"He insists their real news is fake, they insist his fake news is real"

|

Tucker Carlson, newly installed at the Cato Institute, is attacking his old adversary Jon Stewart in The Daily Beast. And doing quite a good job of it too:

The relationship between Stewart and the media is a marriage of the self-loathing and the self-loving: He insists their real news is fake, they insist his fake news is real. He doesn't take them seriously at all. They take him way too seriously. But nobody takes anybody as seriously as Jon Stewart takes himself.

A serious man needs a serious mission, however, and this is suddenly a problem. With Bush gone and the Republican Party in chaos, most of Stewart's targets have disappeared. Yet rather than pivot with the times and challenge those now in power, Stewart continues to attack the same old enemies, at this point mostly straw men and pipsqueaks. A couple of weeks ago, he spent an entire seven minutes mocking the crowd at a CPAC conference.

His studio audience loved it, though that isn't saying much. Stewart's audience would erupt if he read the phone book, or did his monologue in German, a response that over time is a threat to any man's soul. During many segments, Stewart's audience doesn't laugh so much as cheer, a distinction that would bother most comedians. Stewart keeps them around anyway. Uncritical praise corrupts absolutely.

Perhaps the anti-Stewart backlash has finally commenced when even Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen is attacking the Daily Show's fake crusader journalism:

But the role that Cramer and other financial journalists played [in the crwas incidental. There was not much they could do, anyway. They do not have subpoena power. They cannot barge into AIG and demand to see the books, and even if they could, they would not have known what they were looking at. The financial instruments that Wall Street firms were both peddling and buying are the functional equivalent of particle physics. To this day, no one knows their true worth.

It does not take cable TV to make a bubble. CNBC played no role in the Tulip Bubble that peaked, as I recall, in 1637, or in the Great Depression of 1929-41. It is the zeitgeist that does this–the psychological version of inertia: the belief that what's happening will continue to happen.

I wrote critically of Stewart here and offered a qualified defense of Cramer here. Carlson's appearance on the Reason.tv Talk Show is here.

NEXT: An Enemy Combatant by Any Other Name...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Jon Stewart has always been an unfunny moralizing hack. Yo, fuck that guy.

  2. It’s Cramer with a “C” in the last para…

  3. These anti-Stewart protests reek of someone who really isn’t paying attention. Stewart’s show is intentionally a mix of humor and holding feet to the fire; it very rarely misfires, and when it does, Stewart has always been willing to take his lumps.

    People who actually watch the show and are aware of current events as told by the media at the same time, would never make the mistake(s) made in the above article — we’re quite familiar with Stewart’s blend of humor and fact-slinging, and we’re *also* quite familiar with the false face most of the media, politicians, and entertainment clowns like Cramer put on for the drooling masses that watch the wasteland that is most broadcast television.

    Cramer’s offense wasn’t failing to stop a bubble or getting someone prosecuted; it was promoting harmful (and certainly unethical) practices and pushing bad information to his audience when he knew better. Which you would know if you simply watched the Daily Show where Stewart faced down Cramer.

    But you’re a journalist, and guess what? We know you wouldn’t go so far as to actually research the matter before you wrote about it. You know why we know that, right? Because John Stewart has taken the time to expose the fact that what stands in for journalism these days is rather pitiful.

    So go ahead; ping the man. You can never make it stick, because he’s one hell of a lot more honest and a good deal smarter than the average journalist. Like you, for instance.

  4. It does not take cable TV to make a bubble.

    Broadly speaking, TV follows the culture/zeitgeist, it doesn’t lead. Stock pumping shows are creations of a bubble mentality; although they may help to reinforce it, they do not create it.

    Anyone who says the CNBCs of the world created the bubble/collapse is either (a) an unmitigated fool or (b) trying to distract you from the real culprits. In Stewart’s case, I’m going with (a).

  5. Woah, Richard Cohen and Tucker Carlson. Some real intellectual heavyweights, and a lot of integrity too.

    How dare Stewart make fun of CNBC. Everyone knows that real capitalism works best if no one asks any questions about anything.

  6. Jon Stewart is unfunny
    Michael Moore is fat
    Rush Limbaugh is a pill popping thrice married hypocrite.

    The real question is.. are they right.

    “In Cramer we trust” really

    Even King of the Hill was making fun of Cramer & his predictions, a monkey in coma with a two headed coin could have made better market predictions.

  7. Anyone who says the CNBCs of the world created the bubble/collapse is either (a) an unmitigated fool or (b) trying to distract you from the real culprits. In Stewart’s case, I’m going with (a).

    In what categories would you divide those who are mad at Stewart for pointing out CNBC is crap?

    I don’t think at any point Stewart has ever said CNBC “created” the problem. The man you are attacking is made of straw. The Daily Show is about making fun of the media. CNBC is worth making fun of.

  8. What’s Craig Kilborn’s position on this?

  9. I get the feeling Michael C. Moynihan is backing the wrong horse.

    But the role that Cramer and other financial journalists played [in the crwas incidental. There was not much they could do, anyway.

    You mean they couldn’t do some legwork? Get some sources inside the companies? Do some market research? I guess not. Instead they took everyone at their word. They were lied to. Oh noes!

  10. Superficial and self-important snark is very thin gruel that gets old almost immediately.

    Adolescents comprise Stewart’s audience for good reason: It’s insubstantial frat boy humor.

  11. Uh, he has called out the administration on quite a few things. The “supposed” change of policy in Iraq and how it was almost verbatim Bush’s policy.

    Also the critique wasn’t that CNBC caused the bubble, but that it acted as fanboys rather than doing some investigative journalism. You could say the same about CNN, Fox or MSNBC and their respective sides. However, unlike partisan news networks, there isn’t an opposing side to dig up the dirt on the opposition (like say Fox and MSNBC). Maybe we need a gold bug financial network on why the economy is teetering on the brink as a counterweight to CNBC.

    But the role that Cramer and other financial journalists played [in the crwas incidental. There was not much they could do, anyway. They do not have subpoena power. They cannot barge into AIG and demand to see the books, and even if they could, they would not have known what they were looking at.

    By this standard, it’s a miracle that Watergate, Travelgate and Abu Ghraib ever saw the light of day. Journalists are doomed to only knowing what their targets tell them and publish press releases on.

  12. I think Stewart thinks both he and Cramer deserve more credit than they do. That is a good indication that he’s really not that in tune to the concept of making fun of self-important media figures.

  13. Ben, are you serious? When I quiz Daily Show viewers on current events, they look at me like I’m talking Swahili.

  14. I had no idea what John Stewart’s politics were (or even that he HAD politics) back when he replaced Craig Kilborn. All I remember thinking is “they’re replacing Craig Kilborn with that hack that used to have that MTV talk show?”

    But I shall not mourn the death of the old Daily Show anymore, for I now have Joel McHale and The Soup.

