It was what I’ve been proposing (for this specific job in this specific circumstance.)
care to revise that statement?
The widely held opinion that the replacement can’t be a straight, white, male and must be some other identity group seems to heavily imply that they will not be part of the selection process.
If I have misinterpreted that then I invite people to confirm that they would be happy for straight, white, men to be part of the selection process.
If that were the case then indeed, I’d have no argument with that.
Going back to whenever it was back in the thread…
As with Stewart and Noah, the best choice would probably be one we do not expect and do not have as a personal fave we want more of.
Another Stewart, under whom the show transformed, is unlikely in great measure because of the way the news media themselves have evolved.
TDS was all about how news media were failing to tell the real stories and fulfill the social function of producing an informed public. Now, our media are no longer even pretending.
Heck, the audience loss is probably first from the general decay of cable scripted shows, and immediately following by folks from both ends of the spectrum no longer watching anything that’s not 100% on their “good” side.
(There is also something mentioned before: Stewart and Noah both avoided a naked “sneering down” angle. That has to be a characteristic of a TDS host IMO. )
You said specifically:
that the interview room, cannot, under any circumstances contain people of identity x and that they will not even be considered in the first place
?
If so, then I retract that no one has said that, and join in on the idea that that’s unreasonable. While I do think that the job would be better suited going to a non-white straight male, I do not think that it should be a shut out, as @Novelty_Bobble is claiming is what is being demanded here.
But I didn’t think that your position was as extreme as @Novelty_Bobble claims it to be. If so, you are on your own to defend it.
My position has been that I would prefer to see someone other than a straight white male in that position, and that there is significant demand along those lines, and so it would only make fiduciary sense for Comedy Central and Paramount to heavily weight their selection process to provide that.
Sure, and if, for instance Jon Stewart wanted to take the gig back, I’d have no problem with that. There may be someone with such exceptional talent that it tips the scales enough that they go with a straight white male, even if that’s not what is in demand for a new late night host right now.
I have no control over their selection process, and nor do you. What has been expressed in this thread is that we, as consumers of media, would like to see something different than yet another straight white male on our late night comedy show lineup. That is what you have been arguing against this whole time.
Then we at least don’t disagree. And I appreciate the clarification.
That’s a much milder way of putting than has been expressed elsewhere in this thread, and the mild version is not what I’m against.
You can’t prove someone wrong by stating you don’t understand what they mean.
Now going back to the more recent argument, ISTM it gets a bit out of proportion. Some people in the thread have expressed their opinion that the times are right for another non-SWM host, as a general matter. ISTM none of them quotes a market study, they are just opining about what they perceive in their mediascape.
Some people take exception to that and others take exception to the exception and next you know you have a load of heated back and forth posts. It becomes a “strike the last word” situation.
Others meanwhile have expressed their opinion that they’d like some presenter or another in particular, with a slight inclination for wanting someone with “outsider cred” ( including for some reason a lot of attention to the world of BBC panel shows). That being person-specific does not generate the same level of controversy since it can be addressed on merit.
I think this sums up what my position is quite succinctly:
Whether that’s “extreme” or not is up to you.
Note that I have no more power than any of you to enforce hiring decisions at Comedy Central, so I’m just giving my desired outcome as a consumer of media, just as much as anyone else here. More so than some, maybe, since I actually watch TDS still, and a lot of people here seem not to anymore.
Doing just fine so far, thanks.
Another vote for Angela Ruffin. She’s funny, likeable, and this is totally her thing. Not sure if her colorful style really meshes with the staid Fake News Show aesthetic but, as a personality, I think she’d have pretty broad appeal.
I don’t think that it’s extreme, and not anywhere as extreme as the rephrasing that @Novelty_Bobble attributed to it.
I have a similar desired outcome, and I do watch TDS, not every night, but at least a couple times a week (when it is on, anyway).
As your position was not what @Novelty_Bobble claimed it was, then there is little to defend.
Well it is a nonsensical statement. Everyone who has eyes is able, at some level, to see the physical differences between certain races.
I was translating that nonsensical statement into what I believe was meant, and what that phrase means to me, and carrying on from there.
If what was truly meant was that some people are completely unable to see any difference then you are right, my response is irrelevant.
Oh? So easy, is it?
I’m honestly not sure what you are trying to imply and I don’t know what the picture represents.
What I’m gleaning from this discussion is that if Novelty_Bobble were the new owner of a vegan restaurant he would insist on swapping out the tofu for bacon cheeseburgers because he doesn’t see meat. The customers would simply have to understand that even though they can go anywhere else in town for bacon cheeseburgers, bacon cheeseburgers are objectively the best meal and he is committed to serving the best. Nobody could or should ever object to that. Meat is not all one type of thing and therefore can service the needs of vegans as well as plants.
I’m “trying to imply” that thinking you can’t tell races apart that easily by physical differences.
It “represents” a young human male.
That sentence seems unfinished or has an extra word or two, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You seem to be trying to refute something I’ve said but…?
Indeed it does, and a handsome young chap he is. I still don’t see the point.
Its an analogy Jim, but not as we know it.
The point is that race is bullshit. The racial category that this person would superficially appear to fall into has nothing to do with his genetic and geographic ancestry.
I agree. Why do you think that is that relevant to anything that I said?
You have been excluding the wants and wishes of the audience from your analysis the entire time. Everybody here is telling you that cannot be done to achieve the desired result. Doing so does not attack racism, lessen racism, or form a better colorblind society. It perpetuates the the mistakes of the past.
The audience counts. It cannot be served one dish forever because you for mysterious reasons insist that it is “best” for them. Their opinions count, and your “best” may be their worst.