Did anyone watch Jon Stewart on Chris Wallace?

#3
#3
There is an unedited version on youtube. Not sure if it is the same as the foxnews link, but I watched it last night and thought Stewart owned him.
 
#4
#4
If Jon Stewart didn't talk about Fox News what would he talk about? He is a funnier Keith Olberman, nothing more.
 
#5
#5
bleedorange1983 said:
If Jon Stewart didn't talk about Fox News what would he talk about? He is a funnier Keith Olberman, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Other 24-hour news outlets. He even took a shot at huffingtonpost for how they covered this story. He's left winged for sure, but not a liberal activist in the way Olbermann is.
 
#8
#8
Stewart has the advantage of a) a sharper intellect; b) not having to worry about trying to look even-handed; and c) not worrying about not offending anyone.

Really, Stewart versus Wallace is not a fair fight.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Stewart has the advantage of a) a sharper intellect; b) not having to worry about trying to look even-handed; and c) not worrying about not offending anyone.

Really, Stewart versus Wallace is not a fair fight.
Click to expand...
And it's the same result every time a hard news show schedules someone like Stewart. The host comes off looking like a complete stiff.
 
#10
#10
GAVol said:
And it's the same result every time a hard news show schedules someone like Stewart. The host comes off looking like a complete stiff.
Click to expand...


I agree. Would be the same if Meet the Press had on Coulter. She would have much more freedom than they.

Now, you could argue the substance of it till the cows come home. Same with Stewart and Wallace. But in terms of sheer rhetorical command, the guest is almost always I think going to come out ahead.

I though Stewart's explanation that he is a comedian first and that his comedy is informed by ideology, whereas Fox holds itself out as news, first, and also informed by a more conservative ideology was brilliant and accurate. It is what is so frustrating about Fox -- the moniker of news and implication that they are fair and balanced.

Imagine if Stewart, with straight face, proclaimed himself a news show, and did what he does. The right would be going nuts because it would not be accurate to call what he does news.

But Fox does indeed do this -- call themselves news and then consciously, even aggressively, push a decidedly GOP agenda.
 
#11
#11
GAVol said:
And it's the same result every time a hard news show schedules someone like Stewart. The host comes off looking like a complete stiff.
Click to expand...

True, but I certainly didn't think Stewart "owned" Wallace in this interview.
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
I though Stewart's explanation that he is a comedian first and that his comedy is informed by ideology, whereas Fox holds itself out as news, first, and also informed by a more conservative ideology was brilliant and accurate.
Click to expand...

His assessment of Fox was mostly accurate, but his "I think MSNBC is attempting that" was laughable...
 
#13
#13
Jaytrain5 said:
True, but I certainly didn't think Stewart "owned" Wallace in this interview.
Click to expand...


I appreciated Wallace admitting that Fox promotes a conservative agenda and that it is motivated by a desire of conservatives to "answer" the left-leaning main stream media. I thought that was a refreshing admission by him.
 
#14
#14
Jaytrain5 said:
His assessment of Fox was mostly accurate, but his "I think MSNBC is attempting that" was laughable...
Click to expand...


That's why all the cable news stations are so annoying. Fox was the anti NY Times. Now MSNBC is the anti-Fox. It'll just go on forever.

Can;t remember who said it, but on one of the shows this week someone said the truth is that ALL of these stations hope and prey that the candidate they would like LOSES. Gives them something to talk about, gives them higher ratings, let's them be on the attack.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
I though Stewart's explanation that he is a comedian first and that his comedy is informed by ideology, whereas Fox holds itself out as news, first, and also informed by a more conservative ideology was brilliant and accurate. It is what is so frustrating about Fox -- the moniker of news and implication that they are fair and balanced.
Click to expand...
It's equally annoying when comedians like Stewart, Maher and even Miller to some degree hide behind the comedian moniker while passive aggressively delivering a political agenda. Everybody has an agenda.
 
#16
#16
GAVol said:
It's equally annoying when comedians like Stewart, Maher and even Miller to some degree hide behind the comedian moniker while passive aggressively delivering a political agenda. Everybody has an agenda.
Click to expand...


You really think that Stewart or Maher pretends to be objective? Please. They wear it on their sleeves.

They have the luxury of doing that.

At the same time, Fox does pretend to be objective, clearly isn't,and when attacked for promoting the GOP, always end up falling back to the old standard that "Yeah? Well, the other side has their friends, too."

What they don't seem to understand is that its no answer to a criticism for being biased to say that someone else is, too.
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
You really think that Stewart or Maher pretends to be objective? Please. They wear it on their sleeves.

They have the luxury of doing that.

At the same time, Fox does pretend to be objective, clearly isn't,and when attacked for promoting the GOP, always end up falling back to the old standard that "Yeah? Well, the other side has their friends, too."

What they don't seem to understand is that its no answer to a criticism for being biased to say that someone else is, too.
Click to expand...

Fox has few straight news programs. They report the news largely without commentary and usually follow the same basic stories as other networks. ALL of their talk shows have an agenda. Those programs advance a conservative agenda and make no apologies for it.

The difference is that Hannity and others don't claim to be "unbiased". They relish in their bias and dare you to debate substance with them. The MSM pretends to be or else is delusional enough to really believe that it is "unbiased".

"Objective" is an interesting word though. I would say that an "objective" and informed view of issues will usually lead someone to conservative or libertarian conclusions if deliberated rationally. Being objective does not preclude drawing a conclusion. Being "objective" does not require equal respect for things that are incorrect/correct, true/false, demonstrated/fabricated, proven/disproven...
 
