I understand Rachel's points, but I agree with Jon. Unfortunately, Jon isn't arguing the correct...

[Writer]

points. The issue here isn't that MSNBC is a tit-for-tat play on Fox News, it's that they fail to see that they, just like Fox News, is a hybrid of ideology and market-driven infotainment. Furthermore, if the condition of political communication is poor, and it's poor because of Fox News, the answer is not to add yet more shrill ideological conversation to the mix.

It's unfortunate that Jon couldn't articulate his points better.

[jancantor]

1. You, otoh articulated that marvelously

Frankly, one could argue just from a "thou doth protest too much" angle that all this criticism of Stewart is telling. It's to the extent that long time Stewart lovers are throwing in the towel and there is all this storm and fury. Iow, he's hitting a chord with some people. It stings because some people realize there is some truth to it, and it's an uncomfortable truth to when you are compared to your opponent that you so easily condemn.

[Poboy]

2. Or it could be that people know bullshit when they hear it. -nt

[Writer]

3. Elaborate on that point.

What about Jon's points is bullshit?

[madfloridian]

5. Jon is trying to keep ratings by pleasing both sides.

And he is just as willing to ridicule those of us who speak truth as those who lie and make stuff up.

He sounds ridiculous tonight.

[Writer]

13. I think he didn't argue his points very well, but I understand where he comes from.

The uprighteousness from the left, when shows such as Olbermann and Schultz air yet more shrill, ideological framing of the news of the day, does little to help the ugly tone instituted by Fox News.

[jancantor]

14. Yet another good example to me

that his point is irking people. The 'attack the motives' argument is so common. People are attacking his motives, as you just did, which swerves away from dealing with the what, since the "why" is attacked.

[madfloridian]

23. Wrong.

I have one motive, to write the truth.

Fox has one motive, to please the right or if you wish to call them that...the corporate world. Truth does not matter to them.

Rachel does outstanding research. She does NOT deserve to be compared in anyway with any teabagger or Fox anchor.

You may not like Keith's manner, but he does not lie.

Neither does Ed Schultz, and Cenk certainly doesn't. O'Donnell tends to be more right of center, and he also tells the truth.

I despise unfair arguments.

Of course motive matters.

Jon did not do a good job tonight, and I lost a lot of respect for him.

[jancantor]

35. I completely disagree

but I doubt I am going to get anywhere convincing you, and vice versa. As soon as I see somebody framing with the whole "I know the truth and stuff" when it comes to political commentary, it's a no go for me. And fwiw, I already said that Maddow had no Fox analogue. The closest on the right I would compare her to was Medved, except Maddow >>>> Medved when it comes to charisma

[madfloridian]

60. I do know truth when I see it. Why don't you?

[jancantor]

You are further demonstrating my point

I loved Stewart before. I still do now. The fact that he is willing to expose uncomfortable heterodox "truths" (to use your terminology) like this makes me respect him more. He's not a water carrier.

[madfloridian]

77. You are making up what I am saying. Just pulling it out of...

never mind.

I can't believe Fox is now considered credible here.

Haven't you noticed the shadows lurking over any attempt at having any trace of left media?

I have.

Their corporate owners are watching. Let's see, Jon answers to Viacom...or has someone bought them out? Hard to keep up.

[jancantor]

87. That's not true

Who said faux was credible? I didn't. What I said was other than that. So who's actually making stuff up?

[Lord Magus]

94. What you fail to see is the REASON it "irks" people.

It's because he's wrong.

[jancantor]

103. And I disagree

and so it goes...

[ProSense]

9. "It stings because some people realize there is some truth to it"

The truth is any comparison between the Fox/RW kooks and the left is moronic.

Hilarious! Decapitation jokes just slay me

Ugly Even For Rush

Today, the most outrageous staffing decision in recent memory came to an abrupt end.

[Rex]

124. Looks like he touched a nerve.

It is no big deal, it happens to everyone.

[madfloridian]

4. Saying MSNBC is in anyway like FOX is ludicrous.

It is the typical way in which the "center" keeps those on the left from making any difference.

I think the tactic of making left voices equal to tea party voices is meant to keep the left, liberals, whatever they call us....in its place.

