He insulted the show for most of the half hour and then called Tucker Carlson a dick. It was wonderful to finally see someone admit that most of these "debate" shows on CNN and Fox don't do the public a bit of good.
Printable View
He insulted the show for most of the half hour and then called Tucker Carlson a dick. It was wonderful to finally see someone admit that most of these "debate" shows on CNN and Fox don't do the public a bit of good.
Damn...that is awesome. Do/will they replay that?
It doesn't look like it, unfortunately. And I'm sure if they did do a re-run they'd edit out Jon calling Tucker a dick.
If anyone finds this online, lemme know.
Tucker said something to Jon that provoked him to call him a dick, something like "You're the biggest [??] on television" to which Jon responded "Yeah well you're the biggest dick on television."
At least that's what I caught. It was friggin great though.
Woah, that was to the point. I wish I could have seen it. I hope he goes on Hardball after this. :D
I saw it but didn't tape, just expected him to be funny. Someone has to put this up somewhere, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../15/cf.01.html
You're welcome!
But I can't read.
neither can i. video, video!
http://bitflood.org:8080/?file=791b2...51f71e73964185
A friend just sent that to me. Enjoy.
Freakin' kids and your newfangled video.
ah, my computer is fucked up. torrent files just don't go quickly anymore. i never seem to get over 12k/sec. even after forwarding the appropriate ports. hell, even when i'm not on a router.
anyway, thanks kevin. i should have it within two hours./
Thanks, Kevin!
Looks like they just seeded a compressed version as well. It's a third the size if you don't mind the quality loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by epmode
Y'know, there's nothing super funny about that comment, until you read it in Kuwabar's voice. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ViciousJazz
Thanks for the links Kevin!
The last words John Stewart says before he fades out, "I thought that went great!" :lol:.
And it did. He completely owned them on thier own show. You could just see bow tie guy seething with anger. Even the studio audience was siding with Stewart, they applauded almost everything he said. Respect for Stewart +10 (not that i was lacking any to begin with).
Good stuff.
That was awesome. He handed them their asses!
Respect +10 for Stewart.
...and CNN still sucks big time.
Thanks for the torrent. I'll take a look.
Kuwabara makes everything charming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Just watched it. The amazing thing was the two talking heads from CNN are so brainwashed, they totaly didn't get his point, pretty much cementing what he is saying is true.
I wonder if we will see any mentions on the Daily Show at all when they come back.
... I don't know how to use Torrent.
You need to download a bit torrent client, such as ABC (Another Bitorrent Client) or Bitcomet. The original BT client is on this page: http://bittorrent.com/download.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
ABC and Bitcomet let you alter your upload/download settings to better fit your PC. Once you've installed the torrent client, click on the link Kevin provided, and click on one of the links at that link to download the torrent. The torrent client should open automatically, ask you where to save the file, and begin downloading and uploading the file. If you are running ZoneAlarm or another personal firewall, you might want to disable it. If you're behind a router, you'll want to forward some ports to your PC's IP address (ports 6881 to 6999).
Hope that helps for starters.
I can't use BT because the school blocks it. Can someone send it to me? Through gmail(copyrezo at gmail.com) or AIM or something? =\
Gmail will only accept up to a 10MB attachment. =/ Can someone else help?
I can upload at 18kb/s. I'll be here for a bit. Add me to your AIM if you want and I'll send. I guess I can't see your screename without approval.
Thanks a lot, man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
I came across a post on the somethingawful forums with a few links for those who can't use torrents. No idea how long they'll stay alive.
http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=1289315
Excellent. downloading now, thanks.
Thanks for the try anyways. 10MB limit sucks =\Quote:
Gmail will only accept up to a 10MB attachment. =/ Can someone else help?
Awesome. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
Getting the torrent. Thanks, kevin.
If anyone needs it later on lemme know.
Wow, I just read the transcript, and it sounds like Stewart did an excellent job. I've always thought that he was brilliant on his show, and it's nice to see that it's not simply scripted.
Mzo, could you please send it to me via AIM or however? My computer has never been able to connect to Torrents correctly.
AIM: TheNonExample
That Tucker Carlson was embarrassing to watch.
Also, I'm hosting the file now.
this is some of the most amazing television i've ever seen. seriously. god bless live tv.
thanks again, kevin.
(i'd upload the file myself, but i'm getting capped by my isp, so it'll take forever. maybe next time..)
Thanks, Kevin, downloading now.