  15. The instinct of certain Reason writers to defend CNBC here is puzzling. Of course CNBC has a right to give terrible advice and not do any reporting. Similarly, the Daily Show has a right to tear them a new asshole. So what’s the problem? Is getting mad at Stewart just part of an instinct to defend the status quo? Anti-populism? Or is it simply because Stewart is on the wrong “team” in the great left-right football game that pays certain people’s bills.

  16. I don’t think at any point Stewart has ever said CNBC “created” the problem.

    Agreed. In fact Stewart made sure to make that clear. His beef with CNBC was their gullible and often sycophantic behavior when interviewing finance CEOs.

    Glenn Greenwald pretty much destroys the argument than CNBC jornos were helpless and that “there was nothing they could do.”

    Greenwald on Stewart v. Cramer

    By this standard, it’s a miracle that Watergate, Travelgate and Abu Ghraib ever saw the light of day. Journalists are doomed to only knowing what their targets tell them and publish press releases on.

    Bingo.

  17. “So go ahead; ping the man. You can never make it stick, because he’s one hell of a lot more honest and a good deal smarter than the average journalist. Like you, for instance.”

    The very same Stewart who doesn’t think a TV show titled, “Mad Money” is labeled as snakeoil. Stewart may decide to ignore the fact that the show’s title implies you’d have to be insane to watch it, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t properly labeled.

    Maybe Stewart will have on the producers of “Flip This House”. After all, this mess started in the housing sector, not stocks.

  18. CNBC deserves to be ridiculed for a lot of reasons. Owned by GE, majorly sponsored by AIG, they pimped as hard as you can possibly pimp for the Bush phase of the bailout.

    Unfortunately, Stewart is ridiculing Cramer for saying Obamas bailouts are ruinging the country and our financial system. When Cramer was merely pumping and dumping and engaged in permabull silliness Stewart was silent.When Cramer started seeing how detrimental this is getting to the fundamentals of the economy…Stewart was there to attack.

  19. I second the above comments that the media suck and that Stewart wasn’t saying that CNBC “created” the bubble. Let’s face it, the media big shots get paid a lot of money, but generally do a pretty piss-poor job of informing the public, or even of understanding what they’re talking about. Whether or not you think that Stewart is funny (I like him, but of course he’s hit-and-miss), I don’t see any problem with him taking the media to task for their superficiality, ignorance and arrogance. Some one has to do so, and I don’t see anyone else stepping up to the plate.

  20. “Stewart, the comedy media critic, says he shouldn’t be taken seriously-until it’s time to get serious.”

    Yeah, sorry. I don’t buy it.

    This is simply the old argument: “Well, if you don’t like the way I’m doing things, then why don’t YOU do my job.”

    A pretty lame excuse. We need critics. And Stewart’s admittedly simple formula of using a fake news show to discuss real issues as a parody of real news shows that discuss fake issues (and in so doing demonstrating that “fake” and “real” are fairly arbitrary) is pretty effective.

    I have no problem with Stewart.

  21. James,

    They score better on general knowledge than any other show’s regular viewers. Other notable show’s regular viewers Lehrer, NPR, O’Rielly and Limbaugh’s are very knowledgeable; news blogs, and local news viewers not so much.

  22. He insists their real news is fake, they insist his fake news is real.

    Stewart likes to have it both ways, but there’s nothing less funny than a serious comedian. Eventually they become tiresome, bitter moralizers. The Daily Show still has its funny segments, but Stewart himself is walking a thin line. One senses a certain restlessness. He’s a bright guy and he wants us to take him seriously, but his loyal audience just wants cheap yuks.

  23. Even King of the Hill was making fun of Cramer & his predictions, a monkey in coma with a two headed coin could have made better market predictions.

    To be fair, he did save me a lot of money when he moved the Bluth Corporation from “sell” to “don’t buy”.

    As for Carlson, he comes off as a petty little bitch who’s still upset that Stewart killed his show. As for Stewart’s targets drying up, sure, he targeted the Bush administration, but the Daily Show has always been more about making fun of the media. From what I gather, they’re still around.

  24. Stewart is a hack….he could easily make fun of Obama yet chooses not to simply because he likes Obama’s politics.

  25. Go ahead and beat up on Stewart all you want. He deserves all the cheap shots and ad hominem attacks you can pile on him.

    But I won’t abide a loving word for that fuck-wit Cramer.

  26. Maybe Stewart will have on the producers of “Flip This House”. After all, this mess started in the housing sector, not stocks.

    When I watched the clip of him and Cramer I was thinking very close to the same thing.

  27. “Stewart is a hack….he could easily make fun of Obama yet chooses not to simply because he likes Obama’s politics.”

    By that standard, Reason is hack haven–right-wing confirmation bias pretending to be journalism. So go fuck yourself, Josh.

  28. Pro Libertate | March 18, 2009, 1:18pm | #

    What’s Craig Kilborn’s position on this?

    Until just before the end he performed without a studio audience.
    How funny would TDS be without the laugh track?

  29. Having Cramer on your show to seriously discuss the shortcomings of the financial reporting media is like having on the manager of the local Wal-mart to rail on the retail chain’s business ethics.

  30. Stewart likes to have it both ways, but there’s nothing less funny than a serious comedian.

    See, I don’t get this opinion.

    To me, there is nothing wrong with having it both ways, and there is nothing funnier than a serious comedian.

    Chris Rock’s “I love black people but I hate niggers” sketch is both hilarious and devastating in it serious intent. What’s the problem?

    Ironically, some comments here rail against Stewart and his audience for just producing “cheap yuks”, and some comments rail against him for trying to be too serious. Talk about trying to have it both ways . . .

  31. I agree with joe on this one. But I refuse to quote him.

  32. So go ahead; ping the man. You can never make it stick …

    Stewart is a d-bag. I lost any respect for him when he pissed about crossfire and hid behind “I’m different, I’m a comedian”. So his shtick is punditry – and comedy. Instead of punditry and whatever else the losers at crossfire were slinging. Fuck him.

  33. And I should add that Colbert makes him look like carrot top.

  34. I’m loving these defenders of Stewart. Cramer is a gold-plated asshole, but Stewart is about as deep as a wading pool and about as funny as when a baby drowns in one. The few laughs his show earns certainly don’t come from him, and the best thing that ever happened to him now follows directly after him making him look even weaker.

    His audience is a bunch of screaming retards who would cheer if he defecated on stage and threw it at them, which I would actually love to see.

    It’s really annoying when partisan hacks just keep telling you they’re not partisan hacks even when it’s SO FUCKING OBVIOUS.

  35. Ben,

    I disagree on a couple of your points.

    First, Stewart conflated Cramer’s old TV appearance (where he talked about unethical practices) with his current show (where he gave poor advice). Stewart did not catch Cramer out on knowingly pushing bad information in the recent past. Stewart at no point debunked Cramer’s claim that CEOs had lied to him, or that he was caught up in the same bubblemania that snared everyone else.

