Why Jon Stewart Doesn't "Get" It

[GrpCaptMandrake]

The failure of Jon Stewart's "Can't We All Just Get Along" argument lies in the fact that we've already BEEN where he's saying we need to go. It didn't work out too well. It didn't work out well because the right wing doesn't WANT to get along. They want to win. They.Want.It.All

We've lived in a world where the so-called left abandoned the broadcast field to the right-wing and all its myriad toxins. That's what the 80's and 90s were, as well as the majority of this decade. It is a fact that for every hour of "liberal" broadcasting, there are ONE THOUSAND hours of right-wing hatecasting in our country.

With no opposition, the right-wing talking points vomited forth daily by the Limbaughs, Savages, Schlesingers et al. ad nauseam became, de facto, the way the nation saw the issues in those decades. Does anyone recall that the incoming '94 Repig freshmen named Limbaugh an honorary member? They didn't do that because he's cute. They did it because he played a major role in shaping and controlling the dialogue and discourse in this country. He was able to do that because there was almost no one (with the exception of Mike Malloy, who has soldiered on through it all; if Stewart heard Malloy he'd probably start having kittens with crocheted tails) opposing them.

So along came "Crossfire," with a pair of democrats giving as good as they got. It was quite popular for awhile. Then Jon Stewart came on, declared them "dicks," "Crossfire" was gone, and liberals were silenced again on cable. Jon Stewart is recycling that schtick again, only this time he's getting some pushback.

There's pushback this time because an itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy few liberals have actually gotten some broadcast time. And they, in their varied ways, are giving as good as we've gotten for decades. In short, they're handing the right-wing what the right-wing's been dishing out with impunity for years and years. Apparently, Jon Stewart doesn't like that.

But again, the problem lies in the fact that Stewart's thesis is just plain wrong. If you take Maddow and Olbermann and Schultz off the air, Fox will not become more benign, more benevolent, less malignant and toxic. They and Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Beck etc. will continue to spew. The ONLY way to combat that is to oppose them on their own ground, in their own medium, and give the American people a choice between competing points of view.

The other side are bullies. It really IS that simple. One NEVER beats a bully by speaking gently to him in soothing, dulcet tones accompanied by a gentle refrain of "Kum-by-yah" in the background. When you do that, the bully punches you in the face, takes your milk money, spits on you and kicks dirt in your face.

I for one, have long been tired of eating right-wing dirt. I do what little I can to be part of the pushback. It's a wonder to me that some people who call themselves "liberal" and "progressive" want to keep eating the dirt. Then again, why should I wonder? When the Children of Israel sought freedom and wound up in the desert, there were plenty who advocated going back to Pharaoh. After all, they reasoned, Pharaoh gave them three hots and a cot.

On edit: caught a typo

[eleny]

1. FoxNews went to court to solidify their right to put forth lies as truth

That fact tears Stewart's broad brush assertions into tiny bits.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

4. Indeed, it does!

And in that lawsuit, didn't Fox confess that they aren't even a news operation? That's why I've argued that FoxNews is merely a brand name, like Lucky Charms cereal or Quaker oats. There's no luck in Lucky Charms and Quakers don't make those oats. To the same degree, Fox is not a "news" organization. It's a broadcast organization designed to sway the opinion of the 40+ psychographic.

[eleny]

12. Amen

After thinking about it for a while tonight I've come to the conclusion that Stewart is just another a cynic. And frankly Capt. M., I don't have time for that crap. Cynicism is the birthplace of the broad brush. That kind of blurred thinking doesn't help me understand a darned thing about what's going on in the world.

What an "epic fail" Stewart turned out to be. But hey - nobody forced him to jump the shark.

:hi:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

18. True!

At least Fonzie had a reason!

:toast:

[vanbean]

119. I came to that conclusion right after his rally. What he doesn't seem

to distinguish is that one side lies, and the other side tells the truth. Can you ever think of a time when Olbermann told a lie? Can you thing of a time when Fox News or Limbaugh or any other rightwing loudmouth has told a lie? Right.

What Jon can't or won't understand is that if you are lying it is unacceptable to be indignant. If you are responding with the truth you have a right and an obligation to be indignant.

Do you hear that Stewart! I'm not a fan of his anymore. I've lost the ability to laugh at his humor, because it isn't funny when he isn't honest. Piss on him!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

121. I think you've made a very important point:

Indignance is NATURALLY a response to overt dishonesty. Indignance isn't, as Stewart seems to believe, a "tactic" or a "strategy" of the largely imaginary "Left." Some of us in this society still have the ability to be angry at liars . . . and thieves . . . and War Criminals. And, what's more, it's not only OK, it's proof that one has a fully functioning conscience.

[Plucketeer]

140. After hearing Stewart's slant last night,

I'd like to suggest that he stick to focusing on Sports and Entertainment luminaires and such. There - we expect ridiculum and lunacy. Have fun with that all you want, Jon. I give not one tiny shit about the world of sports and/or entertainment. But stay away from the realm where truth and sincerety have an impact on all of us. Clearly, it's nothing more than comedy material to you.

[defendandprotect]

223. Agree with you both --

Astonishing that he could find no way to condemn Bush for lying us into

two wars to control oil -- nor for TORTURE --

Torture is against military law, Geneva Accords, International and National law --

All meaningless? Maybe we should do as Bush suggested ... simply agree that the

Constitution is only a piece of paper -- and the Geneva Accords are "quaint" -- !!!

Most of all made me really, really miss Richard Carlin!!

[October]

158. I'm also no longer a fan. Hate the way he giggles when interviewing GOPers

I was SUCH a fan, too -- but no more.

I just can no longer stomach the way in which he titters and "fake laughs" his way through interviews -- like the recent show with Chris Wallace.

Disappointed.

[vanbean]

193. I know exactly what you mean. He sucked up to Chris Wallace, and I lost a lot of respect for him.

[texshelters]

204. And he could have just said

I don't like Olbermann's tone, but he's fact based as are most MSNBC shows. Fox is mostly lies for the Republicans.

But no, Stewart acts as if they are the same, MSNBC and Fox. MSNBC might be about the money, but they are shills for the Democrats or any other party. Anybody who has watched Ed Schulz knows that.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-rally-to-show-how-reasonable-jon-stewart-is/

[molly77]

229. I stopped watching the Daily Show long before I gave up TV

We do not have free and open media. Rosie O'Donnell was canned for daring to say that something was fishy about 9/11. MSM is only free for neocon agendas.That is state media.

[texshelters]

203. Right on

Olbermann might exaggerate, but he doesn't outright lie like Fox does.

I used to be conflicted about what to watch late night, Olbermann rerun, or Stewart. Thanks to Mr. Stewart, I have time to catch Conan's intro and then watch Olbermann with a clear conscious. Thanks for that Mr. Stewart

Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-rally-to-show-how-reasonable-jon-stewart-is/

[defendandprotect]

222. Everything seemed to be a matter of degrees and/or "Plausible Deniability" to him .... ???

No acknowledgment of an outrageous right wing --

least of all the political violence of the right wing --

and seems naive in his embrace of a conspiracy-free America!!

[sasquuatch55]

166. Nothing short of a Revolution; it is too far gone!

nt

[Zoeisright]

2. Exactly. Thank you.

They certainly are bullies. Bullies with guns who want to kill.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

5. AND

They want us to understand that they're more than willing to USE those guns. It is the rule-by-fear component of fascism.

[Poboy]

3. As Bill Maher said, 'but Obama has tried that for two years.."

[GrpCaptMandrake]

8. Remember:

At the beginning of his administration, Obama sat down to a fine, multi-course dinner among right-wing swells.

Then he came back to the White House and had some "liberal" bloggers over for beans n' kool-aid.

[moondust]

6. K/R

You don't play nice with the likes of Goebbels.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

10. Amen to that!

The saddest part in all of this is that viewers/listeners have repeatedly proven that liberal radio and teevee are successful, yet the big $$$ so-called liberals persistently refuse to support it.

[EFerrari]

7. In Jon's world, the media isn't controlled by four wing nut leaning corporations.

So, he starts off wrong by assuming the playing field is level.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

9. False premises

lead to false conclusion.

Poison trees bear poison fruit.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

90. So, what do you make of it when Jon Stewart says that

(paraphrasing here) "the fight shouldn't be between left and right, but corruption vs. non-corruption"? Do you disagree with that premise?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

91. I think that statement inherently denies reality

Me, I'd like the fight to be between "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling," but it isn't.

It's a distinction without a difference. I'll go out on a limb and say the ENTIRE right-wing is wholly and utterly corrupt. Bought. Paid-for. Co-opted. Corporatized. Authoritized. I can't think of a single person or entity who isn't.

The entirety of the largely make-believe "Left," (i.e. the actual "Center") is not wholly corrupted. Some is. No doubt. But not all.

As such, it still boils down to a question of Left vs. Right, because the Right is utterly Wrong.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

95. Stewart's premise is "we need to look beyond the good vs. evil narrative"

It's a premise that, I think, is at the heart of a larger "divide and conquer" strategy of the masses. It's more "the people vs. the Corpocracy" fight than a left-right one.

The entirety of the mainstream media is an extension of that Corpocracy.

Perhaps MSNBC and The Daily Show are a more self-aware of this than, say, Fox News, but it's there all the same. So, there's going to be an inherent bias against the people. This is why I think the more intelligent folks don't watch t.v. -- it kind've traps one in their reality!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

96. I won't accuse myself

of being "more intelligent," but I avoid television almost entirely. By virtue of what I do, I zip through the cable news channels each day, but don't linger. It's more a matter of "Yep, they're still there . . . " But I do enjoy clips from Olbermann and Maddow, as well as Stewart and Colbert at my leisure. I just don't have time to commit to a full-on "viewing schedule."

For me, it's hard to look past "Good vs. Evil" when "Evil" seems to be so far ahead of the curve that "Good" thinks it's on straight road.

[AlbertCat]

163. I think that statement inherently denies reality

I agree.

It's not that the Left is pure as the driven snow... it's about what WORKS for most Americans... for average Americans. The things the Right says and want to do DO NOT WORK. We've had 30 years of supply side economics and deregulation and here we are. The Right doesn't seem to care... and are still telling us that these things will work. Dems do not think the wealthy or corporations are gonna save us. The right doesn't either, but will tell us they will.. just to get more. The Left want to actually do some governing. The Right just want to be in power, even if they stop any kind of governing the Left might want to squeak thru. The Left are out for themselves AND the citizenry. The Right is just out for themselves.

THAT is what this is about.

[Lord Magus]

162. I disagree with the premise that there's a meaningful difference between those two fights.

The right is mostly if not entirely corrupt, and the left is mostly not corrupt.

[cadmium]

173. No. Corruption is always with us.

[texshelters]

205. Conservatives are full of corruption

and any attempt by the left to end corruption, i.e. the disclosure act, is blocked by the right.

Moreover, like others have said, it's the wrong premise. Certainly, both parties have corruption, but it's the degree of corruption on the right that is taking this country down. Stewart seems to think if there are 20 corrupt Senators and 1 is a Democrat, that both parties are equally corrupt. 19 to 1? Think about it Jon. You aren't as smart as I thought you were. Stick to comedy.

Here's the real concern, not right or left but do you support the ALL the people, or the corporations and the wealthy. Time and again Republicans as a voting block have supported the corporations and the wealthy while they rob from the rest of us. Now that Blanche Lincoln and other Blue Dogs are out, the Democrats can stand up for the rest of us again!

Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-rally-to-show-how-reasonable-jon-stewart-is/

[defendandprotect]

224. Evidently Jon Stewart could find no "corruption" in anything Bush did ... !!!

THAT was shocking!!