Rezo, you are a saint among men.
Thank you.
This was awesome. I seriously want to be this man's disciple.
I'm so pissed that I missed this. Hopefully I can fully download it.
Did you not read the thread? rezo is hosting a copy of the show personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
(I have no comment yet -- I am just watching it now.)
-Dippy
I'm guessing you got it from rezo, I don't even see you on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tones
More like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
Quote:
CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.
Mzo, I'm always on-and-off. But yes, I did get it from Rezo, but thanks for the offer.
Regarding the clip (thanks Rezo), it's sad that the two men on Crossfire couldn't get that Jon Stewart's role on The Daily Show is simply a character.
That's hilarious, but I'm not sure what he's trying to say. Regis and Kelly are clearly not a hard hitting journalism show, they're entertainment. So he'll hold them up to the light but ignore his own soft questions? I think that's a bit of a double standard.
I've been downloading the file the dude at somethingawful.com was hosting, I was saying I hope I could fully download it because well....56k and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstick
I think that was the point he was trying to make on crossfire. It's not his responsiblity to have journalistic integrity, it's his job to poke fun at politicans and politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Heh, I liked comment Jon made on Carlsons fashion sense:
"How old are you?And you wear a bow-tie?....I'm not suggesting that you're not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
A compliment and a put-down all rolled into one.
True and I don't agree with him at all with "debate" shows in that format being no good. They have their pros and cons, but to say they don't hold politicians' feet to the fire is odd to me. But, this is the first time I've watched this CNN show, so I can't speak for it - I don't watch CNN. But, I can see it's in the format of Hannity & Colmes which I watch on FOX and Buchanan & Press for MSNBC. For those two, I can't really agree. It's the same deal. The guy on the Left attacks the guy on the Right and vice versa. They hold each others feet to the fire as well as the guests who are usually one of the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
But then, ok, he says they're more like pro-wrestling matches. Well, that's why I friggin' watch 'em in the first place (and apparently Stewart continues to watch Crossfire but it's a grueling love/hate thing from what I gathered). The entertainment mixed in with discourse provides some motivation to tune in. If that's his problem and the shows changed, I think the viewership would drop off. I wanna see O'Reilly or Hannity dig into those that I'm personally opposed to ideologically. Learn something new, get a laugh in and go on. Just like a liberal enjoyed the guy on teh Right getting called a dick which I imagine was one of the reasons this video was brought to the board's attention.
Tucker Carlson is a dick. The fact that he was oblivious to exactly what type of show the Daily Show really is just made him look so stupid. He walked into every insult and coud do nothing but sit there and scowl at Stewart.
It was a joke. See, he said Kerry was fielding tough questions too, and the questions he was actually fielding weren't tough, so it's funny. Or it's supposed to be. That's all there was to it. I doubt the daily show was being critical of Regis and Kelly for not hitting Kerry with the hard questions.Quote:
That's hilarious, but I'm not sure what he's trying to say. Regis and Kelly are clearly not a hard hitting journalism show, they're entertainment. So he'll hold them up to the light but ignore his own soft questions? I think that's a bit of a double standard.
Stewart didn't say much, but I think the bigger point is that they didn't let him. If someone goes on a debate show to debate the nature of the show then the hosts ought to take him to task. When they came back from the break the questions seemed like they were set up to switch gears from what he brought up in the first half =\
Thanks, Rezo, that was great tv.
I was truly amazed by how clueless bow-tie guy was, how he just didn't get what the difference between how one acts on a comedy show and what's supposed to be a news show. Amazing stuff. :D
Also, if Stewart is funnier on The Daily Show than he was here then I need to start watching it religiously.
James
Finally saw it, damn good stuff.
Jon owned.
Definitely. They didn't want to handle going to task with someone who was calling them out on their show. Tucker jumped on offense and tried to change the conversation to shit like O'Reilly and eventually just resorted to his smarmy, backhanded, patronizing bullshit that makes me want to punch him in the face.Quote:
Originally Posted by rezo
The bowtie comment was priceless. SO owned.
I just want to say, as I'm torrenting this file to give it a watching, you really have to just smile at the internet. Something can show on TV somewhere once, and an hour later somebody has put a video capture of it up on the internet. You've just got to love technology sometimes.
