Posts: 2,211
Threads: 39
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
0
Nice try, but that doesn't cut it. If you can justify Bush (like all politicians) isolating himself from dissenting viewpoints, by saying it has always been thus, then may I suggest that audiences have always chosen to watch comedians and commentators they agree with? And may I ask precisely how you think that the biases of their audiences invalidate what they have to say?
Can we talk about conservative comedians and their blindly biased studio audiences? What evidence do you have that Stewart's audience is "blindly biased?" You've interviewed them, I take it?
The real problem is the one Stewart pointed to on Crossfire -- the needless division into ideological camps and the use of ideology as a substitute for critical thinking. The result is increasingly shrill discourse, if you can call it discourse at all. In an ideological world, there's no need to examine what Jon Stewart said; we simply choose between a) I'm liberal, so he's a hero and his audience are all smart and good looking, and b) I'm conservative, so he's a doofus and his audience is blindly biased.
Crossfire functions in exactly this way. It assumes that every issue has to be addressed from an ideological rather than a rational standpoint. It also rests on journalism's favourite fallacy, the middle ground fallacy: gosh, since no-one agrees, the truth must be in the middle. This is bunk.
Regardless of ideology, an objective viewer would have to say that Stewart seriously embarrassed Crossfire in his appearance. Tucker Carlson tried to force Stewart into a liberal position which he could then attack, but Stewart refused to play on his terms, instead continuing to hammer at Crossfire as an example of the media's failings. Stewart called both hosts "partisan political hacks," agreeing with neither. You might disagree with Stewart calling Carlson "a dick," but the audience reaction tells the tale. The audience (which, need I remind you, was Crossfire's audience rather than Stewart's) broadly agreed with Stewart's condemnation of ideological arguments.
Incidentally, although Carlson criticized Stewart for being too gentle with Kerry, Stewart is also gentle with conservative guests. Last night, for example, he allowed Ed Koch to characterize himself as a moderate despite the fact that he writes a column for NewsMax.com, and he allowed Koch to complain that "only liberals boo" (when a few people in the audience booed his support of Bush), which is blatantly false. (Stewart might have pointed out that one of Bush's hand-picked audiences booed when Bush extended well-wishes to Clinton re his bypass surgery, for example.) This is a good thing, I think.
Okay, that's more time than this deserves....
Posts: 2,568
Threads: 80
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
Damn, some of you people are drama queens. You'd think, after reading some of your responses, that you've all been regulars in Maher / Stewart audiences.
I never blasted Stewart himself; I actually think he's pretty funny. I just took a shot at those who seem have such high praise for the politics of sensationalist TV entertainers who pander their acts to key demographics as dictated by ratings.
Posts: 875
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation:
0
SD, he was doing his job as a slanted columnist or whatever you want to call him. But the person at fault was the person who leaked it to him. Someone told him about it and he printed it.
Also, what did he do exactly that was illegal? Print her name? If so, please point me to the statute he specifically violated. I would like to read it. thanks...
Posts: 875
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation:
0
SD, yes I am aware of the whole Wilson sage, however my point that I stress over and over again is that the criminal in all this is the one WHO GAVE THE INFORMATION TO NOVAK. They are to blame for outing a covert agent.
As for it being illegal what Novak did, please point me to the exact clause from that 1776 document you sight which implicates Novak. I think you may be reading it incorrectly.