[nxylas]

154. Which of course is also Fox News's world

Their whole defense of their "Fair and Balanced" slogan is that all other TV news outlets spew out non-stop liberal propaganda, and so they act as a counterweight to that. Right-wing websites like Newsbusters reinforce that argument by pointing out specific examples of so-called "liberal bias", which usually just means a failure to regurgitate the right-wing talking points - e.g. ABC News covered an Obama-related story without mentioning his Kenyan birth certificate, or whatever.

[Major Hogwash]

11. Excellent analysis, and I agree entirely and now we need to dominate the internet

To overcome that 1000 to 1 hour of radio advantage they have.
Well done.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

20. We do need to do that

But we need to keep up the pressure. The right wing is catching up with us on the 'net very quickly.

We took our broadcast operation to the internet in large part because it broadens the scope of potential audience tremendously. It's also uncensored, unlike the broadcast airwaves, so I don't have to sweat bullets if someone says "booger" during a conversation.

[KansDem]

129. That's why Net Neutrality is a battle we can't afford to lose!

Can you imagine in the wake of sElection2000, 9/11, Katrina, et al, what situation we would be in if we had only radio and cable for information?

If the Corporatists seize the Internet, we're doomed...

[RandomThoughts]

13. They actually only want to fight someone.

Taking things is just something to fight for to make sense out of it.


What you want is blue sky love, what you got is a storm cloud heart, don't you think time is going come glittering down, rain down, rain down...

A really beautiful song.

Blue Sky Love Kate Klim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEWtqMTEhg0

[patrice]

14. Have we ever heard Jon make any kind of statements re Social/Economic Justice?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

17. I don't think that sort of thing

fits his format.

Although, to be fair, he's remarked disapprovingly of Mountaintop Removal, the human rights crisis with which my friends, family, neighbors and I live every day.

[patrice]

26. I'm glad to hear that about Mntop Rmvl. That's a good thing about JS.

I have for some time now thought that he is funny, but not a whole lot else. I stopped watching him months ago, because he does nothing for most of the issues that I care about.

[defendandprotect]

225. Come to think of it .... NO --

[ralps]

15. Yay for Bob & the HORN!!!

http://headonradionetwork.com/

:hi: :loveya: :hug: :pals: :woohoo:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

34. Thanks, ralps! n/t

[glitch]

16. Well said. nt

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Major Hogwash]

21. No, that's not really it. It's just that Jon has always been thought of as being a smart guy before

And tonight we find out he was using a teleprompter all along.

[HEyHEY]

23. Oh, he has one night you don't like and that's it, you're done with him

I certainly hope I never have a job where you're boss.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

25. Wrong

You're assuming facts not in evidence.

I never said I'm "done with him."

[HEyHEY]

27. I wasn't responding to you, speaking of fact....

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbmk]

105. He is a smart guy.

Jon Stewart is highly intelligent. And has a good heart.
But I am getting a sense that he has thought himself into a theoretical, but not practically, defensible position.

I doubt anyone here would argue that it would be better if the political/national dialogue actually was one. But unless you can visualise a way to get both sides(ignoring for a moment the moral superiority of either sides arguments) to tone it down, it is just that - theoretical. And by extension bordering on the naive.

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show would find something to say about Jon Stewart the Rally Guy, if they were not the same person, I think.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

106. Wow!

Dang, but that's a great observation: "Jon Stewart of the Daily Show would find something to say about Jon Stewart the Rally Guy, if they were not the same person, I think."

That statement encapsulates the subtle self-censorship in which one has to engage if one is to continue getting the corporate paycheck. In point of fact, Jon Stewart TDS Guy DID say something about Jon Stewart the Rally Guy when he addressed the criticism he was getting (the bit w/ the B&W boxer footage).

Of course, because he's where he is, he can't well say "Hey, I messed up," because that would be like dribbling blood into a tank full of hungry right-wing sharks.

[defendandprotect]

226. Think that was the sad part of all this ... that Stewart didn't voluntarily go to Schultz and KO ...

and those on the left to try to explain -- that's where I think he failed.

If you are a reasonable person and for sanity -- then respond to the criticism ...

he could have done it quietly and personally -- and straightened things out.

But, he's holding onto some pretty dumb ideas!

And, the interview with Rachel was another failure --

Granted Rachel didn't overly challenge him -- she was too deferential but

I understand that. Jon Stewart failed himself in that interview.

[wryter2000]

143. You hit the nail in the head, imho

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show would find something to say about Jon Stewart the Rally Guy

The overwhelming impression I got from last night was that Stewart did something that sounded cute and would appeal to a great number of people - "Can't ws all just get along?" and "Both sides do it!" - and when he was caught up by reality, he intellectualized his way out of having to admit to what he'd done. He's a very smart and articulate guy, so he did a good job of putting lipstick on the pig. But, it's still a pig.

In light of all this crap, I'm getting heartily tired of his right wing guests. I'm more and more inclined to watch Lawrence O'Donnell instead of The Daily Show.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bjorn Against]

38. You are comparing progressives to "toadies of any butchering murderous tyrant"? Seriously?

Let me say it is quite ironic that the first sentence of your post was about getting along and rebuilding, then in the very next sentence you compare those you disagree with to toadies of butchering murderous tyrants.

[HEyHEY]

42. Progressives listen to people, they don't just back someone then disregard them at convienence

[Bjorn Against]

46. So what does this have to do with butchering murderous tyrants?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bjorn Against]

56. Those are nasty words for a person who is trying to stand up for Stewart's message of getting along.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

62. Yep

That irony wasn't lost on me.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

47. And what evidence do you have that anyone has done that?

It certainly can't be inferred from my OP.

[Lord Magus]

52. Progressives aren't blind followers.

If somebody we've considered an ally in the past makes statements we consider incredibly wrong-headed, we're not going to pretend it didn't happen just because "we've always supported him before".

[HEyHEY]

59. Yes you are.

You followed him and followed him until he said something you didn't like. Then you turned on him when he said something against YOU cause instead of thinking about it.

[Lord Magus]

60. He said somebody stupid and wrong, and we called him out on it.

[HEyHEY]

61. Ah, it was "wrong"

Now I see.

[Lord Magus]

68. Yes, it was wrong.

You know. Factually incorrect. The opposite of right.

[HEyHEY]

69. How can an opinion be factually incorrect?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

70. You didn't assert it as opinion

You asserted it as fact. That's how.

[HEyHEY]

72. Well, obviously, considering the topic it is an opinion

We're talking politics, not automotive repair.

[dbmk]

107. It was not an opinion - but a statement. n/t

[Name removed]

65. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tatiana]

24. Yes. We've been there and seen a President needlessly impeached over a BJ.

That's what appeasement and "compromise" gets you when you don't take the valid principled stand.

Sometimes there are clear cut stands you have to take, such as ending slavery, allowing minorities including African-Americans and women the right to vote, repealing DADT simply because it's the right thing to do.

Compromising with the current opposition is the same as saying a black American is worth 3/5 of a person instead of nothing at all.

[SoCalDem]

28. It's all about what people hear.. People ARE gullible

we see it every day, in every way.

People want to believe the best about others, but time after time, women are victimized by the boyfriends/husbands they love and who promise over and over that "it will never happen again"...but it always does..

People line up to buy into scams and then cry because they have been swindled.

People buy that car owned by the little old lady who only drove it to church on Sunday..and time after time, they end up with a junker that costs them money like crazy.


People DO believe what they hear, and when they only ever hear ONE side, they can come to the conclusion that , since it's never refuted, it must be true..

way back when, I wrote this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/01/30_news.html



http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/01/30_...

When News Isn't


January 30, 2002
by SoCalDem

Those of us of a "certain age" remember the days of Huntley & Brinkley, and Walter Cronkite. In those days, our news was delivered to us in a straightforward manner, with little, if any, commentary. As Walter used to say at the end of every newscast, "That's the way it was on ...(fill in any date)."

Most cities of any size, had at least two newspapers, a morning and an afternoon paper. People read the morning paper with breakfast, the afternoon paper after work, and settled down for the evening news on television. Back in those days, some broadcasts were only 15 minutes long. The amazing thing was that in that short amount of a time the newsmen actually conveyed a sense of what was going on around the world.

When did the news stop being the news? Why does a slice of our demographic pie actually think what we get today is NEWS?

The format of a news broadcast has a lot to do with it. A look back at those archived, grainy old black and white images tells the story. A man, a desk, a microphone, a clock, and a serious demeanor... That's about what it took in those days to convince most people that they had better pay attention, because what they were about to see was important, and worthy of their attention.

The format has changed little over the decades. There are women now, but most of them are window dressing. The men of broadcasting age, but the women are replaced as their on-camera persona becomes less Barbie-like. Advertisers have burned the image of a desk, a man, a microphone, and a clock, into the collective psyche of America. That image conjures up NEWS.

It's no wonder that over time, the forces out there who would try to control the American Mind would adopt the very same format to get their message across. It comes to us wrapped up like a news broadcast, but like the Bizarro World of Superman, it isn't what it pretends to be. People out there in viewer-land see the desk, and the trappings of a newscast, and they think that is what they are getting..

As the Fairness Doctrine faded away into the sunset, we were besieged by endless "faux" news programs. Corporate moguls hungrily devoured smaller broadcast venues as they built their vast communication holdings. Most of these moguls have very different worldviews than the average citizen does. It became easier and easier to insinuate their own political and ideological leanings into every aspect of their burgeoning empires.

In past times, when a news anchor wanted to change jobs, he would mail tapes of representative reportage to various media outlets across the country and wait to see if he got any offers. If they were a bigger outlet or offered a higher salary, there was little impediment to the newsman's acceptance of that offer.

This was the way it was then, but now with all the consolidation, that movement is dictated by the men at the top. When they control media all over the country, the individual broadcasters are not free to look around. They are more like indentured servants to their master. If they get on the wrong side of the message they are supposed to convey, their trip up the ladder is over. That they are well paid cannot be of much consolation, because their mobility and their very jobs are always in jeopardy, if they say the wrong thing.

The "Screaming Head" shows of today are an offshoot of the media consolidation too. When cable hurled itself into the "News Game," they gave birth to a beast that needed constant feeding. The OJ phenomenon showed that masses of people would velcro themselves to a couch and watch one single story over and over for months on end. Advertisers had to be wearing drool bibs when they realized that. But all "good" things must end, and eventually, we had no more OJ to kick around.

Enter... Politics.

Granted, the niche market for politics may be a narrow one, but political junkies are loyal, and they are interactive. The fact that most of the owners of the media are corporations who feast at the teat of the government, is not incidental. The message gets very important when it comes to the rules and regulations that the ones at the top need to go their way.

They know which party will acquiesce, and they know the drill. In order to get favorable legislation, the media must constantly sell the message that will urge the public to the polls and keep the "right" people in office.

If a non-compliant congress acts in the best interest of the public, the corporations will take a hit in the bank account. This must be avoided at all costs. It's a kabuki dance of dangerous proportions. Access is divvied up like the spoils of war between fewer and fewer rich men, and the spillover is that they control cable, satellite, mainstream broadcast and even the old fall-back, newspapers.

The old maxim "If you can't beat them, join them" no longer applies. The modern version is, "If you can't beat them... EAT them."

More and more news outlets are being controlled by fewer and fewer ideologues. Strangely enough, there are still many people who see the desk, the man and the clock and their mind says... NEWS...

and then this:

The "New" Assassins!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1203912&mesg_id=1204317


Poor Jack Kennedy, Poor Martin Luther King, Poor James Meredith, Poor Malcolm X, Poor Bobby Kennedy...and so many others who were "under the radar", and we never even knew ..

People who dare to speak out are always in fear for their lives, and those named paid the ultimate price for their "free speech".

Had they lived now, in a more "evolved" time, they might have never had to die for their audacity. People who made waves back then were just "dealt with" in the crudest, but most effective way of the day......elimination.. Everyday people were stunned, shocked, saddened, outraged, and then they moved on. Daily life has a way of taking over, and except for a poignant "anniversary" acknowledgment, or the recurring "conspiracy talk", these people just passed into history as tragic figures.

Those assassinations did serve a purpose though. The message sent was loud and clear. Say the Wrong thing, and you are DONE.

In the "modern" world, although there are still assassination attempts here and there, the "serious" ones are not as common . A more efficient way of handling "rogue elements" is the new and improved way...Assassination by Media is the more accepted way now. If one looks back to the period following the Bobby Kennedy assassination, you can see it taking root. Bobby's slaying might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, in that people were ready to say..ENOUGH!!. People took to the streets and things got too "messy" for the old ways to ever work again.

Flash forward to the Watergate era. At first the story dribbled out and people did not pay a lot of attention, but the Washington Post knew they had a story and they kept at it like a junkyard dog. They challenged BIG GOVERNMENT, and they never quit. When the story finally got the attention of the general public, and Nixon was taken down, the press was bolder than ever before.

This was the era of the "white paper".... 60 Minutes was the very embodiment of "make them accountable".. They went after sleazy business practices and governmental screw-ups, and they hit hard.The show they do today is more "individual driven", and is pure tabloid journalism when compared to the way they started. The targets of their "investigation" are often beleaguered people who are already overextended financially by lawsuits or other problems, so they are probably less likely to sue, or they are the pathetic , sympathy-inducing people who have been "done wrong".

Behind the scenes though, there was a group of people who were seething with anger over what had just happened, and they were determined to get things "under control again". This was the beginning of media consolidation. Towns that had once had 2 or 3 competing newspapers, now had only one, television was still the "big three", Republican Think Tanks were sprouting up like toadstools after rain.

Jimmy Carter's tenure was the "test case" for what would come later. This gentle man was attacked in the press for every little thing. The Nixon hangover may have been partly to blame, since people were genuinely more interested in what went on "behind the curtain", but the things that Carter was berated about were just plain silly..Who remembers the "lusting in his heart" episode...or the "attack of the killer bunny".. or the "he wears sweaters in the oval office".."turn down your thermostats"...or "Amy is so ugly".. Those were the memes of the day.. The press chose to amplify these things to make this man appear to be a lightweight. The real problems he encounters as president were things not of his making, and It think he did try to solve them, but with only one term, and the difficulties of the first "oil crisis", and the "hostage thing", he was doomed..

Nightline was born out of the frustration of the hostage crisis. That show started as a one hour news program with a daily update on the hostages.

A rootin-tootin Dubya would have just saddled up (other people's kids) and attacked Iran, and if the hostages were killed, it would have been "collateral damage", but Carter thought he could negotiate them home. This was our first real experience with the "new middle east". They were radical.. They were mad.. They were Bad.The old ways would never work again. Oddly enough, we now know that some of the very same people we associate with the Reagan/Bush , Bush # 1, and Bush # 2 regimes were involved , behind-the scenes , in the Iran Hostage issue.. At the time, I do not recall hearing their names mentioned when Nightline went on night after night, enumerating the "days since....".

The press attacked Carter relentlessly, and I do not recall much rallying on his behalf from anyone, and the hostage crisis did him in. It was not accidental that the hostages were released at the exact moment of Reagan's swearing in. Bush 1 had CIA connections, and the Bush loyalists (the same ones we have now) choreographed the incident masterfully, and the press ate it up. People love a winner, and Reagan came in as a winner. It was also no accident that doing away with the fairness doctrine was high on the list of "things to do".

The republicans were riding high, awash with money, and the public gaze was averted. Inflation was rampant,unemployment was high,there had been wage & price freezes and gas shortages... All in all, people were willing to "be taken care of", and they trusted the grandfatherly guy they had seen in the movies. It was not long before the doctrine was gone, and without that, it was easy for very rich ideologues to start buying up media , and they did it with a vengeance.

Looking back, it's not hard to see how effective it was. The things that have been attributed to Reagan/Bush 1 would have never been tolerated by a Democratic administration.The Clinton years showed us that , in spades.

The switchover was seamless too. Local radio stations had mostly been music, with local hosts who did silly home town pranks, held local contests for their listeners, and had news on the hour. Somewhere during this time frame, "talk/opinion" formats started really emerging, and more and more stations gave up their music formats altogether.

What better way is there to ensure that a particular opinion saturates the public, than to have local radio stations all under the same corporate ownership?. If station ABCD in Omaha is owned by the same parent company as most of the others in the area, the "movement" between stations will not happen. In the past, a radio host could get into a jam with his bosses, and the next week, he was on a competing station in a nearby town, taking a lot of his listeners with him, but when the same people own all the stations, and a host goes against the wishes of his bosses, there is NOWHERE for him to go. The atmosphere of "go-along-to-get-along" stifles any real discussion of opposing ideas.

When the major source of information of a population only airs ONE viewpoint, it's easy to demonize the opposition. The "media people" had , and still have, easy access to their own "facts" that are regularly churned out by the think tanks, they have access to all the "professional speakers/pundits" that they could ever use (also cheerfully provided by the think tanks). These same people are often editorial columnists for the papers , who just happen to be owned by the same people who own/operate the radio & TV stations.. .

There was a time when, once an election was over, people just licked their wounds, accepted that they had lost and then vowed to try again. The "new assassins" in the media cannot ever allow the "quiet time" between elections, because the fires must always be stoked. The potential adversaries must be ridiculed,belittled,scorned, accused and abused, well in advance of the next election so that the "right" people win. The unusual aspect of this , is that since the Fairness Doctrine went by the wayside, it's usually the Democratic candidates who are put through the grinder, while republican candidates with more "baggage" are treated with kid gloves. Any misgivings about a republican candidate can be explained away as a "youthful indiscretion", or a "cute colloquialism" ,or a "miscalculation", or "getting inaccurate advice", and so many more.

A candidate who has all the qualities necessary for office, is attacked mercilessly from the moment they announce they are running for office. The 24/7 media of today is expert at the art of "linguistic assassination", and they have the time to do the job well.

Election 2000 is a prime example of assassination by media. Al Gore was a vice president. He did not wield the power that our current vice president does. He had impeccable credentials, was eloquent, had a squeaky clean family life, and lived modestly considering his position. He was actually considered dull. He never presented himself as a "life-of-the-party" guy.He was the studious guy, who read bills before he voted. He was the guy who did research. He was the guy who actually went to Viet Nam , even though he was not a Green Beret with a bayonet between his teeth, singlehandedly wiping out a division of Viet Cong.The fact is ..He went.

They hammered at him about his wardrobe. Every little gaffe, was portrayed as a LIE. His opponent was secretive, smart-assed, sullen, and un-knowledgeable, yet HE was portrayed as "a bit rough", "a nice guy that you would like to have a beer with", " a friendly "people-person", and too many others to list. By implication, HE was the guy with the white hat, the Good Guy, and poor old Gore was the liar with the bad fashion sense, who was dull. The daily indictment and litany of his "sins" was impossible to ignore, and every interview started and finished with him trying to refute the smears aimed at him, and him alone.

The assassins have taken aim this election season, and again they have taken aim and have wounded, if not killed, a few of the possible candidates. The media has moved from a position of watching what happens, and then reporting on it, to MAKING it happen, and then tweaking it to make an ever-better "story"..

The little known governor from a small state ..hmm that sounds familiar... is such a good story. Howard Dean was this cycle's John McCain. The press loved him.....until they had built him up to almost rock-star status, and then the only thing for them to do to get more ratings, was to "kill" him. And so they did.. They report with childlike wonder at why "he's not doing better in the polls", and then they laugh and giggle and "cue up the tape".. Then they put on their scrunched up worried face and wonder if the campaign is broke.. They are "so concerned".. They cluck-cluck to each other about how disappointing it is to see him not doing well, and yet they have already reloaded for the next victim.

Now on to the next willing contestant, John "Botox" Kerry.




By the time the election actually occurs, the candidate has been hopelessly smeared, and politically assassinated.. It not only can remove a candidate from the prospect of elected office, but it effectively silences them as well.

Assassination by media is so much more effective, since the whole "martyr thing" is eliminated and it's not nearly as "untidy" as the old way..

[GrpCaptMandrake]

31. Brilliantly said!

And you've drilled right into the core of the issue: people want to be on the "winning" side. When our side presented NO counter-argument whatsoever, that left America in the position of having to agree with the Limbaughs, et al. in order to be the "winners." And America does looooove to be on the winning side!

Funny how we get this, but the big money libs DON'T.

[ProudDad]

73. News quit being news when it was

converted from a public service to a profit center...

Just like any other public service, like health care, or a decent safety net, when profit enters, reason and justice leave...

[GrpCaptMandrake]

74. Add to that,

or perhaps in conjunction with that, trouble also came when it was decided the news needed to be "entertaining."

I don't think Ted Turner fully understood what he unleashed when he single-handedly created the 24 hour news cycle.

[Wind Dancer]

114. Beautifully written!!!

You've nailed it perfectly.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

115. TYVM

We need to help others understand why we liberals have such a decidedly hard time with our messaging. It's not necessarily because we're bad at it. It's because the deck is stacked against us, and we don't necessarily do a great job supporting those who are trying to get the message across.

[Political_Junkie]

202. Wow, awesome writing.

I'm bookmarking all of these. Never heard it all pulled together so well. Kudos.
Wish we could get this information out to the public.

[Marr]

29. I think he has a point, but it's just not very relevant.

I think his real beef is with the way politics is handled in the media-- the way it's treated like a circus and distilled down to two teams that don't necessarily represent the real divides in the country.

That's true, but he's only talking about style. It's like complaining about the decorations on a wedding cake that's made of petroleum. The problem is much deeper than the style on top.

The real problem in our media isn't that it's presented by clowns, it's that the outlets are all owned by a handful of conglomerates, with broad business interests. They are not particularly interested in informing the public, and when they do, it's always The World According to the Conglomerate.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

92. I think your post is right on target...

Except that we should keep the bigger context in mind: TDS staff/Jon Stewart continue to expose the Fox Noise machine and mostly Republicans every night on their show, allowing us glimpses into that conglomerate.

Stewart claims they don't spend a lot of time with their content, erring instead on the side of "getting the humor right," but I have to disagree with him because they do things on TDS and have conversations that I don't see even Rachel/Olbermann engaging in.

I'm thinking of those segments where they have Mandvi, Lewis Black, ect on a "discussion" panel.

[emulatorloo]

113. Excellent analysis, thanks n/t

[fishwax]

30. I don't think we've been where he's saying we need to go

But I'm also not convinced it's possible to go where he's saying we need to go (b/c the fox news types aren't getting on that train).

And, while I sympathize on some level with Jon's point about "wouldn't it be nice if we had a media that was like x instead of y," I don't think it's a wise strategy for those on the left to let the right be the only loud voices in that screaming match.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

49. We sort of have been there . . .

. . . but it's so long ago as to be out of anyone's functioning memory.

Broadcasting was once heavily regulated. Even a pimply-faced kid like I was had to have a gin-you-wine FCC license to get behind the mic. And that was in the late 70s.

Indeed, it WOULD be nice to have media like that. Other countries do. We, however, corporatized ours, and that's not conducive to the world Jon wants. It's also not conducive to the salary Jon makes.

[PlanetBev]

33. That's one hour of my life that I'll never be able to get back

When he said that Fox was ideological but not partisan, he lost me. What the hell was that? He parsed everything, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. Sliced and diced everything to death. Th only things missing was the Vegematic and Ginsu knife.

Colossal bore...