Nobodies feet is held to the fire on ANY of those shows, it's always the same bullshit: Side A attacks Side B's selected sweetspot to further Side A's agenda, Side B says something aimed purely at dispelling said sweetspot, Side B retaliates by attacking Side A's selected sweetspot to further Side B's agenda, Side A says something aimed purely at dispelling said sweetspot, etc. No real facts ever brought up, everything spun to the maximum, electioneering continues... so much shit is thrown both ways that you can't get a whiff of the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
With real journalism, the interviewer is supposed to have no bias whatsoever in their questioning, and their motivation is based solely on unearthing the truth.
Did you know that cigarettes would sell less if they were made of celery and you ate them?Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Yes, yes, this board is filled with bleedingheart pinko liberal watermelons, and you're a shining beacon of compasionate conservative rationalism, we get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Thanks Kevin!
And NightWolve, like AstroBlue just said, these aren't debate shows. There's no intelligent discourse on real issues, it's just liberal hosts yelling at conservative politicians and conservative hosts yelling at liberal politicians. Jon Stewart's "you're a dick" comment (and incidentally, Begala is just as big a dick as Carlson, and he's pretty damn liberal) is really about as deep as these shows ever get, whether it's Hannity & Colmes or Crossfire or whatever else. Granted, Crossfire used to be a bit better years ago before it switched to the live audience format, but even then it was still only as good as Hannity & Colmes, which isn't much of a yardstick.
If these shows had impartial hosts who were willing to ask hard questions to EVERYONE, and were willing to sit back and actually let the guests answer instead of interrupting them every ten seconds, then they might get less viewers but they'd actually be worth watching for people who think politics is more than a screaming match. As it is, these aren't debate shows, they're just aimless arguments, and it's nice to see someone come out and say it on one of them.
These shows are the reason most people are so tired of modern day politics.
Everyone just defends their side and attacks the other without acknowledging the other side's points, even if they're correct, just to tout their party's bottom line. That's why there's no respect across party lines anymore. Everyone is too busy slandering the other side.
In a true debate, you put forth your argument for a certan topic, have the other side do the same, then you get the chance to rebutt your opponents, and let someone else decide who won.
True, it would be more boring, but it would also be less patronizing, polarizing and more truthful and informative. We as a people would be better off with less of a show and more pure, unbias info. Then we can make our vote based on knowledge, not knee-jerk reactions or raw emotions.
I think that's the basic point that Jon Stewart was trying to get across. If Tucker Carlson would have let Jon speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epmode
I'm surprised that this went aired live on television without a 5 or 10 second delay after the Super Bowl incident. I thought the FCC scared all the networks into doing this sort of thing for live tv. Then again, it probably helps CNN's (or Comedy Central's) ratings...
Well it's not Regis' responsibility to have journalistic integrity anymore than it is his, yet he put him on his show mocking his question ability. I think that whoever the guy in the bow-tie was made a good point by pointing out the double standard he seems to hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by rectal_area
But what was he trying to say about the debate shows, specifically? I didn't get it. Was he saying that they aren't hard enough, or too easy, or... like... see, he didn't specifically point out what they were doing, just that they were hurting America.
I think he made a good point but didn't articulate clearly what he meant.
I think it's great that he has the balls to go on live TV and rip someone apart, but it was just weird to me (I don't watch a lot of the Daily Show because it's on at odd times up here). I guess it makes more sense if it's ragging on Kerry feilding untough questions. But then when Kerry comes on his show he's not asked tough questions either.Quote:
Originally Posted by rezo
Oh well it doesn't matter.
Is "dick" one of the true no-no words according to the FCC? Stewart's let it fly quite a but on TDS. Plus, this is cable, not public access like ABC/CBS/NBC, so the FCC doesn't really pay as much attention.
This actually makes a lot more sense to me. I don't follow American politics too much, so obviously that has a lot to do with my confusion. But it does seem like that's all the shows do.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofdonCD
watch a single episode of crossfire. you'll understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Like I said, it wasn't a case of a double standard where the daily show is criticizing Regis and Kelly for not hitting Kerry with tough questions. It's a very simple joke where they say one thing and then show the exact opposite. It was most likely done for the timing based on whatever led into the joke(presumably the joke was made after showing Bush answering questions somewhere else). Now, there would be a double standard if Stewart showed up on Regis's show and started to attack him in the way he did the Crossfire people, but I doubt that would ever happen.Quote:
Well it's not Regis' responsibility to have journalistic integrity anymore than it is his, yet he put him on his show mocking his question ability. I think that whoever the guy in the bow-tie was made a good point by pointing out the double standard he seems to hold.