[jancantor]

6. Except Jon isn't the center

It's clear he;'s left of center. THAT what makes his (imo valid) analysis so distasteful. He's "one of us" and that makes his analysis measurably more distasteful to those that disagree with him. Jon is using the same pointed spot on analysis that he use to excoriate Crossfire years back. It's just that now he's using it against what is to many people, a sacred cow.

[Writer]

7. But indeed MSNBC is like Fox News, but a much watered-down version. And with less lying.

Would you at least agree that MSNBC uses market-driven media to appeal to an ideological crowd, much as Fox News?

[madfloridian]

16. No, I would not agree. Fox can not be compared to any legit network.

It simply can not.

They don't even bother to present truth, it does not matter to them.

[Writer]

24. But by once more pointing your finger at Fox...

you're ignoring what MSNBC is doing. And MSNBC isn't exactly helping the toxic condition of political discourse. It's just more ideological rhetoric - now from the left.

[seabeyond]

30. denocrats didnt have a voice, didnt refute rw, didnt have a voice on any network. that didnt work

either.

at best, there is a voice that challenges the rw. we didnt have that for the longest time.

[Writer]

34. So you believe there should be partisan news? n/t

[seabeyond]

38. i believe there has to be truth in news. sunday shows. 9 REPUBLICANS, 1 dem

got that. and this excludes fox news. NINE republicans and 1 dem.

[seabeyond]

39. and you still didnt acknowledge DIFFERENCE.... one lies, one reports truth. nt

[Writer]

43. And yet they are both ideological. Is that good for national discourse? n/t

[seabeyond]

53. it is a must. who is going to refute fox and all the lies. no one else does. obviously jon isnt.

we have been there and done that and it did us no good to mind our manners and keep our motuh shut. are you going to address that or just keep asking me the same question. or is that going outside your box as it seems to have done with jon. not stuck to the line written.

[Lord Magus]

112. Political opinion commentary has been around for as long as politics.

Fox's tying it to a 24/7 "news" cycle and filling so thoroughly with lies has made things far worse, but in and of itself it's not a bad thing to have ideological commentary. As long as the commentators use facts and not lies to support their opinions, it's not harmful to national discourse. It's simply putting the national discourse on TV (or radio, or whatever other medium is used).

[madfloridian]

33. I am sorry, but that is a ridiculous thing to say.

And it shows me that there will be no discussing.

Fox lies, doesn't care that it does.

MSNBC does not lie.

[Writer]

47. And yet they are still both ideological news organizations, are they not? n/t

[madfloridian]

57. One can be ideological and still tell the truth. Can they not?

[Writer]

99. Of course! But once again, we're back to divisive rhetoric and pushing those people...

who don't fall into either camp to tune out altogether.

[madfloridian]

128. "Divisive rhetoric" just won the election. Our bipartisan asses lost.

:wow:

[Zoeisright]

98. No. Faux LIES. Why can't you get that?

A news organization doesn't lie, doesn't openly support political candidates, and doesn't stage phony gatherings like Glenn BlecKKK's disgusting display of racism in DC.

[Writer]

101. But the fact that Fox lies doesn't negate the fact that they are both ideological. n/t

[Lord Magus]

89. You're engaging in the same false equivalency that we've criticized Stewart for.

Pointing out and criticizing Fox's lies is not on the same level as the lies themselves. Quite the opposite. Lying is toxic to the political discourse, but pointing out that somebody else is lying (as long as they really are lying) is not.

[Zoeisright]

95. Bullshit. Why don't you try to find one lie that Rachel Maddow or Keith

Olbermann has broadcast? ONE?? I'll bet a thousand bucks you can't.

The political discourse is toxic because repukes lie and hurl invective. They will not compromise and all they want to do is have power. And they will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get it.

[jancantor]

17. I agree with this too

1) MSNBC is qualitatively much like Fox
2) but quantitatively it is not, in that it does this crap to a lesser extent.

I don't understand how ANYBODAY can watch Olbermann especially and not see this. I don't think Fox has anybody close to Maddow. I guess the closest analog I am aware of on the right would be Medved. Except Maddow has >>>>> charisma.

[seabeyond]

27. the difference being, one promotes lies and falsehoods as fact, and one does not. ergo

difference.

[Lord Magus]

119. I'm not seeing very much similarity.

Olbermann doesn't lie. When he gets something wrong, he makes an on-air correction. His closest equivalents at Fox (in that they, like him, are doing one-hour opinion commentary shows about the day's news) are all about lying to push their agenda.