[GrpCaptMandrake]

53. That's what's called

"a distinction without a difference." It's dictionary quality, in fact. It was an attempt to sound more profound than he actually is.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

93. I took it to mean that Fox Noise will have partisans on their show

Republicans, "Independents," and Democrats as long as their share their ideological narrative. In other words, their narrative of FEAR = $$$ for News Corp.

Basically, $$$ being their primary ideology.

I don't know why he didn't just say that. Anyways, I think that's a more valid criticism than him "trying to be smart" -- he's IN the media, so I think he knows the business and that it's all about ratings for revenue.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

94. It is always worth remembering

that ANY commercial broadcast enterprise is NOT engaged in delivering content to viewers/listeners. ForProfitOnly broadcasting's SOLE goal is to deliver potential "consumers" to advertisers. Everything else is just "fill." Look at the proliferation of cable channels. They're all there for only one reason: because some marketing genius said "Hey! That bowhunting dollar's a GOOD dollar!" Or "That angst-y middle class stuck at home during the day dollar's a GOOD dollar!"

Stewart couldn't say that because to have done so would've been a profound disservice to the folks who have made him, in the immortal words of that sage and philosopher Daffy Duck, "comfortably well-off."

[dbmk]

109. Precisely

I think he is right that they are not partisan - in the sense that they will work for the Republicans for the sole reason that they are Republicans.

They will only do that as long as doing that serves Murdochs agenda.

[sabrina 1]

35. I guess he doesn't remember when there was nothing but

Fox, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly et al all over TV and all over the radio.

I used to search the radio to try to find someone who wasn't spewing hatred for Clinton, and all I could find was one woman in NY.

He's just wrong and it seems he doesn't like being wrong.

[Poboy]

36. "He's just wrong and it seems he doesn't like being wrong."

[high density]

37. IMO, Doesn't matter if there's "pushback" out there to the Republican craziness or not

There is a certain demographic in this country that listens to nothing but Fox News and the right-wing talk. You can have Olbermann and Maddow poking fun at every stupid thing they do but it doesn't do anything but make us feel good. The idiots watching Fox News will never see it. It is crystal clear by now that Fox News won't be shamed into being factual or sane by Stewart or others. Creating the alternate "communists/socialists/terrorists/anarchists/liberals are coming to get you" universe is making them shitloads of money and furthering their corporate political goals in the process.

Basically the Republicans have watered down the media to the point that they can say whatever they want without any repercussion to it. Just look at the major flawed-at-the-core messages that have had broad success over the past decade:

- $1.8 trillion in unpaid tax cuts that created zero jobs (Bush said millions of jobs)
- Sold a war based on lies
- Swiftboaters
- Obama is a Kenyan/is a Muslim/hates America/hates you/terrorist sympathizer/whatever
- Stimulus BS
- Death panels big government healthcare scam
- Deficit! Deficit! Deficit! Debt! Debt! Debt!
- Back to the need more tax cuts for jobs tune, even though we have solid recent evidence that they create no jobs.

I am afraid to see the craziness that is coming for this upcoming election cycle. I have been amazed recently how the media has so collectively turned the tune from a laser-like focus on the deficit to this already debunked idea of tax cuts (and more deficit) = jobs. I guess I should no longer be surprised when I keep hearing less than half of the story presented in the most simple Frank Luntz way possible by our "news" media.

[bettyellen]

43. which is why we have to start regulating the news again, instead of just shouting louder...

we're never going to be able to win on volume. news needs to be news again, and it needs to be truthful and balanced.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

57. That horse got let out of the barn

with Clinton's Telecommunications Act. That's what allowed this massive degree of media conglomeration.

There are a lot of other signposts, as well. Like when Roone Arledge (a sports guy) was put in charge of ABC's news division.

[whathehell]

84. I doesn't have to stay out of the barn, though...

Media reform is imperative, IMO.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

85. I agree

It will, given the results of the election, however, be difficult to achieve at this point.

We desperately need some of those vaunted (and perhaps mythical) "rich liberals" to get interested in purchasing radio stations, TV stations and newspapers.

[whathehell]

104. Absolutely.

The only one I've heard of who might be so inclined(and he's referenced ad nauseum by the right) is George Soros.

Just last night, though, I heard that David Brock, creator of Media Matters, is on a "search" so to speak, for a rich liberal to do just the things you've mentioned.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

110. I sure hope he finds him/her!

Some of us having been beating the bushes for years.

The essential problem in being a liberal broadcaster is that most of your natural funding allies tend to say "Oh, gee! We're sorry! We spent all our media money on jelly doughnuts and ink pens this year! But you do GREAT work!"

Lord, but I could tell stories that would curl your hair. So could most anyone who's tried to independently build "liberal media."

[whathehell]

160. Hopefully, it will be "them"!

Are yo familiar with David Brock?.....He wrote, among other books, "Blinded by the Right" and "The Republican Noise Machine".

He's supposed to be very "effective" for whatever reason or reasons.

Tell us about your efforts to open up the media...If you've already made that public here and don't feel like going over it, maybe you could just tell me briefly.

Thanks.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

165. For the last five years

Five nights a week, for three hours, I've hosted live, liberal "conversation radio." We call it "The H.O.R.N., America's Liberal Voice" (www.headonradionetwork.com) We hoot n' holler n' carry on and maintain a strict ban on wingnuts. Since they have a thousand hours to our one, I figure there's somewhere else they can go to talk about Kenyan Muslims Without Birth Certificates or whatever else ignorant babble's coming out of their head-holes at the given moment. While I do the occasional rant as much as anyone else, I try to make sure that everyone else gets more than enough time to get their ideas across. I take a small amount of pride being the only liberal radio host who was born and lives in the South. It makes for a different approach.

This year, I was named to the Talkers Magazine "Frontier 50" list of the best internet broadcasters in America.

Everything we do is volunteer-based and the entire operation is supported by occasional contributions from listeners, as well as one grassroots group fighting mountaintop removal, Coal River Mountain Watch. All the podcasts are free, we maintain a 24/7 stream accessible from both iTunes and a number of other aggregators and, most importantly, the work-a-day folks who call in are treated like the experts they are. No ads. No "BuyGoldNow," no "GetMyVaccumCleaner," no pitches for herbal remedies to maintain erections. None of the garbage that provides support for right-wing radio. We exist because our listeners have decided we MUST exist.

And no delay unit, either. Since we're still on the Wild West of the internet, we don't have to sweat bullets if a caller (or even I) let fly with one of those words that makes the FCC start feeling like they're about to birth a peach pit.

We've broken some significant ground along the way, with, among other things, the first 5x/wk LGBT conversation show ("Strictly Confidential With Peter Godbold"). At one point, we offered as much live, original content as Air America, and may again. We've devoted more time to the human rights crisis in Appalachia than all other broadcasters combined. It's all been done in conjunction with WhiteRoseSociety.org. That site literally saved liberal radio on the internet when liberal radio had nowhere else to go.

It's the most profound thing I've ever done in my life. And for neither love nor money can we get funding from the "big" liberal organizations. We've heard "Oh, but we're poor" from some of the wealthiest liberal organizations in America. Still, we persisted and, some might say, we've triumphed.

So I hope David Brock is successful. He's been VERY successful so far with Media Matters. Maybe doors open for him that don't open for others.

[whathehell]

171. WOW..Wow....That's a fantastic thing you are doing!

Thank you so much for what you are doing, and for your sharing it with us!..and congratulations on winning recognition by Talk Magazine!

A thought: If you haven't already done so, you might consider contacting David Brock regarding your situation...I'm sure you will keep us up to date as to how you are doing.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

174. I will!

How we're doing pretty much comes out every evening at 6 p.m. Eastern.

Thanks for your kind words! Feel free to chime in any time!

[whathehell]

177. Thanks!

I only know one person in West Virginia, but I will tell them about your show!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

181. Oh, you don't have to be in WV!

The show is global, and we hear from folks all over the place every night.

In a way, my interaction on this thread has been sort of a print version of how the show goes. It's genuine conversation and discussion, sorta like you'd have with your neighbor over the back fence, only the back fence is eight thousand miles long and EVERYBODY's a neighbor.

[whathehell]

183. How is

the show "global"...Am I missing something?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

188. It's internet-based

Anyone with the "series of tubes" can get it, anywhere in the world.

It doesn't rely on a traditional terrestrial radio signal, limited in scope by geography and wattage.

Hosts on the H.O.R.N. have come from WV, D.C., Pennsylvania, Florida, Chicago, Maryland and even Australia. The technology is amazing.

On edit: clarification

[whathehell]

208. Okay, cool.

[Poboy]

237. I applaud your dedication, and your excellent rhetorical skill as evidenced in this thread.

[Used2BNjock]

120. perfect!

you said what I was just going to type. (Only much better)
If you asked me the one thing we can do to improve things in this country it is to get people away from Faux News. The republicans would be f**ked! People would wake up.
But Fox is a fantasy bubble people get into and they never EVER hear the truth.
Almost every talking point the republicans have is a lie and they get away with it all the time because Fox doesn't expose them!!!!!!
I love Jon Stewart but he is so naive I lost alot of respect for him last night.

[wryter2000]

146. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Sandrine for you]

39. You have me one this, thank's for your intelligence. nt

[GrpCaptMandrake]

71. Thanks for your kind words n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

40. he is annoying the hell out of me on Maddow...and I love the guy

[GrpCaptMandrake]

44. I think he's funny as heck . . .

. . . and that's his job: funny.

He was downright odd with Rachel. The "cold," the unlaced boots, the weird pancake makeup. Who knows? Maybe he really did feel like walking, grim death on a corndog stick.

Any way you slice it though, it wasn't his finest moment.

[KittyLover]

41. Rec'd

Preach it, Mandrake. And thank you for your service.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

63. Thanks, KittyLover! n/t

[Swamp Rat]

45. "The other side are bullies."

Punch 'em in the face, and they'll cry all the way home to momma.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

48. Bingo!

And the next day they're all "Hey, man, wanna bite o' my sammich?"

I guess it's inherently not in our nature to want to be directly oppositional, but we'd darned well better learn to be. Otherwise, we're gonna be eatin' a LOT of sand!

I haven't been around in awhile, Swamp Rat. Good to see you're still here! Stunning graphics as usual!

[Swamp Rat]

54. Me neither

There are too many paid shills and disinfo-dispensers clogging up this message board these past couple of years (they're actually worse than the freeper trolls), but but it's good to see you too. :hi:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

58. Oh, that's a dandy!

The confederate teabag on the snake just MAKES the whole piece!

My hat's off to you, Swamp Rat.

And yeah, I was kinda surprised when I came back in. The place has a totally different "feel" to it since last I was hanging out on a regular basis.

[chervilant]

50. hmm...

We can be polite and still be effective. Joine the thousands of us who are going into major book stores across the US and 'reshelving' Bush's newly published plethora of lies. Put copies of his book in "True Crime" and under "Psychological Thrillers." Leave a few in "Famous Criminals." This could be quite an effective non-violent protest if enough of us do it.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

64. I've seen some of that . . .

it's a brilliant little piece of subversion! Onward, I say!

The thing is, I think Stewart is conflating "polite" with "docile." He seems to think that anyone on our side who gets the least bit irked at the screwing we're taking is somehow coarsening the dialogue, when it's already been coarsened to the status of sandpaper by the other side.

Pointing out facts isn't the same thing as not being nice, although Stewart seems to say that it is.

[Rex]

66. But see, Jon does 'get' it and just won't go all out and say

what he probably really thinks about politics. He is smart and has a good career, so why throw it away on the truth? Comedians don't have to be political geniuses, just have good script writers.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

67. Then doesn't that put him

in the rather hypocritical position of wanting to be the only fox guarding the henhouse? After all, under the guise of "comedy," he's excoriated Fox in much worse manner than anything Olbermann or Maddow have ever said.