    Second, Stewart carefully chooses whose journalism he exposes as pitiful. For example: his fawning interviews with David Gregory. Sure, Stewart asked Gregory, “Did you ask Bush tough questions?” But after Gregory says, “Yup,” there’s no follow up. Transcripts for Gregory’s spineless encounters with Bush are easy to find, yet you’d never know by watching the Daily Show. Stewart exhibits a wonderful double standard in wanting CNBC personalities to confront CEOs, but excusing White House correspondents from confronting politicians.

    Finally, Cramer is not a journalist. Stewart treated him like the spokesperson for CNBC, and asked him to answer for decisions that he had no part in making. It was a shallow, petty and intellectually dishonest move.

    Other than that, I frequently find Stewart amusing.

  36. More resentment from Moynihan, which seems to be his prime motivator. Not to mention Carlson. Here we have our own tiresome, bitter moralizers, without the yuks.

    Say what you want about Stewart, that he is one of the few media folk holding people to their word is to his credit. Whining about fairness or funniness or his audience is neither here nor there.

  37. Mo, apparently general knowledge doesn’t mean you aren’t stupid enough to believe we’re better off with the government running everything.

  38. I haven’t seen the Daily Show in 5 years, probably, so I may have missed something.

    But I think Stewart is funny and the show is (was ) good.

    The fact that he has people worked up enough to hate on him like this demonstrates that he has pulled a good one on a lot of folks.

    He is an entertainer. I don’t give a fuck what my entertainers really believe in or how seriously they take themselves. The best joke is how seriously someone like Stewart gets other people to take him.

  39. I’m with Episiarch on this one.

  40. there is nothing funnier than a serious comedian

    Like Saint George Carlin in his waning years?

    Watch the clip with Cramer again. The audience, most of the time, was painfully silent (when they weren’t cheering, Pavlovian-style).

  41. I really cannot see how any criticism of Stewart can be taken seriously. MM acts like Stewart is Rush Limbaugh or something.

  42. Tucker Carlson, isn’t he the guy who got pwn’d by Stewart in 2004 or so? I guess he’s healed his ego enough to come out of hiding and try again. But you know the definition of insanity, trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

    Poor Carlson, already a bitter, bitter man who never recovered from the beating he took from Stewart.

  43. So… dude attacks mainstream media talking heads, mainstream media talking heads attack back. Where’s the story, again?

  44. I usually watch both “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” The segment with Jim Cramer on the Daily Show was one of the most cringe-inducing segments I’ve ever seen on TV, but not because Jim Cramer came in and acted as though he had been paid to take a dive.

    It was cringe-inducing because Jon Stewart dropped the “I’m just a comedian” pretense that he hides behind whenever someone calls him out for acting like he’s a “real news source.”

    I mean, who seriously takes the financial advice of a guy who has a big desk of sound effects to go with his market prognostications?!? Cramer’s show is as much entertainment packaged as financial news as Stewart’s show is comedy packaged as serious news – both have audiences made up of people who are smart enough to know better.

  45. The critics of Stewart appear to have never watched him. Practically his entire shtick is making fun of the mainstream media.

    He’s not playing the Shakespearean fool (the only one who speaks truth to power) because he wants to. He likes to point out how absurd it is that nobody in the news business does exactly that, since it’s supposed to be their job.

  46. “Stewart is a hack….he could easily make fun of Obama yet chooses not to simply because he likes Obama’s politics.”

    I watch his show every night.

    He makes fun of Obama every night.

    Something tells me you rarely watch the show.

  47. One of the problems with politics, news networks, journalism, etc. are the obvious footprints of predisposition and lack of objective stances. When most people are confronted with new information they first look for a way to warp it to fit their existing ideology, instead of processing it objectively. If that doesn’t work, they attempt to dismiss it’s validity. Most journalism, left wing or right wing, seems to reek of this thoughtless desire to simply warp or dismiss. This article is an example. I can tell you, the accusation that Jon Stewart hasn’t been giving the Obama administration it’s medicine on his show is false. I’ve caught several news bits that were critical of the administration, such as the side-by-side comparisons on both Bush’s and Obama’s exit strategies. Perhaps you won’t get nightly coverage of the administration like you did with Bush, but there’s more ways to interpret that trend than just a predisposed notion that “it’s what the other side would do to manipulate us”.

  48. But he’s not bitter or anything. Maybe he just had some flashbacks to Crossfire getting owned.


  49. I mean, who seriously takes the financial advice of a guy who has a big desk of sound effects to go with his market prognostications?!?

    Apparently a lot of folks. For a bit I would follow the stock he pushed to see where they went. Invariably there wold be a bump after the endorsement. I sold rex energy a week after his endorsement and made out. Suckers.

  50. It’s really annoying when partisan hacks just keep telling you they’re not partisan hacks even when it’s SO FUCKING OBVIOUS.

    What’s even more annoying is the false equivalence implied by this. Maybe Stewart makes fun of Republicans more because they deserve it more? Trust me, he hits Obama and Democrats plenty.

    Not that he hasn’t made it quite clear that he’s a liberal, as is his New York audience. As if that were a crime or something.

  51. pigwiggle,

    So what you’re telling me, is that you’re one of the few guys out there who made gazillions by short-selling? (Insert sound of one hand clapping.)

    Apparently just as there are accurate parallels between the format of Stewart’s show and Cramer’s show, there are parallel’s between Cramer’s show and the “Colbert bump” – uncanny!

  52. He makes fun of Obama every night.

    I did not know this because I rarely get to see his show.

    Stewart should be hanged and MM was too easy on him. Quit pulling punches!

  53. I get the feeling Michael C. Moynihan is backing the wrong horse.

    I get the feeling Moynihan is punching big holes in a strawman. Perhaps he can’t afford one of those blowup dolls.

    ….he could easily make fun of Obama yet chooses not to simply because he likes Obama’s politics.

    Stewart’s warming up to the task. He hammered on Obama the other night.

    …but there’s nothing less funny than a serious comedian.
    Yeah, cause nobody loved Mark Twain either. You never even hear about the guy any more.

    It’s really annoying when partisan hacks just keep telling you they’re not partisan hacks…

    Episiarch, project much?

  54. Tony, whoever is behind you, you need to kick it up a notch if you are going to be a good sockpuppet. You’re actually a little too close to real. Neil is the gold standard. Study him, and learn.

  55. Yea, what Epi said @2:05pm!

  56. Me-ow! Lil’ Tucker’s a bit jealous? Feeling a bit left out ever since his stint on Dancing With the Stars didn’t prove the career-boost he’d hoped?

    These dudes all think way too much about their hair to be taken seriously by anyone, ever.

  57. It would be nice if someone gave Jon Stewart the Harvey Pekar treatment.

  58. Why is Reason even bothering to cover this? Aren’t there more pressing things to bloviate about than a frickin’ comedian?

