Jon Stewart was just on Crossfire.

[seen]

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.

[Opaque]

Was that supposed to be funny?

[Wolffen]

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.

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.

I've learned a lot from such shows and having the internet I can always later research something I hear in broader detail.

Good for you!

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?

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.

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.

Oh, like generalizing that all conservatives are dicks, liberals are pussies (or assholes)? Fine, these shows are not 100% worthless, nor 100% farce.

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.

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.

[Jeremy]

I'm watching this now, and my respect for him has shot up immensely.

[Drewbacca]

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.

I'm coming to Australia to kick your ass. Which tree stump do you live in?

Was that supposed to be funny?

Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answers to.

[Clash!]

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.

[NightWolve]

Yeah, I wish you knew where I was coming from too, but that's unlikely.

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.

You said you wanted to see O'Reily or Hannity "dig into those that [you are] personally opposed to ideologically."

Yeah, I did. And, I like the "digging into" that occurs right here on TNL as well. Pwnage makes things entertaining.

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.

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.

Does that happen all the time on those shows? No, but it does happen a lot.

How much is "a lot?" Gimme some arbitrary percentage rate.

Good for you!

You did it again! You belittled me all because I was refutting that these shows aren't informative.

Oh, like generalizing that all conservatives are dicks, liberals are pussies (or assholes)?

Can't even take some jabs in jest now, huh? Actually, that reminded me of this topic.

Fine, these shows are not 100% worthless, nor 100% farce.

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.

If people want to watch porn, political or otherwise, that's their free choice.

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.

[bbobb]

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.

por·nog·ra·phy Audio pronunciation of "pornography" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f)
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.

[NightWolve]

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·al
adj.

1. Of or relating to sensation.
2. Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.
3. Outstanding; spectacular: a sensational concert; a sensational dinner.

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.

[bbobb]

You heard it here first folks... The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition... the liberal dictionary.