John Stewart on Accountability

[Duncan]

What about me?

My bad Larry. I just thought after the hormone therapy that pre-op transsexuals had a little trouble stepping up to the plate, so to speak.

Maybe after your operation you and Mikey can go at it with Fahrenheit 911 blaring in the background. Pure bliss for you two I'm sure.

[Hooper]

Um, Fatty, the same study says they are more informed -- that they're 78 percent more likely to read the paper, watch the news, and be up to date on current events and current political issues. The whole thing came about because O'Reilly said Stewart's audience was nothing but "stoned slackers".

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Um, Fatty, the same study says they are more informed -- that they're 78 percent more likely to read the paper, watch the news, and be up to date on current events and current political issues. The whole thing came about because O'Reilly said Stewart's audience was nothing but "stoned slackers".

Fine, so one study said so. Did it take into account factors like what percentage of O'Reilly's viewers are tuning in to his show to become informed, as opposed to what percentage are tuning into the Daily Show already watching/reading a legit news source? Or how many people are dumb enough anyways to turn on the Daily Show for their source of news? Or what percentage of Stewart's viewers care that he talks about the news, they just think he's funny so they watch? They're 2 different shows, as Stewart himself said, so it's like saying "which show has more informed viewers, CSI or Road Rules?"

[Ignatius J.]

That actually wasn't his point though, he claimed at one point in the show that he did not bear the same responsibility that the "real media" did. That is an unacceptable answer IF you ever want to be taken seriously. If all he wants to do is be funny then that's cool. However, he oscillates back and forth calling out other people and then hiding behind a claim of "but I'm JUST a comedian" when it is convenient for him. He doesn't act like someone who should be taken seriously.

Contrast that with a show like PTI that tries to be funny, but where they really do consider themselves part of the media. They hold themselves up to the same standards. they don't tackle nearly as important issues, to be sure, but my point is that there is a way to do this in a manner that allows you to be funny and credible.

[Hooper]

I have no idea. But I watch both shows on a regular basis and it doesn't surprise me at all that Stewart has a more educated and more informed audience.

[zoony]

"ummm... this wasn't funny.

what's his follow up? A few doody jokes? " - Zoony

wow... touched a nerve, eh?

[nelms]

If I cared enough I would. It was just another example of his arrogance that rubs me the wrong way. If they're better educated and make more money, that doesn't mean they're better informed. All three of those are unrelated, and whoever is connecting them is just relying on laws of averages.

But Fatty, you have to remember that liberals love using this argument, i.e. "we're better educated and smarter than you, so our views are more important and hold more water".

Don't you recall after Bush handily beat Kerry, the left wingers put up maps of the Blue States versus the Red States and how the Blue States were better educated and wealthier. They used this to imply that the Red Staters were just a bunch of dumb, religiously zealous, country hicks and that the Blue Staters really knew who the better qualified candidate was.

The absolute arrogance of the elitist left just amazes me.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

That actually wasn't his point though, he claimed at one point in the show that he did not bear the same responsibility that the "real media" did. That is an unacceptable answer IF you ever want to be taken seriously. If all he wants to do is be funny then that's cool. However, he oscillates back and forth calling out other people and then hiding behind a claim of "but I'm JUST a comedian" when it is convenient for him. He doesn't act like someone who should be taken seriously.

Contrast that with a show like PTI that tries to be funny, but where they really do consider themselves part of the media. They hold themselves up to the same standards. they don't tackle nearly as important issues, to be sure, but my point is that there is a way to do this in a manner that allows you to be funny and credible.

Thanks IJ, your first paragraph summed up my feelings about his show better than I can put it. I called it arrogance, but your explanation is better. When he cracks jokes about the news, he's very funny. When he tries to go off on editorial tangents that are intended to be serious, that's when he loses me because his defense to being called out is always "the lead in to my show is a bunch of puppets making crank calls" or something like that.

And FWIW, I'm not sure what O'Reilly was responding to in their interview, but calling out Stewart's audience is a crappy defense to whatever it was. I'm assuming he was going after Stewart's credibility as a "serious" journalist, and how educated/informed/hopped up your audience is doesn't really have an effect on that.

[Hooper]

You know what's arrogant? Saying things thing like "so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway - so this is working very well for them."

Actually, that's just outright wrong.

[Hooper]

And as much as I like watching O'Reilly, his entire show consists of him telling his audience what to think.

[Larry]

Actually, what I was assuming Stewart was referring to, for the "better informed" claim, was the studies that show, among regular Fox viewers (which, granted, <> O'Reily viewers), that sizeable majorities believe that

• We've found WMDs in Iraq.
  
• The fighting in Iraq has died down.
  
• We've found proven links between Saddam and 9/11.
  
• W actually landed that jet on that carrier. (OK, I made that one up).
  

I think I've seen that about half of Fox viewers believe that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi.

I hadn't heard the "make more money" argument about Stewart's audience. (I need to watch more often).

[CrazyZeb]

You know what's arrogant? Saying things thing like "so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway - so this is working very well for them."

Actually, that's just outright wrong.

Whow cares about Barbara Bush, and how does that relate to the topic?

[Hooper]

Good point. I'm just amazed by how big of a pass she's getting.

[CrazyZeb]

Good point. I'm just amazed by how big of a pass she's getting.