    Have noticed that this site has gone downhill big time in the last few months.

    Only a few of the writers here, most notably Balko, practice anything close to journalism.

  59. “Michael Moynihan | October 17, 2007, 4:59pm | #

    Rimfax,
    The point is that many, many mainstream pundits take Stewart seriously. Just poke around Nexis a bit. Hell, just look at the reaction to his Crossfire appearance, or his inclusion in Kurtz’s new book. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.”

    lol, when you wish apon a star…… mm’s been picking at this for a while. I like the cheapshots at the in studio audience, like that means something. Oh, why won’t people stop watching Stewart, they should know better!

  60. Episiarch, project much?

    joe! You changed your handle!

  61. Perhaps Stewart could intern at Reason or The Nation and learn a few things?

  62. Why is Reason even bothering to cover this?

    Drink! There’s got to be some leftover green beer around here somewhere…

  63. Hey Tucker–You do realize that since we all know you have zero credibility because of your previous encounter you had with stewart. So you mention Cohen’s rebuttal as someone else who gets it?

    You do realize Cohen absolutely slammed Stephen Colbert for his WHCD speech in 2006?

  64. There’s got to be some leftover green beer around here somewhere…

    The government makes organic beer turn green to support Big Chemical.

  65. I would not say that he makes fun of Obama. He has yet to do an impersonation that I’ve seen, yet in the Bush era you could see it every night. He has lightly mentioned all the tax problems of the cabinet folks, but he has taken it pretty easy. Not like Stephen Colbert, though. Again I say that guy is disgraceful.

    Stewart is funny, but like Colbert, he better find some balance. And the studio audience? It’s New York City – finding lefty sheeple is like shooting fish in a bucket.

  66. You know, I think that is joe. He’s still a believer. Huh.

  67. joe! You changed your handle!

    Couldn’t be joe. The tags were all correct.

  68. It’s New York City – finding lefty sheeple reasonable and enlightened people is like shooting fish in a bucket.

    I thought it would be easier than that. I saw this fish shooting gun freak thing on Myth Busters once. Did not seem easy.

  69. When Cramer was merely pumping and dumping and engaged in permabull silliness

    No dog in this fight, and Cramer certainly has a case of bullitis, but lets not forget that he was telling people last year to pull back and not put anything in the market they were going to need in the next 5 years.

  70. Stewart is an entertaining guy. Kind of suspected he wouldn’t be as entertaining after the Democrats won, and I was right. Though nailing Cramer had its moments.

  71. finding lefty sheeple reasonable and enlightened people is like shooting fish in a bucket.

    Why would that matter? Stweart and Colbert don’t want reasonable or enlightened people on their show. Doy!

  72. Drink! There’s got to be some leftover green beer around here somewhere…

    Dagny, Dagny, Dagny…Had thought much better of you. Really.

  73. he better find some balance

    Because making sure you mock and ridicule people equally based on political persuasion is more important than mocking and ridiculing people who deserve it regardless of persuasion?

  74. Not to mention Stewart’s audience is obviously quite young–meaning overwhelmingly liberal. For Stewart to play this ridiculous game of pretending both sides are equally worthy of ridicule would destroy his credibility in the eyes of his audience.

  75. How many times can we sign up for that Kindle 2 reader?

    The name sounds sort of Bradburyian, creepy.

  76. Epi –
    I think Tony is real

  77. So what you’re telling me, is that you’re one of the few guys out there who made gazillions by short-selling? (Insert sound of one hand clapping.)

    No. I owned rex before the endorsement. I don’t think short selling would have worked very well given the marginal and short term rise. To really short sell I think you need a stock on the precipice. Anyway, you can lose quite a bit shorting. I’m not so adventurous.

  78. Not to mention Stewart’s audience is obviously quite young–meaning overwhelmingly liberal. For Stewart to play this ridiculous game of pretending both sides are equally worthy of ridicule would destroy his credibility in the eyes of his audience.

    No wonder he is attacking Obama. He is a white bigot with a New York version of Jerry Springer’s audience.

  79. Because making sure you mock and ridicule people equally based on political persuasion is more important than mocking and ridiculing people who deserve it regardless of persuasion?

    Because there are a whole bunch of people who deserve it (the ones now running the show) who are being treated with kid gloves. Minor jabs here and there, but not much else.

  80. “Wrong thinking is punished, right thinking is just as swiftly rewarded.”

  81. Dagny, Dagny, Dagny…Had thought much better of you. Really.

    Finding excuses to drink in the middle of the day is no longer acceptable around here? I figured I’d get bonus points, it being only 11:30 AM here on the West Coast.

  82. Because there are a whole bunch of people who deserve it (the ones now running the show) who are being treated with kid gloves. Minor jabs here and there, but not much else.

    When Obama does even 1/10th of the damage to this country as his predecessor you might have 1/10th of a point.

  83. “Drink! There’s got to be some leftover green beer around here somewhere…”

    Ah yes. The pukin’ of the green.

  84. Cohen’s piece was terrible. Summary: “CNBC does not have subpoena power so all they can ever really do is be an uncritical stenographer of the zeitgeist.” Lame. Boring. Worst of all: utterly fatalistic.

  85. Finding excuses to drink in the middle of the day is no longer acceptable around here? I figured I’d get bonus points, it being only 11:30 AM here on the West Coast.

    Well, when you put it that way, you have a point. Cheers.

  86. Obama’s not the only one running the show, Toby. And I already have plans for lunch, so you can keep that red herring for yourself.

  87. I have never heard of this Jon Daily fellow but he isn’t very funny. Maybe he should wear a bow tie?

  88. pigwiggle,
    You’ve really destroyed my suspicion that you actually ARE Jim Cramer… I think it’s all the sensible market-speak. Well, that and the lack of sound effects and pointless graphics.

    For everyone whining that Stewart hasn’t stuck to his “speak truth to power schtick” by schticking it to the current administration, just give it time. Obama hasn’t been in office two full months yet.

    Stewart is just giving Obama the standard “100 Day Honeymoon” that real news sources give a new president.

    Day 101 on through to the end of this particular presidency is going to be an interesting time for media coverage. Especially for all those news outlets who publicly flayed themselves for not being more “truthy to power” during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

  89. #TofuSushi | March 18, 2009, 2:26pm | #

    # How many times can we sign up for that
    # Kindle 2 reader?

    # The name sounds sort of Bradburyian, creepy.

    Forget the Kindle 2. I am saving my money for the Kindle 451F. “Bradburyian,” indeed.

  90. Cramer’s show was entertainment. They had no reason to be complicit in deceiving anyone. That just doesn’t make sense. The only interest they would have is in ratings and their own revenue however best they can generate it. And they probably used very superficial and sensationalistic reporting to achieve those goals which is essentially Stewart’s complaint that it is light superficial reporting for something that deserves more serious coverage. But what is Stewart doing then? This outrage at evil Wall Streeters is just the superficial and sensationalistic trend of today and a good way to increase your ratings. It ignores the deeper and more serious aspects of the economy that should be reported. Especially this outrage over cable TV, it is the most pointless and superficial story in the news today. Stewart is as guilty as Cramer.