It seems to smack of "Do as I say, not as I do."

[Rex]

75. I think he is an entertainer first and foremost.

So trying to make him look like a statesmen is trying a bit too much. People on this site want him to be something he is not. He is just another guy willing to go along, to get along imo.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

76. I always flinch a little

when I hear someone who espouses VERY political views describe himself as "only an entertainer." We call Phlush on it, as well as Beckerhead.

Moreover, I don't think someone who works the political side of the street, albeit humorously can get away with "entertainer" as the primary definition. It's not like he's Henny Youngman out there saying "Take my wife . . . please" night after night.

Still, it's unassailable that Stewart occupies a precarious position. He's a multi-millionaire who, through his own hard work, has been made one by one of the very media conglomerates that created the informational stew we're in. As such, he'd be a fool to point out that the concentration of media ownership is the real source of the problem, and Jon Stewart's no fool. Thus, he will not bite the hand that's feeding him all that stuff you can pick up with that tiny little shrimp fork for which the rest of us seldom have any use.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

136. Well said.........

except for the "go along, get along" part. I don't think that's his attitude, he just doesn't bring peccadilloes into his job. His job is comedy, not being an ideologue.

I don't have a real dog in this fight as I am kind of ambivalent on Jon Stewart. I see him as a satirist and not bound by the necessity to be overly partisan. I thought the interview was a good one and spoke well of a guy who seemingly wants nothing to do with having an effect on the political process. For me the Roger Ebert comparison said it all to me about how he views his job.

[JHB]

77. Nitpicking: you've got "Crossfire" all wrong...

From day 1 Crossfire used the model of "uncompromising hardline conservative" on "the right" versus "establishment centrist/milquetoast" pretending to be "on the left". It's the show that mainstreamed and normalized the format. Before Crossfire, that was the stuff of "Jane, you ignorant slut"-style parody.

Nobody who regularly appeared on Crossfire "on the left" ever gave as good as they got. Occasionally there would be a guest host who would, but then it would be a looong time before they were invited back.

And, of course, thanks to the sheer volume of "what they got", it would have required an entile team "from the left" to counter all the Elephant dung coming "from the right."

[dreamnightwind]

78. Exactly

That was bothering me too about the OP, got the whole Crossfire thing totally wrong, and Stewart's role in exposing the fakeness of it. Thanks for making that point.

[mzmolly]

135. But this wasn't Stewarts critique. Further, I think Carville gave as good as he

got. So did Begala. :shrug:

That said, I agree with you that we need strong liberal voices. This is another reason I'm glad for the handful of anchors at MSNBC who provide that.

[jonnyblitz]

189. you think Carville and Begala are "from the left"?

no wonder the DEM party is so FUCKED if people think those two insider,establishment clowns are leftists. :crazy:

[liberation]

197. You are correct, I have no clue what is remotely "leftist" about Carville...

... Bengala at least labels himself a "liberal" even though he tends to be rather centrist. Which is truly a testament to how much to the right this country has turned overall.

However, I still maintain that the OP got the "crossfire" point wrong. I believe Stewart called Tucker a "douche" exclusively, and he had nothing to do with the demise of a show which was already down the tubes.

[mzmolly]

213. If you think the party is so F'd

why are you here?

Save the tedious "establishment clown" rhetoric for someone it moves. That would not be me. :hi:

[liberation]

164. Correct...

... I don't agree with Jon Stewart's current false equivalence tour, but the OP did indeed get the whole "crossfire" thing tragically wrong.

[tomp]

79. jon lost me with these statements. nt

[sendero]

80. The liberals' capitulation to the rhetoric..

.. of the right has gotten us where we are today. My very first post here in 2002 was on this subject.

They villify us continually and we do nothing but make apologies. They have DRIVEN THE COUNTRY INTO THE DITCH and NOBODY IS CALLING THEM OUT WHILE THEY STILL CLAIM TO HAVE THE ANSWERS.

It's truly pathetic.

Occasionally at work some idiot will try to blame this fiasco on the CRA or Fannie/Freddie and I let them have it with both barrels. They usually run out of arguments pretty quick because all they know is what Limbaugh-anal-cyst told them. It's pathetic. Americans are IGNORANT AND MISINFORMED.

I don't see any of this changing soon.

[dreamnightwind]

81. Corruption

So, the Stewart interview on Maddow was tough for me to watch, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread.

A couple of comments:

First, yes, he really was that ill. I watched The Daily Show tonight and he did the whole thing in a monotone, extremely pale too, barely able to do the show.

Second, though I am annoyed at him bending over backwards and then some to try to be fair and not just a partisan, his ultimate interest is in rooting out and exposing corruption. So his heart is in exactly the right place.

His recent Obama show was also very interesting. I think he sees corruption and insincerity in the corporate Dems, and he feels that he needs to go after it just as he would go after similar issues that right-wingers have.

He either intentionally glosses over, or he just isn't aware of, the incredible imbalance in our public discourse in favor of the right, but even more-so in favor of corporate interest. That's hard for me to understand.

Ultimately, I agree with him that right now, the main battle is not between left and right. He says it's between the corrupt and the not-corrupt, but in my mind it's more of a David and Goliath battle, monied interests vs the rest of us. I feel that we need to find common cause with as many diverse people as possible in this fight, because the left isn't going to succeed on its own.

I think he has ambition, not sure what it is, beyond the Daily Show, and he doesn't want to be a shill for the left. I have no problem with that. We need people that will help us fight corruption. We can pursue our left vs right battles on our own, while partnering with him in the larger fight we are up against right now.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

87. An old quote

best sums up Stewart's position:

"It is hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends upon him NOT understanding."

For all of Stewart's posturing and positioning, he dares not name the source of that which he condemns: the tiny knot of largely right-wing corporations who control virtually every word broadcast in this country. He works for one of them.

[Denzil_DC]

82. Good analysis. K&R n/t

[DailyGrind51]

83. It is like marriage couseling:

Wife: "He's an asshole!"

Counselor: "Now, Louise, I thought we agreed to use 'I' statements and talk about our feelings?"

Wife: "Alright then, I feel that he is an asshole and fuck his feelings!"

Husband: "Now ya know what I deal with everyday, Doc!"

Counselor: "Can't we all just get along?"



:crazy:

[pattmarty]

86. I like Stewart and I think that the "comedy" he does is excellent, but............

.......I disagreed with a lot of his points in the Maddow interview. We are where we are now and there's no going back to the 60's or even 70's when the Republicans were at least somewhat reasonable. The Dems have filled that slot now where we have no "liberal" or left like we had in the 50's to the 70's. The post is entirely correct in that the RW wants to completely crush any and all opposition, period. At this stage I believe we are in the early times of a modern fascism. If the 20's Italy and the 30's Germany were the first forms of fascism, compare a lot of that with what is happening in the US today. We may have "free" elections yet, but look at the candidates that are put up for us to vote on. We have NO choice in who runs, it's the parties that put up the candidates and then we pick one of two. Candidates like Dennis Kucinich or even a Ron Paul don't have a chance in hell and are painted by the MSM as "nutty". Politics in this country has become a huge for profit industry. Just look at all the pollsters, spin doctors and professional people that make up this now "full time" industry. I, like a lot of others, like Stewart, but I think he is being quite naive if he really believes that we can "restore sanity" to politics in this country.

[liberation]

198. I am right there with you...

... the irony is that I have always enjoyed the Daily Show, and I have watched Countdown very few times for example. However, in this case, one of the few occasions in which Stewart tried to make a serious point, he is tragically wrong.

Following the ultimate logic of his argument, we could establish an equivalence between Martin Luther King and the KKK's Great Dragon (or whatever that scum choses to name their leader). Let's not forget that during the 60's, MLK was viewed as an "agent provocateur" because those marches in the South for civil rights were deemed "non-polite and disruptive." And history, as well as common sense and decency, sort of has proved that equivalence to be equivocated to the extreme. Stewart seems too eager to not rock the boat. Which is a sad development for the self appointed court jester.

[liberation]

199. Dupe

Damned interwebs...

[pattmarty]

206. I thought it was intertubes.

[liberation]

212. LOL

That would explain the clog then...

[Le Taz Hot]

88. Your entire premise is based on

misidentifying liberal/progressive and equating them with the Democrats. The rest of the screed is partisan dribble. Unrec. for inaccuracies.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

89. Would you care to elaborate?

I don't mind an actual discussion. Your accusation smacks of invective and lacks substance where I provide actual detail.

[southernyankeebelle]

97. I was very disappointed in the Stewart interview with Rachel. I couldn't take it turned the channel

[bertman]

98. Stewart is a brilliant comedian whose strong suit is irony. That makes for

great satire and comedy but horrific politics. Last night he was simply trying to show off his mental deftness and debating prowess--which are formidable. Sadly, the interview was essentially an exercise in mental and verbal masturbation characterized by Stewart's I-will-always-have-an-intelligent-sounding-comeback-for-you-Rachel-no matter-how-correct-you-are. His analogy of Saddam Hussein wanting to get money for nuclear weapons procurement through the oil-for-food program as being equivalent to his six-year-old son wanting a car, was too much b.s. for me.

Great post, GrtCptMandrake. Recommend.

[The Uncola]

99. I like Stewart...

.. but he's got his head up his ass on this. We are at war, make no mistake about it, and the other side doesn't now, nor have they ever played fair. Neither should we, unless we plan on losing.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

101. I like him, too

And have for a long time.

But I agree with you that he either doesn't "get" it (hence the title of the OP) or else he's deliberately obfuscating. If it's the latter, that's really sad.

I think the possibility exists that he IS obfuscating, though, simply because he knows where his bread's buttered. "There's no such thing as bad PR" isn't the seminal truism of the marketing industry because it's only partially true. It's WHOLLY true, and all this is VERY good for Jon Stewart, for Comedy Central, for Viacom and Viacom's shareholders.

[Locrian]

130. simply because he knows where his bread's buttered

>>simply because he knows where his bread's buttered
I think that may be some of it....

I think that he is part of the whole "media" cirrus whether he wants to be or not. That circus is part of what limits the quality of discussion of actual issues. It's become easier for politicians to focus on manipulation of the circus rather than actual reality. Not to mention that the entire media (limited time, soundbites, fightihng and screaming, jokes, etc) stifle any in-depth understanding.

Not that I have a solution on how to improve. But he can't pretend he doesn't have a dog in the fight....

[GrpCaptMandrake]

132. I guess there may be a pecking order

And the circus analogy is spot-on!

Just as in the circus, the lion tamer may think himself more artistically "pure" than the clowns in the car, while the trapeze artist thinks himself above it all. Jon would appear to be that trapeze artist, when, in truth, he's a clown. He has to be, by default.

And, as you note, no matter whether one's a lion tamer, clown or trapeze artist, it all still happens INSIDE the circus.

[lame54]

100. Poor Tucker Carlson - Boo-Fucking-Hoo

[GrpCaptMandrake]

102. Yep

Cry me a river for Bowtie Boy. He was a turd, is a turd and forever WILL be a turd. His latest antics impersonating Olbermann prove it.

But CNN threw out the baby with the bathwater, all in the guise of "changing the tone." How'd that work out for 'em?

[Yavin4]

103. To Put It More Succinctly, Olbermann, Maddow, Ed Schultz , Or No Other Liberal Commentator Called...

for the murder of an innocent man like Bill O'Reilly did for the murder of Dr. George Tiller. For Stewart to maintain that there's this equivalency between the two worlds of commentators is nothing more than a weak assed attempt to placate a mass audience in order to maintain his own popularity.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

108. I think you're right

At some point, anyone in ForProfitMedia begins to cringe a little when the right-wing ratchets up its "Lib'rul Meeja" screech machine. Anyone, that is, except for those who proudly wear the "Liberal" label, like Olbermann and Maddow, or, more to the point, a REAL veteran in the trenches like Mike Malloy.

