Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 27, 2011 - 10:24pm PT
Within the world of comedic politi-pundits, Stewart is truly unique. His focus, both politically and comedically, has only sharpened as the years have gone by.
The Right will pigeonhole and excoriate him with the Maddow crowd, but this only underscores their ignorance- of late, Stewart has been every bit as critical of the current Democratic leadership as the Right, and has done it with faaaaaar more insight.
Props to Jon Stewart. There's no-one even close to him.
It's always great fun when O'Reilly visits. Those two have a great rapport, and though their ideology is diametrically opposed, there's an underlying mutual respect that makes it fun to watch.
on second thought after watching that interview again I'm less impressed. Jon asked some very pointed, honest, and specific questions and he danced around them. They were/are the same questions I have. They are answered poorly at best.
Real Journalism is so dead in this country that a comedian has done a better job uncovering hypocrisy and lies than virtually any real news outlet or "investigative journalism" (like 60 minutes used to be.
Have any of you seen a taping in person? I was kinda whatever about him until I had that experience. What they put on the screen is maybe a quarter of the show.
"Jon asked some very pointed, honest, and specific questions and he (M Daniels) danced around them. They were/are the same questions I have. They are answered poorly at best."
Agree. Daniels pretty much stuck to standard talking points, and when pressed by Stewart with a question that required more than the standard Repug Rhetoric, his answer was off-target and close to gibberish.
Still, I give Daniels great credit for being there in the first place- he's waaay ahead of other Repugs that way, who prefer to stay in the safety of their FauxNews echo chambers. Anytime someone ventures into a challenging spotlight, they oftentimes find themselves struggling (it has happened to Stewart, too). I still walked away wishing there were few more thoughtful Repubs out there like Daniels who were at the center of their Party these days.
Still, I give Daniels great credit for being there in the first place- he's waaay ahead of other Repugs that way, who prefer to stay in the safety of their FauxNews echo chambers. Anytime someone ventures into a challenging spotlight, they oftentimes find themselves struggling (it has happened to Stewart, too). I still walked away wishing there were few more thoughtful Repubs out there like Daniels who were at the center of their Party these days.
My belief is that guys like Daniels go on the show in order to demonstrate to the center and center/left that they are reasonable - as an attempt to win over some of the "swing vote." Problem for them is that Stewart often exposes them as being exactly the same as the rest of the Republicans.
Stewart revealed quite a bit about Daniels when he caught him using the "confiscation" word when describing taxes. Daniels may not be quite the independent thinker that he claims to be, and I think Stewart does us all a service by revealing this.
Some GREAT stuff from on the Daily Show... also gets a little stale at times, but what doesn't. Bugs the sh#t out of me when he doesn't finish sentences though... starts saying something, realizes he can't close the deal, then says "look..." and changes the subject. Seen him do it several times with the same "point."
Seems like when Stewart is on his game, Colbert is slacking a bit, and vice versa.
It is edited too fast for my liking. But ALL tellyvision is edited too fast for my liking. 'Swhy I don't watch the s h i t .
Saw the Ron Paul episode on YooTOob & felt Stewart talked too much and didn't let Paul speak enough. But it was EDITED that way :-)
Overall I agree there sure is something dead in the American media when the television talk-show comedians are THE show to be on for politicos.........
I like watching Stewart. Intelligent guy. He actually thinks about an issue before jumping to one side, unlike demagogues such as Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Madcow.
Those ratings are meaningless. Most watch his show the next day on the web.
Indeed. I watch his show the following day when it's on at 7 p.m.
Edit:
I have the same opinion of a couple of Fox hosts. They only survive on their guests.
But then they aren't trying to be funny as well.
Stewart actually touched on that issue once. His first approach is as a comedian, not as a journalist, though he manages to provide thought provoking stuff. Fox News, on the other hand, intends to provide info from a journalist's perspective but usually ends up providing comic material for folks like Stewart.
Saw him once. Smarmy, conceited and above all, not really funny.
This cracks me up! have you ever noticed how the best the righty tighties can cough up for humor is that nazi drag queen anne coulter? Sorry bub but you guys wouldn't know a good joke if it clamped its teeth on your testicles while visiting the outhouse
Year of the Cat is the seventh studio album by Al Stewart, released in 1976 and engineered by Alan Parsons; it is considered his masterpiece,[2] its sales helped by the hit single "Year of the Cat," "one of those 'mysterious woman' songs,"[3] co-written by Peter Wood. The other single from the album was "On the Border." Stewart wrote "Lord Grenville" about the Elizabethan sailor and explorer Sir Richard Grenville (1542–1591).[4]
The most amazing fact about this album is that Stewart had all of the music and orchestration written and completely recorded before he even had a title of any of the songs. He mentioned, in a Canadian radio interview, that he has done this for 6 of his albums, and he often writes 4 different sets of lyrics for each song.[5] The hit single Year of the Cat was originally going to be about a British comic who had committed suicide, but this was vetoed by his record company.