I'll repeat, the problem with Fox isn't that they're ideological. It's that they're liars.

[seabeyond]

25. if it is not as shrill and doesnt lie.... then it is not like fox. as people are saying. nt

[Writer]

29. But it is to the extent that it is ideological, and only fuels the divisive tone...

in our political discourse.

[seabeyond]

31. acknowledge a difference. that being, one lies, one does not. to actually challenge lie

has to be. you want the left to NOT challenge lies. we have done that. did it for a lot of years. lost kerry because NO ONE challenged the lies. just accepted them. is that really what you are suggesting what we need to do? really?

[Writer]

41. Well the argument you seem to be making is that the answer to more partisan media...

is yet more partisan media. However, Jon's point is that this only promotes divisiveness in national political discourse. And I agree with that.

[seabeyond]

54. and yours is to evade a direct question. WHO stops the lies? nt

[Writer]

65. First of all, I don't appreciate your tone. It's snotty.

I'm trying to be reasonable here.

Nonetheless, to answer your question, the issue here is that the traditional media have not done a good job debunking anything, for myriad reasons. In fact, they have also promoted this nasty tit-for-tat discourse. For that reason, I wonder if MSNBC is an organic development from Fox News' success - and I agree with the premise of your question that it's there to debunk right wing lies. But it's also there to promote left-wing viewpoints, as well. The result of this is now our entire national discourse is still more divisive. And I don't consider that a good thing.

[seabeyond]

71. frustrated, not snotty. ok, the problem is...... since about clinton investigation dems have been

well mannered, polite, without voice and lopsided news. we had it for a good decade. it. did. us. NO. good.

what other option is there?

i would love for there not to be so much of the bullshit that is in the world today. i am so gd tired of all the crap. lack of intergrity, respect, kindness, character, honesty, .....

but we have what we have. we were without voice for a long time.

what is the option?

[Writer]

84. Well, I don't know if there IS an answer to that, because it can't all be solved through...

the media. I've had some professors tell me that the media are honest in the sense that they reflect our culture back to us. However, I do think it would help if the shape of our news environment wasn't so bitterly partisan as to negate our ability to say, "Yeah, that guy's a dickhead and doesn't deserve our attention or respect," for example. Or, perhaps, "$200 million/day, does that sound reasonable to you?" You know, instead of having a newscaster simply present that information, then present the rhetoric around it without any questioning. That's the problem. We need more referees, not more boxers.

[seabeyond]

92. but no referees showed up and dems had no boxers. sure, it would be nice if news did their job

i think everyone would be satisfied if they did their job. i think that is exactly the disappointment with stewart. instead of being honest, he did the same thing msm does. he was a bush, fox, teabagger apologist. he did not call them out, anymore than msm did. it is what killed us. it is what created the left msnbc

[seabeyond]

97. btw writer. i disagree with you BUT you are doing a kick ass job answering every poster

and so well too.

this is a tough one for you. so many posts, hard and fast. impressed.

though of course, i disagree.

and i like stewart. and idealically, what he is saying would be nice. but letting bush, fox and teabaggers off is a HUGE part of the problem.

[Writer]

106. You know, I really appreciate that. Thanks.

I study this topic for a living - well, a very SCANT living, so it's interesting to me.

Speaking of which, I really can't stay. I have a paper I need to write. :(

[NotThisTime]

127. Only tonight we heard FOX wasn't partisan... sure they're not.. WTH?

[leftstreet]

8. You make a good point

I haven't watched any of this, but I remember finding it odd when members posted here Rachel's comments the day (of or after) KO was fired. On her program she rattled away about Fox news. I asked someone here what on earth Fox had to do with KO's firing. Nothing apparently. However she was making an equivalency between Fox and MSNBC. Which I found to be the saddest part of this whole debacle.

[julian09]

111. Just the opposite Rachel was disputing the equivalency

She said MNSBC suspended KO because of his donation; something that Fox does
routinely and are ALLOWED to do. Gop candidates solicit donations on the air, Fox furnishes their anchors
to participate in political rallys. The saddest part of the whole debacle, is your ignorance.
Fox is an opperative of the republican party; msnbc debunks their lies.

