Jon Stewart was just on Crossfire.

[James]

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.

Also, if Stewart is funnier on The Daily Show than he was here then I need to start watching it religiously.

James

[Will]

Finally saw it, damn good stuff.

Jon owned.

[Mzo]

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 wer set up to switch gears from what he brought up in the first half =\

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.

The bowtie comment was priceless. SO owned.

[mollipen]

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.

[AstroBlue]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[sethsez]

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.

[SonofdonCD]

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.

[Josh]

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.

[SearchManX]

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...

[Drewbacca]

It's not his responsiblity to have journalistic integrity, it's his job to poke fun at politicans and politics.

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.

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.

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.

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 =\

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.

Oh well it doesn't matter.