#18
#18
sjt18 said:
I would say that an "objective" and informed view of issues will usually lead someone to conservative or libertarian conclusions if deliberated rationally.
Click to expand...
So anybody with a liberal viewpoint is by definition incapable of rational thought, and only those with conservative libertarian viewpoints are capable of rational thought?

sjt, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice and good person, but stuff like this is why I give you zero credibility. You operate within the framework of circular logic and pure libertarian bias; first deciding that somebody is wrong because they're liberal and then navigating a path as to why that is and winding up with the conclusion that it's because they're liberal.

God knows there's no shortage of conservative and/or libertarian viewpoints on this site, but there are plenty who I will give credence or at least legitimacy to because they promote their points and the points only (not who is saying them, unless it's LG) within a framework of reason.

As far as the OP, Stewart is generally on target in that interview. I don't buy that the media, at large, has a deliberate, coordinated liberal viewpoint (with the likely exception of MSNBC). I firmly believe that is a notion unconsciously cooked up by the average American conservative, who, as Stewart mentioned, has in recent years been unfairly treated to some extent, with typically false accusations of homophobia, xenophobia, racism, etc.

That's all true. If I had to label myself, it would be more liberal than conservative, although there are a litany of things that I disagree with liberals on, but that's for another time and thread. The average liberal I talk to here in Portland holds a general belief that (though everybody is probably a nice individual) conservatives operate, function and think from a framework of fear and greed. "**** immigrants, homosexuals, government and taxes in all forms are inherently capable of only bad on everything" and so on. That is how liberals interpret the conservative viewpoint.

This embattled viewpoint created a demand for a TV network that told people what they wanted to hear. FNC stepped in and filled the gap. And I think that interview can finally solidify the notion that FNC does deliberately deliver news from a conservative bias. The leaked memos from the winter seem to suggest that as well, and anything on the Democrats' agenda that's discussed by all their anchors are littered with terms that polled negatively, while anything on the Republican agenda is discussed with terms that polled positively.

This would be fine with me if FNC promoted itself as a pro-conservative libertarian channel, but it doesn't. FNC absolutely does actively, deliberately promote a conservative viewpoint in a manner that would classify as activism, while most other major media outlets do operate from a liberal standpoint, but without such seemingly explicit deliberateness or level of bias.
 
Last edited:
#19
#19
milohimself said:
So anybody with a liberal viewpoint is by definition incapable of rational thought, and only those with conservative libertarian viewpoints are capable of rational thought?
Click to expand...
Glad you're finally catching on.
 
#20
#20
milohimself said:
So anybody with a liberal viewpoint is by definition incapable of rational thought, and only those with conservative libertarian viewpoints are capable of rational thought?

sjt, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice and good person, but stuff like this is why I give you zero credibility. You operate within the framework of circular logic and pure libertarian bias; first deciding that somebody is wrong because they're liberal and then navigating a path as to why that is and winding up with the conclusion that it's because they're liberal.
Click to expand...

Well said.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
Stewart also makes a good point that the only difference between FNC and your run of the mill conservative talk radio station is a fascia of non-bias and some TV cameras.
 
#22
#22
milohimself said:
That's all true. If I had to label myself, it would be more liberal than conservative, although there are a litany of things that I disagree with liberals on, but that's for another time and thread. The average liberal I talk to here in Portland holds a general belief that (though everybody is probably a nice individual) conservatives operate, function and think from a framework of fear and greed. "**** immigrants, homosexuals, government and taxes in all forms are inherently capable of only bad on everything" and so on. That is how liberals interpret the conservative viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Do you share this belief?

Can you see how condescending this view is?

I'm continually amused that the spectrum that considers itself the model of tolerance so easily fails to even attempt to understand conservative viewpoints and resorts to negative attributions for those viewpoints.
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
Do you share this belief?

Can you see how condescending this view is?

I'm continually amused that the spectrum that considers itself the model of tolerance so easily fails to even attempt to understand conservative viewpoints and resorts to negative attributions for those viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Ah yes . . . The standard "angry white male" explanation.
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
Do you share this belief?

Can you see how condescending this view is?

I'm continually amused that the spectrum that considers itself the model of tolerance so easily fails to even attempt to understand conservative viewpoints and resorts to negative attributions for those viewpoints.
Click to expand...

No way do I share this belief. Yes, it is condescending. Yes, it is an issue I take very seriously with those on the liberal side.

For the other side of that coin, one need only read a few of gs' and sjt's posts on here to see the way that liberals think all conservatives view them.

It's an equal mess on both sides, but you're one of the good ones bham. Most of the time you at least debate the points and understand the opposition by placing yourself in the other persons shoes or make a sincere effort to understand them, rather than aligning yourself with a particular ideologue and vehemently defending it from there. The latter is unfortunately much more common on either side.
 
#25
#25
milohimself said:
No way do I share this belief. Yes, it is condescending. Yes, it is an issue I take very seriously with those on the liberal side.

For the other side of that coin, one need only read a few of gs' and sjt's posts on here to see the way that liberals think all conservatives view them.

It's an equal mess on both sides, but you're one of the good ones bham. Most of the time you at least debate the points and understand the opposition by placing yourself in the other persons shoes or make a sincere effort to understand them, rather than aligning yourself with a particular ideologue and vehemently defending it from there. The latter is unfortunately much more common on either side.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree - I think it may be that the entrenched on both sides are very vocal but not a combined majority.

Thanks for the compliment.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top