Jon Stewart believes MSNBC is trying to "pattern themselves after" Fox News.

[moondust]

"Interviewing" Chris Wallace.

Poor kid doesn't get it at all.

I suspect he doesn't have time to watch much TV.

[jillan]

1. I wish they would!

[BrklynLiberal]

73. Me too! I wish we had as many loud, screaming talking heads in the media to yell our side out, as

the RWingnuts do.

I miss AirAmerica...I was very disappointed that it never lived up to what it might have been..sad, very sad.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. I didn't say anything for a while because I watch the show online and enjoy it. But he's

starting to annoy me with his bullshit false equivalencies. He's starting to sound like oh I don't know.....CNN!!!

[readmoreoften]

3. Talk about the wrong time to claim himself as a "moderate"...

The entire "phony march" thing was a bizarre load of anti-political crap funded by Viacom. Colbert's idea on his own would have been fantastic theatre, but Stewart's call for moderation was a load of offensive crap.

[lonestarnot]

5. Have to agree with you there, but I'm still tuning in to watch richie tittsy cry in her fucking soup

tonight.

[emulatorloo]

4. Holy crap! That guy needs a reality check n/t

[napi21]

6. They are in that their prime time hosts are openly declared Dems.

I happen to be thrilled with that! However, that's where the equvalency ends. th hosts on MSNBC don't LIE or make up stories where FOX hosts do that as a routine.

Norman Goldman, on his radio show toight, said he wishd MSNBC would stop those silly "Lock UP Shows" on the weekends and becoe a full time news network and still retain their left leaning phylosophy. I'm going to send them an email asking them to do just that. Maybe if you all join me, they'll give it some serious thought.

[moondust]

11. I've never heard them declare a party affiliation.

And I've watched them for years. One would probably assume that about Lawrence O'Donnell since he worked for Moynihan. But then Dick Morris worked for Clinton...

:shrug:

[napi21]

18. Dick Morris has never been on MSNBC that I know of, and

you also never heard FOX DECLARE a Party afiliation either, but it's a well known fact...all you have to do s listen! Same with MSNBC. Just listen, primarily between 8 & 11q PM and you'll know.

[SharonAnn]

81. Last night Lawrence O'Donnell said that he was a liberal. It surprised me

that he was so open about it.

It was in a discussion about the "conservatives" a nd"liberals".

[guardian]

85. What's wrong with being 'open' about being liberal???

Why does this "surprise" you?

[bullwinkle428]

7. Oh, is Stewart watching a particular host of MSNBC that NEVER

questions Obama or the Democrats on anything, and just does nothing but parrot talking points all day? Because I've yet to see that show on MSNBC!

[dennis4868]

12. Or does MSNBC...

edit video tapes to bring down Repubs (even though Anderson Cooper was the one who said that "both sides do it") or make up phony controversies?

[jpgray]

8. Their election coverage was one-sided ideologically

That's nice insofar as it's our side, but there has to be an alternative to cheerleading for one party or the other. The truth is neither Democratic nor Republican, but it -can- overlap with either. The "neutrality" that refuses to report anything that overlaps with just one party or the other as truth or lie is not neutrality. Example: Democrats were right to say waterboarding is torture, and Republicans were wrong to say it was not. It does not become bias to call torture torture because one party refuses to. To call things as they are, regardless of party positions, is the kind of neutral press we need.

[laundry_queen]

14. +1

My favorite analogy - if one side says 2+2=4 and the other side says 2+2=5 the first side would be right to say 2+2=4 and the second side would be wrong to say 2+2=5. For the 'news' to give both sides equal air time to argue knowledge vs beliefs is wrong. And for the 2+2=4 side there can be no compromise, for 2+2 can not possibly equal 4.5. The press needs to do their job and find out the truth - that 2+2 really does equal 4 and expose the side that is wrong as being WRONG and not be scared of being called partisan or biased.

[Billy Burnett]

78. We can compromise. Yes we can! eom

[moondust]

20. Does telling the truth to refute somebody's lies mean you're biased?

Or the political opposite of the liar?

[Johonny]

24. apparently

That's modern politics. On side a total liar and one side someone with facts. Must be a draw. Jon falls for the same thing he rallies against. Although technically I think he's against pundit dominated shows and wants more who, what, where, why, and how based journalism. The problem is those shows don't get a lot of viewers. MSNBC is trying to put good shows on in a format that people watch. For the record it's the same format as Jon's comedy/slash pundit show. Go figure.

[rainlillie]

49. Excellent question!

[krabigirl]

33. I agree. I just want a non-partisan channel that reports the facts.

[howaboutme]

9. More than weary of pundits and opinions

by all and every side.

As far as I'm concerned I don't want their opinions (either Fox or MSNBC). Report the news honestly and fully and without bias and allow the public to digest it and form its own opinions, just as it did for decades prior to the era of 24/7 cable news with its hundreds of overpaid pundits who are paid to manipulate our opinions.

[dennis4868]

10. I think the fame is going to Stewart's head...

he is acting like a self righteous jerk these days....I decided not to watch him for one week after what he did to Olbermann and Big Ed!

[Dappleganger]

53. What he did?

Did he go after them with an orange softball bat?

:eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

82. He has been saying this same thing for many years.

Did you not see the Crossfire interview?

[Safetykitten]

13. Wait. I thought he was the voice of pure reason. What happened?

[Supersedeas]

41. corporate advertisers and multinational marketeers must have big plans for him

[tomm2thumbs]

15. as long as they don't call it MSNBC news channel, they can do as they please

they say 'The Place for Politics' - whereas Fox claims they are 'News' which is patently false

[Dappleganger]

54. Bingo!

It's the Comedy Channel, people--it's YOU who are projecting!

[Naturyl]

16. Stewart seems to be imploding.

I like the guy in general, but I'm also glad to see some of the hero-worship toward him being toned down. he ain't the Oracle of Delphi, and he's been proving that lately.

[deacon]

17. MSNBC just doesn't make stuff up. Big difference Jon. n/t

[CanonRay]

71. + 1000

Stewart is doing his false equivalency thing again.

[Safetykitten]

19. From the stage on the Mall to under the bus in record time.

[phasma ex machina]

22. "We do things fast around here."

Nebuchadnezzar to Zedekiah before killing his sons and blinding him.

[emulatorloo]

65. Just because some don't put Stewart on a "throne" does not mean he is "thrown under the bus"

[pansypoo53219]

21. he wants a REAL NEWS channel. not a democratic channel

to oppose fux. that is the problem. where is the FACTS channel? no bull shit left vs right, a JUST THE FACTS maam. where is THAT channel???? I am with stewart. and the more people those channels add, the more nattering like a flock of crows. WHERE'S OUR WALTER???

[eShirl]

36. I'd like one of each. (but especially a real news channel)

[gkhouston]

46. And MSNBC is our best chance to get that, quickly. Not CNN or its variants.

Not CurrentTV or some other network available in a handful of households. What Jon needs to remember is that MSNBC leans right in the morning but has some lefties in the prime-time lineup.

[Poboy]

50. That would ruin his bullshit 'critique' though. To acknowledge that he is full of shit.

MSNBC doesn't make shit up, nor to they have an orchestrated 24 hour 7 day attack on one party.
But lets just pretend that MSNBC is a Fox news wannabe. Its so much easier that way, and Jon can keep it simple. Distorted and inaccurate, but thats what works best for Jon.

[Toots]

62. I take it you have never watched the Rachel Maddow Show...

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

66. He needs to watch MSNBC during the day then. Oh wait, it is a Rpublican channel then.

[Johonny]

23. I could agree with that

depends what he really means. In terms of late night opinion show dominated format. Or in terms of actual bias, fake content?

[upi402]

25. wow, not good if true n/t

[mmonk]

26. I've decided to quit the Daily Show. Even my sons noticed

his false comparisons and equivalences.

[rainlillie]

47. So did I, I removed it from my DVR list.

[Chakab]

83. I quit last year after he bought into Breitbart

and O'Keefe's edited videotape attack on ACORN and actually excoriated the rest of the media for not covering the story like Fox was. After ACORN was exonerated, Stewart never apologized or even acknowledged that TDS have been fooled just like the saps in the mainstream media.



ETA: I was also in disbelief that he took the Cambridge PD's incident report regarding their arrest Henry Louis Gates at face value.

[pinboy3niner]

27. MSNBC execs have said the same thing

By saying they are patterning the network after Fox they mean appealing to one end of the political spectrum--the Left--just as Fox appeals to the Right. So they strengthened their prime-time lineup to include K.O., Rachel and now Larry O'Donnell.

This has nothing to do with emulating Fox's tactics or methods or ethics. It simply describes a business strategy of focusing on one particular audience, rather than a broader-based appeal.

[shaayecanaan]

32. If that's the case I think they're on a hiding to nothing...

I don't really think that Fox-style talking heads journalism is going to get a large audience amongst people who identify on the political left. I have tried watching Olberman at times and I find him rather portentous. There is a whole rah-rah football team mentality about these sort of shows that tends to grate after a while.

Its not the 15% of the issues that the two political parties disagree on, its the 85% that they do agree on.

[Poboy]

28. Wow, he praised Chis Wallice too. Fawning praise. Asked to go on his show.

He was very prickish to MSNBC. Quite bizarre.

[Safetykitten]

29. "You both are pretty!"

[moondust]

30. Fawning indeed.

Yes, Chris Wallace is an absolute giant of a journalist. Wow. :eyes:

[Poboy]

31. The 'journalist' he praised does the very thing he claims to despise.

Chris Wallace??? They were up each others asses. Jon must want to retaliate for the criticism (he mentioned it in a pissy way), and if it means trading in the things he clams to hold dear, so be it.

[Supersedeas]

84. Bingo....which seems pretty revealing

[Waiting For Everyman]

34. He's trying to diminish his competition by screwing us, the public.

MSNBC definitely does better reporting of important stories than the other major networks. So cutting them down helps out the voting public, just how exactly? But then, Olbermann is on (at least in this area) during Stewart's show. But criticizing Olbermann/MSNBC isn't self-serving on Stewart's part at all, is it? :sarcasm:

I'll never watch that jackass Stewart again. He's over, in my book. We NEED news sources, comedians are not necessary they are optional.

[Poboy]

42. You may be on to something. Cut down MSNBC because

they do some of the same things TDS does in pointing out the crazy that is Fox 'news'. Can't have anyone else doing what Jon-jon is doing.
I think it is more basic than that though. He gets minor criticism for his Washington picnic, refuses to see and accept that the equivalence he inferred is inaccurate, so he's decided to go apeshit-bitchy and reinforce his bogus claim by kissing the ass of Chris Wallace.
Paraphrase: 'Please ladies and gentlemen, watch Chris Wallace, he's a great news man. Sunday mornings (gives time)". Repeat how great Chris is...A great show, etc., etc...

Jon, sure can't handle being criticized. Or maybe he can. He handles it by becoming more petty and small minded.

[AndrewP]

58. +10000

The whole thing in DC was an infomercial.

Not sure why Jon became someone that walks on water to some peeps.

[krispos42]

35. MSNBC doesn't put "News" in their name

And their motto doesn't imply impartiality, either.


They don't have once and future candidates on as hosts or regular contributors, either, and the Democrats don't run to MSNBC to spew the latest think-tank-generated talking points and sound bites, either.

[Major Hogwash]

37. "I want my records back! You used me! Aaaaahhhhggghh! You never loved me!"

In honor of Sam Kinison, a real comedian.

Imagine what HE would be saying about the Fox News channel!!!!!!

[Dappleganger]

55. That would be so awesome...

I would love to hear those rants!

[VMI Dem]

38. Jon Stewart is trying to pattern himself after Dennis Miller.

[gkhouston]

44. Why would a successful comic pattern himself after a failed one? n/t

[Poboy]

51. I think the poster doesn't actually believe it, but is doing what Jon is doing to make a point.

[Dappleganger]

56. You gotta be fucking kidding...

Miller isn't fit to wipe off Jon's shoes with his unfunny schtick and he knows it.

