If these guys could intellectually rape him, then why didn't htey do it? He gave them the perfect opportunity to do it and they couldn't. Like somebody posted earlier: He went on their show, asked them why they existed -- and they couldn't answer. He tried to have an actual debate, on a debate show, rahter than a pointless soundbite fest - and they refused to engage him. Instead they wanted him to be funny, but no, he wanted to be serious. And they weren't up to the task Not bad for a lowly Psych major from William & Mary (which is a top tier school anywayfrom what I've heard) So Tucker Carlson is the one who went to Harvard now? And he's the one with the buttboy reference? Ouch.
The definition of debate IS: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. The definition of debate IS NOT: To engage in argument. Your post is the perfect example of what is wrong with Crossfire. Not once did you actually address any relevant point to the debate initiated by Stewart. I should also point out a few things: 1) The hosts of Crossfire didn't defend themselves when Stewart challenged them. 2) No one on this board has defended Crossfire in this thread. 3) No one in the media has defended Crossfire. The reason why? Because it can't be defended! Stewart is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and no one has argued that he wasn't. The only response is to distract from the actual debate (a common theme of Crossfire) by calling Stewart "butt boy" or telling him to make a sequel to "Death to Smoochie".
A lot of what Stewart had to say was correct, but to say the show is bad for democracy is something that I disagree with. For all its bad points the show does produce some good information. It was on Crossfire that we had a pro-war politician, who knows the people involved in the administration tell us that 3-5 people in Bush's inner circle planning the war did NOT WANT A PEACEFUL or DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION. They WANTED(not needed) TO GO TO WAR. That was a huge revelation in my book, though it's been largely ignored by other media, and the general group of war supporters.
wrong, you just made this up. as an analogy, the polarized american voter will turn out in droves to the polls. the thing that makes stewart so great is that he says what he means and does not pander to an audience or a party line. he has, through the process of his career, established this as his modus operandi. he blasted the crossfire panel and, regardless of their resumes, they were blown to pieces. awesome jon, way to go.
For Jon Stewart to go to someone else's show, appear on camera in front of the whole world, confront the two hosts, degrade the show face-to-face, and call one of the hosts a dick... man that takes balls. I could not believe Stewart did that. It's one of the most true moments I have ever seen on TV. These quotes are absolutely pure: Stewart's responses were fluid, off the cuff and from the heart. It was natural. Is was truth. It was the verbal presentation of what so many people have felt, but have rarely seen expressed. A great moment in television -- droxford
Comedy Counters Drudge 'Sludge' By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/19/2004 3:18:00 PM Under the headline, "Drudge Deals in Sludge (What Else Is New)," Comedy Central sent out an e-mail correction Wednesday to a Drudge Web site (www.drudgereport.com) posting that had suggested that the cable network's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ratings had slipped in September. The Drudge story, posted Sunday, Oct. 17, said that "Jumbo hype from media writers and a bestselling book apparently have failed to translate into any TV audience improvement." Calling it a "fake news report," Comedy Central said that rather than the 7% decline for September the site ran in the item, audience for new episodes of the show airing in September was actually up by 7% from August to 1,247,000 viewers, according to Nielsen. The cable net added that even factoring in a week when repeats aired, the show was still up by 2% over August. "Like The Daily Show, Drudge has no compulsion to actually check facts," said Comedy Central, unable to keep its tongue out of its cheek even while giving a tongue-lashing to Matt Drudge. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA473362.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=supp
Oct. 21, 2004, 8:59PM http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/features/2859598 Wal-Mart judges 'Daily Show' book by its nudity Associated Press Wal-Mart has canceled an order for a best-selling book by Jon Stewart and the writers of The Daily Show after executives learned that it contained a photo of nine naked, aged bodies, each with the superimposed head of a Supreme Court justice. America (The Book), a mock school text that lampoons the American government in much the same way the Comedy Central show spoofs the news, includes cutouts of the justices' robes and a caption asking readers to "restore their dignity by matching each justice with his or her respective robe." Executives for the Bentonville-based retail giant deemed the book inappropriate for its shelves this week. "We were not aware of the image that was in the book (when Wal-Mart ordered it) and we felt the majority of our customers would not be comfortable with it," said Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman Karen Burk. "We offer what we think our customers want to buy. That just makes good business sense." Jamie Raab, a publisher for Warner Books, which produced America, said the naked justice joke fits perfectly with the book's theme. "It's not gratuitous, and it's very much in tune with the rest of the book," Raab said. "It's funny, yet to the point. When you undress the Supreme Court justices, they're just men and women, and you have to judge them on who they are and what they do. It makes you look and think and laugh." Wal-Mart has a well-known policy of refusing to carry magazines with racy covers or CDs with explicit lyrics. The chain is, however, offering the book on its Web site.