"This cracks me up! have you ever noticed how the best the righty tighties can cough up for humor is that nazi drag queen anne coulter? "--Bruce Kay
For the most part pretty on the money and true, however I would vote the funniest right winger:
From wiki:
Although in his early years of fame he was perceived to be quite liberal and anti-Republican, in recent years, Miller has become known for his right leaning political opinions. He is a regular political commentator on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor in a segment called "Miller Time", and previously appeared on the network's Hannity & Colmes in a segment called "Real Free Speech".
I worked some gigs in the Deep South ... Alabama ...You talk about Darwin's waiting room. There are guys in Alabama who are their own father.
A recent police study found that you’re much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run.
The average American’s day planner has fewer holes in it than Ray Charles’s dart board.
Born again Christians... I'm a little indignant when they tell me I'm going to hell if I haven't been born again. Pardon me for getting it right the first time.
But then he realized the good comedians had the left covered, so he turned to the right to fill the void of humor. Unfortunately he is doing a mediocre job at best and most of his acts are awkward attempts to fit his intended audience.
I enjoy Stewart's clever slams of Obama as much as any other politician... but you have to admit, the comic opportunity offered by the hypocrisy displayed by many Repugnikunts just can't be surpassed. Bush made it way too easy.
With Palin officially saying she won't be running he just lost a whole ton of comical material. He needs Trump to try and jump back in. The clowns currently bidding for the nomination are a joke but certainly don't bring to the table what Palin and Trump do.
“I’m not suggesting that their [the troops’] lives were in any way used casually. But they deserved the best strategic planning. They deserved the best in equipment. But mainly, they deserved the best in policy."
“I’m not suggesting that their [the troops’] lives were in any way used casually. But they deserved the best strategic planning. They deserved the best in equipment. But mainly, they deserved the best in policy. Policy should rise to the level of their ability. And so when it doesn’t, or when it’s done in a way that you think is corrupt, it really makes you mad.”
Edit: hah! I didn't see your post when I posted the above quote. But I'm going to leave mine anyway....
Just watched the recent episode with Diane Keaton...
In the third/final segment where the guest interview takes place, most of the time, Jon finishes the interview with a quip & a plug (for their movie, book, whatever), re-states the guest's name, then the applause goes up, Jon leans over to the guest feigning close conversation.
There's a certain number of guests who don't seem to know the protocol around wrapping up the interview. He'll do the quip/plug/restate, and the guest will stand up as though they've been excused to leave. He knows that this happens occasionally, and quickly reaches over to grab their arm to keep them there as the camera pans back.
Yeah, noticing that kind of detail is a sure sign of brain injury &/or lack of life. Still, it's funny to see...and it tends to happen with older guests, or with high-stature political guests who don't typically do such interviews.
Stewart and Colbert are huge threats to the MSM. I remember when Faux News tried to create their own version of The Daily Show/Colbert Report. It was called the "Half Hour News Hour." The first episode was hosted by Limbaugh and the Coultergeist. It was a total failure.
Jon Stewart is the biggest threat to Fox News’ future out there.
He is literally teaching his audience, which is bigger than FNC’s, how to see through the partisan propaganda that Rupert Murdoch has based his network on. Stewart is educating an entire generation of viewers on how to watch cable news, or more specifically how not to watch Fox News.
Unless Fox News can figure out a way to attract younger viewers, they are facing a future where their audience will eventually, literally die off. A 2010 survey found that the average age of the Fox News viewer is 65 years old. Fox has the oldest audience on all of cable. (FNC’s audience is older than The History Channel, The Hallmark Channel, and The Golf Channel).
Jon Stewart is on the non-prime time hour of 11 PM, yet he outdraws 2/3 of the Fox News prime time line up, and he has more viewers the entire FNC prime time and daytime lineups combined. Only Bill O’Reilly is preventing Stewart from being more popular than every single program on Fox News.
The proof is in the numbers, and the numbers don’t lie. Jon Stewart is more popular than Fox News.
It was pretty funny when Colbert got his audience to vote for him, by write in, to get part of the Space Station named after him. Hannity couldn't pull that off.