As noted in the OP, I think Stewart would probably have a baby right there on the spot if he tuned in to three hours of Mike and the TruthSeekers.

[rainlillie]

137. Well said!

[Politicub]

111. My perception of him changed with the rally

Which is fine, but I'm taking him more as an entertainer now than a news source.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

116. I think

he'd say that's what he was all along. I think he'd be fibbing a little bit in doing that, just the same.

In many ways, Jon Stewart reminds me of the incredibly funny version of the old "Media Whores Online" website (gone, but not forgotten). Stewart's forte is skewering the ridiculous. As it turns out, most of the ridiculous happens on the right-wing, but they don't have it monopolized.

[Politicub]

117. Don't get me wrong -- love his style of humor

But I thought he would take more of a stand at the rally than straddling the middle. IMHO there should be a sense of urgency about making sure our rights aren't trampled on. Or in the case of LGBT issues, that we are able to secure our rightful place at the table.

:)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

123. I love it, too

But like you, I actually hoped he would take the gloves off. Instead, he Rodney Kinged us. "Can't We All Just Get Along" is a valid plea. But it seems to me that the long-standing answer from the right wing has been "Sure, we can! As soon as YOU capitulate to US."

The old Jefferson Starship song may have put it best: "If only you'd believe like I believe, baby, we'd get by." The difference is, the right-wing is willing to stomp heads to make sure we do, and Jon Stewart seems to think that's the same think as a lady from Code Pink hollering "war criminal!" Memo to Jon: it's not.

[JudyM]

210. That's exactly what he says he wants to be,

I was trying to determine as I watched the interview whether he's morphed into a fearful shell... seemed kind of weird since I always thought he 'got it' until the vacuous rally. Makes me wonder if they got to him in some way (they're not above that, as we know).

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[savalez]

125. I stopped watching his show.

[droidamus2]

118. Ideal vs reality

I don't think Stewart is 'wrong' in the sense that the ideal he aspires to is civility, respect and everybody working together when possible to make this a better country. Where I disagree with him, as most here seem to, is that the reality of the situation at this moment in history does not lead me to believe his ideals are a possibility. I think the left is reasonable enough that they would compromise to move things forward if they thought the right-wing compromising was anything but moving the line further to the right until the right compromised again moving everything further to the right. Limbaugh and associates calling this 'a culture war' or 'class warfare' isn't just rhetoric they believe in it. The right wants things 'their way' no questions asked. Everything the current rightwing pundits and leaders do is to bring that to fruition. The Repug idea of compromise is when a couple of bluedog Democrats sign onto a purely rightwing bill. The current rightwing looks on compromise and civility as weaknesses if it means you don't get your way.

Look at their rewriting of history so that, if they had their way, the left has no heroes because they insist FDR, Kennedy, Martin Luther King,et al were bad for the country. The left has never passed any bill that was to the betterment of the citizens of the USA. Medicare, Social Security, hell all social programs are no good get rid of them according to the right. If a bill passed by majority Democratic votes ended up doing something that appears good it was because the Republicans forced the Democrats to capitulate on something so it was really a Republican bill in the end. Mr. Stewart you can't compromise with this mindset, being civil may make you feel good but they just laugh at you for being weak, the fact is the right wing does not and as currently constituted does not respect the left and never will. The only way to reach a possibility of reaching the your ideal is to first reset control of the right from its current leaders and show the rank and file that their leaders are leading them to destruction not to salvation.

One thing I do agree on is that at least some of the 'news' should avoid the us vs them view and actually report the news. I don't mean 'sound bite' news either. Cover subjects of importance in-depth with no 'false equivalence' necessary. As most here know by false equivalence I mean for example if 10,000 scientists say there is global warming but 3 scientist say there isn't (exaggeration intentional) then don't present them as equals in a debate. Make it clear if having them both on a news show that the 3 represent a small minority and that there is 'no real disagreement' on the existence of, in this case, global warming. In this way the Olberman's, Maddows and Schultzs are still allowed to have their 'opinion' shows but the presentation of news actually informs people instead of just being propaganda pretending to be news. FOX is what FOXNEWS is the one thing that might help is if MSNBC, CNN and others that come along will always be on 'basic cable' like FOX is. In the end I guess the answer when it comes to 'news' broadcasting is give the news back to the journalists and take it away from the ideologues and the entertainment people. News should be there to inform and enlighten not as just another profit center for an 'entertainment' company.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

126. Robert Frost once defined a "liberal"

as a person so reasonable he wouldn't take his own side in a fight. As such, I don't think there's any data to suggest that liberals aren't willing to compromise. We've shown, time and again, that we are. In fact, our side might be on the verge of compromising ourselves right out of the next generations' access to Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because the right wing has a media structure that insists that compromise consists of us caving and them getting their way, which, over time, it has come to be.

Thanks for bringing up climate change, because that's an area where this is easily viewable. Look at the Waxman-Markey bill. It had literally BILLIONS of dollars of corporate welfare in it for the coal industry. Yet, because it acknowledged that coal IS "a" problem in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, the coal companies went to war. There were "clean coal" ads all over the internet, including on DU, as well as lots of other "liberal" sites. They used outright lies to convince people that their power bills would go up, when even the data they cited said significantly otherwise. Yet that didn't even slow down the right-wing filth machine. They continued blaring.

I agree whole-heartedly with you about the concept of straight-up news. I daresay that Walter Cronkite wouldn't be able to get a job in today's newscasting business, or if he did, he'd have to do so as the ringmaster of a circus. Gone are the days of the longform report, the serious analysis. America (viewing "Idiocracy" might not be a bad idea at this point) simply lacks the attention span for it. Something has to sizzle, or bang, or thump or roll across the screen to keep people watching.

[Guilded Lilly]

122. Over hyped... plus...

frustrating to listen to because of the intent, it seems, from Jon, whom I truly treasure as a satirist comedian, to "out-intelligence" Rachel's comments. He ended up tip-toeing on the wrong side of the patronizing line. And he was wrong several times. (heh heh)

Perhaps he wishes he could BE a serious pundit. He puts himself in that position often enough. But he also falls comfortably back on the rather patronizing line about him doing a comedy show whenever it is convenient.

Ill or not, his brain still believes what his voice says. Though I can certainly agree with his corrupt/uncorrupt approach, there most certainly IS a problem with left/right AND the various cable media networks. MSNBC should never be compared to Fox, even in a media world gone crazy.

More simply (grin) I don't think Jon Stewart appreciates being criticized by someone who is incredibly intelligent and also a great human being!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

127. I think he was more than a little patronizing with Rachel

I also think she showed real aplomb by not to kicking him in the shins for it.

I understand he was feeling bad, but I was also struck by the imagery of the sit-down. There's Rachel, appropriately attired, and then there's Stewart, who didn't even tie his shoes for the occasion. What visual message does that send about the degree of gravity he attached to the moment? Frankly, I caught more than a whiff of sexist dismissiveness. Would he have shown up for an interview with Olbermann similarly attired? I don't know. I sincerely doubt he'd ever show up for a sit-down with Olbermann. I think he's too intimidated by Olbermann for that, which I find interesting, since he's clearly not intimidated by sitting down with a thug like O'Reilly or a punk like Chris Wallace.

[savalez]

124. Bravo! Fight fire with fire. Rec'd.

[okieinpain]

128. the dude is rich, so the crap that the repugs put out does not

effect him as much as it does the little guy.

[Politicub]

131. You hit the nail on the head. That's the story with most everyone in the MSM

They are able to look down at everyone because they won't be harmed by decisions that hurt the people who need social programs the post. They are set no matter what happens. Well, that's not really true. They have a vested interest in keeping their income as high as it can be, so they side with tax breaks for the rich. Their wealth and craven greed is the ultimate conflict of interest!

It's just a sad, sick ratings game to them.

[mzmolly]

133. Good points. What's additionally ironic is that Stewart says he critiques because it's his job to do

so. On the other hand, he suggests we shouldn't have a 24 hour news cycle. What would he critique without it? Stewart wouldn't have a job.

I think there is a key distinction between Fox and MSNBC that fails him, as well. Fox declares themselves "fair and balanced" while having NO regard for truth. MSNBC acknowledges they have anchors with opinions, and they do care about truth.

I remain a fan of Jon Stewart, but I can't help but wonder how he'd have suggested we handle Nazi's. We're not allowed to point out racism, we're not allowed to point out hate, we're not allowed to draw firm distinctions between code pink and the tea party?

[Jim_Shorts]

134. This country is in a mess

We all know it. Jon Stewart is helpful in doing what he says is articulating all of those random thoughts we all have floating in our heads and presenting it in a comedic way - He and his staff are geniuses at it. The way they are looking at the world is a broader view - good vs evil as opposed to dems vs repubs or dem ideology vs repub ideology or Fox vs MSNBC which is good for comedy but not so good for solving the problems.

If you want to solve a problem, first you have to define it - how the hell can you solve a problem defined as good vs evil. I would start the problem with "money in politics" but further down line i would define the problem as the repubs are not negotiating in good faith. In fact they are not negotiating at all - as Newt Gingrich once said "this is war" and they only want to destroy the other side and they don't give a rats ass about collateral damage.

I think Stewart is helpful only in that he makes some problems easy to understand.

[katty]

138. i like Jon and he should just stick to his irony jokes--he has made

an enormous$$ career on the Daily Show of blasting everyone-poking ironic fun, no one is spared.

[librechik]

139. Jon came back from the last vacation with a determined anti-liberal stance

more attacks on Obama than before, more skits mocking the left--it was clearly a new program. I suppose he was informed he was veering too liberal before the election and so he tried to balance. My objection is that some of the skits were barely accurate and worse, not funny, and "worser" pitched to please the right wing. The Rally was the epiphany of that programming.

[Jankyn]

141. Uncle Walter is dead, and he ain't coming back...

I think Jon Stewart is nostalgic for the time when he grew up, when there were a very limited number of "news" sources, and the filter (at the networks; at the news agencies (AP, UPI and Reuters); and at the newspapers) decided upon a set of agreed-upon facts. That made it possible to have a debate because we had a premise from which to begin.

Those days are gone forever. For openers, we no longer have a filter; that means that stories that would have taken years to reach the general public consciousness are there in minutes. It also means that there are no agreed-upon facts.

I think Rachel Maddow nailed this when she did that piece a while back on how Fox News doesn't use the same facts that the reality-based world uses.

I'm not inclined to question Stewart's motives. He strikes me as a nice guy and a good liberal. However, he's also carrying around a lot of privilege, and it's given him the illusion that he's somehow above the fray.

It's easier to be reasonable when, like Stewart, you're not worried about where your paycheck is coming from, how the mortgage is going to be paid, how the kids will get educated and what will happen if you get sick. It's also easy to dismiss Beck's rantings if you've actually read enough to know the difference between a socialist, a communist and a fascist. But how many overstressed Americans have the time to figure that out, even if they had the inclination?

I also think Stewart was more than a little disingenuous. He knows the difference between Beck and Maddow; between O'Reilly and Olbermann. But he's afraid he'll be labeled a partisan if he acknowledges it, and his above-the-fray equal-opportunity-offender position is too important to him to risk losing it.

It's a position of privilege that allows him access to both sides (hey, he's had Huckabee, Howard Dean, McCain and Obama as guests), and I think he's determined to keep it.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

175. Most eloquently stated!

And I appreciate it.

It's disheartening that someone of Stewart's stature would be afraid to be called a "lib'rul."

[Green_Lantern]

142. I don't think Jon Stewart expects Dems to give up principles

He just wants both sides to stop attacking each other and talk about the issues.

Why do people think discussing issues rationally mean bending over and giving up principles?