Maybe because she's the 80 year old unelected wife of a former President from 13 years ago.

Unless you think we really care what a President's mommy has to say.

[Larry]

But Fatty, you have to remember that liberals love using this argument, i.e. "we're better educated and smarter than you, so our views are more important and hold more water".

Don't you recall after Bush handily beat Kerry, the left wingers put up maps of the Blue States versus the Red States and how the Blue States were better educated and wealthier. They used this to imply that the Red Staters were just a bunch of dumb, religiously zealous, country hicks and that the Blue Staters really knew who the better qualified candidate was.

The absolute arrogance of the elitist left just amazes me.

Would you settle for:

"We" have a better grasp of reality (as measured by our ability to correctly identify true from false statements about current events) than "you" do?

How else can you explain 2/3 of self-identified "conservative" voters believing things about the world that even the White House says aren't true?

[Kilmer17]

We've found WMDs in Iraq.

Well, we have. Just not lots of them. In fact, just small amounts of them.

Now here is where you'll say, yes but Bush said we knew were lots were, and I point out that things were probably moved, and then you say something about securing oil fields rather than borders, and I point out that the war was about many things, WMDs being only one. Then you say yes, but without that one it wouldnt have gotten the support to start, and I say that all the Dems had the same intel to decide from, then you say yes, but Bush chose which intel to use, and I point out that other countries also agreed.

So let's just not go there on this thread.

[Hooper]

Fair enough. But I hope the apple has fallen pretty damn far from the tree.

[nelms]

Maybe because she's the 80 year old unelected wife of a former President from 13 years ago.

:laugh: Great point. I don't think many people care what comes out of the mouth of an 80 year old. Granted, what she said was stupid. But, how many 80 year olds do you know that won't say something completely uncalled for now and then.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Ahhh, the BJ line...sounds like its from Good Morning Vietnam....great line, i haven't heard that for awhile

Between that and the two cats f*#king in a clothes dryer...high comedy here, lately...and no, chom, not that kind of high!

[Larry]

We've found WMDs in Iraq.

Well, we have. Just not lots of them. In fact, just small amounts of them.

We've found 1.

It was an artillery shell that was designed to deliver chemical agents. It did not contain chemical agents, and was not labled as a chemical shell.

An Iraqi used it to create a roadside IED, and when one of our convoys passed, he bushed his button, and wondered why it didn't go "boom".

Last report I'd read, our experts say it was leftover from the Iran-Iraq war, and aparantly Saddam missed it when he was destroying all his WMDs.

[Kilmer17]

And the bio crap in the fridge, and the centrifuge etc.

See, we're already heading down the road I described. Let's not hijack this thread.

[chomerics]

In all of my adult life I’ve never run across someone more in dire need of a blow_job.

You offering?

[jbooma]

I don't think people are saying the government should have been able to make it better, but everyone from the President on down is willing to acknowledge the response was unacceptable. The only people saying otherwise are for the most part doing so in order to defend the President.

Destino I have never said that the president was perfect in this. I think all levels of government here made mistakes. The only thing I am stressing is some of the events that made it the worse were because of the local governement failed in their own plans. The Gov of LA should be gone today, she has done nothing right, the Fema director as well should be fired.

The reason this disaster was so bad was there were things the local officials should have done but did not.

The one thing no one is talking about is the fact it was the media that found everyone at the convention center, the Mayor didn't even know they were there.

I also want to stress, yes we might have dropped the ball, however we can not plan a disaster on this magnitude, there is no way possible to plan something like this because there are to many unknowns. The fact once the feds did get there, they were able to evacuate the majority of the city in 2 days, and to be able to move that many people to so many places is such an amazing task.

[chomerics]

But Fatty, you have to remember that liberals love using this argument, i.e. "we're better educated and smarter than you, so our views are more important and hold more water".

Don't you recall after Bush handily beat Kerry, the left wingers put up maps of the Blue States versus the Red States and how the Blue States were better educated and wealthier. They used this to imply that the Red Staters were just a bunch of dumb, religiously zealous, country hicks and that the Blue Staters really knew who the better qualified candidate was.

The absolute arrogance of the elitist left just amazes me.

Broad Brush anyone?

The reason the "smarter" comment is made is because liberals face reality. Liberals know the difference between a REAL liberal and Colmes (which I've seen you say represents a liberal twice) :doh:

They may not be right in their opinion all the time, but at least they can distinguish reality from a psudo-reality created by right wing propaganda. This is why the "smarter" comment is used.

[chomerics]

Destino I have never said that the president was perfect in this. I think all levels of government here made mistakes. The only thing I am stressing is some of the events that made it the worse were because of the local governement failed in their own plans. The Gov of LA should be gone today, she has done nothing right, the Fema director as well should be fired.

The reason this disaster was so bad was there were things the local officials should have done but did not.

The one thing no one is talking about is the fact it was the media that found everyone at the convention center, the Mayor didn't even know they were there.

It wasn't the MAYOR who didn't know they were there, but the director of FEMA on Thursday :doh:

I also want to stress, yes we might have dropped the ball, however we can not plan a disaster on this magnitude, there is no way possible to plan something like this because there are to many unknowns. The fact once the feds did get there, they were able to evacuate the majority of the city in 2 days, and to be able to move that many people to so many places is such an amazing task.

A tribute to our military, not our federal government, I understand the difference.