Just throwing it out there:
Why is it impossible to comprehend that there is such a thing as partisan comedy? And that when a partisan comedian is (rightfully) reading the riot act to partisan journalists/pundits, it is well within bounds to criticize him for his own partisanship, regardless of the fact that he's a comedian?Seriously, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Dennis Miller, Howard Stern, Don Imus, Bill Maher, Larry Miller, Aaron McGruder, Gary Trudeau, David Cross--would we accept "I'm just a comedian" from ANY of these people if that was their response when challenged on their support for a particular candidate or party on their TV shows/radio shows/columns/comics? (Not that I think any of them would respond that way, which now that I think of it makes Stewart's "who, me?" schtick even more grating.) Even if it's ridiculous partisan assholes who pose as journalists (like Carlson or Begala or Novak or Carville, or Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly, or Chris Matthews, or any of these clowns) challenging these comedians, that doesn't invalidate their point.
This makes more sense to me than a lot of the other stuff I've been skimming on the subject, but then, I don't have a PhD in semiotics or whatever it is I'm supposed to be grasping. Note to my fellow Jon Stewart fans: You're not helping.
Posted by Jim Treacher at October 19, 2004 11:17 AMI just watched the clip and my take is that they tried their hardest to shout irrelevencies over Stewart so that he couldn't finish the rant that was making them look bad - they must have been deathly afraid that he was going to make a good point that would hurt their pathetic careers.
Now that's an honest journalist, looking at his watch, thinking I only have to shout for five more minutes and then the audience won't get to hear this guy's opinion.
Posted by: Joshua Scholar at October 19, 2004 01:42 PMCarlson, Hannity, O'Reilly, Matthews, et al, are not "posing as journalists". They're pundits. Paid for delivering their opinions. There's a difference.
Posted by: Emily at October 19, 2004 03:40 PMReally? So why does O'Reilly appear on a channel with the motto "We Report - You Decide"? That would seem to imbue with a certain level of journalistic pretension, no?
Posted by: Andrew at October 19, 2004 04:02 PMThe other news networks don't have pundits and mottos?
Posted by: Angus Jung at October 19, 2004 04:09 PMYes, he does, but he doesn't deliver the news. His show is billed as the same pundit bicker-fest that all the other shows on CNN, MSNBC, etc. are.
Posted by: Emily at October 19, 2004 04:15 PMI think Jon Stewart does have an argumentative leg up on his competition (and we know what he's doing as he raises that leg) in that the goal of his show is to entertain. All these clowns in the news-channel business purport to be journalists of some sort (and pundits are an offshoot of journalist, so can it).
That bit of analysis doesn't make Stewart look any bit less a sanctimonious ass, but he sure as hell is an entertaining sanctimonious ass. Bowtie Boy and Quiet Man can only dream of having "entertaining" be an adjective associated with them.
Posted by: jon at October 19, 2004 05:00 PMhello Preacher, i dont know if this is appropriate place to ask you're advise but i will anhoo! The Bible tells us to 'not covert our neighbores wifes' right? but here is my problem. When i am lieing in my bed late at night sometimes (and feeling 'lonely') i start to think about lady's i used to know and i think about them in a way that is probably not aproppriate according to Scripture. Is it wrong to to do this because these lady's may have husbands now and i may be guilty of therefore 'coveting' them if you know what i mean. Im sorry if this is very complicated too you but i hope you may help. all the best with your ministry and God Bless!
Posted by: Amen Huffar at October 19, 2004 05:54 PMI would like to covet my neighbor's wife, but I'm more interested in my neighbor.
Is this a problem?
Posted by: Keith at October 19, 2004 06:08 PMYou know, it's okay for the pot to call the kettle black if the pot is actually a satire of a pot who is pretending to be a pot but is not actually--despite all apperances that it is--a pot.
Posted by: Sortelli at October 19, 2004 06:59 PMYa got any more of that pot?
Posted by: jon at October 19, 2004 07:20 PMWhat bothers me most, Sortelli, is that I think I understood that...
Posted by: mojo at October 19, 2004 09:17 PMNobody ever took that stupid kettle seriously anyway. Go pot! Speak truth to kettle!
Posted by: Sortelli at October 20, 2004 12:22 AMI wonder nobody ever says 'Legalize kettle'
Posted by: spacemonkey at October 20, 2004 08:24 AMSo, how soon until this reaches 175 comments of people saying the exact same thing?
Posted by: Chef Hellboyardee at October 20, 2004 08:30 AMDon't worry, Chef. I hear that blogger is free and you can go sign up today!
Posted by: Sortelli at October 20, 2004 02:01 PMStewart wants his criticisms to be taken seriously-- as a result, he forfeits the privilege of using the "I'm just a comedian!" line. I also think he revealed an unpleasant side of himself when he called that guy a dick. Not that the guy WASN'T, but Stewart struck me as someone who doesn't easily tolerate criticism was aimed at himself. Lame. (And I happen to agree with his analysis of Crossfire.)
Posted by: lexine at October 20, 2004 04:20 PM