Many of us have conservative relatives so I'm not sure treating all conservatives like enemy scum would go over well.

[truedelphi]

155. Thank you for trying to clarify the man's position.

To hear some here tell the story, he is a monster who attempted to keep us at war, continue world hunger, stop efforts to resolve the Israel/Palestine situation, and probably has nukes stored in his garage!

And it is as simple as you say:

He just wants both sides to stop attacking each other and talk about the issues.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

179. Me, I want

ice cream-flavored beer.

But I think we'll get that before the right-wing decides to play nice and be fair. It's not in the nature of a bully to be kind until the bully has been TAUGHT to be kind, usually by being as mean to the bully as the bully has been to everyone else.

They didn't tell Truman to "give them a nicely phrased speech intended to show them the error of their ways." They said "GIVE 'EM HELL, HARRY!" And he did. And a lot of good things happened for ordinary working people.

[Green_Lantern]

195. I'm afraid some here think not namecalling means

Not standing for principles.

Stewart is just saying it just shuts down debate when you begin debate with the view that the other guy is a scumbag.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

176. There's only one flaw

As I noted we've been there/done that. It didn't slow 'em down one iota.

So while you don't treat your right-wing relatives "like enemy scum," don't think that gives Phlegmball or the Beckerhead a moment's pause in urging their mouth-breathing, knuckle-walking audiences to treat YOU that way.

It's hard to hear "Kum-by-yah" over the sound of jack-hammers.

[Green_Lantern]

191. an eye for an eye leaves the world blind...

Instead of attacking back why not just ignore it or walk away from it.

If we attack back they'll then attack back and it's a vicious circle.

Hitting back won't stop their attacks because let's face it right-wing attackers are much better at being mean.

I'm afraid we'd have to out-brutalize them which would require almost violent brutality.

How far are we willing to take this?

[TheKentuckian]

233. All the way...rolling over for bullies has the opposite of the intended effect

EVERY TIME.

I'm starting to believe the surrender monkeys are just as much an enemy as the Reich. Who in good conscience would advocate laying down in the dirt to be trampled???

I know where your way leads, I have lived it and won't ever unlearn the hard lessons at the end of foot and fist.

[Poboy]

238. Very true.

[no limit]

211. We have not been there. When was the last time you remember rational nation discussion

on any issue?

[SOS]

144. The whole sensible discourse and left/right equivalence thing

could just be PR groundwork for taking over the Letterman show in 2012.
Depoliticizing for a future of entertaining middle America.

Terrible to be so cynical, but moving from cable to network is a big deal and
it seems unlikely that this is not part of the current calculation.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

180. That's a trenchant observation! n/t

[timefortherevolution]

145. When Stewart defended Bush, I turned off Maddow.

Couldn't see the rainbows and unicorns he was seeing.

[Doctor_J]

147. Spot on, GCM

No hope for America until Radio Rwanda is blown to bits, probably literally.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

168. RadioRwanda!

'Zackly!

Rather than blowing up, I suggest trials for people who incite violence when idiots go on a rampage to shoot up the Tides foundation, or blow away people in a Unitarian Church.

[Roy Rolling]

148. Too many posts

I hope I didn't miss this point if made by others because I couldn't read every post. But here's a point: John Stewart is a comedy broadcaster, he should be judged on that. Judging him unfavorably beause his political effectiveness does not advance a particular view is the opposite of what the conservative wrongcasters do---they are judged by their leadership in the political circles. John Stewart is an entertainer, not a beacon to lead progressives to capturing more political power. He makes me laugh, because the things he reports on are humorous and ridiculous, not because he is a leader of the progressive political movement in America.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

167. I agree with your points

Where I disagree, however, is that Stewart should be judged as a "comedian" when he's offering serious analysis. The "lecture" at the end of the rally wasn't meant to be funny. It was dead serious and, as such, must be judged for its accuracy. Accurate, it wasn't.

There is no way that liberal broadcasting, which exists at a 1-to-1000 disadvantage to right-wing media hegemony, can be deemed the equal of all the hate and filth and spew and venom and toxin that burbles out of Fox, Phlegmball, Beck, etc. every second of every minute of every hour of every day.

[Saturday]

149. You took the words right out of my mouth! High five. nt

[veganlush]

150. True dat!

[pansypoo53219]

151. endless gnews political ping pong is what got us here.

i'm on stewarts side. we want a just the facts place for the news. REAL NEWS. is that so wrong? sure we need the left to come out swinging. but we also need a STRONG middle to inform the people who don't care as much.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

169. To that end

I agree we need to de-blur the line between news and opinion. No offense, but good luck with all that. It's a Fox model, and it's been proven to work. That's all that matters to the "suits" who run news organizations.

[earth mom]

152. Stop watching ALL cable news people. It's really that simple. I can't believe anyone on DU

would watch that kind of propaganda and garbage! Especially with the wealth of info on the net! :wtf:

[truedelphi]

153. First of all, in Jon's defense - he is a

Comedian.

During the torn up war years of the Sixties and Seventies, you know who was the All American Comedian. Bob Friggin' Hope.

And believe me, he never gave us any all day long at the Mall to hang out with our friends kind of experience. He was too busy selling his fellow Americans on the notion that the Commies in Vietnam deserved all our money and all our young lives.

It was a Day on the Mall, for Pete's sake.

Do people here, who have given Obama over two years to stall around on things (and with their blessing) really think a comedian could:

1) Bring world peace
2) End world hunger
3) Resolve the Israel/Palestine situation
4) End Racism
5) Name your pet project here...

All in a period of time lasting less than one day??

[GrpCaptMandrake]

172. Do you deny, then

That Stewart was being "serious" with his "Can't We All Just Get Along" speech? Or was that really subtle, Andy Kaufman-esque comedy that we just don't "get" in our own right?

I have to say I get the squirmies when I see Stewart defended as "just a comedian." That's what Rush and Beck say after they've said something hateful and inflammatory and have to run and hide. I am in no wise suggesting there is any equivalence between those two and Stewart, but it cannot be ignored that it's a convenient hidey-hole for someone who was apparently offering serious criticism of the culture without a rim-shot in the background. At least I didn't hear the snare drum when Stewart equated Fox and MSNBC, Olbermann and Beck, Schultz and O'Reilly.

[LanternWaste]

207. Spurious correlation

"That's what Rush and Beck say after they've said something hateful and inflammatory and have to run and hide..."

Spurious correlation. Rush and Beck have, on occasion apologized for what they have done/said. Other left wing notables have apologized for things they have done/said. I have apologized fro things I have don/said. One has little to nothing to do with the others.

[pgodbold]

156. Damn that's a good OP. I loved you first. nt.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

170. Nuh-uh! Love you more! n/t

[sam kane]

157. Jon isn't as funny, has gone to the right.

very sad.

[SidDithers]

159. Unrec...nt

Sid

[davidwparker]

161. Well said.

I liked all of it and the last two sentences with the reference to the Israelites.

The 3 hots and a cot prevent the Democratic Party from walking into the Land of Milk and Honey.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

218. The sad thing

is that liberals are supposed to be the ones who go boldly into the future. Has that paradigm disappeared, or are the BlueDogs/DLC so thoroughly in charge of the Democratic Party that fear now rules the day?

[StreetKnowledge]

178. Bang on the Money.

If we want to have success for ourselves, we have to be as hard, rough, vicious and intolerant of BS as the right is. The facts are on our side, and we should be blasting them out loudly and proudly, and calling Limbaugh and his ilk exactly what they are - a bunch of proudly ignorant, racist, homophobic lying fascists whose hatred as no place in our modern society.

And if Stewart wants to call us mean for it, so be it. We have to be mean. Because no matter how much "sanity" he wants to "restore", until we destroy those people, we will have no peace. You cannot appease evil.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

182. Evil is, after all, a preservative

Just look at Dick "Count Dickula" Cheney.

[jillan]

184. I don't understand how one minute Stewart can have on a chorus singing Fuck Fox, and then

say he has a problem with the left vs right media.

You can't have it both ways Jon.

[liberation]

200. But is there anything more defining of the American character than wanting to have it both ways?

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in Mr. Stewart when I heard him trying to make a serious point without having the "shield" of comedy. It is exasperating to see all these so-called "moderates" to always err towards the conservative side, always. Not that I was expecting a comedian to be the bearer of logic and journalistic integrity, and the fact that we're actually doing that means we need to take a cold long hard look at were we have devolved as a society.

In the end, I just get the impression that Mr. Stewart is simply assuming that his employer Viacom has the monopoly when it comes to "truth telling" (even if it involves thrashing FOX), and will defend such monopoly from the attacks of other corporations like GE (or Comcast, who owns MSNBC now?). I don't think there are ideological entanglements in this country anymore, at least at the "journalistic" level, it is all just a set of corporate skirmishes.

[kenfrequed]

185. Crossfire was crap!

They would always put up some limp weasily weak corporate democrat up against some hyperconservative republican monster. They always discussed Republican issues and they always had the Democrat play defense agaisnt republican talking points. When they hired Bill Press, who seemed to be a nice guy, they were hiring a Clinton apologist and nothing more. When they put on Carville, they were putting up the centrist- Clintonian wing of the Democratic party.

Stewart may have been right about the fact that Crossfire sucked, and maybe some of the reasons it ended up sucking, but he did miss some of the essence of the source of the sucking, though not by much.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

187. The early Crossfire sucked, yes . . .

But it was the rejuvenated Crossfire, in which Carville and Begala had been routinely lambasting wingnuts, that drew Stewart's ire. Those two, regardless of what one thinks of them personally, "gave as good as they got," as we say here in the hills.

That's the Crossfire that Stewart helped kill. And the silence for liberals on cable was deafening.

[kenfrequed]

194. Carville was no catch

And to be honest the show may have occasionally allowed a few centrist democrats to 'lambast' right wingers, but it still usually only discussed conservative issues. At best it dealt with triviality and when it discussed the issues it almost never actually put forth a strong progressive agenda. The McLaughlin show was starting to feel like it had a better friggin liberal balance.

[LanternWaste]

186. East is east, west is west and never the 'twain shall meet.

As much as I am entertained by Mr. Stewart, I take him for what he is (and what he himself says over and over again)... a comedian. I take what he says no more, nor no less seriously than I take shticks from Robin Williams, Bill Hicks or Bob Newhart.

While I understand that many in his audience and many in the media take his barbs as satiric social commentary, worthy of editorials, letters to the editor, and five minute op/ed rantings on cable news shows, I can't bring myself to do that.

Comedy is one thing. News and editorial is another thing. East is east, west is west and never the 'twain shall meet.

[felix_numinous]

190. On Stewart helped keep me sane

throughout the Bush years and he seemed to fill the mainstream's void on the left until Keith Olbermann came to MCNBC.I am so grateful to him, he is a naturally hilarious person. I am also grateful to him and Stephen Colbert for hosting the sanity rally. I don't think anyone could have foreseen what would result from many of us coming out and declaring our sanity and fearlessness--that this really was not all fun and games. We had fun doing it, but underneath the jokes we were dead serious.

I think equating MSNBC with Fox, and going after Keith Olbermann told Jon just where the line is between the jokes and what we consider very serious stuff. These are very intense times we live in.

[butterfly77]

192. KICKED..

[Prometheus Bound]

196. Rec for choice.

[texshelters]

201. You speak for many of us

who are tired of Stewart's puritanical attitude that is NOT based in reality.

http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-rally-to-show-how-reasonable-jon-stewart-is/

Thanks.

