to add to that i don't think anyone should be complaining that stewart didn't go "in depth" enough when he was rebutting such a shallow, ridiculous book.
to add to that i don't think anyone should be complaining that stewart didn't go "in depth" enough when he was rebutting such a shallow, ridiculous book.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,504
- 20,111
- 146
You admit Stewart is a leftist, then say he's not partisan?
He looks like an immature brat because he uses put-downs instead of valid arguments to advance his agenda. Exactly how kids do it on the school yard. Who cares if that's "his style." It's his "style" that sucks and makes him look like a partisan asshole.
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
:thumbsup: for John
Just for clarificiation, it's Jon not John.
Homerboy
Lifer
- Mar 1, 2000
- 30,890
- 5,001
- 126
I have the crossfire cap still if anyone wants or needs it. just PM me.
As compared to this one, on Crossfire Stewart does let all parties make their comments and ideas be heard then retorts to them. IMO the Crossfire "scene" is amazingly well done by Stewart.
As compared to this one, on Crossfire Stewart does let all parties make their comments and ideas be heard then retorts to them. IMO the Crossfire "scene" is amazingly well done by Stewart.
40Hands
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2004
- 5,042
- 0
- 71
I said hes not a hack. I don't even think you really pay attention to what JS says. Your one of those people who has him pegged in your mind as a "lib". Don't try to deny it.
Yes...yes of course "The Jon Stewart Agenda" Dun dun DUUMM. :roll:
Stewart asked him some questions about his choices for the book. His reasons for choosing the people he did were so lame that I think Jon felt he could go on with making wise cracks like he does so nicely.
"This person said the word "blank" therefore he is ruining our country!!" :disgust:
this is exactly what I was thinking when I saw that episode. Then I realized, he's a comic, as in, not someone who should be taken seriously anyway. Unlike most, I watch the show for laughs, not as a place to get my information about news.
i'm not complaining at all, it's a COMEDY SHOW, he doesn't need to go in-depth. all i'm saying is that the conversation never reached the level of sophistication at which you can definitively say "yea, this guy owned the other guy". which is perfectly fine, but lets call a spade a spade.
DUDE. It is NOT a news show.
Such lambasting on your part, while ideally warranted, is really inappropriate for such a show. Jon is there primarily because he makes people laugh.
Yes he was being overly agressive and pushing his agenda.
And it was funnai
MrChad
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2001
- 13,507
- 3
- 81
Funny interview. I must admit I don't know too much about Goldberg, but I felt sorry for him being placed on the spot like that. He couldn't get a word in edgewise and was mocked ruthlessly by both Stewart and the audience.
Still, I suppose you have to know what you're getting into if you're a conservative going on the Daily Show. Props to Goldberg for having the balls to do it.
Still, I suppose you have to know what you're getting into if you're a conservative going on the Daily Show. Props to Goldberg for having the balls to do it.
He was promoting his book, and there is no such thing as bad PR.
The interview probably generated interest in his book and that might have translated into sales.
Good interview though, props to Stewart for putting him on the spot.
johnjohn320
Diamond Member
- Jan 9, 2001
- 7,572
- 2
- 76
Someone host the crossfire clip already!
Now that that's said, I don't understand why people are defending Goldberg. Everytime Goldberg was given the chance to speak, he made the same point. Just because he was being interrupted while saying the same thing he's already said 20 times does not mean he "wasn't given a chance." Stewart wasn't even arguing politics, he was only offering that the choices Goldberg made were people who have no power over the direction of our country whatsoever (i.e. Barbara Streisand, rappers, Chevy Chase, etc).
And yes, it's JON not JOHN. I was waiting for someone to say it.
Now that that's said, I don't understand why people are defending Goldberg. Everytime Goldberg was given the chance to speak, he made the same point. Just because he was being interrupted while saying the same thing he's already said 20 times does not mean he "wasn't given a chance." Stewart wasn't even arguing politics, he was only offering that the choices Goldberg made were people who have no power over the direction of our country whatsoever (i.e. Barbara Streisand, rappers, Chevy Chase, etc).
And yes, it's JON not JOHN.
I was waiting for someone to say it.
You people claiming all Stewart did was childish putdowns and ignoring Goldberg's points must have been watching another interview. I just watched it again, just to be sure, but my opinion didn't change. Yes, he did some of that stuff (it IS comedy after all), but he also presented some very interesting points. Whether or not you agree with them is up to you, but he wasn't just cracking jokes.
For example, Goldberg had a lot of celebrities in his book, and Stewart suggested that saying celebrities are ruining America while ignoring people with actual political power is kind of silly. To his credit, Goldberg showed an example of a judge on his list, but I think Stewart is still partially right, there were far more celebrities than people with actual political power. Even if you don't think agree, it's still an interesting argument, not just jokes. He also raised the very valid question of whether or not culture is really going down the tubes or not. He presented it in a pretty funny way, but it's still a good question, and one that's ignored by a lot of people.
