The Maddow interview of Stewart was impressive.

[Renew Deal]

It was great to see two knowledgeable, smart, interesting, politically motivated people have a discussion on TV without it turning into a scream-fest. It was 45 minutes of excellent television. I have my doubts whether people prefer that to "BREAKING NEWS ALERT" maniacal madness of cable news, but I loved it. Maybe I'm just jaded since I love both Maddow and Stewart.

[meow mix]

1. amusing.. to watch her dismantle him into blathering ruin

i couldnt believe how bad he is without some writers.

[Warpy]

3. He admits he's a comedian who does a fake news show

While he's one of the better interviewers out there (his interview with Cramer of CNBC being classic), he's not a serious researcher or talking head. He is what he is, and that's fine with me.

Maddow, on the other hand, is a serious researcher who does real news. Of course he'd be overmatched. I'd hate to be on the wrong end of an interview with her. I'm pretty smart, but I'm sure she'd be able to zero in on the gaps in my knowledge in record time.

I still appreciate them both for what they're doing.

[AndrewP]

4. Yeah, it was wasn't it?

The thing that stuck out to me was how much smarter Maddow seemed. In fairness, it was her element, and not his. Plus he probably was flu ridden from what I've heard. But the "give and take" was lopsidded.

[Dyler Turden]

5. I must have watched a different interview than you.

A "blathering ruin?" Really?

[IDHow]

8. You have to admit that she demolished him? nt

[dennis4868]

10. I don't think so

She could have crushed Stewart's defense of Bush's WMD claim... There is a ton of evidence that proves Bush lied a thousand times on this issue....yes Jon, Bush is evil....I bet if Jon had a relative due for a lie he would feel differently....what an asshole!

[JackRiddler]

26. Yes, the WMD part was disappointing...

They spent a couple of minutes discussing what Bush might have believed, which is secondary if not entirely irrelevant. This time would have been better spent by her to point out that there were no WMDs, the UN and US military both knew it because they had destroyed anything meriting the description of WMDs themselves over a period of years, and the Bush regime used forged documents and an array of demonstrable lies to make the false case.

It doesn't matter because it's only Stewart, not someone responsible for the lies, but his diversion to the question of what Bush might have been thinking (ha ha) should not have been allowed to stand.

[Renew Deal]

13. I disagree

:shrug:

[fishwax]

21. I didn't see it as demolishing him -- I didn't see it as particularly adversarial

[MadBadger]

7. A blathering ruin? Were you intoxicated?

Are you still?

[Renew Deal]

14. I disagree

If he's a "blathering ruin" then so is she. I thought that they were both high caliber people with different viewpoints on some issues that could hold a discussion without throwing around insults like "blathering ruin."

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I guess we watched two different interviews

and I watched it TWICE looking for those demolishing points.

What I saw were two intelligent people having a conversation.

I guess some people are just damned biased and want a screaming match.

By the way this wasn't particularly riveting TV.

[seabeyond]

2. since little i listened to discussion shows. stopped about 2004. yelling at each other

over each other, cant hear what anyone is saying.

i hear ya

[MadBadger]

6. I think DU Disagrees

The meme yesterday was that Stewart is basically a moron without his writers who is a Bush and Fox News apologist.

[Renew Deal]

12. I'm glad that I watched the interview before reading the threads about it.

I entirely disagree with the "meme." I found Stewart to be introspective, reasoned, and very well thought out. I don't think even Bill Maher could have given such a straight interview without resorting to jokes.

[MadBadger]

15. I read the threads first, and was really confused when I went to the interview

I didnt understand what all the fuss was about. Sure he said some things I disagreed with, but I couldnt understand how that interview could elicit such a strongly negative reaction here

[boppers]

27. There's a lot of selective outrage.

Not disagreement, mind you, outrage.

Which is kind of one of Stewart's main points, that the discourse is being poisoned, and it's not only coming from one side.