[leftstreet]

113. Why was she comparing MSNBC to FOX to begin with?

All that does is give FOX legitimacy

[Lord Magus]

116. She wasn't.

She was pointing out that KO's suspension proves all the false equivalency claims that MSNBC is just the Fox of the left are pure bunk.

[marmar]

10. I've got to agree with Bill Maher on this one:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0a0_1289088553&c=1

[eleny]

11. There's nothng new about the media being driven by revenue and ratings

Jon's pointing that out one more time doesn't make him relevant.

[Writer]

18. But that's not Jon's entire point.

His point is - if Fox is so bad, why add yet more firewood to the pyre with ideologically left news programming? I'm sure that he understands that Fox is full of raving liars, but is the answer yet more shrill viewpoints - now from the left?

[ProSense]

28. I don't get this

"His point is - if Fox is so bad, why add yet more firewood to the pyre with ideologically left news programming?"

Is he saying there shouldn't be passionate voices on the left (not talking lunatics) because Fox is despicable?

[Writer]

32. Actually, to be honest, I think he wants a fair evaluation of the day's events...

and not presented through ideological framing. His discussion of the news media serving as the "immune system" of our politics underscores the fact that ideologically-driven news can't offer us information - only speculation and opinion.

[seabeyond]

36. who the hell is suppose to say... obama is not spending 200 million a day in india

not a muslim and is a u.s. citizen. are we suppose to just let them make up whatever and feed to the public?

[Writer]

52. See that's the issue - I think MSNBC exists because there is no means of actively debunking...

lies such as those. However, the result of this is more partisan rhetoric for our mix, which only leads to more divisiveness in our politics.

[seabeyond]

56. wtf? nt

[eleny]

48. And Rachel did a good job at pushing back because he paints with too broad a brush

He then seemed to have a tough time responding and fell into rambling before finally acknowledging her criticism.

I choose not to make excuses for him nor will I work to extract reason and logic from his word salad responses. Providing us with his cohesive point of view was up to him and imo he failed.

[Hannah Bell]

51. because it spreads the meme that fox & msnbc are twins. and they're not.

they're both partisan, but imo knowingly spreading false news is a whole different schtick than partisanship.

and fox knowingly spreads false news. it's glaringly obvious.

i've never seen that on the msnbc shows. i've seen spin, but not complete falsehood.

fox is in its own league, it's not msnbc's twin on the right. it just isn't.

i actually have no problem with news being presented from a left or right-wing pov. that way, everyone knows there *is* a pov, not the phoney centrism of e.g. cnn, which is actually center-right.

but i have a huge problem with outright lies. & FOX has at least one outright lie every day.

[Writer]

59. Well the unfortunate result of MSNBC's programming changes...

is that now Fox News has something to point to in order to deflect attention away from themselves. I don't believe Fox News and MSNBC are twins, and I doubt that Jon Stewart thinks that. However, MSNBC's very existence gives Fox News the opportunity to say, "See? That's the liberal media." And that's sad.

[Lord Magus]

117. The problem with Fox ISN'T that they're ideological. It's that they're liars.

If they were still a conservative opinion commentary channel but didn't support their agenda by lying, and didn't claim to be a reporting the news rather than commenting on it, they wouldn't be such a poison on America. They're a poison on American politics because they convince many people to believe flagrantly untrue things.

[Angry Dragon]

58. That is untrue

There was a time where news was a loss leader.
They were not set up to make money but to give you
the news.
Along the way this was lost and news became entertainment.
We are the losers because of this.

[eleny]

81. Yes, but that isn't the precise issue here regarding Stewart

My reply to the OP was that if Stewart is trying to make the point that news is now tied to revenues - he's not exactly making any revelations. Sadly, it's been this way for a very long time now.

Btw, I'm old enough to remember the time when news wasn't tied to network profits.

[Angry Dragon]

110. Strange ..... Youlook younger than that

:hi:

[gkhouston]

12. If Jon had actually made that argument, it would have been good to see Rachel

what Rachel had to say about it. That, perhaps, is what he was driving at, but it's only a generous guess, IMO.

[Writer]

20. Yeah, well I think Jon didn't do a good job defending himself.

Perhaps it was the stomach flu - who knows. But he just didn't do a good job.