The thing is that the Regis joke was just that: a joke. It wasn't a serious condemnation of Regis and Kelly, and Stewart (and his audience) is well aware that Regis' show is just a fluffy talk show that doesn't hold itself up to be anything more. Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson was serious when he criticized The Daily Show (also blatantly not real news) for not being hard-hitting enough.
Regis is entertainment. TDS is entertainment. Crossfire, supposedly, is a political debate show, yet it doesn't have any more integrity than Regis or TDS. That's the real problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
I want to draw attention to the bolded line there. What you want to watch is not political discourse or debate. It's political porn and masturbation. Period. While those on the far side of either end of the political fence can get their jollies of the fwapfwapfwap-oh-yeah-BAYBEEEE orgasm of these "debate" shows, the rest of America doesn't benefit. The right-wing AND left-wing politicians essentially get FREE propaganda machines out of these shows because neither side will ever admit a mistake, or *GASP* that the other side is right about something. Saying these shows help the political process is like saying that two parents fighting and yelling in front of their children is a good thing, because it's better than if the parents never talked to each other and it shows the parents communicating. I'll say one thing about the pro wrestling analogy: at least in the WWF, you actually see people switch sides every now and then. Oh, and they have bra and panty matches, too.
Never heard of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
What, you've never heard of the World Wildlife Federation? How about the WWE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I actually saw this live - it was pretty bizarre, because Begala just set it up like Stewart was going to come on and make fun of Bush or something. I guess they knew there was going to be some back & forth over the show or they would have had a second guest, but I don't think they figured it would be that acrimonious.
Personally, I think it was kind of off base. Sure, Crossfire is theatre like Stewart said. Otherwise they'd have somebody who makes actual arguments instead of James Carville who says something loud then makes a funny face for the crowd to clap for.
But it's designed to have the two parties debating that day's issues - the entire rest of CNN/entire newsmedia should be devoted to non-partisan analysis.
But I do notrice a disturbing trend in US newsmedia that we don't have up here at all - the notion that a news organ can take sides. I think it's insane something as blatantly partisan as Fox News is allowed to exist, because whatever good intentions you start out with, eventually you're going to end up essentially lying about world events when they inevitably disagree with party spin.
And whenever they have to "experts" on to debate a political issue on CNN, it's inevitably one person from either US party, rather than an independent analyst, as if those were the only two possible viewpoints. Or indeed, as if it were even rational to ask spin artists what they think in the first place. It does have an inevitable polarizing effect in that it forces you to passively accept one view more than another.
But I don't see how Crossfire is the place to make a statement about that, when it holds no higher aspiration than to be a squabble between the two parties. And I kind of like Tucker Carlson. Don't agree with much of what he says, but I think he's the most sensible debater on that show. And he does have his own values aside from being a republican shill; he doesn't mention it much on the show, but he's come out quite strongly against the Iraq war, for instance.
I would much rather have seen Stewart call Bob "big tobacco are great American employers, and shouldn't be subject to lawsuits, it hurts the economy!" Novak a dick. I think he's generally far more disingenuous than Carlson is.
It's true, it's not Regis's responsibility to ask hard-hitting questions on an entertainment show. It is, however, John Stewart's responsibility to be funny, and the Nerf comment did make me laugh. If I took it seriously it would be very hypocritical of him, but seeing as he was joking around I can laugh at it. It'd be completely fair game if Regis made a rebuttal to it, too, but they let it slide. Too bad, a mock-feud between the shows might have been fun to see.Quote:
Well it's not Regis' responsibility to have journalistic integrity anymore than it is his, yet he put him on his show mocking his question ability.
James
Score one for Stewart.
Fuck the media. Hopefully it will all be gone once more people get into webcasting. I think they're feeling the heat and are afraid of things to come. They would no longer be able to influence decision making.
Goddamn election is a three ring circus. The one in Afghanistan probably had more credibility. There's so many things wrong right now it just makes me angry. And these media dickheads are perpetuating this crap.
Remember the part in the interview about the Spin Room, they didn't even try to counter it, just puckered up. Cause they know it's true.
Oh god, yes. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrent...rt-avi.torrent
Here's another link. That was good stuff. :chu:
Anyone catch this at the beginning?
"As you all know, our show is about left versus WHITE, black versus white, paper versus plastic..."
Talk about a freudian slip.
I dunno, I always thought the far left's been pretty obvious about their war against whites.Quote:
Originally Posted by ViciousJazz
Hello, this is your Captian for this Air Stewart flight; if you kindly look out of your cabin window, you will see that we are currently flying over Andrew's head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Well Melf, I would like to share with you a bit of wisdom I picked up from my viewing of TeamAmerica if you do not mind. I hope it, uh, you know, helps elevate the quality of discourse. You see, there are...three kinds of people in this world: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Americans are dicks. Sometimes we go over the line and need a pussy (liberal) to set us straight. Pussies hate dicks because the dicks f*ck with them. But the world needs dicks because dicks also f*ck with assholes. And without the dicks, the assholes would sh*t all over everyone. Also, pussies (liberals) can be assholes sometimes because pussies are only an inch away from assholes. ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I watch enough of 'em to feel otherwise. But each to his own. See, I dunno what your viewing habits are, what specific shows you watch, so I don't accept this generality especially when I know what I see and I'm shaking my head at this differing reality that you offer. Like, I'm trying to assess why I'm talking to someone from Kangaroo land about it and why I should value his opinion. Help me out here.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
That is just so broad as to be absurd. I'm not denying that there aren't problems and shit like that doesn't happen, but you're making it the rule when I see it as the exception. What is the frequency of this problem? Is it daily? Or is the argument that the show's format always leads to such results?Quote:
No real facts ever brought up, everything spun to the maximum, electioneering continues... so much shit is thrown both ways that you can't get a whiff of the truth.
No such thing as "no bias" and these shows are basically televised op-eds that don't try to be, nor claim to be what you're talking about. Hard news is taken and analyzed by interviewers/pundits/hosts and their opinions are delivered.Quote:
With real journalism, the interviewer is supposed to have no bias whatsoever in their questioning, and their motivation is based solely on unearthing the truth.
I like that the interviewer has his political philosophy exposed upfront rather than dealing with interviewers who wanna project that they're objective and have to covertly mask their bias. It's always gonna be reflected in the types of stories they select like what they attack, what they defend, and the way the questions are constructed, etc. You can't hide that in the long run. Do we all hate Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" here as well?
Sure, I understand you like the principle and that it's noble to strive for, but other shows "try" to do that (rather, they have it as a stated objective). So going after shows that don't, you're suggesting what, exactly?? That they shouldn't exist? Or just that they have no value and a "smart, educated, informed, enlightened" viewer (you being a prime example) would avoid 'em like the plague? If you're saying there's room for improvement, sure, but I know I like seeing ppl for who they are and that gets exposed many times. Plus, the fact is with satellite, there are plenty of channels and 'choices' on the types of news programming that can be made.Actually, I drew the wrong connection from his analogy. It was based on his view that "these shows" are "fake," not so much the lacking of civil discourse/fighting which he also complained of earlier. Still, I don't accept his general premise/conclusion on that either. I can't speak of Crossfire which I see StriderKyo can. I think if he had spent less time cracking jokes and those pauses for comedic effect, maybe he could've got some concrete example or two in to get his point across. What I got was, "Bad for America... Hurting America... STOP! Corporations! Propoganda! Partisan Hackery! Spin!"Quote:
Did you know that cigarettes would sell less if they were made of celery and you ate them?
Easy there AussieBoyBlue. Didn't think that'd get sand in your vagina so quick. But that's cool, you usually get under my skin as of late, but I try to avoid letting it bother me or dealing with it.Quote:
Yes, yes, this board is filled with bleedingheart pinko liberal watermelons, and you're a shining beacon of compasionate conservative rationalism, we get it.
Nah, that ain't it, Chief; what I wanna watch is debate mixed in with some "passion." Heh. I wish I knew where you're coming from though. I just don't. I've learned a lot from such shows and having the internet I can always later research something I hear in broader detail. You're correct that both sides get free propoganda at times, but given the shows have a partisan on the opposite spectrum, they get challenged by that guy. If they do a good enough job, you can see it exposed for yourself. It depends on the partisanship of the political pundit and how intellectually honest they are. To your other point, many board members here tuned in to see Moore vs. O'Reilly. Now why was that? They're on the far right & left, is that why? Granted it was theatre mixed in with debate, and some of what you're saying for that particular interview applies, but I wanted to see it nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
You're generalizing 'em as if that's always the case or that the occurrences are so frequent to be unacceptable. I may enjoy it, but it's not a daily occurrence or too frequent, at least for what I watch.Quote:
Saying these shows help the political process is like saying that two parents fighting and yelling in front of their children is a good thing, because it's better than if the parents never talked to each other and it shows the parents communicating. I'll say one thing about the pro wrestling analogy: at least in the WWF, you actually see people switch sides every now and then. Oh, and they have bra and panty matches, too.