Dennis Miller as a stand up comic had the funniest rap I'd ever seen of any comic anywhere. Seriously laughed so hard, my stomach muscles were sore for several days afterwards, he had the whole audience on the floor. His radio show is OK, much better than Rush, O'reilly or Hannity.
Colbert and Jon Stewart are both awesome, but I noticed that when Bush ended his term, Stewarts comedy dropped off significantly. Some of it wasn't even funny. Its been coming back strong lately.
"...but I noticed that when Bush ended his term, Stewarts comedy dropped off significantly..."
Yeah, I noticed that, too. Same thing happened when Trump said he was out.
Perhaps the reason his comedy has been better of late is because of the endless plates of idiocy that has been handed to him by the GOP POTUS campaign? Lawdyknows there's been plenty of material there to work with...
Funny man... he bought my parents house in red bank, nj. (the grey victorian on the left). my bedroom was on the 3rd floor in the center, facing the river. This was kind of a labor camp for me and my brother though, lol.
Loved his recent analysis of the CIA surveillance drone 'veering' off course and crashing in Iran... including the fact it was all caused by CIA cat Agent Nutmeg jumping up on the remote control at the wrong time.
Damned cats!!!! ... but whatta ya gonna do? they're so cute
Lessig posits a view and strategy that is hard to argue with. That said, I'd be quite interested in the views of any reasonably articulate ST Repub on Lessig's position. (You out there, JE?)
if only faux news added a segment each time they told something that wasn't true. though the difference is Jon didn't know it at the time while faux knows they are shoveling you lies in five gallon buckets.
Word is that there's a small contingent (hopefully growing) of Repub Pledge Signers that are realizing just how stoooopid they were to sign on with this partisan, simpleminded hack. One can only hope (but don't hold your breath).
1st segment - Mit Romney's "outstanding" endorsements
2nd segment - Mexican-American studies in Arizona
3rd segment (extended) - President Mohamed Nasheed talks climate and democracy.
3rd segment from the look on Jon's face when he introduce his guest that it was going to be serious and seriously good. Jon was noticeably moved by Mr. Nasheed.
What really makes you scratch your head about that Norquist interview is how shallow his rationale is, and how much difficulty he has in defending it. Why there are so many Repugs who signed on to it, and how they weren't able to see how such a ridiculous pledge would only box them into a corner, is a clear reflection on the level of aptitude that pervades that party these days.
The guy who argued Bush v Gore in front of the SCOTUS, and against the recent strip search law. He's obviously quite sharp and astute...I'd love to hear more of his views on the SCOTUS.
With the clear trend of conservative-aligned rulings in the last 10 years or so, I've pretty much concluded that the SCOTUS really is primarily a political tool of the right wing. When Goldstein is asked his opinion on this, for all of his own ideologic views, he said he does not believe that this is the case. I actually believed him...for a moment, it restored a bit of faith in our governing system.
Barton has been a regular guest- I give Stewart credit for engaging him in a challenging yet respectful manner (in the context of a comedi-pundit). Still, it's Barton's circular, dizzying, twisted take on the presence of religion in our political and social system that makes me want to wring his scrawny neck.
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2012 - 10:23pm PT
Stewart's interview with Colin Powell doesn't cover any particularly new ground, but it is kinda fun, and has some interesting recollections of Reagan....
If you can stand it, this is a great discussion of the investment/banking system vs. those who are actually investing in it....
I thought it was highly interesting and well done interview-that was good viewing... I actually listened to the whole thing. Also meant to see if there were any comments in this thread about it, glad to see it Apogee...
A very spirited, intelligent, respectful discussion from both sides of the spectrum. The Right's position still mystifies me, but I found myself willing to listen when it was presented by Rubio.
It's sooooo hard to find discussions like this in today's media politics.
Have to say these last two nights Stewart has been at his best, with an insightful and devastating wit; he is the enemy of hypocrisy. How he puts it together night after night is really amazing. Poor Fox news!
This got me thinking a little, and likely going OT to the point the thread should be forked. (How do you do that here ;-) )
There is "straight" political discussion. Then there is what you can expose by being wholly or partially satirical. Then there is what you can get away with discussing about politics by wrapping it up in science fiction.
Letting the ball roll here and seeing where it goes...
Chaz, you're wrong on what Viacom pulled from DirectTV. They also pulled Spike, a bunch of kid's channel's and a few others, at least they did on the service I get. There goes a couple of channels I like watching. That doesn't leave a lot left that I find interesting enough to tune in on.
Turns out my guess was correct. A guess based on zero research.
Viacom - Stewart and Colbert's outfit - are indeed asking for more money. They feel they have DirecTV over a barrel, and they want to leverage the situation into more money for themselves.
