Jon Stewart was just on Crossfire.

[seen]

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.

[Melf]

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.

Oh god, yes.

[Shinobi128]

http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrent...rt-avi.torrent

Here's another link. That was good stuff.

[George]

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.

[MarkRyan]

Talk about a freudian slip.

I dunno, I always thought the far left's been pretty obvious about their war against whites.

[AstroBlue]

Oh well it doesn't matter.

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.

[NightWolve]

Tucker Carlson is a dick.

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. ^^

Nobodies feet is held to the fire on ANY of those shows, it's always the same bullshit:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Did you know that cigarettes would sell less if they were made of celery and you ate them?

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!"

Yes, yes, this board is filled with bleedingheart pinko liberal watermelons, and you're a shining beacon of compasionate conservative rationalism, we get it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is "dick" one of the true no-no words according to the FCC?

Nah, then we couldn't say things like, "Hey, there's goes a Dick...Cheney." That'd be no fun.

That was good stuff.

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.

[AstroBlue]

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.

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.

Or is the argument that the show's format always leads to such results?

Yup.

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.

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.

[George]

what I wanna watch is debate mixed in with some "passion." to see it nonetheless.

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.

[Opaque]

I just finished watching it. John Stewart needs to run for President, I'm not Joking.