Poll of the Day > John Stewart on CNN's Crossfire with Tucker Carlson, 2004

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE" data-time="

Very interesting.
---

Classic
---

Still incredible hypocritical on his part.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Still incredible hypocritical on his part.

Came in to say this. How is he of all people gonna call someone out for being partisan lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCwn1NTK-50" data-time="

OhhhJa posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Still incredible hypocritical on his part.

Came in to say this. How is he of all people gonna call someone out for being partisan lol

he has a point when he says it doesn't matter if he is and he isn't claiming otherwise. But he isn't pretending to be anything else.

Stewart was broken by the end. Best he could do was call tucker a dick.
---

ASlaveObeys posted...

OhhhJa posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Still incredible hypocritical on his part.

Came in to say this. How is he of all people gonna call someone out for being partisan lol

he has a point when he says it doesn't matter if he is and he isn't claiming otherwise. But he isn't pretending to be anything else.

It's more like he hides behind being a comedy show anytime someone challenges his integrity. That's what he's always done because it's been brought up multiple times and he always defends himself in the same way... "hahaha but I'm just a comedy show." Dude's full of shit and even if it's a comedy slanted show, he is still discussing politics and is part of the problem with partisan media. He even owns himself at the end of that video when the lady asks him why politicians never give straight answers and he says it's because nobody holds their feet to the fire and Tucker accuses him of doing exactly that and he has no answer because it's true

But her emails

You've already won, move on to something current.
---

ASlaveObeys posted...

OhhhJa posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Still incredible hypocritical on his part.

Came in to say this. How is he of all people gonna call someone out for being partisan lol

he has a point when he says it doesn't matter if he is and he isn't claiming otherwise. But he isn't pretending to be anything else.

Yeah but his main defense is, "but my show is a comedy show". People clearly look to shows like his for their politics. He can't pretend like they don't. Or at least they did when it was still around.

Also, many of those comedy shows have specific segments that are not comedy and are very serious.
---

Smarkil posted...

Yeah but his main defense is, "but my show is a comedy show". People clearly look to shows like his for their politics. He can't pretend like they don't. Or at least they did when it was still around.

Especially when you realize there were already demographic studies done at the time that explicitly spelled out that a lot of younger viewers were exclusively getting their news from The Daily Show, and essentially considered it just as informative as they did comedic. Meaning that Jon Stewart was either phenomenally ignorant of his own influence at the time (and he's not even remotely that stupid), or his entire rant basically boils down to "Do as I say, not as I do."

You can't complain about someone else failing in their responsibility as a journalistic over entertainment show because how they present the news negatively influences political discourse, while you're currently hosting a journalistic-themed entertainment show show that negatively influences political discourse because of how you present the news.

It becomes even shittier when you're going on someone else's show under false pretenses specifically to call them out, seemingly solely because they fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum than you, while disingenuously obfuscating your actual issues with them behind a veil of false righteousness.



Smarkil posted...

Also, many of those comedy shows have specific segments that are not comedy and are very serious.

The interview segment of the show became radically different after 9/11. Beforehand, the interviews were either celebrity fluff pieces or clearly comedic. In the wake of 9/11, during the "Is it OK to laugh?" period the country went through for a few weeks/months (which most of you probably don't remember because you were too young at the time), they started having a number of politicians on the show to discuss the global geopolitical situation in the wake of the event, and those interviews were treated seriously and respectfully regardless of the politics of the person being interviewed.

That, in turn, actually gave the show a bit of cachet, which in turn allowed them to get more and more politicians on. They followed that up by having more and more authors as well, generally turning the interview segment into a much more serious affair. Yes, they still had celebrities on from time to time, and yes, there was still humor in the interviews, but they were absolutely treated differently than the earlier episodes.

It was very obvious that the producers of the show became enamored of the respectability and influence they'd gained in the process, and they deliberately used it to keep presenting their own worldview (which was/is very much significantly Left, when you realize a fair number of their producers were also behind the creation and administration of Air America), under the veil of being purely entertainment (which is not how large portions of the audience perceived it). It was also telling in later years, where they would basically softball any interview with Liberal politicians or pundits while being much more probing with Conservative (and also telling considering the show Stephen Colbert went on to produce as a spin-off). Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with their politics, it was disingenuous as fuck. And arguably worse than anything the hosts of Crossfire ever did.

And the fact that Stewart remained host of the show for years after, rather than resigning in disgust or otherwise protesting in some way, shows he only really gives a shit about the idea of "journalistic integrity" or personal responsibility when they don't apply to him in any way.


---