Sometines, it's good to blog things just because you enjoy them. There's a deeper meaning to this one that actually plugs into yesterday's "defining idiotarianism" post, but forget it. Just enjoy.
Donkelphant recently reminded me of the earthquake Jon Stewart unleashed on Crossfire, a show I had personally hated for a long time. Crossfire itself was subsequently hurled into the Abyss that spawned it, and troubles us no more - and Stewart's appearance appears to have been partly responsible. If you never treated yourself to the full viewing of Stewart's ironic verbal guns on full-auto, do yourself a favour and watch him put a big wooden stake though an eminently deserving show:
Thanks, Jon.
2004 called. It wants its relevant event back.
The appearance was 2004. The full earthquake hit in January 2005, when Carlson's contract was not renewed and it became clear the show would be cancelled.
But I've pulled the date to avoid confusion.
Yeah, I am not really much of a fan of Stewart. But that was a decent moment. Crossfire sucked a--.
I don't have a dog in this fight, cretins like Jon Stewart are just as responsible for debasing the political process as Crossfire. A pox on both of them.
What the hell is Jon Stewart talking about?
Granted, Crossfire made Washington Week in Review look exciting. It made Donohue look relevant.
But it was on CNN and nobody watched it, so who cares? And what is this business about wanting the media to "stop fighting each other" and "help" us?
I don't want any help from them, and if they were really fighting I'd be all for selling them some guns.
Here in Arkansas today, we had our own winds of change
It still doesn't change the fact that Stewart is a smug self-satisfiesd jerk.
Now - that is just too funny. I was never impressed with Cross Fire even at it's inception. From the few times I watched it I could not help but think it transformed into Jerry Springer (James Carville the ragin' cajun) with a political twist. Which certainly wasn't what I was looking for in a news channel. If anything John Stewart was protecting his turf.
Crossfire hardly impeded on John Stewart's turf. The type of people who watch and love Stewart, who make up his fanbase, are unlikely to put up with shows like Crossfire.
As for Stewart debasing the political process, I really don't see that one. Whatever your personal opinion of him (mine happens to be high), he makes perfectly clear that his show is satire. If people want to use it as a primary news source, they do that at their own risk (rather, more often, to their own benefit). Something that claims to be an informed, intellectual, and balanced analysis that is actually a pipeline for ideology is much more sinister and Orwellian.
The only reason Stewart catches flack from people who disagree with his views is because he is successful. There's no basis from which to say he's doing anything bad or wrong. You don't like him? Go start your own satire show and say whatever you want on it. Just be sure you call it a satire and not news.
Craig Kilborne was better.
Pity that Stewart has, essentially, himself become an idiotarian. A long time ago he had a late night program on a broadcast network. It was edgy, and fairly funny, but after it was cancelled he obviously honed his comedic skills a bit before attempting the Daily Show. However, he eventually caught the anti-Bush virus that's going around and no longer has much to contribute. He fancies himself a pundit not because he knows very much, but because he feels very deeply. There's way too much of that around. He can still be funny, but if you're always hammering one side of the plate it can end up looking pretty distorted. I haven't been able to tolerate more than five minutes of Stewart at a time since 2003.
Yes, the media isn't up to the task of covering a war. So, what else is new?
I don't think that he considers himself a pundit. That's more the role he's managed to attain among his fans. He may appreciate that and not try to dissuade them actively, but he's certianly offering up humor and not always actual opinion.
Granted, he hammers on the right more than the left. However, he certainly hits the left hard (as last night, with regard to the Democrats' reaction to the news of the Supreme Court nomination - in paraphrase - "Democrats are complaining bitterly about President Bush's choice... they have been for weeks") and he hits journalism in general even harder. In fact, that's a bigger target for him than right wing politics. Almost every show he has a big bit making fun of journalism. That's not directed left, right, or center.
It should also be noted that he has major right wing political figures on the show and doesn't rip them to shreds. He had Rumsfeld on and, though their interview didn't have a ton of substance, he certainly did nothing to attack his character or even his politics, just some general softball questions. He's having Santorum on on Monday, so you can judge for yourself how he deals with political figures (though I daresay he will get a ribbing for the Boston comment, and a deserved if belated one).
David
Sorry for not being clear about my intention. My point is both are being satirical and mocking of politics. That is what I meant by John Stewart protecting his turf. I have nothing against John Stewart for the very reason you stated. He intends to be satirical and he is upfront about the disclosure of such which is unlike Cross Fire or any other host of political pundit shows. You know where you stand when you enter the door and that makes a big difference.
But to be clear about John Stewart's position I certainly don't liken him to the caliber of Will Rogers or Samuel Clemens which were pure satirists concerning politics with a clarity of intended messages to the public.
These clips remind me of why I don't miss TV. I've lived without the Boob for 18 months.
In the end it came of as jerk versus jerk versus jerk. None of it matters, or will make a difference to our culture's surviving the challenges ahead.
I didn't know that Crossfire went to the grave. Good riddance.