  91. Finding excuses to drink in the middle of the day is no longer acceptable around here?

    Drink!

  92. John Stewart’s show is on Comedy Central. He is a comedian, a jester. He can and does anything he pleases, as long as people laugh.

    Now, it just happens that his work has higher journalistic integrity and moral values than 99% of the toxic sludge coming through the rest of the media outlets.

    This is probably because he can truly say whatever he wants, and he does. Seems like the rest of the media outlets are in the stronghold of corporate money and investigative journalism is a trend of the past.

    I have never seen a tv show host to back his words with actions as much as he does.

    And, his sense of improvisation and humor are beyond surreal. Awesome work.

  93. Tony – 1/10th of the damage?

    Well, let’s see… To date, $656.1 billion dollars have been allocated to the war in Iraq. Stimulus bill: $787 billion.

    The only thing left is to see which does more damage… Economically it could end up as a wash, though the human cost of the Iraq War will surely always be much higher. But surely that would be above your 1/10th level?

  94. Tony – Other than that one small (.1) nit-pick, though, on the whole I agree with you that “making sure you mock and ridicule people equally based on political persuasion” is neither the best way to get laughs nor the best way to “speak truth to power.”

    But beating up on Bush now that he’s just another suburban Dallas house-husband is going to run out of gas pretty soon… No matter how funny I think it is.

  95. The only people I know that watch Stewart’s show have low IQs.

    A stupid hack for stupid people.

  96. Yeah, Jon Stewart has no business acting like he can judge us and tell us what to do. As opposed to, for example, a dead writer of longwinded, implausible science fiction. Oh wait, do I mean Libertarians or Scientologists? Huh. I’m not really sure. What do you guys think? Perhaps we should have a debate here. There are 2 sides to every story! And we don’t decide. We report, but you decide!

    That’s what Stewart does, which is really valuable, he pulls down the pants of objective journalism. Here’s the left cheek, here’s the right cheek, we fart, you decide. But sometimes things really are real. And yeah, I know who else used to say that. But she also thought she was a prophet for knowing that 2 + 2 = 4.

    Know who really did it well? Hunter S. Thompson. He saw the scam of ‘objective journalism’ for what it was.

    It’s a craven, useless way to report. Authority is never questioned. Rather, it is only offset against other authoritative points of view. But never taken to task.

    And if Stewart is on a personal crusade to change things, why not let him? He’s not the worst preacher there’s ever been.

  97. Speaking of stupid people…

  98. It’s fucking hilarious to watch the people who attack Stewart on this board. The ones attacking him the most are the ones that watch him the least.

    He attacks the Dems just about EVERY night. He has gone after Obama, Biden, Geithner and many other Sens / Reps repeatedly.

    It’s stunning to see so much stupid on display from people like Moynihan, Cohen and Carlson.

    The point about him being a comedian isn’t to somehow shield himself from criticism — it’s to point out that he is doing a job (albeit in a comical way) that the fucking real media should be doing. Like not taking what politicians/CEOs/activists say at face value, or pointing out when they are being duplicitous or hypocritical or when they do an about face about something in record time.

    Oh and the reason why the audience was silent (as was I when I watched) the Cramer interview was because it was uncomfortable to watch Cramer get pounded so hard — I started to feel bad for him, and he seemed unprepared for a serious interview. And by the way Cramer AGREED with much of the criticism Stewart heaped on him and admitted the network could and SHOULD be doing a better job. Yet the Moynihans of the world want to pretend like CNBC is doing the best they can. Bullshit.

    The media (and many others who try and defend the corrupt banking industry) wants to pretend like “No one saw this coming” — more bullshit. Lot’s of people saw this coming — the problem is the GE/CNBC has a very low bear quota (for example watch Kudlow and company clips from the last 2 years and see the disdain with which bears — who were raising very valid points of wary– were treated) The only people who didn’t see this coming were the people who didn’t want to see this coming cuz then the part would have been over too soon.

    Cramer came off looking like a fucking oaf when he tried to play the “CEOs lie to me, what can I do?” card. CEOs LIED?!!?! Im shocked SHOCKED to hear that people aren’t always honest with the media. What’s the poor media to do when they get lied to?? It’s not like they should ever do any fact checking or investigating claims made. Their job is to simply report what’s been said to them regardless of the truthfulness of the statement.

    If the real media did HALF the fact checking and the holding politicians accountable (and their own media creatures who as of late have no sense of shame or scruples and who worship at the alter of access above all else) this whole country would be better off.

    Jon Stewart isn’t the problem. The problem is that the journalists don’t want to do journalism, they want (and admit) that what they do is stenography. The problem is that no but the comedians are holding people responsible for this very foreseeable mess.

    In straight media world You aren’t allowed to say “this person said X — but X is false.” That’s simply FUCKED UP.

  99. Cramer’s show was entertainment. They had no reason to be complicit in deceiving anyone.

    BULL SHIT

    CNBC promoted the show like Cramer is a fucking investment genius (their tag line “In these troubled times — In CRAMER we trust” elevates Cramer to a god-like status in the financial world. Sure he tried to make it entertaining, but the show was billed as a show that will make you a smarter investor.

  100. Stewart is as guilty as Cramer.

    Stewart doesn’t claim to be a trusted source… for anything! That he is more trustworthy than most of the MSM is the VERY UGLY FACT he makes fun of.

  101. trollumination is back! Awesome! Dude, that was a pretty good rant but I don’t know if anything could ever equal the Ayn Rand one.

  102. Celebrity Death Match:

    Jon Stewart vs. Bill Maher

    sure to be a doozy

  103. “In CRAMER we trust” elevates Cramer to a god-like status in the financial world.”

    No, just it the TV watcher world. Never met another finance person who held Cramer in esteem.

  104. Minor correction, rob:

    Well, let’s see… To date, $656.1 billion dollars have been allocated to the war in Iraq. Stimulus bill: $787 billion.

    The cost of the stimulus bill over the next several years is over $3 trillion, because much of it is baseline spending that will recur every year.

  105. John Stewart’s show is on Comedy Central. He is a comedian, a jester. He can and does anything he pleases, as long as people laugh.

  106. Where’d the rest of the comment go? Anyway, my point is that Carlson is right that people aren’t laughing so much as cheering anymore. That’s why I watch Colbert more often.

  107. Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to rely on the TeeVee for news and information.

  108. I think the tide has turned on Stewart. When you are a liberal comedian and you have lost Richard Cohen and the editorial page of the Washington Post you are in trouble. The only people I see defending him anymore are his hard core viewers. Everyone else seems to either hate his guts or is just tired of his act.

    Ultimately, he tied himself to Obama. I can’t seem him ever really going after Obama without alienating his loyal fans. Yet, as Obama starts to get unpopular Stewart will look more and more foolish not going after him. His problem is that he has never just admitted that he is a mouth piece for the Democratic Party. Instead he tries to claim to be a comedian. That works fine when the Republicans are in charge. Then he can claim that he is not really a mouth piece for one side, he is just making fun of those in power. Now that the Republicans are out of power, Stewart either has to go after the Dems or give up the pretense that he is anything but a mouth piece for the Dems, which now means being a mouthpiece for the government. You can’t be a government sponsored comedian and still be funny.

  109. When you are a liberal comedian and you have lost Richard Cohen and the editorial page of the Washington Post you are in trouble.

    Now that is the fucking quote of the Day.

    Hilarious John! Unintentional but HILARIOUS!!

    Richard Cohen is ridiculed on liberal blogs more than anywhere else.

    And The liberal WaPo editorial page?!?! The one that is still defending the Iraq war, Torture, and Spying on American citizens. Fred Hiatt the liberal?

    Stop it please…Im gonna wet myself laughing so hard.

    P.S. Maybe before people talk jon stewarts unwillingness to go after Obama and the Dems you should WATCH THE FUCKING SHOW. He attacks them daily.

  110. Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to rely on the TeeVee for news and information.

    Generally speaking, that is a pretty sad state of our country. It’s even sadder that people think that there is nothing wrong with that situation.

    You see that’s jon’s whole point. TeeVee news SHOULD and COULD be a good source of information. If only the corporate masters allowed it to be.

    Newspapers are going under, TV is a bad source of information. So how are people who are busy leading their lives and raising their families supposed to get news?

  111. He attacks the Dems just about EVERY night. He has gone after Obama, Biden, Geithner and many other Sens / Reps repeatedly.

    But as I pointed out above, where he went after Bush & Co with a pitchfork and a torch, he’s going after Obama & Co with a dirty Q-Tip. I mean, ooh, he mentioned a Biden gaffe. Oh snap.

  112. When you are a liberal comedian and you have lost Richard Cohen and the editorial page of the Washington Post you are in trouble

    Hahaha. Yeah the populist appeal of Jon Stewart is threatened by some inside-the-beltway jackass on the WaPo op/ed page.

    John, as many have already said, if you think he’s a mouthpiece for the D party you don’t watch his show. Yes he’s a liberal. But he skewers Dems just as hard as Repubs when they deserve it. It’s not his job to provide CNN-style “balance.” That crap is one of the main dysfunctionalities of the MSM that Stewart aims at.

    Furthermore, the Republican party sends press releases to FOX news and talk radio which they repeat VERBATIM on air. There actually is a right-wing conspiracy to influence news, which is why they’re constantly whining about a conspiracy on the other side.

  113. Chicago Tom and Tony,

    As I said above, the only people who defend him anymore are his hard core viewers. Anyone who thinks the Washington Post and Cohen are not left wing is so beyond left wing it is hard to describe. I am sure you guys do think WAPO is some right wing rag. You and the other 10% of the population that is off the charts left. The rest of the world considers WAPO and Cohen to be mainstream liberals. At this point, Stewart has his hard left viewers left to defend him while the entire right, center, and mainstream left, either hates his guts or wishes he would go away. Yeah, Stewart is flying high these days.

  114. “John, as many have already said, if you think he’s a mouthpiece for the D party you don’t watch his show. Yes he’s a liberal. But he skewers Dems just as hard as Repubs when they deserve it.”

    which is Sewart’s world just happens to be never or the rare occasion when they are anything but over the top liberal.

  115. I think the tide has turned on Stewart. When you are a liberal comedian and you have lost Richard Cohen and the editorial page of the Washington Post you are in trouble.

    I can’t even begin to unpack this.

  116. Another indication that the tide is turning against Stewart is the defensiveness and anger of his defenders. I guess defending a douschbag like Stewart would tend to make anyone defensive.

  117. Stewart’s show is funny. I have my tivo set to keep a couple of episodes on hand, and I zip through the first two segments of each when I have a few minutes. Someone above (I think rob) probably put it best that we should give him some time for the Obamamoon to be over and see what happens.

  118. As I said above, the only people who defend him anymore are his hard core viewers. Anyone who thinks the Washington Post and Cohen are not left wing is so beyond left wing it is hard to describe

    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! Stop it john you’re killing me here.

    Wow this thread needed some real comic relief. Good job.

    which is Sewart’s world just happens to be never or the rare occasion when they are anything but over the top liberal.

    The ignorace is amazing. You admit you don’t watch the show but yet you know KNOW that the only time he attacks dems is when they aren’t liberal enough??

    Shut up John.

    Yes John, the people who defend him are the ones who watch the show, because they are informed. As opposed to the willfully ignorant (like you, and Richard Cohen and Michael Moynihan) who attack strawmen.

  119. Another indication that the tide is turning against Stewart is the defensiveness and anger of his defenders. I guess defending a douschbag like Stewart would tend to make anyone defensive.

    Worry not, John. I will take care of them. In time. All things in time.

  120. Keep talking Tom. Honestly, if Richard Cohen is not archetrype of the warmed over conventional wisdom liberal beltway pundit, who is? What are him and Bob Herbert paart of the great neocon cabal?

    Next up, Chicago Tom explans how CNN and Anderson Cooper are part of the hard right conspiracy. Jesus Tom you sound like a left wing Bircher.

  121. How do I maintain my cutting edge relevance in an ever-changing world? Well, the giant clock I hung around my neck helps, as do the large sunglasses. Now if you don’t mind I have some minions to dispatch on a certain uppity comedian. Don’t make me, uh how do I say this? Bust a cap?

    Word, homie. Word indeed.

  122. No one ever said Cohen is interesting or worth listening to. He is not. But he is pretty much the epitomy of the finger to the wind liberal, establishment guy. When he rakes you over the coals it is because the liberal establishment media has turned against you.

    Stewarts more fanatical viewers may not like that fact. But, they can’t change it regardless of how much they try to pretend Cohen is some kind of WAPO Rush Limbaugh.

  123. “Furthermore, the Republican party sends press releases to FOX news and talk radio which they repeat VERBATIM on air.”

    So you’re saying the Democrat party doesn’t send out press releases? To CNN, MSNBC, etc.?

    You’re joking, right? Corporations send out press releases. Corporations send out press releases. School boards send out press releases. Wine tasting clubs send out press releases.

    I watch MSNBC’s “1600 Pennsylvania Ave” when I get home from work. If you think Schuster isn’t reading a predetermined set of CNC talking points (as do Matthews and Olberhamm), you need to pay stricter attention.

    Does Fox follow Republican talking points? Hell yes. I know this because I watch Fox News too.

    You know who doesn’t follow political talking points? The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. I know, because I watch that too.

    BTW, did you know that at this nation’s founding ALL NEWSPAPERS (pamphlets really) were extremely partisian?

  124. No one ever said Cohen is interesting or worth listening to. He is not. But he is pretty much the epitomy of the finger to the wind liberal, establishment guy. When he rakes you over the coals it is because the liberal establishment media has turned against you.

    Stewarts more fanatical viewers may not like that fact. But, they can’t change it regardless of how much they try to pretend Cohen is some kind of WAPO Rush Limbaugh.

    Cohen can’t both be irrelevant and also spell DOOM DOOM DOOM for Stewart. It’s one or the other. I think the evidence weighs heavily on the side of irrelevance.

    Establishment media goofs like Cohen are, have always been, and always will be Stewart’s primary targets. The Daily Show is about skewering the media. I can’t imagine most media establishment figures have ever liked him.

  125. CNC = DNC

  126. “Cohen can’t both be irrelevant and also spell DOOM DOOM DOOM for Stewart. It’s one or the other. I think the evidence weighs heavily on the side of irrelevance.”

    I never said he was irrlevent. I said he was uninteresting. There is a difference. The fact that a guy like Cohen who is so mainstream liberal and finger to the wind establishment would come out against Stewart, pretty much tells you that their is Stewart’s cult, who would probably follow him to Guiana and drink cool aide with him, and everyone else.

  127. Liberals outside of Cohen’s sphere of influence are cultists? I would strongly argue the opposite.

  128. Put it another way – since when are the sensibilities of establishment Washington insiders indicative of anything outside their peculiar little tribe?

  129. “Liberals outside of Cohen’s sphere of influence are cultists? I would strongly argue the opposite.”

    No. John Stewart’s hardcore viewers are approaching cult like status. There are lots of liberals who are both outside of Cohen’s influence and do not watch TDS.

  130. The most amazing thing in this thread is that so many of you think the guy’s name is spelled John Stewart.

  131. “Put it another way – since when are the sensibilities of establishment Washington insiders indicative of anything outside their peculiar little tribe?”

    That tribe has a way of enforcing its conventional wisdom on the rest of the country by sheer repetetion. If that tribe decides Stewart is an annoying ass, there is a good chance most people who are not hardcore fans will begin to agree.

  132. No. John Stewart’s hardcore viewers are approaching cult like status.

    And you’re primary argument for this is that Richard Cohen of all people doesn’t like him. Thus, the much WTF ensues.

  133. I never said he was irrlevent. I said he was uninteresting.

    max hats just happens to be both. Quite an accomplishment.

  134. My mistake Tom. It is Jon Stewart. Considering that my name is spelled with an H it is just habbit to type it with an H rather than a JOn. His name is actually Jon Liebowitz and his brother is Larry Leibowitz and is head of US Markets & Global Technology at NYSE Euronext.huge fund manager on Wall Street.

    Remember that the next time Stewart is railing about Wall Street taking advantage of the little guy.

  135. “And you’re primary argument for this is that Richard Cohen of all people doesn’t like him. Thus, the much WTF ensues.”

    No my primary evidence for this is the anger and defensiveness shown by his viewers when anyone attack him. See Tom, Chicago.

  136. So you’re saying the Democrat party doesn’t send out press releases? To CNN, MSNBC, etc.?

    No, of course they do. Nobody repeats them verbatim on air, though. Journalists are supposed to pretty much ignore press releases.

    FOX, on the other hand, has been caught multiple times repeating exact wording from Republican press releases and even pasting them up as a graphic.

  137. That tribe has a way of enforcing its conventional wisdom on the rest of the country by sheer repetetion. If that tribe decides Stewart is an annoying ass, there is a good chance most people who are not hardcore fans will begin to agree.

    Jon Stewart’s appeal is precisely that he calls out inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom.

  138. joe! You changed your handle!

    There could only be one “joe”.

    Episiarch, attempting to justify a generic group ad hominem with a specific ad hominem doesn’t leave me with much respect for your debate skillz.

    Your trolling skills though, are fucking obvious.

  139. Keep talking Tom. Honestly, if Richard Cohen is not archetrype of the warmed over conventional wisdom liberal beltway pundit, who is? What are him and Bob Herbert paart of the great neocon cabal?

    They are “liberal” in the same way Joe Klein is a “liberal” and The New Republic is “liberal”. They are establishment guys who never miss an opportunity to attack the dirty fucking hippies. Guys whose primary motive is to protect the status quo and push the DC establishment’s conventional wisdom. These types of “liberals” are essentially mushy centrists. They are the fist ones to attack the liberal base, and they are notorious self-censoring and refraining from talking about issues that the liberal base actually cares about. They are the guys that supported the Iraq war, and warrantless wiretapping and don’t want to talk about torture.

    They have disdain for the rank and file liberals and hard on for Broder style “bipartisanship”.

    Just because Cohen is a conventional liberal on the WaPo editorial page (not much of a liberal bastion to begin with) doesn’t mean rank and file liberals hold him in high regard. Like I said before. The liberal activists and the bloggers all mock him and criticize him incessantly.

  140. I still think Tucker Carlson’s a dick.

  141. No my primary evidence for this is the anger and defensiveness shown by his viewers when anyone attack him. See Tom, Chicago.

    John, You illiterate fucktard. I’m not angry that is he being attacked, I am upset by the strawman style of attack and the fact free accusations (“he doesn’t attack Obama or liberals”) being thrown around by people who admit that they dont actually watch his show.

    I am directly attacking the substance of these critiques — and the fact that you have to pretend like i am simply a knee-jerk defender proves your own intellectual dishonesty.

    It’s like getting a movie review from someone who hasn’t seen the movie but thinks they can speak intelligently about it cuz they have seen other movies LIKE this one.

  142. Cohen went after Colbert for his WCD speech. So yeah, not exactly the shock of the century.

  143. “John, You illiterate fucktard. ”

    Good thing you are not being angry and defensive there Tom.

  144. *noting that Tom’s claim wasn’t disputed…*

  145. It’s still sweeps so I guess this is still news.

    I can’t figure out why you interweb people are talking about it though, you don’t get ratings from Nielsen.

  146. If Tucker Carlson and Richard Cohen both don’t like somebody, they must be doing something right. I hate both those guys.

  147. Jesus H. Christ, it’s just a comedy show. Get lives, people!

  148. Cramer really is an idiot who is guilty of everything his detractors say of him. And Stewart really is as funny as his supporters say he is.

    But all that doesn’t change the fact that Stewart is also very biased, or that this was a politically-motivated attack on Cramer for his attacks on Obama.

  149. “…there’s nothing less funny than a serious comedian.”

    —————————

    “Yeah, cause nobody loved Mark Twain either. You never even hear about the guy any more.”

    Indeed, he was so well “loved” that he arranged to have all of his “serious” works withheld until well after he had expired.

  150. Yes, about formerly joe’s analogy to Twain. Twain was brilliant. Stewart is so-so. People are not going to be talking about Stewart in 110 years. And, whether you enjoy his humor or not, his political biases are very clear. That’s not good for credibility when you attack someone for clearly political reasons.