But whatever, you got some black/white assessments of these shows. I don't see 'em as claiming they offer the maximum benefit to all or most Americans. I mean, if ppl are getting sick of it and the ratings start to drop off, well, they're gonna have to come up with a better formula. They don't have to watch if they feel the same as you. But that's not the issue, is it? They're drawing an audience and they're seeing something you don't want them to see, so you feel the format needs to be controlled and changed more to your liking? I thought these kinds of shows came closer to the FAIR doctrine that some would like to impose back on radio. I mean, I bet you have an even a bigger axe to grind with monologue shows like Rush Limbaugh.
My take on what I partly dislike about Hannity & Colmes is based on that Hannity is the star of the show. It has the audience that it has because of him. So, I go to get news from him, but there's the pesky liberal Alan Colmes to his Left having a chance to pimp out his views to an audience that he wouldn't have drawn otherwise by himself. But, being honest, I can admit they work well together at times and sometimes I can say, "yeah, yeah, Colmes is right on this one but I still don't like him." They're pretty civil guys for the most part. I don't think I've ever seen a "butt-boy vs. dick" exchange on there. So for me, that's kind of a begrudgingly pro/con that I see there and admit. It really is a love/hate kinda thing.
Nah, then we couldn't say things like, "Hey, there's goes a Dick...Cheney." That'd be no fun.Quote:
Is "dick" one of the true no-no words according to the FCC?
Now now, don't be saying that. It was political porn and masturbation. Period. Butt-boy and dick insults being thrown at each other? That was just terrible. Guy came on to make a serious point but essentially couldn't stay above the fray when baited. Made himself part of the problem rather than the solution. But oh wait, he's a comedian with political views not to be taken seriously anyway. I can't decide if he wanted to be taken seriously and make a serious point or be a comedian on the show which he did quite well. I laughed with you all, too. Gotta admit, bow-tie guy got pwned with bow-tie comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinobi128
I have cable, so I can watch FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, Sky News, and BBC World. I watch Crossfire probably once a week, and I've watched Hannity & Colmes like twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
True, but there's a difference between "MOTHERFUCKING" bias and "I HAVE BIAS BUT I STILL ASK MY SIDE HARD QUESTIONS AND AGREE IF THE OTHER SIDE HAS GOOD POINTS SINCE IM A REAL JOURNALIST" bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
You're barking up the wrong tree in that case. Politics aren't supposed to be entertaining. Any desire to make it seem that way is the fault of the viewer, not the topic at hand or the debators.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
I just finished watching it. John Stewart needs to run for President, I'm not Joking.
This just in... Jon Stewart joins Dickriders of America. Film at eleven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Was that supposed to be funny?
Yeah, I wish you knew where I was coming from too, but that's unlikely. You said you wanted to see O'Reily or Hannity "dig into those that [you are] personally opposed to ideologically." Being passionate in a debate has nothing to do with attempting to disparage, belittle or otherwise "dig into" the other party, threatening to turn of their microphones, or telling them to shut up. Does that happen all the time on those shows? No, but it does happen a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Good for you!Quote:
I've learned a lot from such shows and having the internet I can always later research something I hear in broader detail.
Nah, the conservatives wanted to see Moore get the verbal shit kicked out of him, and the liberals wanted to see O'Reilly get owned by Moore. Maybe someone expected to get something out of the show other than entertainment, but I doubt it.Quote:
You're correct that both sides get free propoganda at times, but given the shows have a partisan on the opposite spectrum, they get challenged by that guy. If they do a good enough job, you can see it exposed for yourself. It depends on the partisanship of the political pundit and how intellectually honest they are. To your other point, many board members here tuned in to see Moore vs. O'Reilly. Now why was that? They're on the far right & left, is that why?
Oh, like generalizing that all conservatives are dicks, liberals are pussies (or assholes)? Fine, these shows are not 100% worthless, nor 100% farce.Quote:
Granted it was theatre mixed in with debate, and some of what you're saying for that particular interview applies, but I wanted to see it nonetheless.
You're generalizing 'em as if that's always the case or that the occurrences are so frequent to be unacceptable.