[gkhouston]

22. No, he didn't. Clearly not feeling his best. n/t

[baldguy]

15. Jon doesn't get it.

As Keith said: "Sticking up for the powerless is not moral equivalent of sticking up for the powerful."

And Jon may think that pointing this ugly little fact out is unseemly, but it never will be.

[Writer]

21. But that's not his point as all.

He's talking about the tone of conversations within the public sphere. What I see with the liberal outcry are ideological news organizations trying to justify the erosion of political discourse in this country. Is MSNBC changing people's minds? Really? No.

[Lord Magus]

74. To hell with the tone.

Stewart has apparently decided that the cold hard fact that Bush is a war criminal shouldn't be brought up (even though he admits it's "technically true", as if Bush's crimes are a mere technicality) because it's a "conversation ender".

Sorry, I don't want to have a conversation with people who defend an unapologetic torturer.

[baldguy]

79. He's decrying the fact that people who honor the truth expose the RW as liars.

He characterizes this exposure as the equivalent of the lies themselves. He fails to recognize the erosion of public discourse comes exclusively from the flood of lies, hatred, vitriol & insanity from the Right. The few grains of truth blown in by the winds on the Left from the land of reality does nothing.


Again, this is the Right:




This is the Left:

[fadedrose]

19. It's not that he couldn't articulate his points better,

He usually doesn't have to, his 25-50 writers do that for him.

He doesn't have to articulate any points on his show. This was a new experience for him, and he should avoid further interviews one on one...
especially on a leftie program...

[lordsummerisle]

55. Yes

he should go back to his show and do what he does best. The Rachel interview was awful...every time he spoke I spent more time than I wanted to trying to figure out what he was saying...

[MadBadger]

107. You obviously didnt see the crossfire video.

[Luminous Animal]

26. I fail to see the problem with ideological content. Most European countries

host a variety of daily/weekly printed news & periodicals that have an ideological bent. I'm not sure about their broadcast content because I never watch TV while I am there. It is a wide-open world and plenty of room for opinions across the political spectrum. It's not so simple that FOX News that is the problem, it is the mainstreaming of FOX News that is the problem (i.e., Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc., on the cover of Time.) with little analysis. Concurrently, the big guns of media feed us administration PR and dispassionate reporting in the he/she said vein with little desire to illuminate who has the facts on their side.

Define shrill.

[Writer]

I understand, but this grates against 100 years or so of journalism ethics...

that promote the concept of objectivity. Perhaps objectivity is an ideal that we should throw away?

[ProSense]

42. But Fox News isn't objective

There is a difference between commentary, punditry and news. Fox completely blurs the line with 24/7 RW propaganda.

[Writer]

45. I can't say that MSNBC is completely objective, either.

They also blur the line between punditry and news, as well. I just happen to agree with them more. :shrug:

[ProSense]

61. No, they do not.

Olbermann is a pundit. MSNBC news, the news, is not delivered as leftist propaganda. That's absurd.

[Writer]

66. It is delivered through a left-oriented framework, however. n/t

[ProSense]

68. No it isn't.

What's left-oriented about MSNBC?

[Writer]

90. Wait - really? I would argue that...

Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz, the dude who has blonde hair whose name I can't remember at the moment, are all left-oriented news programming.

[Lord Magus]

100. If you mean Chris "Tweety" Matthews, he's not left.

He's center-right at best.

And all of the shows that you mentioned are punditry. They're not news reporting, they're opinion commentary about the news.

[Writer]

104. No not Chris Matthews. He's just a blowhard.

The slightly younger dude. The one whose show follows Rachel's.

[Lord Magus]

108. Oh, you mean Lawrence O'Donnell.

He seems to consider himself a liberal, but he's definitely more to the center. And he too is an opinion commentator, not a news reporter.

[Lord Magus]

83. Not true at all.

MSNBC's punditry shows and its news are separate. It's entirely different from Fox, which has punditry shows, and more punditry shows that pretend to be hard news.

[Writer]

105. Fox News has an entire pundit OPERATION. They even have future presidential candidates...

on their air.

But Keith Olbermann is a pundit, too. So is Ed Schultz. The guy whose name I still can't remember, too. Geesh. Who's the guy that follows Rachel?

[Lord Magus]

109. There's nothing wrong with puditry.

What's wrong is lying. Especially when you put your lies in what are allegedly hard news shows.

Oddly enough, only Fox is doing that.