    Of course, the truth be told, I don’t give a rat’s ass about this whole issue.

  151. Twain engaged in social commentary, Stewart engages in political commentary and for the most part it appears to be skewed.

    Slight difference in the two styles.

  152. 1. Cramer is a jackass.

    2. Stewart is biased.

    3. Stewart can also funny, despite being biased.

    4. The studio audience of the Daily Show can go to hell, they’re even bigger jackasses than Cramer.

    5. Colbert is funnier than Stewart.

  153. Bill Hicks isn’t dead

    he’s frozen and when they find a

    “cure for cancer”

    man is he gonna be pissed

  154. His name is actually Jon Liebowitz and his brother is Larry Leibowitz and is head of US Markets & Global Technology at NYSE Euronext.huge fund manager on Wall Street.

    Remember that the next time Stewart is railing about Wall Street taking advantage of the little guy.

    I don’t get this. Jon Stewart shouldn’t criticize Wall Street because his brother works for a financial firm on Wall Street? Should he be prefacing his criticisms with, “Yeah, I know my brother works for Wall Street so he’s included in these attacks…” and continue? I don’t much like Stewart, I find him boring and annoyingly liberal most of the time. But this comment is just inane. Someone shouldn’t be criticizing something that his relative does, right. I don’t see why anyone has that much to say about Stewart.

  155. And Steven Colbert’s brother is an IP lawyer. Hmmm.

  156. Perhaps the anti-Stewart backlash has finally commenced when even Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen is attacking the Daily Show’s fake crusader journalism

    What? That Richard Cohen disapproves means that Stewart’s jumped the shark??

    That statement alone practically disqualifies this post from serious consideration.

  157. If Mark Twain were alive today, he’d be making fun of all the rube “investors” who bought hard into the stock and real estate bubbles, did everything the presumed authority figures (i.e. their brokers and politicians) told them to do, lost out big, and now want to pin the blame on a TV network.

    “But, but, but … CNBC was saying stocks would go up! My broker told me I should buy and hold! And I really believed them. It’s all their fault!

    It’s so richly deserving of Twain’s acerbic wit, but we’ll see nothing like it from Stewart.

  158. Jon Stewart calls himself a (“downtown”) libertarian. Tucker Carlson never used the word once at CPAC.

    Great pick, CATO.

  159. proglib:
    Yes, about formerly joe’s…
    Joe was apparently a lefty dem and an urban planner in real life. He also had an incredible amount of free time for this blog.

    I’m an engineer (‘splains the mad html skillz and the lack of time) and a ummm, cosmotarian?

    People are not going to be talking about Stewart in 110 years.
    Proof not possible, at least for our time frame. I would guess he won’t be held in the same light as Twain.

    …attack someone for clearly political reasons.
    Proof not in evidence. In fact there is plenty of supposition and conjecture to the contrary.

    Defending Jon Stewart? Mildly amusing.

    Watching the “fucktards” fly? Priceless. It’s why I show up. đŸ˜‰

  160. Tucker Carlson?

    Ay caramba.

    Maybe the discussion should be whether Cato has past its prime, rather than whether Stewart has.

  161. Sorry, tag issues.

    Good thing you are not being angry and defensive there Tom.

    One doesn’t need to be angry to point out that you’re a total fucktard, John. You do a pretty good job of proving it on a routine base. I’m not the slightest bit angry and I know that you’re a total fucktard.

  162. Why is Reason even bothering to cover this?

    Because it’s a thread closing in on 200 posts, which means people actually find it interesting? And that Reason is in the business of amusing us or saying stuff we find interesting?

    Next dumb question?

  163. Two midgets painted purple having sex is amusing and interesting, at least marginally interesting. Oddly enough it doesn’t warrant a post.

  164. Bow ties are funny.

  165. It seems to be a signifier of hipness to say, “Colbert is way better than Stewart.” I think Colbert is a smart guy, but I don’t find his show funny at all. At least Stewart is occasionally funny.

  166. Mr. Moynihan, if you watched the Jim Cramer unedited interview after all this maybe you wouldn’t have published this. Nor would have Mr. Carlson.
    Carlson’s always been a hack in a bowtie, still angry at Stewart for making him look like a fool on hardball. Which he did handily. Just because Jon Stewart is left wing doesn’t mean all criticisms against him are reasonable.

  167. *Crossfire. Typo.

  168. I haven’t watched Stewart since his election night coverage in 2004, wherein all questions in my mind as to his hackdom (and shilldom) were removed. I liked the Daily Show when Kilborn hosted…but not the liberal tree-house which it evolved into under Stewart…

    Since then, I’ve seen Stewart on various programs…and detected an increasing self-satisfied sanctimoniousness on his part. He’s tilted way more towards Jim Jones than ecumenicist…

    Hearing that Stewart “took down” a buffoon like Jim Cramer–and only after Cramer criticized Obama; not when Cramer was making an ass of himself on CNBC for years beforehand–reinforces my sense of his general decline…

    (He’s still more likable than Bill Maher, though…)

  169. True propaganda involves attacking the truth-tellers! Keep it up, Randians! It’s tragic that the only journalist on this story is a fake journalist. The added Liberal Media paranoia is a bonus. This is why people this you are crazy.

  170. Tucker Carlson?

    Ay caramba.

    Maybe the discussion should be whether Cato has past its prime, rather than whether Stewart has.

    Burn! Damn, you took the words out of my mouth. What the hell is a hack like Carlson doing at Cato?

  171. I enjoy The Daily Show and think it is funny. I think you can still enjoy it and at the same time think Jon Stewart is Self-Righteous. I think he comes off as cocky and arrogant, that he is automatically right about everything. In that sense, I don’t see any problem with calling him out on it.

    He may make fun of Obama, but it is light hearted and all in good fun. I don’t see him ever in the future calling out Obama on his contradictions or dishonesty as harshly as with people he disagrees with. For a person in Stewart’s position, I would like to see him take on EVERYONE in politics and power, no matter republican or democrat. Sure, he may make fun of Democrats, he has too, that is his show. But I don’t think you could honestly say he takes Liberals or Democrats to task for their dishonesty as much as conservatives and republicans.

    But can you really expect anyone to be truly objective, no matter a mainstream newsreporter or a comedian? Everyone has their beliefs and they will shine though.

    In the end, I am a Stewart fan. But I do think it is fair to call him out when he complains of people being “partisan hacks” but gives people he likes on his show a free ride. If he really wanted to stand behind his word, he would take to task EVERYONE who goes on his show. As far as the Jim Cramer thing, I think Stewart made a lot of good points. But it is the way he comes across in doing it, self-righteous, believing he is some saint and the defender of all things right.

  172. Bugs, the Obama administration is also a comedy show, but the non-sense they both spout is bad for my health.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.