and I had to tell him that he was gone.
The left’s version of Tucker Carlson would deliberately spread false and misleading news stories in order to stoke outrage to shut down the critical thinking of his viewers, while using fearmongering and culture wars to get keep them loyal. They would also be a willing propaganda arm for a left wing country.
Of course Jon would never do any of that. No one would ever want him to be. But that doesn’t mean it would be great if he just said whatever he thought or felt. That’s not the Jon Stewart we know. That’s just a reactionary.
Fortunately, I don’t see any sign of that, either. He still comes off as thoughtful, like he considers what he should say and how he should say it. I think maybe it took a bit to get back into the groove, but he’s doing better.
I actually was worried when I saw your post that Jon had said he wasn’t the left-wing Tucker at the beginning of the show. I am glad he did not.
Sure he did. He just said it funnier. That’s why I’m not hosting even one night a week. Look at the clip starting about 1:50 after he shows the quotes against him.
He makes a joke about only talking about what he saw with his eyes and brain and then he says he will do better. . “But where would I go to study the particulars of unquestioning propaganda?” and launches directly into Tucker Carlson. It is funny but it’s not subtle.
You think that there are people who tune in to get updates on Stewart’s pets? What an odd reason to watch the show; and quite unfulfilling, too; I mean, most episodes you’re totally disappointed (“did he mention his pets? No?! Foiled again!”). And then when he finally does mention his pets, it’s to announce the death of one. Kind of a bummer, if you ask me.
Eh. I’d say there’s a pretty big difference in meaning there. The problem I had with your wording was the implication that anyone actually wanted Jon to be Tucker Carlson. His statement reads more like “I’m not going to do propaganda. Now let’s look at the worst example of someone who does.”
Granted, I still think he’s wrong to accuse his critics of wanting propaganda. They just disagree with his tactics and the way they present certain things. Some had valid points, while others didn’t. And some had points that I disagreed with but were still understandable. But I already went into that elsewhere.
Besides, I was concerned he had said that about Tucker this week, which would suggest he was refusing to let go. I actually think the way he handled it this week was the better strategy. I wanted either a full discussion without the bad faith interpretations (on either side) or just to not talk about it.
And I do give a little more leeway on segues. A clever connection between two segments sometimes implies things that are unintended. It wouldn’t be the first time. And I’d rather believe it was that then him taking a swipe, because swipes are unhelpful against people who ultimately have the same goal.
So much for bothsiderism. Angry Jon tears into Dismal Don. Rips him into tiny shreds to cheers from all us godless libtard commies.
I have a pocket constitution. Read it from start to finish many times. That’s easy. It has so many short clauses you’d think it was written by James Patterson.
I’m thinking our initial reaction was likely just a result of his limited schedule. Previously, if he was doing 4 shows a week, it wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow if 1 of the 4 had focussed on Biden’s/Dems’ shortcomings. Now, with him appearing only 1x a week, the focus of the 1st show seemed different than what many of us had hoped for/expected. I’m comfortable enough that JS is aware that over time he ought to focus more on the very real dangers posed by Trump/Repubs, that to worry about striking any both sides balance.
He came back to cover the election. He didn’t come back to attack Trump specifically. It made sense that his first episode back covered the election in general and basically asked “how did we get here?” After that the episodes will cover specific topics of which the right will be the focus most of the time.
Not directly related to Jon himself, but I think this week they finally solved the problem of the non-Jon episodes by using a pair of anchors instead of just one - Desi Lydic and Michael Costa were (IMO, blah, blah, blah) so much better together than either of them was apart. Jordan Klepper and Ronny Chieng next, please.
My wife and I said exactly the opposite after the second show they did together. We like them both, but I don’t think it worked better with them together. I pity the people who have to make decisions like this, because, obviously, opinions differ.
Yeah, last night’s episode was pretty great, if anything for Jon’s evisceration of Kevin O’Leary. I decided to stop watching Shark Tank, primarily because I just couldn’t take that jackass any more. You can tell he’s the sort of guy who seriously gets off on exercising power over people.