[dennis4868]

9. Stewart jumped the shark

I am finnished with Jon stewart....he is a fool... He defended bush on his WMD lie, torture, and said that he does not think bush is a war criminal although technically he may be. Lastly, he said that Fox News is not partisan but only ideological....he is nuts. No
more Daily Show for me.

[MadBadger]

16. Odd to call him a fool while spelling the word finnished.

[Renew Deal]

17. No he didn't

He showed how they misled people without telling the entire truth. He pointed out how Powell said that Saddam would rebuild his arsenal without pointing out that there was no arsenal. It wasn't a "defense" of Bush. It pointed out how they lied. He also didn't say that he didn't think Bush was a war criminal. He pointed out that saying that is a conversation stopper.

I disagreed with his view that Fox isn't partisan. But the fact that he's given this some thought gives him more credibility that the (predictable) screamers that are only out for blood.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Well you should research both what

Partisan and ideological mean.

They do not mean what you think... it is the kind of nuance many people around here don't get.

And you know what? He is correct and there is a difference.

Just saying, and I will continue to watch TDS... as he makes those nuanced points regularly that I guess are above some folks.

[DeschutesRiver]

28. Am glad to finally read responses that make sense to me with regard to the interview that I saw

Dh and I had been saying the same to each re the nuance esp, and so both of us were frankly taken back by what I read to him from DU that seemed to be the general consensus. I really didn't see that coming.

And still can't find a reason why this should have been above so many heads. Well, no reason with which I am comfortable.

\

[slipslidingaway]

11. knr n/t

[mzmolly]

18. I enjoyed the discussion, but I still think Stewart stretched in his

equivocation of MSNBC and Fox.

[bdamomma]

19. I thought it was a very informative interview

shows a different side of Jon Stewart.

[DeschutesRiver]

29. Agree on both points. nt

[EC]

20. Yeah, instead of "gotcha" moments there was actual

conceding and agreement of points and discussion...

[An_Opened_Hand]

22. Looking at some of the responses here proves Jon's point.

I think what Jon has been trying to get across to everyone is that no one is talking. They're just yelling at each other. My father would cut me off we ever I raised my voice in an discussion with him, telling me "if you start yelling, you've lost the argument." Over the years I've seen this time and again as very true. People, it's about influencing people, not beating them to a pulp. We've been suckered into raising our voices to yelling, so that the other side can attack us for attaching them. They, the Right, are masters of this tactic. They want people to be emotional first, so they won't think. Don't we want people to think before they become emotional, so that they see why they should care? Don't just yell at someone, lead them to a conclusion, then they might think it's their own idea. I saw in this interview Stewart & Maddow trying to do just that. That's what, to me, was so refreshing. They were looking for answers, not just a Win! He called his rally, “Rally to Restore Sanity” for this very reason. Yea, I'm mad, your mad, but time's running out and we need to figure out what will really work with these problems. Maybe we need to trick the Tea Party into thinking they're Thinking and make sure those new thoughts have the seeds of the truth in them. Some times just seeing the light go on in those dull faces if worth the effort.

[fishbulb703]

23. One of the most insightful posts I've seen here. +1

[Enjay in E MT]

30. Agree Open Hand

I posted this on a blog and thought I'd bring it over since we seem to be thinking along the same lines.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wow - I love your blog - and I do believe you inadvertently just validated part of what Jon Stewart was saying -ppl quit listening and start yelling when someone says something we disagree with-

How many comments (so far) have said -they turned him off- -won't watch again- -lost respect- or trying to rationalize why he said what he did .... not feeling well / sick / over-analyzes / lost moral compass....

Emotional buttons are being pushed - by news / candidates / public speakers / etc. and ppl are reacting As an example- yesterday Huff Po had Palin stating Obama is the most Pro-Abortion President ever. Of course, a few thousand comments were made. How many comments if the topic had been Obama is Pro-Choice

Both sides are being played - and nobody is "listening" - they are tuning out or trying to yell louder - and neither one are FIXING the PROBLEMS