I hope DirecTV sticks to their guns, because I don't want to see my satelite bill go up in order to keep a bunch of sh#t I don't even watch.
Chaz, it's kind of common to post a link to whatever new information one is introducing to an on-going conversation that is germane to the basic arguement.
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 14, 2012 - 09:51am PT
"Viacom - Stewart and Colbert's outfit - are indeed asking for more money. "
In Chaz's mind, Viacom = Stewart/Colbert, & Stewart/Colbert = Viacom, as though this dispute was created specifically by S/C for the sole purpose of making more $ for S/C.
a) You'd probably be on the opposite side of such a view if it was Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.
b) You'd probably laud them for making $ in the old fashioned capitalism way
You mean like if Fox went off the air because they wanted more money from DTV?
Yeah, I'd say the same thing. Hannity, O'Riley, and Beck's outfit are holding out for more money.
There's going to be an agreement. Too much money working for there not to be. My guess ( guessing again ) is you'll be watching Stewart at his normal time Monday.
If a 30% increase = $1,000,000,000 , then DirecTV is already paying Viacom a few billion for their programming right now. Viacom's gotta have an outlet for their stuff, and DirecTV is the biggest game in town.
A few years ago, OLN - or VS, or whatever they called themselves then - tried the same stunt shortly before the Tour De France. I don't remember how it was settled then, but the mechanics were the same; Programmer wanted more money.
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2012 - 10:02am PT
Chaz, if this was about Hannity or Limbaugh (or similar) & their distribution company, you'd be on the other side of the argument. Your view on this matter is ideologically-driven.
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 20, 2012 - 11:33pm PT
One of my favorite news segments is on Fridays on NPR...a Left/Right view of politics with EJ Dionne (left) and David Brooks (right). Much as I appreciate the respectful back & forth that goes on between these two, it sometimes doesn't feed my need for 'red meat' politics.
EJ Dionne clearly is a lefty, and nicely eloquent, but is sometimes too 'soft' for my preferences- I've never seen him in person until tonight, which reinforces this soft-left view in an Alan Alda-kinda way.
This said, Dionne has a historical sense that is uncommon amongst the reactionary left, and an ability to rationally state his position in a way that is engaging, and unusual amongst the 'red meat' hyperbole of MSNBC. He is worth a listen.
Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly are taking their status as BFFs — best frenemies forever — to the next level early next month when they square off in a 90-minute, pay per-view event in the nation's capital.
Dubbed "The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium," the face-to-face meeting Oct. 6 will be moderated by CNN anchor E.D. Hill and will be modeled after a mock presidential debate: 60 minutes of conversation between the host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and Fox's top-rated "The O'Reilly Factor," then 30 minutes of audience questions.
The trash-talking between the pundits, who sparred frequently and appeared on each other's program, has already begun.
"I told him we'll pick up all the hair mousse he needs," O'Reilly said in a telephone interview. "There's not an area on earth where I'm not stronger or more compelling than him."
Asked what area might prove to be O'Reilly's biggest weakness, Stewart replied, "Obviously, I think the biggest vulnerability will be his thoughts and ideas — the things he thinks in his brain."
The curious can watch the live-streamed debate for $4.95. "We kept [the price] low. We wanted everybody to get in the tent," said O'Reilly.
So far, interest appears high: Tickets to the live show at George Washington University's Lisner Auditorium, which seats about 1,500, sold out almost as soon as they went on sale Tuesday, despite costing $100 a pop.
O'Reilly and Stewart say their goal is not to enlighten or edify but merely to entertain — and raise money for charity in the process. Half of the net proceeds from "The Rumble" will go to a number of causes selected by Stewart and O'Reilly.
cool. do watch the whole thing. I'm just in awe at how Bill is approaching this. The mayor of Bullshit Mountain will not step off the stinking pile. f'ing crazy...
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2012 - 11:01pm PT
Just finished watching the smackdown...
The first hour was entertaining, but less than enlightening- they were both pretty much in their 'schpiel & schtick' mode, which I've seen plenty of in the past. It's fun, but didn't really step outside of their usual stuff.
The last half hour was much more engaging (the 'audience questions' portion)...they were more relaxed and genuine in their dialogue, and though they are clearly ideologically opposed, there was a level of respect for each others commentary that is so absent from today's political discourse.
I'm with Stewart about 96% of the time, but there were several points in the last half hour where I found O'Reilly to be spot-on. (It gave me the creeps.) In particular, at 1:07, and at 1:27.
Let us know!