[emulatorloo]

67. "MSNBC is trying to pattern itself after Fox" = "Jon Stewart is trying to pattern himself after Denn

is Miller"

It was a joke to show how absurd JS's statement is.

[Dappleganger]

75. ok...

no coffee yet. ;)

[rucky]

39. Outspoken partisan hosts - check.

Shit-stirrers that claim to be non-partisan - check.
Sockpuppet "analysts" from think-tanks - check.

There are differences, obviously, but it is patterned off of FOX's format.

[emulatorloo]

68. Making up shit - uncheck

[moondust]

79. One is a propaganda channel.

The other spends a lot of time pointing out that fact without explicitly stating it, and ridiculing the propagandists, but that does not make it a propaganda channel, too.

Oh, and they do spend more time drawing attention to the crazy stuff that right wing politicians say and do because, in truth, right wing politicians say and do a lot more crazy stuff than other politicians, but that, too, does not make them a propaganda channel.

[Ganja Ninja]

40. Not even close Jon.

Fox literally makes shit up. I haven't seen any instances of that from MSNBC.

[rainlillie]

48. Neither have I.

[rainlillie]

43. I'm getting so, I can't stand Jon. I watch MSNBC and they don't make crap up.

[Hubert Flottz]

45. Jon I never watch you, do you miss me?

I wouldn't miss you either, if you were raptured today.

[uncommon]

52. They are. The difference is that they don't lie nearly as much and

they have an opposite political agenda.

To think they aren't modeling themselves after Fox is just naive. The Fox model has been very effective.

[Dappleganger]

57. The joke's on YOU.

I cannot help but laugh at all the serious people here blasting away a comedian's comments about a news station.

He's a fucking comedian, people--get over it!

[CBGLuthier]

59. Do people at DU understand the expression

Can't see the forest for the trees?

Just because MSNBC strokes us the way we like up, down and always to the left, does not mean they are no less a badly executed hand job than Fox with their up, down and always to the right strokes.

CABLE NEWS IS BAD AND BAD FOR AMERICA! ALL OF IT!

There now I am yelling just like them.

[CBR]

60. 100% correct. It is all complete garbage and does nothing to advance

our democracy.

[emulatorloo]

69. OTOH Stewart was praising Chris Wallace.

[CBR]

80. He is wrong about that. I am firmly in the camp that it is all garbage

regardless of who is praising who. It is a terrible part of the public sphere and does nothing to educate, provide knowledge, or enhance communication. The media is horrid.

[mmonk]

72. One big difference. Rachel and Keith do not tell outright disprovable

lies and Fox does every single day. Rachel and Keith also criticise Democrats. Regular corporate news no longer informs and tows the government line without investigation. Regular corporate news gave legitimacy to the William Ayers bullshit. There are no more Murrows and Cronkites on the networks.

[Poboy]

77. Exactly. And for him to fawn over Wallace like that is the height of hypocracy.

Jon was loving him some Chis Wallace last night.

[izzybeans]

61. He's right.

100%.

They are mirror images. Left is right and right is left.

It's as if Crossfire left CNN and expanded to cover the entire cable news spectrum.

[myrna minx]

63. Yes - 19 hours a week of liberal commentary on one cable station is the same as the whole

right wing noise machine. :crazy:

[Doctor_J]

64. I am surprised that Stewart and a lot of DUers

pay so much attention to Fox Propaganda Channel. Is this Battered Wife Syndrome, or Stockholm Syndrome, or something unique?

[Recursion]

70. I agree with him: channels of pundits are worse than useless, they're harmful

Even if they're on the left, the medium itself is what's harmful. The medium of a 24-hour news channel with talking heads (and no actual reporting of anything, just commenting on it) is very, very bad.

[ellie]

74. I don't take my cues from millionaire

comedians. Jon Stewart can be as conciliatory as he wants. That's his choice. I don't have to be.

[NeedleCast]

76. He's Corret, They Are

Most of the cable news networks are these days. The anchors and show hosts they hire don't report news, they report opinion. Their shows are nothing but talking heads giving their opinions and spin on current events. Calling these shows news is pretty much a joke.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

86. yeah. So? eom