For example, Goldberg had a lot of celebrities in his book, and Stewart suggested that saying celebrities are ruining America while ignoring people with actual political power is kind of silly. To his credit, Goldberg showed an example of a judge on his list, but I think Stewart is still partially right, there were far more celebrities than people with actual political power. Even if you don't think agree, it's still an interesting argument, not just jokes. He also raised the very valid question of whether or not culture is really going down the tubes or not. He presented it in a pretty funny way, but it's still a good question, and one that's ignored by a lot of people.
More precisely, every time Goldberg was given the chance to speak, he attempted to clarify or finish a point that Stewart, constantly interrupting with some wise-ass remark or facial expression to provoke laughter among the audience, thus derailing the conversation, refused to let him make.
Stewart was in fact arguing politics, even going as far as to tell Goldberg what his book should have been about (politics):
Seats of power within government and government power is wholly a political subject matter. Its one thing to say "I don't agree with your book on the Spanish-American War", its quite another to say "Your book about the Spanish-American War is stupid because I think the Civil War is more important and your book should have been about that."
Who the hell does Stewart think he is? Its Goldberg's book, he can write about whatever he wants.
Goldberg's position is vastly more complex and nuanced than the moronic notion that Barbara Streisand alone is responsible for our society's moral decay, but that is precisely how simplistic Stewart attempts to portray Goldberg's position.
Stewart: "I think there is a much larger issue of people in power creating problems, not Barbara Streisand..."
Goldberg names 100 people who embody views, attitudes, and ideologies that he argues are contributing substantially to what he views as sociocultural rot. Some of those people Goldberg blames directly, most others he offers merely as being representative or typical of views, attitudes, and ideologies he argues are the problem. But in no case could it reasonably be said that Goldberg is laying blame squarely at the feet of any one person. I highly doubt Stewart even read the book, based on his extremely flawed interpretation of Goldberg's view.
Stewart completely dismisses or ignores reality that is beyond dispute.
Stewart: "Most everybody that I see in your book is powerless..."
Who would characterize an Oscar winning film maker who has amassed a cult-like following, chief justices of state supreme courts, the publisher of a prestigious leading newspaper, a high ranking U.S. Senator who has won numerous consecutive terms by large margins, former state attorney generals, a race-baiting activist who is notorious for shaking-down billion dollar companies and enjoys direct access to numerous world leaders, head of the most powerful civil rights organization, the CEO of a corporation that voraciously acquired its competition and brought the state of California to its knees at the bargaining table, and former US presidents, as "powerless" people?
This is a child-like naivety on Stewart's part. Goldberg's book is primarily an exercise in social and cultural commentary, not government and public policy. Stewart is too much of a mental midget to grasp the difference (assuming he even read the book, which I find doubtful).
Simplicity reigns supreme yet again.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,504
- 20,111
- 146
Exactly.
And anyone who denies that (many) entertainers have as much influence and power to affect society as any politician deny reality. Those who deny this are the same people who would ban tobacco and cigarette ads because they make kids smoke and drink, yet deny that movies, TV and video games can have an effect on children (and adults alike). As if only media with an intent to sell can influence people's attitudes and opinions. Propaganda is propaganda, folks. ANY media that displays a negative as a positive will have a negative effect on impressionable people.
Stewart's Nancy Grace style slamming of the book is nothing more than self protectionism. He's selfishly and myopically defending his profession from a very valid and real attack against it. He's not objecting to the book because it's conservative, or liberal, or anything other than an attack on himself and those like him who use TV and movies to push a political agenda like so much tobacco and alcohol advertising.
And those who pooh-pooh complaints claiming that Stewart's show is merely comedy fail to realize that a large segment of society gets much of their news from him. He knows this and pushes a very transparent leftist agenda on his show. He KNOWS people are swayed by his opinions and subject matter. He's propaganda wrapped up in comedy like a poison pill hidden in a desert to make it go down easier.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/apontv.stewarts.stature.ap/
And you people mindlessly suck it up... all the while denying that it has any infulence and thus denying the reality of Goldberg's book.
Goldberg "owned?" Hardly. In fact, this interview and the very show it was on PROVES his point. It makes it crystal clear and obvious for anyone who can see past the obvious propaganda that this show is.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
oh....
silly me. bono and mr bush are equals. clearly bono just slipped and fell or something since he couldn't stop the iraq war even with his equal power to nullify a politicians.
get real man... celebs have no real power. to even claim as such is just sad. the men with the fingers on the trigger sit in government.
pre governator arnold = jingle all the way = mr hummer = ability to spread catch phrase "i'll be back"
governator arnold = line item veto power with ability to write and change laws.
who are you kidding... who the f*ck are you kidding?
and other studies i've seen show the daily show watcher is on average more informed on the news then the average joe
silly me. bono and mr bush are equals. clearly bono just slipped and fell or something since he couldn't stop the iraq war even with his equal power to nullify a politicians.
get real man... celebs have no real power. to even claim as such is just sad. the men with the fingers on the trigger sit in government.
pre governator arnold = jingle all the way = mr hummer = ability to spread catch phrase "i'll be back"
governator arnold = line item veto power with ability to write and change laws.
who are you kidding... who the f*ck are you kidding?
and other studies i've seen show the daily show watcher is on average more informed on the news then the average joe
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter