The most overlooked aspect of this is that Carlson thought it was a hoot that Stewart called him a dick. He guffawed without hesitation. I love John Stewart, but he was a bad guest. He tried to take control over somebody else's show-- while particularly picking on Tucker Carlson. What does he expect him to do... lay down?
They did? Like I said, I haven't even watched that show in 10 years. To be honest, I don't even know (or care) who either of those two guys are. I don't disagree with the point Stewart was trying to get across. Those "debate" shows are silly and cliched (sp?) and there are WAY too many of them on the air these days. All I'm saying is that while trying to get his point across, he sank to their level of "debate." The very level he was on the show criticizing. Sure those two guys are boobs. But I'll bet neither of them has ever stooped to calling anyone a dick on the air. I just thought the whole exchange was ironic. CBrown, speaking of boobs, what happened with Jennifer Love Hewitt on the Daily Show?
Carlson was confrontational too. He had his stupid Kerry questions on his cue cards and even a graphic of those questions queued up. And he said to Stewart "earlier you said you're voting for Kerry" but we didn't see Stewart say that at all so that must be something he said off-camera to Carlson in a private conversation. That's pretty weak to "out" who someone is going to vote for on national tv.
Actually, yesterday in some interview or something, Stewart said he's voting for Kerry, so it is out there. CBFC, are you talking about when he said Bill Murray was whoring himself out for money for doing Garfield and J-Love went "hey, what does that make me?"
I don't think it is outlaw. Stewart tried to be serious and I can understand if the Crossfire guys didn't like getting called out, but Tucker is the one who started bringing the discussion down. Stewart called him a dick because he was being a dick. I don't see how Stewart is supposed to hold back while Tucker is saying he sniffed Kerry's thrown or called him a butt boy. What the hell is a butt boy?
maybe it's like AssMan? can i get a BTTBOY license plate? Do you know what interview did Stewart say he was voting for Kerry? Not doubting you just curious.
This sums up my response exactly: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html Jon Stewart: Crossfire "hurting America" "I think you're a lot more fun on your show," said Tucker Carlson to "Crossfire" guest Jon Stewart this afternoon. "And I think you're as much of a dick on your show as on any other," Stewart shot back. It wasn't the faux avuncularity we've come to expect from Stewart on "The Daily Show" but there, of course, he's playing a role. Here he was himself -- and he wasn't buying any of it. From the moment Stewart sat down he made no secret of how repugnant he found the show. In fact, he said to Carlson and co-host Paul Begala that he had been so hard on the show he felt it was his duty to come on and say to their faces what he has said to friends and in interviews. What he said was that their show was "hurting America," and he was being only slightly hyperbolic. Stewart told them that when America needed journalists to be journalists they had instead chosen to present theater. Carlson, trying to affect an air of dry amusement that a comedian would presume to lecture him, important pundit that he is, but looking as if his bow-tie were about to start spinning, could barely contain his outrage. In an absolutely mind-boggling moment, Carlson tried to counter Stewart's criticism by pointing out that during John Kerry's recent appearance on "The Daily Show," Stewart asked the candidate softball questions. "If you want to measure yourself against a comedy show," Stewart said, "be my guest." Paul Begala tried to put a more conciliatory face on things by pointing out that theirs was a "debate" show. Stewart was having none of it. "I would love to see a real debate show," he said. And went on to tell them that instead of holding politicians' feet to the fire by asking tough question, "you're part of their strategy. You're partisan -- what's the word? -- uh, hacks." It's almost a cliche by now to talk about "The Daily Show" being more trusted than real newscasts, but Stewart showed why. He pointed out to Carlson that he had asked Kerry if he really were in Cambodia but "I don't care," and when Carlson asked him what he thought about the "Bill O'Reilly vibrator flap," Stewart said, "I don't." It was as concise a demonstration of the triviality of the media as you could hope for. "I thought you were going to be funny," Carlson said toward the end of the interview. Stewart responded, "No, I'm not going to be your monkey." And that was what was so bracing. Stewart's "Crossfire" appearance is going to generate talk about how prickly he was, how he wasn't "nice" like he is on "The Daily Show." But prickliness is just what was needed. If you've built your reputation as a satirist pointing out how the media falls down on the job, you're not going to make yourself a part of their charade. I've heard people talk about "The Daily Show" as an oasis of sanity, a public service. I couldn't agree more. Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" was another public service. He went on and acted as if the show's purpose really was to confront tough issues, instead of being the political equivalent of pro wrestling. Given a chance to say absolutely what he thought, Stewart took it. He accomplished what almost never happens on television anymore: He made the dots come alive. -- Charles Taylor
I just got through watching the clip. Stewart came across as someone who is deeply concerned about the media's abdication of its responsibility as the public's watchdog. As we all should be. That was one of the most authentic 10 minutes of discourse you're like to see in the mainstream media. And that is really sad.