[Luminous Animal]

63. Objectivity is a myth. Search through old newspapers' archives.

The blatant slant is astounding.

And really, what is objective about reporting, in equal measure, the views of hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters vs thousands of pro-war activists and government PR?

What is objective about reporting that Social Security is in crisis when the facts prove otherwise?

Objectivity is meaningless when the primary objective is supplying equal measure for interests of the few over the interests of the many.

[Writer]

70. Objectivity is an ideal. I think the larger issue here is...

what are news values today? How do newsrooms handle those news values? It seems that many believe that the entire media landscape constitutes the "marketplace of ideas," and all ideas should be aired and fought out. I think there's more issues here with the money-focus of news, and the decisions that newsrooms make everyday to support news that is "exciting." Sometimes what's exciting are hardened political viewpoints. Then we all lose.

[Luminous Animal]

114. I think the larger issue is ethics.

And I assert that objectivity is impossible though a thoughtful application of ethics is attainable.

[ProSense]

40. Exactly, and it goes beyond that

Fox News is pure RW propaganda and straight up lies disguised as news. That shouldn't be.

The mainstreaming of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the rest are poisoning the airwaves, but suddenly Keith Olbermann is over the top?

[EmeraldCityGrl]

37. Jon will be replacing Leno or Letterman some day. He

just proved his politics are perfect for the position.

[grasswire]

44. Question. Do you watch MSNBC regularly?

I question your characterization of the programming.

[brindis_desala]

46. I agree that the response to Fox also results in amplification,

but until Olbermann came along we were being propagandized ad absurdum. At a time when even the NYTimes was being used to support a false narrative, a passionate defense of the truth, was vital to "restore (some balance) sanity".

[Writer]

49. See, that makes me wonder if this is an organic response to Fox News...

that being that, because liberals have been dissatisfied with how traditional news has handled Fox News' propagandizing, that MSNBC saw a potential market and sprang for it.

Perhaps this is just an era in news that will abate over time. I sure as hell hope so.

[NC_Nurse]

50. I understood what he was trying to say and I thought it was an excellent

discussion between two reasonable and intelligent people. I don't agree with him on every point, but I
hear what he's saying and see his point of view. I think he's right that the polarization of every issue into a right-left brawl is pointless and destructive. It's obvious that this has really hit home here on DU because so many people are SO upset with him for not being on "their" side.

He pointed out that if you watch the Daily Show, it's clear that Fox gets parodied FAR more frequently than MSNBC because they are so much more egregious in the pushing of their point of view - which he characterized as ideology rather than partisanship. Again, I have to agree with him because they will have a Democrat on if they support their RW ideology or a Libertarian, etc. but you will not see Republicans that don't tow the RW line on Fox.

I disagreed with him about GWB somewhat, because I think that clearly waterboarding is torture and to seek to manipulate law to allow it is wrong, morally and practically, and he should be held accountable. I don't care what his intent was, that doesn't make it excusable. Opening the door to "interpretation" or "special circumstances" was opening Pandora's Box. Sad that most don't seem to see it that way in our country.

[madfloridian]

62. Now we are defending Fox News from well-deserved criticism?

Another DU surprise.

[Writer]

73. No. That is not at all what I, or Jon Stewart, is saying. No. n/t

[madfloridian]

82. Well, he defended Bush and Fox. What else do you call it?

And now I have been criticized for saying I recognize truth...in this thread I think.

[Writer]

86. A bad defense of his viewpoint. I don't think he articulated himself well. n/t

[Lord Magus]

91. You're entitlted to see it that way. I just see it as his viewpoint being wrong.

I got the impression that he meant exactly what he said, not that he misstated his position.

[Writer]

96. Yes, he gave the wrong impression to those watching...

But the conversations we're having at school mirror the larger points he was attempting to make at the rally. It's unfortunate that he failed to reassert his original point.

[nolabear]

64. I agree too. There are multiple purposes on each side.

I do think he underestimates his own proximity, comedy show or not, to what they do.

MSNBC tends to be my "team", and for good reason, but they want to sell stuff too and they have an interest in making a sport of politcs so we'll keep going to the games and buying the stuff. And I think it's gone too far too. I can tell by how crazily compulsive it is for me to keep up with the latest stories, gossip, feuds, power plays, and sibling rivalries. That shouldn't really be called "News." It also does powerful exposes, speaks truth to power, expresses for me things I could never express to people I want to hear it.

Love 'em. And the alliance between them and the people who run our country makes me nervous.

[Lord Magus]

67. Sorry, I can't agree with an argument that calls Bush's war crimes a technicality.

Jon Stewart did exactly that. Regardless of whether Olbermann was right about Stewart jumping the shark at his rally, he certainly jumped the shark with that line.

[Writer]

76. I didn't agree with that either.

And I think that's why he didn't do a good job defending himself.

[LostInAnomie]

69. Forget it. The meme that Jon preaches false equivalency is already in place here.

DU doesn't do nuance.

[Lord Magus]

80. It's not a meme, it's a fact.

He continued to preach false equivalency in the very interview we're discussing.

[flvegan]

72. Anyone got a link to this?

Seeing as how this will be DU's point du jour, I'd like to see it for myself.

[Lord Magus]

118. Can't find it so far.

But in half an hour the repeat of Maddow's show will be on, so if nothing else you can watch it then.

[MadBadger]

122. Not sure if this is the whole thing, but Mediaite has four 8-10 minute videos posted

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-interviews-jon-stewart-video/

[Writer]

75. Ack! I can't keep up with all these mini-debates! n/t

[ProSense]

78. Do you agree that

Bush admitted to war crimes and it's not simply leftist to make that claim?

[Writer]

88. Yes, I most definitely do.

We need a referee with earned news authority to point that out, not an ideological pundit pointing that out. Therefore, the point would have more credibility with those who haven't "taken a side."

[seabeyond]

85. another poster said it perfectly. stewart was an apologist for bush, fox and teabaggers

that bottom lines it.

[Writer]

93. I think that's where Stewart failed in defending himself.

I do think the point of the rally, as I described it, stands however. I wonder if, because Maddow was defending her network, if Stewart was forced to take a right position that, quite frankly, I don't think he truly believes.

[seabeyond]

102. now, i watched all of the rally. me, son and hubby all around computer. great family

time. it was good for us. i could take the rally for what it was. at that point i was saying, he was right. olberman was right. everyone on du with opinion was right. yup yup yup. it is what he has done since i am not agreeing so much to.

[cynatnite]

115. I agree with him, too, but I don't think the blame lies only with Faux News...

I thought it began with CNN's Crossfire. Then it mushroomed into other shows on other networks that had Dem and Repub arguing over each other. Faux News made a living out of tapping into RW ideology for the most part.

I don't think articulating is Jon's problem here. I think it's that he did a piss poor job of articulating the intent of the rally. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a huge disconnect. Personally, I felt like the point of the rally was nothing more than a finger wag...it did little to change anything.

[FedUpWithIt All]

120. I think he was speaking of the puffed up rhetoric...only.

I saw nothing in that interview which gave the impression that he felt there is a moral equivalency between the "sides"(more theatrical rhetoric?). He simply was trying to point out the bluster both sides use in telling their respective stories. The legitimacy of the info is extraneous to the point made that it is all being fed to the watcher as a type of divisive entertainment.

I think his concern, and it is that self same argument he made on crossfire, that the spectacle forms a type of emotional "scar tissue" which creates a decreasing sensitivity to the information and in turn requires greater and greater :crazy: :silly: :wow: :grr: :scared: to make an impact and in turn feed the machine.

I agree with you on this one Writer.

[MadBadger]

121. Thats what Ive been saying since the rally.

Hes's not saying both sides are the same, just that at times they both use over the top rhetoric

[FedUpWithIt All]

123. And look what happens...

when a comedian shares his personal views about the possible dangers of confusing pseudo serious news "shows" with journalism. The conversation rapidly becomes hyped. We are definitely a product of our environment.

[Matariki]

125. Who on MSNBC do you consider shrill?

I really only watch Maddow and Olbermann. I don't think either of them are 'shrill'.

[Rex]

126. He tried, usually he is hosting a comedy show.

That got turned into political ground zero and why? He told the truth about how dirty the Bush administration was and we laughed and cried along with the audience. I don't know why he plays stupid about the Professional Left, maybe it is to keep a job. But he knows. He SO knows the difference between a liberal and a neo-con, just maybe he is an entertainer first and a statesmen second.

Dunno.