Watch the Tex Shelters' video of folks at the rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsOv8u6Hqy8&feature=player_embedded

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[no limit]

209. Who is talking about taking Olbermann and Maddow off the air?

It is you that doesn't get it. You are defending MSNBC and the left from attacks that are not being made. Stewart's point is not that we need to all play nice and get along. His point is that you don't have to be a dick and a loudmouth to make an argument.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

217. If that's the case . . .

. . . then why include Olbermann in the allegation? For that matter, has he never seen Scar's show? As long as Scar's there, how can he argue that MSNBC is some sort of polar-opposite equivalent of FoxNews?

[no limit]

219. What allegation? The montage was about hyperbole, which Olbermann does use from time to time

I don't think you would disagree with that fact.

And again, you just repeated that Jon Stewart was saying MSNBC is exactly the same as Fox News which is not what he was saying at all. Not only did you totally miss the point of the rally but you also probably didn't watch Jon Stewart's interview with Maddow. Because in that interview he clearly stated he did not think Fox News and MSNBC are the same. And anyone that watches the daily show knows that fox gets 90% of criticism, the other 10% is left for CNN and MSNBC.

So again, you are defending yourself from accusations Jon Stewart never actually made.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

220. You are mistaken

I did, in fact, watch the interview. I also watched the entirety of the rally.

In the interview, Stewart squirmed when he was challenged on the equivalency issue. He offered up one of those "I'm sorry if anyone thought . . . " non-apology apologies.

My assertion is that Stewart's thesis is simply wrong. Not bad, not evil. Just wrong.

I've never watched TDS and seen it as "criticism." Stewart isn't Howie Kurtz, the Media Critic. He's a funny guy, a clown in the circus. His job is making fun of stuff, which made, I thought, his "serious" moment at the rally all the more odd.

[no limit]

230. How much clearer could he have been? He said Fox gets a special place in their hearts

and as he pointed out that is clear for anyone that watches the show. Hell, anyone that watched just the rally too.

My assertion is that what you are saying Stewart's thesis is is not actually Stewart's thesis. It is a thesis you are attributing to him. You can not give me a single example of Stewart ever suggesting that both sides are the same. Neither could Maddow. Yet you guys are stuck on this argument that he was saying they are both the same and I can not understand why. The one thing you point to is the montage at the rally which again, was not saying that both sides are the same but that both sides use hyperbole to shut down arguments. And I would assume you don't disagree with that fact.

As an example, would you ever call Obama a war criminial? Or do you think rendition is not a war crime?

[defendandprotect]

227. The GOP "NOISE Machine" existed long before KO or Maddow or Schultz....

the left was silenced for far too long --

There is no equivalent of Fox News on the left --

no equivalent of Limbaugh who's been catapulting the rw propaganda for decades!

No equivalent of Glenn Beck -- who could possibly clone that behavior!!

No equivalent of the right wing bought T-baggers --

No equivalent of their rw bought Christian Coalition --

No equivalent of their rw bought "pro-life" murderers --

No equivalent of their rw bought GOP/NRA which has targeted liberal Democrats for decades --

No equivalent on the left of their war mongering -- killing -- raping -- destruction --

We cannot ignore the rule of law and think we can survive as a free people --

We can't simply laugh and smile at rw lies -- they must be responded to -- and the level

and tone has been put in place by the right wing --

In order to be heard the left has to be equally loud -- though I don't see that it is.

[no limit]

231. Who was saying there is an equivalent for any of those things on the left?

Please, give me one specific example.

[defendandprotect]

234. Equating Schultz with anyone on the right .....

Jon Stewart included a video that Schultz had shown which showed the

T-baggers spitting on US Congressmen --

That was something, obviously, the public needed to know and see --

yet Jon compared that to what Glen Beck, Fox and Limbaugh do!


Jon Stewart's interview with Rachel Maddow was loaded with alibi-ing

for the extremist right wing by equivocating and in the case of war crimes

and Bush suggesting "Plausible Denial" --

I've seen nothing on KO, Schultz nor Maddow which compares in any way with

the insanities of the right wing extremists!

And my original list makes clear that is true not only today -- but has been

true for decades!

:eyes:



.

[no limit]

242. What was the video you refer to about?

Did Jon Stewart say look at this montage, these people are all exactly the same. Or did he have a different point with that video that you might be missing?

And you don't think Jon Stewart had a point about Bush? Do you think President Obama is a war criminal?

[pacalo]

214. Big K & R!

[bagimin]

215. K&R

I've been mulling this interview in my mind at work all day. I believe you have it pegged correctly. Well done.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

216. Thank you

My intent wasn't to skewer or in any way attempt to diminish Stewart. It was simply to point out that he is patently wrong in his thesis and analysis.

You would think from the responses of a few, however, that I had sucker-punched Stewart's mother.

[johnlucas]

221. Those who believe in "Left" & "Right" will never see the larger picture

It's not "Left" & "Right".
It's not "Blue" & "Red".
It's not "Liberal" & "Conservative".
It's not "Democrat" & "Republican".

It's RIGHT & WRONG.
It's TRUTH & LIE.

And neither of the above mentioned dichotomies has the ownership of Right/Wrong, Truth/Lie.

Political parties are a waste of time.
Truth is mathematical.
It's about problem solving. And those who are committed to problem solving don't have time to get into silly emotional insult-trading displays.
They are gonna ignore & defy their opposition with substantial proof of stated theory rather than preaching of stated theory.

Until you show the fruits of your work, most people won't be inclined to believe you. REGARDLESS if it's for their own good or not.

No more talk. It's time for action.
Do it on a small scale & show your work. Explain the equation happening in live action.

Ideology without practicality is futility.
Put plans into ACTION. Don't just explain the plan all day long.

The Tea Party doesn't matter.
The Republican Party doesn't matter.
The Democratic Party doesn't matter.

RESULTS matter.
And when RESULTS are shown, ideologies go by the wayside. No need to dream about it anymore, it's happening in living color right now.

There's no ideology about the color of the sky. It's light blue in the daytime.

Olbermann, Maddow & all the rest are nice when you wanna hear another point of view validating what you believe.
But if you're dependent on these guys to make everything right, then you're wasting your time.

These are glorified cheerleaders going rah-rah-rah from the sidelines. And they're here to play the Cowboys vs. Redskins game, the Yankees vs. Red Sox game.

The only true distinction is between HAVE and HAVE-NOT.

When you not only PREACH what needs to be done but put what you preach into ACTION, those Tea Party folks you loved to rail against with grade school-like name-calling (teabaggers for instance) may abandon their so-called convictions when your plans put food on the table. If you life long enough, you'll realize that people are fickle & their beliefs can really change on a dime depending on the status of their social circle (since most people like to fit in & not rock the boat).

Maybe you can't speak to people's better natures. You have to do what works.
What do people REALLY respond to? Not what do you wish people would respond to?

Once you figure that out, it's just a matter of working that response.
One thing I know people respond to is money in their pocket. Maybe you gotta put everything in terms like that.

How are you gonna get people to care about the environment when you're charging more money for the energy-saving materials they would need to achieve it?
How are you gonna get people to care about the waste of war when they haven't seen a war on their soil since the Civil War in the 1860s? A war fought with ancient musket rifles I might add.
Maybe you can get them to care when you compare a warzone to the "inner cities" (ghettos) of America they fear & despise.

It's time to REALLY get strategical.
There's corruption in life because people exist. Period.
How do you navigate this corruption & find a way to broadcast your message?
This is a society that values people based on the amount of money they have?
So is every society that ever existed on Earth. How do you get big enough money to rise to a high enough profile to destroy the system from the inside out?
Use the business class to destroy the business class? Novel idea.

All I know is you're never gonna get to that line of thought without letting go of these artificial teams called "Left" & "Right".
What strategies can YOU employ from every economic level to dismantle this corrupt system which arrests the full potential of human life?
THAT'S where your mind needs to be. And most likely you will not achieve this through the current political system. It's not the only game in town.
What ARE the other ways to achieve this?
John Lucas

[Greyhound]

228. Because he's a multi-millionaire comedian?

It has always been that when push comes to shove, and despite any particular political or philosophical differences, rich people have much more in common with each other than they do with the rest of us.

[no limit]

232. How much money does Maddow make? How about Olbermann?

How come how much Stewart made was never an issue before? Suddenly it is being thrown around in every thread about him. Why do you think that is?

[Greyhound]

240. Those with so much money that they never have to worry about money live in a different world

than the rest of us and inevitably over time become calloused or forgetful of how hard it is.

It's easy for a rich person to sympathize with the compromises and/or positions of other rich people. They also have different worries such as what happens to them if the insurance firm they have $6M invested in goes under. In the end nearly all of them will chose to keep their even if that means heaping more pain on other people.

Jon Stewart, like most any rich person, has no interest in changing the system that has been so good to them, quite the contrary, they have a great interest in preserving it.

[no limit]

243. So you apply that logic to people like Maddow and KO, right?

You believe that Maddow and KO have no interest in changing the system that has been so good to them, quite the contrary, they have a great interest in preserving it?

I would disagree with that, but I just want to make sure that is your argument.

[Greyhound]

244. Yes, of course. But you've tried to twist what I said by assigning motivation

that I never wrote, but then that's what you guys do, isn't it?

Like all so-called limousine liberals, it's not that they have no interest in helping the rest of us, it is just that any help given must not cost them personally. Unfortunately, it has gone too far and radical change will happen.

[no limit]

245. I just don't agree with that. I don't think in the case of Stewart, Maddow, or even KO

their motivation for what they believe is based on profit. If it was they wouldn't have the positions on issues that they have.

George Soros is another good example.

The reason I questioned your motivations is because Stewart's income was never relevent in discussions about him until recently. It became an issue when people disagreed with him on something. I think that is sad, and if you don't fit in to that bubble then my apologies to you.

[Greyhound]

246. I don't know any of them personally and they might all be exceptions, but consider this.

Speaking of Soros; Richard Mellon-Scaif poured an estimated $500M into creating the reich-wing megaphone (this was in the 80's when half a billion was real money), year after year with no return because he truly believes in his cause. He was willing to keep on doing it forever to "get the message out" and reform the national conscience (from his perspective). George Soros will give a comparative drip of that to a "liberal" cause, but demands return on his investment. If/When he doesn't make any money on it, he's done.

[no limit]

247. Maybe I'm missing something in the example of Soros but take the media matters contribution

I think media matters is one of the best organizations that has come out before the 2004 elections. Soros gave them a million dollars a few weeks back. I don't think he wanted anything in return for that contribution as far as I know.

You might argue that for Soros a million bucks isn't very much, and you are right. But I don't think he donated that money because it would be good for him. True liberal policies are never good for the profit of rich people.

[Greyhound]

248. The million bucks is great, but that's what I'm talking about. This is a worthy

donation but makes no difference in his life. With a net worth of $8.5B he could easily give a million bucks to a thousand good causes and still not effect his life at all, but could potentially make all the difference to millions of people, why doesn't he?

I'm not picking on him specifically, but using him as just one example. There are hundreds of people that could do this and more. The Gates Foundation could pick 10 American cities tomorrow and fix them without breaking a sweat, Oprah could likewise transform Chicago by merely wanting to, and so on...

[defendandprotect]

235. Exactly ... the dollar bill is the great perverter .....

and as one of our Founders told us .... "As long as there are dishonest men among us ..."

and, quite frankly, there always have been and always will be dishonest men among us!

That's why we have the Bill of Rights --

Though GOP and others would like to set fire to it all!

[Alexander]

236. "Crossfire" did not have a pair of Democrats - it had one Democrat, one Republican.

And by the time of Jon Stewart's appearance, Bill Press was gone and the DLC Paul Begala was the "liberal" personality.

[senseandsensibility]

239. kick, but it's too late to rec!

:(

[Dawson Leery]

241. I see Jon Stewart as an entertainer and nothing more.

As you have stated, there is no comparison between the influence and methods of the right wing against the small infrastructure the left has.
Also, Steve Colbert is not funny.