People watch and enjoy these shows, there's no doubt about it. Ratings are good enough to keep them going. My personal opinion is that people tune into to the shows specifically for the theater and entertainment. Same reason people tune into Survivor. Is that inheirently wrong of the viewers? No. If people want to watch porn, political or otherwise, that's their free choice. I watch Real Time with Bill Maher, but I'd never call the 3 liberals vs 1 conservative "discussions" a debate show. It's entertainment, and it's presented as such, IMO. Do I learn things from that show? Occassionaly, but I don't come into it expecting much, other than a laugh.Quote:
But whatever, you got some black/white assessments of these shows. I don't see 'em as claiming they offer the maximum benefit to all or most Americans. I mean, if ppl are getting sick of it and the ratings start to drop off, well, they're gonna have to come up with a better formula. They don't have to watch if they feel the same as you. But that's not the issue, is it? They're drawing an audience and they're seeing something you don't want them to see, so you feel the format needs to be controlled and changed more to your liking? I thought these kinds of shows came closer to the FAIR doctrine that some would like to impose back on radio. I mean, I bet you have an even a bigger axe to grind with monologue shows like Rush Limbaugh.
I'm watching this now, and my respect for him has shot up immensely.
I'm coming to Australia to kick your ass. Which tree stump do you live in?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answers to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
This coupled with Stewarts interview with Ted Copple just skyrocketed my appreciation for Jon Stewart. He is basically stating that these guys are not debating they are arguing "Pepsi vs. Coke" (as he said to Copple) That they never criticize their own side just the other. And that the news media is supposed to be finding the truth not opinions and that they should be asking questions that lead closer to the truth not just more backers for their opinion.
And its funny that these guys miss the fact that its a COMEDY show and that they are out to make fun of ANYTHING they find stupid.
That was a disparaging remark, wasn't it? :( Perhaps we need to "change the tone" on TNL as well. But it probably is unlikely as you say. See, I'm apart of those "religious right swarms" that you spoke of in another thread. But fear not; I'm in a blue state so our "swarm" isn't big enough, hence my vote for Bush won't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Yeah, I did. And, I like the "digging into" that occurs right here on TNL as well. Pwnage makes things entertaining.Quote:
You said you wanted to see O'Reily or Hannity "dig into those that [you are] personally opposed to ideologically."
The disparaging can be deserved at times when someone's getting too cocky/arrogant or is outright lying. I'd say threatening to cut someone's mic off when they're filibustering, refusing to respond to the host or whatnot is justified.Quote:
Being passionate in a debate has nothing to do with attempting to disparage, belittle or otherwise "dig into" the other party, threatening to turn of their microphones, or telling them to shut up.
How much is "a lot?" Gimme some arbitrary percentage rate.Quote:
Does that happen all the time on those shows? No, but it does happen a lot.
You did it again! :( You belittled me all because I was refutting that these shows aren't informative.Quote:
Good for you!
Can't even take some jabs in jest now, huh? Actually, that reminded me of this topic.Quote:
Oh, like generalizing that all conservatives are dicks, liberals are pussies (or assholes)?
Alright, so begrudgingly, we're down from the more definitive statements earlier. I'll interpret that to mean they're not completely worthless and not completely a farce, but by golly, they come very close I tell ya. Gotcha.Quote:
Fine, these shows are not 100% worthless, nor 100% farce.
No, it's not "porn" and I can't say I've ever heard anyone try to describe it that way. But, I'm glad at least I'm talking to someone that sees it as their choice and not the, "We're gonna take back the flag from FOX News! Yeaaaaaaargh!" via the power of government as Dean advocated in much of his rhetoric. The threats to break up FOX News or whatnot had me concerned much like his campaign before it fell apart.Quote:
If people want to watch porn, political or otherwise, that's their free choice.
por·nog·ra·phy Audio pronunciation of "pornography" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f)Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
n.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).
I'd say these shows fit that third definition.
Lurid doesn't fit, but for sen·sa·tion·alQuote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
adj.
I can see a reference to sensational journalism at times, but to use porn, to I guess gain any negative connotations associated with the word to make a point under a less known or loose definition is kind of a cheap shot & over the top.
- Of or relating to sensation.
- Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.
- Outstanding; spectacular: a sensational concert; a sensational dinner.
You heard it here first folks... The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition... the liberal dictionary.