The scary part is he was dead-on in the message he was trying to get across, and they dismissed it without thought. Sad, really.
Since Jon Stewart has publicly called the show "bad", the hosts knew that he would at least taunt them a little. That is probably why they prepared the graphic on Stewart's questions to Kerry. It was meant to be ammunition in a light-hearted exchange about the integrity of the show. Their plan was to shoot back and forth with some generic banter on the topic and then move on to some silly comedy. When Stewart came on and took over the exchange, somehow fending off two of the most aggressive talk show hosts in television, I think that they were completely unprepared. What is funny is that without their talking points, they weren't even able to defend the premise of their show. That is a topic that you shouldn't have to prepare for to discuss. Do you walk in to job interviews without knowing why you want to work at that place? Do you tell your partner that you love them without knowing why? Do you do anything without a reason? --------------------------------------- Let me put it in simple terms... JON STEWART ASKED THEM WHY THEY EXIST, AND THEY BASICALLY SAID, "I DON"T HAVE AN ANSWER". --------------------------------------- Freakin' hilarious. It supports my firm belief that cable news is evil, partisan banter that does nothing in an effort to: 1) Educate the public. 2) Provide a moral and fact check for political discourse. 3) Aid public in developing their own opinions. Those guys are tools who collect paychecks and go home. They deserved to be embarassed and humiliated. The d**k comment was simply Stewart losing his cool a little bit in a confrontation. That is hard not to do for someone who doesn't do it on a regular basis. I don't think he had any intention of saying that, but he panicked. It sounded a little stupid, and definetly takes a little of the edge off his legitimate criticisms. But, it is possible, that without that one comment, the appearance would not have made a splash. Better to be heard in this situation, so I don't mind the comment.
Nah, I think it's sadder that some people have so much invested in their party line they can't even see what just happened here.
Isn't Crossfire just as much valid enternatinment as The Daily Show: one utilizes comedy and one utilizes tragedy.
What party line? Stewart was complaining about party hacks on both sides. That's like telling someone who doesn't like this forum that they're too invested in their party line.
I apologize in advance for the rant that I am about to deliver, but you hit a nerve. Television does not equal entertainment. Those two words are not synonomous. In fact, there is absolutely no direct connection. I could also use television for an infinite number of things other than entertainment. 1- Televisions show pictures and sound. 2- Pictures and sound can sometimes be entertainment. 3- Television is not always entertainment. Crossfire is a news source, not entertaiment. True, a news source can be entertaining, but the decisions that effect its entertainment value can never trump the news value. Here is the description from CNN.com: Keywords being, "...examines the political and social issues impacting the United States... debates focusing on daily events."
My point was the Crossfire wasn't delivering news, rather that Crossfire was offering inspired, argumentative commentary on it. When people argue and interrupt each other there is inevitabley a degree of entertainment there... in my opinion. I didn't equate television with entertainment; I simply described Crossfire as an entertainment program much as The Daily Show is-- just with a different tack.
but then again....the Daily Show doesnt describe itself as a serious political news show....its on Comedy Central after all...nothing on CC should be taken seriously. The point Stewart tried to make about the differences between the DS and Crossfire were right on imo.....Crossfire could be a good show to bring to light serious aspects of the political scene that should matter to all.....Stewart is just supposed to make fun of politics and the media in general......big difference imo.
I agree to a point. That's why I noted the distinction between comedy and tragedy. Both of those are entertaining. Stewart's main criticism seemed to be that both sides are just wags for their POV. That's probably true but that is what the public apparently wants. I wonder if someone has done a detailed study of Stewart's questioning of his political guests? It would be interesting to see what it might reveal. I don't know how Stewart hoped to really make some points with these guys. His attempts at humor seemed overly-aggressive in particular toward Carlson (big surprise!).