I'll bet the behind-the-scenes during that first commercial break was hilarious, I expected them to switch guests or do some serious castration because Stewart was making them looking like total retards.Quote:
Originally Posted by rezo
Couple great under-mentioned points:
1.) Stewart's avoidance of their obvious leading questions, always giving some totally unrelated remark instead of what they wanted (Mr. T!).
2.) The final question from the audience, with Stewart visably showing restraint against a huge urge to once again label Crossfire as worthless. I just know that was partially because of whatever talk happened during the first commercial break.
Anyway, great stuff.
Brilliant on his part. He knew that getting into it would kill the subject at hand, and fall into the kind of conversation that he hates on the show. I also liked his comment about those who know they can't win speak the most freely, which is absolutely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
I also like how Tucker kept asking him to be funny. What a fucktard.
He basically kept telling them that he has ACTUAL opinions on things, not just wacky zingers. And he kept telling him he was talking in terms of being a citizen, but they could not see past that. It was great because it only made Stewarts point stronger.
21 Eucalyptus Cresent, The Outback.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Watch out for my guard Koala, Fuffels.
I don't even usually keep up on anything (no cable TV ;_; sad) but I downloaded this, and this comment made me laugh myself sick.Quote:
Originally Posted by ViciousJazz
I know exactly how you feel. I live in a red state, so my vote for anyone other than Bush will not count. And yes, we do need to change the tone on TNL, but that's just my opinion. As far a "religious right swarms" goes, please understand that my problem is not with religion, as I'm a Christian myself (albeit, not a great one). I personally feel that forcing my constricting morals on someone who does not share my faith does nothing to serve God.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Except it's not only when someone is lying or filibustering. O'Reilly literally hung up on a guest a few months ago because his guest was trying to get across his belief that the war in Iraq has been a huge recruitment point for terrorists and insurgents. O'Reilly called this bull, but rather than saying why it was bull he simply cut the guy off. Maybe it was bull, but I'd like to hear why, rather than trusting someone at their word. That's one of the things that drives me nuts about GWB; his most frequent response to questions in the first debate (other than "it's hard work") was essentially, "trust me, I have a plan." I'd like to hear the plan before I trust him.Quote:
Yeah, I did. And, I like the "digging into" that occurs right here on TNL as well. Pwnage makes things entertaining.The disparaging can be deserved at times when someone's getting too cocky/arrogant or is outright lying. I'd say threatening to cut someone's mic off when they're filibustering, refusing to respond to the host or whatnot is justified.
My personal opinion? These days, 75~85%.Quote:
How much is "a lot?" Gimme some arbitrary percentage rate.
No, I actually meant "Good for you!" I'm happy someone is continuing research on their own to form their own opinions rather than by just watching the shows.Quote:
You did it again! :( You belittled me all because I was refutting that these shows aren't informative.
[quote]Can't even take some jabs in jest now, huh? Actually, that reminded me of this topic.
You're the one who complained about generalizations. Just thought I'd remind you of your own. As to the thread, can't read it. Not a FC member, and I have no interest in it.
Never called them worthless, I said they don't really help the political process, even though the hosts seem to think they do. There are moments where they rise above business as usual and some real discussion truly occurs. It'd be nice if that was the norm.Quote:
Alright, so begrudgingly, we're down from the more definitive statements earlier. I'll interpret that to mean they're not completely worthless and not completely a farce, but by golly, they come very close I tell ya. Gotcha.No, it's not "porn" and I can't say I've ever heard anyone try to describe it that way. But, I'm glad at least I'm talking to someone that sees it as their choice and not the, "We're gonna take back the flag from FOX News! Yeaaaaaaargh!" via the power of government as Dean advocated in much of his rhetoric. The threats to break up FOX News or whatnot had me concerned much like his campaign before it fell apart.
Oh, and bbob, thank you for the dictionary definition to explain my choice of words. You saved me the trouble.
That was fucking great, though sad at the same time, because it would have been so much better had the hosts of that show caught on to half the things Jon was getting at. It's sad that they're so caught up in their imaginary world that they can't even realize what somebody is saying unless they're speaking typical, meaningless political PR drivel. Jon Stewart is by far the best person on TV.
OMFG HI YOU NEVER EVEN CALL ANYMORE ;___;
I died. :)
(be on AIM in a sec)
We've invented something called fire in the new world. I won't even have to get close.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Fuffels will be unharmed.
Bastard. Get out of here, he'll use this against me in the Halo 2 clan, damn you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy