This is really hillarious, especially the fact that Stewart barely does anything funny at all, he's dead serious the whole time. Both the guys on Crossfire are trying to get him riled up and shut him down and they do an absolutely miserable job, and he ends up even calling the guy in the bowtie a dick!
Is Jon Stewart turning into our generation's Neil Postman? Sure seems that way. It looked like Jon had an attack of conscience. It looked like he wanted to either yell or cry. Maybe he was ready for the jokes, pimping the book, etc and remembered how this show was going to play out: one guy giving out the DNC talking points, the other guy giving the RNC talking points, and Stewart making silly jokes about both. Like he said, he didn't want to be their monkey so he went into Neil Postman mode and attacked th
I leave CNN on in the background much of the day, though I usually turn off Crossfire and a few of their shows I can't stand(the monring show, Wolf, Paula, Cooper). OK I guess I actually shut off more than on lately. I dearly wish I could get CNN international because CNN U.S. seems to be intentionally very dumbed down for an American audience.
I shut off Crossfire because there is to much shouting and to much repetition of the same worn out talking points by the left and the right. I did watch the show yesterday thought and it was awe inspiring, especially because it was live and they kept coming back from the commercial breaks for another beating. I especially liked it when they were in Rapidfire and Stewart ignored the gong until they gave up on it.
Once again the right proved they have no sense of humour, Begala mostly kept his mouth shut and Carlson made a complete ass out of himself. Another example of the Republicans having no sense of humor the Michigan Republican party trying to charge Michael Moore with vote buying for offering clean underwear or Ramen noodles to slackers who vote. The first DA they took it to said no, she had real crime to deal with.
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them. If their ratings suck they will go off the air, but if people watch them they will keep doing what they do. Unfortunately most people want scandal, lurid crimes, partisan bickering, controversy and watching people fight. The problem here is mostly the American people and not so much the cable networks. Americans are so dumbed down most of them don't want to watch insightful debate or intelligent journalism.
Where cable news is today and is going to keep going is dictated almost entirely by FOX News. They now control a market share equal to all of the rest of the cable news networks combined, 9 of the top 10 shows through the summer. The one exception was Larry King and that is mostly because half his shows have been turned over to Court TV which obsess on the lurid trials of the day, and a quarter seem to be about Britain's royal family. Larry King has completely dumbed his show down to the level American's are comfortable with it.
The fact is a LOT of Americans are extremely partisan, and not well informed, and in particular a LOT of them are rabidly right wing partisans which is why talk radio is like it is and why FOX dominates an entire half of the cable news market.
What Stewart said was right in an ideal world but this isn't an ideal world. There are some fairly well done news shows Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Russert, Aaron Brown and they have an audience but they are never going to compete against vicious, partisan shouting matches like O'Reilly (though we can pray O'Reilly's career will crater now that the scandal mongering is aimed at him and not by him).
The hypocrisy in what Stewart said is I wager he would be a sensational flop if he were to try to do what he was telling the news networks to do. If he tried to run a news show with insightful debate and reasoned commentary (and no comedy) chances are high it would flop or end up with a subsistence market share. If anyone could do it he could and if he wants to put his money where his mouth is he should. Its pretty easy to scold the news networks to do something that would probably be ratings suicide, and then go back to doing fake news and comedy and a sure market share.
From Yahoo News
Fox News beats all rivals
Pamela McClintock, STAFF
Tue Sep 28, 6:23 PM ET
NEW YORK -- For the first time in its history, Fox News Channel beat the combined competition in primetime during the third quarter of 2004, with major headlines of the summer including the national political conventions and a brutal string of hurricanes.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 1.8 million viewers, while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News averaged a combined total of 1.7 million. The quarter ended Sunday.
CNN came in a distant second, averaging 882,000 viewers, while MSNBC drew 421,000. Headline News averaged 226,000 in primetime, and CNBC attracted a paltry 133,000.
Most of the cable news nets were up significantly vs. Q3 2003 thanks to a busy news cycle. The one exception was CNBC, which was down 13%.
Buoyed by the Olympics and convention coverage, MSNBC saw the most growth in its primetime aud, up a hefty 55%. Fox News came in second in terms of growth, up 39%. CNN was up 19% and Headline News 17%.
In the key news demo, Fox News averaged 405,000 viewers in 25-54, a 44% improvement on the same period in 2003. CNN averaged 195,000 viewers in the demo, up 17%. At 115,000, MSNBC was up 34%.
Headline News averaged 75,000 viewers in the demo, up only 6% from the same frame last year. CNBC improved its performance in the demo, averaging 53,000 viewers, a 36% jump.
Fox News' third-quarter performance further solidified its dominance in the field of cable news, as well as its increasing strength against even the broadcast nets. During the Republican National Convention in late August, Fox News won out over ABC News, CBS News and NBC News, also a first for a cable news net.
Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Bush on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" drew a whopping 4.6 million viewers.
Fox News had nine of the 10 top programs during the third quarter, with O'Reilly remaining at No. 1, averaging 2.4 million viewers. The one exception was CNN's "Larry King Live," which was No. 6, averaging 1.3 million viewers.
Hence Jon Stewart's comment: "At least I can sleep at night." It's clear that if Stewart wanted to, he could put together a political wrestling federation show that would blow Crossfire and everything else off the map. But he doesn't, because he's not evil. The fact that the news networks can't make as much money if they're not evil doesn't excuse them from responsibility. "The people want to be lied to" is a lousy excuse, and Stewart called the Crossfire folks on this. They need to do some kind of the
What Stewart was doing there was classic "do as I say not as I do".
When I watched him on Crossfire I cheered him on. Smart, well informed people desperately want more of exactly what he was advocating. But then you think about it in a practical sense. The problem is most people aren't smart, well informed people so neither is most of the TV and TV news they watch. Its one of those cases where its impossible to tell which is the chicken and the egg, though I'm pretty sure if all TV news suddenly turned smart, nonpartisan and informed I doubt the American people would necessarily follow, they would probably just switch to a Sports channel. If you want most people to watch news it in fact needs to have a heavy dose of comedy, sporting event and or theater.
I love Jon Stewart, but for him to say "At least I can sleep at night" is kind of hypocritical. Either he should put on a show that what he was demanding so dtirdently, informed debate and smart journalism, or stick to satirizing journalism and leave it alone.
I didn't suggest he put together a "political wrestling federation show", I suggested he put on a show that does what he was telling the news networks to do, and probably watch it flop. Otherwise he should stick to comedy and satire. The comedy and satire angle is already doing a much better job of shredding the news networks, and especially shredding them in the ratings race, than preaching to them that they should aspire to an ideal that probably wouldn't work in our less than ideal world. Lehrer, Russert, Brown and Rose do a fair job of doing what Stewart proposed and they just don't compete well with partisan flame throwing.
Most people want to either:
A. Watch news heavily biased to their partisan view, and especially a media star that holds their partisan view shred the people they disagree with, which is why O'Reilly and Rush are #1.
B. Watch one side that matches their partisan view fight with the other side, the classic Crossfire. In fact neither side really ever wins but you always believe your side wins everytime.
America is pretty much polarized to 40-45% Republican/Right and 40-45% Democrat/Left and maybe 10-20% independent who are either kind of indifferent, dislike them both or actually try to make smart decisions based on issues in defiance of insurmountable odds. The right is going to watch Fox, the left is going to watch CNN, not sure who watches MSNBC. You can get both sides to watch Crossfire because both sides are equally and badly represented.
Jon Stewart is a comedian. Success, for him, would be network late night talk. He is not a journalist. He has no journalistic training. He is not Jim Lehrer. What is wrong with a cable comedian screaming down the cable news guys? He is doing a responsible job as a comedian. His satire is already a better news show than crossfire.
Seems to me that Jon Stewart decided that he agreed with your analysis: there's no way to get an audience for a political show of the type he wants. So he went and got on a comedy show which talks about political topics.
Stewart never said not to "do as I do". He was just very clear about this: If you're doing entertainment, such as theatre or comedy, you should be labeling it theatre or comedy rather than journalism. Otherwise, you're doing a grave disservice to the surprising number of Americans who can't tell the difference.
Well yes he did. He basically said because you are "journalists" you can no longer do theater, try to be entertaining or try to pump up your ratings. If they listened to him they would be consigned to massively boring, their ratings would crater, and the ratings of "The Daily Show" would go through the roof because everone would be compelled to turn to Stewart to get what they want which is news as theater.
All this was pretty well nailed in the movie "Network" yea
I don't get these arguments, and Jon Stewart is trying desperately to explain to everyone that his show is NOT a news show. What is with this "What Stewart was doing there was classic "do as I say not as I do" issue? What's wrong with that? His show is comedy and he has never represented it as anything other than that. He knows how to ask hardball questions (see Rudy Guilliani interview after the 2nd debate) but that's not his job, it's not his purpose, and it's never what he has made his show out to be.
What he's saying is, all these shows that are purported to be "news" shows, especially the ones on CNN, are not serving the country because they are NOT doing journalism.
Furthermore, I believe the oft-mentioned "American Public" want some real news. They don't want to be sheeple, but they don't have any other choices. The highest rated show on TV? 60 Minutes. Yes, they can have a definate spin to their questions. Yucca mountain reporting comes to mind, and I'm what you'd call an environmentalist, but even I could see they were asking loaded questions and trying to paint the NRC in a bad way. But the point is, for the most part, 60 Minutes tries to do in-depth reporting and tries to be fair, much more fair than other news shows, and they have great ratings. People want it. The country needs it.
The proof is in The Daily Show's high ratings and awards. It's a very sad commentary, and Jon Stewart knows it, that a *lot* of people get their news from his show because
there aren't any better alternatives
. That's sad and Jon is trying to make everyone aware of that. Did you hear the reaction of the crowd during the Crossfire appearance? They were clapping for what Jon was saying. They agree! We want better journalism, and we want it to be on our TV!
"The proof is in The Daily Show's high ratings and awards. It's a very sad commentary, and Jon Stewart knows it, that a *lot* of people get their news from his show because there aren't any better alternatives"
I think you are wrong and I think this is the crux of the issue here. People don't watch "The Daily Show" "because there aren't any better alternatives". They watch it precisely because its funny and its good theater. Straight news is mostly unhappy news or not interesting to most people news. I t
If all the new networks stopped doing theater they would be even more boring than they are and everyone would watch "The Daily Show" to get their news. He is a crafty wabbit.
The Daily Show is a parody of the media. If the media ceased to be absurd, Jon Stewart would be out of work. Is it really so hard to believe that an intelligent person might be so exasperated with what passes for news these days that he would take advantage of a golden opportunity to let everyone know how he feels?
i think stewart was saying "we call the daily show 'fake news' but you are the real fake news. please, either get funny and move to comedy central OR start doing your job which is to report news NOT the republican/democrat talking points"
talking points is what these news networks are all about these days. i don't know how it happens but all of a sudden every one is calling kerry "a flip floppper" and backing it up with stats and numbers. meanwhile bush could just as easily be called a "flip flopper" though over things arguably more substantiative like his 2000 campaign comment that "we should not be involved in nation building excercizes." sooooo, what's the plan for iraq?
the "reports" and "journalists" today are just part of the political machine, they don't think for themselvs or ask questions which would mean anything. it's sad.
talking points is what these news networks are all about these days. i don't know how it happens but all of a sudden every one is calling kerry "a flip floppper" and backing it up with stats and numbers.
It's called the Echo Chamber, the Great Right-Wing Wurlitzer.
Basically, the conservative think-tanks come up with a new talking point for the week. Then, the president, his VP and all his advisors and cabinet members start using this talking point, Rush Limbaugh starts using it, Fox "News" starts us
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them. If their ratings suck they will go off the air, but if people watch them they will keep doing what they do.
It's not a flawed argument. Americans aren't naturally ignorant sheeple. They have just been conditioned over the last twenty years by this sort of crap to lose their ability to distinguish between news and editorial. Sure, Americans love scandal and sleaze, but the drug dealer and the pimp share responsibility in the plights of the crack-addicted whores they prey upon. Jon stood up basically said, "I'm one of your viewers. I'm not your crack whore. I want this relationship to stop and could you please stop pimping out the public and selling them crack? You're hurting them. Stop. You've got them hooked and they can't help themselves, so please just stop."
Perhaps you should provide some support for this. Here is my evidence that many are:
- Jerry Falwell - Pat Roberts and the 700 Club - Jim and Tammy Fay Baker - Jimmy Swaggert - Oral Roberts - Billy Graham and son....this list goes on a while, should I continue?
I'm wagering all the sheeple that follow these conmen and give them huge sums of money are also Bush supporters.
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them. If their ratings suck they will go off the air, but if people watch them they will keep doing what they do.
Actually, the flaw is in your reasoning.
Channels like CNN are owned by large corporations with significant politcal interests. To pretend it's all about what the viewers want is to display extreme ignorance of the system.
The corporate media in this country have their own interests.
A really quick and easy example would be these channels' coverage of new movie releases:
Ever notice how new movies tend to get reported on/advertised by the channels who just happen to be associated with the company that made the movie?
Try thinking about this one for a second:
Maybe Nader wasn't allowed in the poresidential debates because the MEDIA's interests did not want him there. Say what you will, Nader basically decided the last election. If there was no Nader, we would have a different president right now.
In addition, I think most americans recognize that having a third party in the debates would have made them much more interesting.
Perhaps the REAL reason Nader was not allow in the presidential debates was because neither the corporate new media, nor their advertisers had bought him off. Seems logical doesn't it?
If the MEDIA had a motivation for leaving Nader off, it would be because Bush v. Kerry would be a lot more interesting than Bush v. Kerry v. Nader. You forget the public's limited attention span and lack of focus.
No I do not. Having a thrid party there who would actually answer the questions asked of him and calls others on their BS would make things MORE INTERESTING.
(actually the MEDIA doesn't decide who gets to debate so your whole premise is flawed)
Nope, You're wrong. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a bipartisan, not nonpartisan nonprofit founded by the Republicans and Democrats togather. Nader wasn't allowed in because they don't want him in.
Nope, You're wrong. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a bipartisan, not nonpartisan nonprofit founded by the Republicans and Democrats togather. Nader wasn't allowed in because they don't want him in.
I'm not wrong, you're just blind.
"The Commission on Presidential Debates" is nothing but the embodiment of the combined will fo 3 groups:
Republicans
Democrats
Corporate Media
Those are the groups who control the presidential debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a nothing in the
We had a similar occurence, here in Canada, during our Federal elections. We had a televised debate where every "major" party's leader was invited to debate on live television. Jim Harris' Green Party (which has candidates in EVERY riding in Canada, and a serious and complete political platform) was not invited.
The Bloc Quebecois, however, WAS invited to join, even though they are a FEDERAL political party that a) is a seperatist party and wants Canada's federation
So I guess we can all just watch PBS and listen to NPR and this problem goes away, right?
People do have other choices yet the still watch Fox and are being turned into Rupert Murdoch's own personal army of zombies. At some point you do have to concede that maybe most people may actually LIKE being slaved to corporations, after all most of them work form them, and they were giving American's a pretty sweet life compared to the rest of the world until recently.
So I guess we can all just watch PBS and listen to NPR and this problem goes away, right?
Obviously there are problems with state run media as well.
The problem in this case case been pretty well spelled out by Ted turner himself: link [slashdot.org]
A. He has zero chance of winning like all the current crop of 3rd party candidates.
Acutally, the funny thing about a winner-take-all election is that is give the media MASSIVE amounts of power to control the outcome. People tend to vote their fears instead of their h
Perhaps the REAL reason Nader was not allow in the presidential debates was because neither the corporate new media, nor their advertisers had bought him off. Seems logical doesn't it?
No, it doesn't seem logical at all. It seems more logical that Nader was not on the podium because he is not a viable candidate with any chance of winning the election.
Say what you will, Nader basically decided the last election. If there was no Nader, we would have a different president right now. You sound like you thi
He subverted the will of the American people in their choice of a president.
Which proves that your voting system is fatally flawed
"Fatally flawed" is a considerable leap in logic and hyperbole. The election process may indeed be flawed, but that was not your original point. You were expounding the virtues of the Nader candidacy and creating grand conspiracy theories about his exclusion from the debates at the command of the corporations.
I think your tendancy to jump to such extreme conclusions with su
I hope that the "Nader ruined everything" argument will die a swift and permanent death after this election if Kerry loses.
Everyone who's informed enough to think, "Hey, I'll vote for Nader" is informed enough to know that John Kerry is infinitesimally less likely to win if they vote Nader instead of him.
So in January 2005, if people are bitching about "spoilers", I don't think I'll have anything charitable to say to them.
I agree that Stewart should put his money where is mouth is and coordinate honest, factual public debate. If you saw him talk to Rudy Giuliani after the first presidental debate, he did that, he tore him a new factual asshole about Giuliani's (and the GOP's) blatant misreading of everything Kerry said that night - in as polite a way as possible, of course, in the standard Stewart mannerism.
But, I disagree with two things in your post:
First, the fact that shows like Crossfire get good ratings doesn't enter
The second thing is Stewart's hypocrisy. I agree he is a hypocrite - if he would stop shirking HIS responsibility with the excuse that he's a comedian, he could do a lot of good in this area that he was just speaking out against.
Unfortunately, I think soon as Jon Stewart starts presenting himself as too serious, then he will not be able to get the guests he does, nor be able to act the way he does on show from too much outside pressure. He is walking a fine line between popularity with the rest of us for pointing out abusrdities in what he sees, and still getting the access he does to people like John Kerry, Rudy Gulliani, etc.
He can only be so hard hitting, before all of a sudden he is a Gary Treudeau, and respected by people who read him, as well as critically, but, will have no access to the people he is discussing.
Unfortunately, I think soon as Jon Stewart starts presenting himself as too serious, then he will not be able to get the guests he does, nor be able to act the way he does on show from too much outside pressure.
Face it, TDS has a comparatively well educated, young demographic. Jon is building himself quite a reputation with that demographic. I think he could get away with a second, more legitimate, news show airing right afterwards. With a large and under-represented demographic like his, not appearing on
John Madden style commentary would actually be an improvement. Also, Madden doesn't try to tell me that the team that lost actually won. He would have been a tonic if he had been calling the debates.
Which allows me to segue gracefully back to Jon Stewart's point: Crossfire would be a much more honest show if they had Madden and Terry Bradshaw hosting instead of Paul and Tucker or Carville and Novak. (Oh, and by the way, in case you didn't know, while Carville is probably the most obnoxious blowhard on the
"The second thing is Stewart's hypocrisy. I agree he is a hypocrite - if he
would stop shirking HIS responsibility with the excuse that he's a comedian,
he could do a lot of good in this area that he was just speaking out
against."
It's not hypocrisy to criticize someone for failing to meet the standards of
their profession, if you don't meet those standards because you aren't in
the same profession.
I don't hire a forensic specialist to check documents I receive, but I
can still criticize Dan Rather
"First, the fact that shows like Crossfire get good ratings doesn't enter into his argument. He is saying that as pundits on CNN, they have an ethical RESPONSIBILITY to be honest, not to twist facts according to the parties' wishes, and to actually discuss civilliy the issues of the day."
Maybe there is some such vague ethical responsibility but it is next to non existent today. There have already been one or two court cases from journalists suiting FOX. FOX producers tried to compel journalists to be untr
I've been watching political commentary shows since the early 70's, well before Fox was anything but a movie studio. The quality of political discussion started tanking with "Point/Counterpoint" on "60 Minutes". It was due in part to the increase in partisan reporting from Watergate, and the feeling on "both sides" that their side was being sh*t on.
Shows like "Meet the Press" started fading, and "argument shows" like "The McLaughlin Group" and "Crossfire" started being produced. The whole point of the a
Dont think I really agree. Russert does a pretty decent job most of the time. He's done a pretty good lately of holding people feet to the fire when they say one thing and then do or say something that completely contradicts it. I'd say he's head and shoulders above O'Reilly and Wolf Blitzer. Don't know about you but if you go from Russert to Wolf on Sunday morning I can't last more than a couple minutes on Wolf before I HAVE to hit the mute button.
Of course, depending on how far back you go, it was also a time when your Sunday morning options were "Meet the Press", "Face the Nation", church and I remember wrestling being an option for a while where I lived.
Today these shows are vying for an audience against 100+ TV channels, DVD's, the Internet and video games just to name a few. Its pretty obvious they have to do something to garner attention which nearly inevitably leads to news turning to theater, comedy, scandal and sporting event to draw an au
Have you watched McLaughlin lately? The show hasn't changed, and now seems quaint. John McLaughlin is still great, though. The biggest difference between McLaughlin and Crossfire is that McLaughlin and company actually deal with substantive issues, and when one of the panel sticks to their talking points, they get made fun of and chided.
I said it was quaint, but it's still light years better than Crossfire or O'Reilly.
"I dearly wish I could get CNN international because CNN U.S.
seems to be intentionally very dumbed down for an American
audience."
Weird. I wish I could get CNN U.S., because CNN international
seems to be intent on projecting an image of calm to the world
rather than exposing the incredible mess that is U.S. election
politics. From way over here in.ie [failteireland.ie], it seems like any fool
should be able to see that re-electing Bush would be an insane
choice. But clearly many non-foolish Americans disagree, and
I for one would like to know what they're being told that
we're not.
Adrian,
Greetings in Ireland, I was born in the States, my parents are from Co. Armagh (Hanlon). I think it boils down to FUD; Fear that an attack is "imminent", uncertainty about John Kerry's ability to "stand up" to the EU (Americans think that is important due to a narrow world-view), and doubt caused by an overwhelming bombardment of conservative viewpoints. Facts are facts, and Fox News owns the largest market share, and the Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter shows outnumber the Frankens 10 to 1.
No, I'm serious, the US has attitudes that are culturally much different that that of Europe. In particular, the US learned different lessons from the last century of history. For example, "Patriotism" and "Nationalism" got really bad names in Europe because of WWI and WWII and their apparent causes. Europeans became deeply suspicious of them for that reason, but USians found those attributes a good thing, because it helped them WIN those wars. I guess I'm saying that it's not the the US gets so much different information, (ignorance, FUD, etc) but that USians seem to view it with a much different perspective than the rest of the world.
I'm not sure that it is wrong or right. It just is.
For example, "Patriotism" and "Nationalism" got really bad names in Europe because of WWI and WWII and their apparent causes.
Your point is brilliant, and shows the danger of not focussing on fundamentals. Patriotism toward a bad government is bad. Patriotism toward a good government is a limited good, requiring that the government stay good and that the individual frequently check the government's performance with respect to his standards.
How do you reconcile Americans supposed fondness for "Nationalism" with the current trend among American government and business to sell America down the river in the name of "Globalization". Globalization is a death knell for "Nationalism".
You could argue thats the government and not the people, yet the people who are supporting Bush are in supporting an administration who is openly infatuated with the globalization that will ultimately trump their nationalism. Not sure
How do you reconcile Americans supposed fondness for "Nationalism" with the current trend among American government and business to sell America down the river in the name of "Globalization". Globalization is a death knell for "Nationalism".
Not for the United States. The American "brand" is dominant, and will be for a long time. American brands, fast food, movies, and music are dominant in the world. No other culture projects so much influence. This used to be called "the Americanization of the world"
I think that qualifies as backward looking. Toyota has already passed Ford as the #2 car maker and I wouldn't be surprised if Toyota and Honda ultimately dominate the automotive sector.
Airbus is demolishing Boeing in commercial airliners lately.
Exactly how many American brands do you see on the electronics shelf outside of Ipod and computers most of which are built in Asia and just have an American brand stamped on them.
How much stuff in Walmart is actually made in the U.S., so its got a GE brand on it, not sure stamping GE on a Chinese built phone qualifies as any real economic achievement.
Not sure fast food, convenience stores and increasingly bad movies and music are really brands you can hang your hat on with pride.
Not sure you were aware but "Lord of the Rings" was produced in New Zealand. A LOT of top flight movie production is happening in Canada, Australia and New Zealand now. Aussie actors are doing pretty well at the box office too.
Canada dominates animation software development.
I guess there's Microsoft but I'm not sure that monopoly is a badge of honor either and I wager the world outside the U.S. will abandon it in favor of Linux.
"American is the best nation in the world!"
Again backward looking. Charlie Rose recently did a show on future American competitiveness. Again he cited Weta Studios and Peter Jackson's confidence he could put together a better top flight studio in New Zealand that would out compete the "distractions" in LA. Lord of the Rings proved that he did to and it didn't hurt that there is a big currency advantage there as there is in Canada and Australia.
There is apparently a flood of applications from the top flight graduate students coming in to places like Oxford and the University of Toronto. Its partially because its turned incredibly hard to get visas to study or work in the U.S. thanks to "Homeland Security". They are apaprently doing a great job of hassling top graduate students trying to get in the country while there is still a flood of illegals pouring across the border which would be the easy route for a terrorist to get in to the U.S. now.
The U.S. is also now considered somewhat dangerous for foreign students since the U.S. began arresting and detaining people for long periods without access to a lawyer, family or a trial and often sending them to foreign powers to be tortu..er..interrogated.
And of course the U.S. is just a really expensive place to start any company thanks to skyrocketing insurance costs, cost of living, payroll taxes, etc.
All in all if you are forward looking I'm not sure you can say it is the greatest nation any more in any category other than military dominance. It is #1 in that department and in health care costs. Unfortunately those tend to sap the life out of a robust economy not enhance it.
America is a service economy. Who cares if Lord of the Rings is made in a differencet country. Who published it? Where does the big money end up. I imagine most of the time the big movie ends up in some major movie company in the US.
Microsoft dominates computer. America makes the best/most successful drugs. Coca Kola, McDonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, General Motors, Yahoo, Amazon, Google, GE, Exxon, etc. The list goes on and on. Huge US corporations that dominate industries. While the product made be m
"It's a brand. How many times have you heard, "American is the best nation in the world!", from someone who doesn't know anything about the rest of the world. Or how about "America has the best healthcare system in the world!" Well, we're the only industrializaed nation that doesn't have national healthcare coverage, and we have some of most expensive medical bills in the world, so objectively we don't. Say that and people start yelling "Why do you hate America?" a
Or how about "America has the best healthcare system in the world!" Well, we're the only industrializaed nation that doesn't have national healthcare coverage, and we have some of most expensive medical bills in the world, so objectively we don't.
Forgetting the Straw Man for a moment, I have to point out the two words in your passage I made bold.
The US may very well have the "best" healthcare system in the world -- depending on what the definition of "best" is. Such a statement can't be confirmed nor d
There is an answer to this question that is very relevant to the topic article and it's all about viewpoint.
Viewpoint is what people in this country, and seem to be looking for. People here seem to like their facts pre-digested so that instead of thinking for themselves, someone has already done the thinking for them. Much of the public wants a well understood perspective on the news as well as on their politicians. They want their information fed with an angle attached. Normal journalism is about pre
Kerry comes across as flip-flopping because the Bush propaganda machinery wants it that way. They have stuff like Fox News to create false ideas like this, just to attack the opponent without having to go into the difficult parts: The actual politics. Instead, make people think that the opponent does one thing in a certain way, and they'll soon forget to listen to what they are actually saying, and go with the "he's flip-flopping" nonsense instead.
Or could it be that supporters of President Bush endorse a foreign policy of premptive use of force against an irregular and non-national threat to the country's security?
There's a lot of talk about Bush's foreign policy but very little of it gets to the core issue: Bush believes in a foreign policy that is, simplistically, shoot first and ask questions later.
If you can understand that about Bush's core policy, then actions like the Iraq war are more explainable. Confronted with a rogue nation, conflicti
John Kerry is only "apparently" willing to make US decisions depend on the UN if your "appearances" are determined by what you see on FOX News.
In case you haven't paid attention to the history of the UN, it was precisely created in such a way that it could NOT stop or act against the interests of any of the principal powers, i.e., the permanent members of the Security Council, including the U.S.
The whole problem with Bush is not necessarily that he has a policy of pre-emption, but that the threshold for a
A BIG reason is because too many Americans approach politics the way they approach sports. They pick one team and stick with it, unless they get a REALLY good reason not to. To switch parties would make them feel 'disloyal'.
On top of that you have the fact that most political debate is about at the level presented above: "If you like Bush, you must either be stupid or evil". That just tends to make it easier to stay 'loyal'. Because everybody knows they aren't stupid or evil, so the "other" side, in addit
1. Many fundimentalist christians (which is a large group of the VOTING citizens) will vote for Bush pretty much no matter what because of his public stance of being christian, his anti-abortion stance, etc.
2. Many people will vote against Kerry because of his anti-Vietnam war stance. There are still many unhealed wounds over the issue in this country, and there are many who believe that we were 100% right in the matter and therefore anyone who criticises is wrong.
3. Large portions of the populace that is damaged most by Bush's policies (particularly the 18-30 set) are the same group that historically don't vote. I was constantly fustrated in college by the vast amount of otherwise smart people who wouldn't bother to vote - I drove 9 hours roundtrip in a 12 hour time period to vote 4 years ago because I missed the deadline to vote by mail. Many of my friends could have cared less.
Shock horror, when you choose not to vote you get screwed over by politicians.
From way over here in.ie, it seems like any fool should be able to see that re-electing Bush would be an insane choice. But clearly many non-foolish Americans disagree, and I for one would like to know what they're being told that we're not.
No. They are fools. Trust me. I've talked to them. Like Bush, they have an incredibly simplistic worldview.
The news shows are like they are because people watch them. [...] Americans are so dumbed down most of them don't want to watch insightful debate or intelligent journalism.
It's more than that. The problem with TV news is that they have to fill a time-slot every day. This gives it the advantage of providing immediate, real-time coverage during a crisis. However, when there's no crisis, they have to find something to fill the time slot, which means that most news coverage is irrelevant most of the time. That makes it boring and needlessly depressing.
The Daily Show works around this by being funny. If there's nothing relevant to talk about it, at least you can get a few laughs off it.
I'm not sure what Fox News does, since I've seen maybe ten minutes' worth of it total, but from what I've heard of it, it looks to me like they're trying to fake relevance by pitching themselves as the last defender of All That Is Good And Decent from the Evil Liberal Conspiracy.
And frankly, if it's a choice of that or some talking head discussing the ramifications of the President's nasal polyps, I'd watch Fox News too.
Even Slashdot is a better news source. At least here, if nothing's happened today, I can read about the robot drum machine or look at pictures of some cool casemod.
so you're saying that there isn't enough intresting or important news in the world to actually take a good hard look at during non-crisis periods?
I don't think so.
It would simply meen that CNN would have to do some actual reporting, and not simply follow the rest of the sheep in talking about the same things over and over.
If he tried to run a news show with insightful debate and reasoned commentary (and no comedy) chances are high it would flop or end up with a subsistence market share.
I think that The Varsity on the Dennis Miller show is pretty good. Though it does feature comedy, the debaters on both sides are several notches above most other programs. It would be intersting to watch Stewart (who leans left) and Miller (who leans right and is quite proud of it) square off.
Dude, the average net worth in that room was near 280 milllion dollars. I find one of lifes greatest ironies to be the fact (at least in America) some of the most ferverent followers of a man who supposedly gave everything he had, including his life, to be the most corrupt and greedy.
"Miller (who leans right and is quite proud of it) square off."
Maybe its just perception but I don't actually remember Miller leanly right before 9/11 at least as publicly as he does now. Maybe he did he just wasn't obvious about it or I missed it. It seems to me that as soon as 9/11 happened he knew he could lean right in public and actually advance his career instead of wreck it so he did and it appears it worked very well.
Unfortunately most people want scandal, lurid crimes, partisan bickering, controversy and watching people fight. The problem here is mostly the American people and not so much the cable networks. Americans are so dumbed down most of them don't want to watch insightful debate or intelligent journalism.
What makes you think that just because people do something over and over again that they would prefer it to something else? What if those people never learned that they could have something better? What
What you're describing can be understood as a defection in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. In a quest for quality and diversity of opinion and approach, there is a mass defection of The News (stereotype, exceptions exist) from the consumer. Those are the two prisoners: The News and You, the punishment is Lowest Common Denominator programming.
The fact is a LOT of Americans are extremely partisan, and not well informed, and in particular a LOT of them are rabidly right wing partisans which is why talk radio is like it is and why FOX dominates an entire half of the cable news market.
I think there's a real chicken-and-egg situation buried in that statement. The big upswing in partisanship seems to have coincided with the explosion of right wing talk radio. There didn't seem (to me) to be the rabid partisanship and "us-versus-them" political out
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them. If their ratings suck they will go off the air, but if people watch them they will keep doing what they do.
Generally, I'd agree with you. However, it seems to me that John Stewart's argument was particularly that the news organizations were failing to understand that their job was not to cater to the whims of the American public (or corporations or whoever) and provide an entertaining show. Their respo
That might be true if your a journalist on NPR or PBS. All the rest of them are vying for ratings, sales, advertising revenue, success. These people are all working entirely in a Capitalist system you know. Their JOB IS to cater to the whims of the American public to get the maximum number possible watching, reading, listening to them. If they don't pander no one watches them and they fail.
You are acting like these people are some kind of public servents, who will be assured success if they are just sc
Listen, I'm not so naive as you're supposing. I know bad/partial journalism has been around as long as journalism itself. I know the system in which these journalists find themselves encourages the sort of behavior they're exhibiting.
However, as human beings, they still have ethical obligations inherent in whatever roles they choose to play. You could argue that drug-dealers and pimps and hit-men, well, there's a DEMAND, right? There are people who want those services, or they'd be out of jobs, right?
Well yes you are. The bulk of your post seems to suggest you are unaware you are living in a capitalist system, a jungle where survival of the fittest rules the day. You have to be very young or old, idealistic and or naive to value public service over making money in such a system. You are talking like you want to be in a true socialist system where everyone is out to serve the common good. Nothing wrong with that, but that is not what America is all abou
You don't seem to know very much about America. I understand that you think you know all about America, but I find myself curious where your ideas come from.
Yes, America is a fairly capitalist system, but it's certainly not totally capitalistic. Even so, a capitalist system only means that there are no governmental controls on commerce. It doesn't mean that there are no ethical controls. Private citizens are still able to police themselves, and "vote with their dollars," as the saying goes. And even w
"I'd just like to add that the idea that their aren't Americans with ideals, morals, or scruples is just preposterous."
Didn't say there weren't. What I did say was the American system actively, actively works against these traits in people.
In the majority of Americans they come after money and power on the priority list. For example you don't find any of these positive traits in car salesman, at least while they are on the job. They are kind of the worst case but they are what the capitalist system tur
Do you even live in America? You sound like someone who either:
A) Has never been to America and has met few, if any, Americans
-or-
B) leads a very sheltered life where he's been abused in some way, on a regular basis.
What I did say was the American system actively, actively works against these traits in people.
How? True, if you are unscrupulous and are willing to exploit the system, you can find ways to reap material benefits. First of all, that's true of any system. Secondly, the people who are lik
I'm often willing to take that chance, since, if the post is being made in earnest, even if only for the sake of argument, it might be worth taking up the other end in the hopes of changing some minds.
Now, I know you can't really change a person's mind so easily, but it's also not usually without an effect. People become persuaded and turned around in strange and complex ways, and maybe you convince someone a little, or you at least get them to question what they're
"If it means the chance to change a mind, I'm willing to take that chance."
I'm pretty much the same, but I've taken a huge back seat to some arguments because it's patently obvious that some people are so set on promoting their own ignorance and sticking to an agenda that isn't even close to being internally consistent that you may as well waste the breath on someone willing to compromise.
That does mean that I end up ignoring extremists, but I think the point is that extremists are a lost cause.
You're assuming we live in a pure capitalist system. We don't. There are laws against certain behavior, such as murder and drug dealing, and there used to be laws that governed broadcast media.
The rationale behind the the laws that governed broadcast media were as follows: Because the the broadcast media were using the public airwaves, they were to devote a certain amount of programming to serve the public interest. This included having a certain amount of news, and that news was to be presented in a fair
Yes your wrong, other than its obvious I dislike the Republicans and FOX a lot more than I dislike the Democrats and CNN. I do watch CNN but as I said up there somewhere I hate most of it too with the possible exception of Aaron Brown and occasionally Lou Dobbs. Lou is stiff but to his credit he hammers the issues that count that everyone else ignores or pays lip service to immigration, unemployment, declining incomes, outsourcing, trade deficit and budget deficit.
Hey, I like Lou Dobbs, too! Yes, he's extremely stiff, and I think he is a little too fixated and one-sided on immigration issues, but he is at least sincere about it.
On the day of the Arizona debate, he had representatives from both campaigns on to discuss immigration, and it was pretty funny watching him press the Bush guy about the term "undocumented worker". He made the guy squirm, but Lou couldn't make him say "Illegal Alien".
Anyway, I think Lou will come around eventually from being anti-immigration
Beautifully put, Demanchina. I would only say that Stewart needed only do what he did. I don't agree that the one who points to an injustice need be the one who solves it. I'd love to hear the conversations in the hall at CNN. I wonder if they know that this was as important a moment as it was.
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them.
It isn't a matter of providing the most entertaining show for the masses, it is about having a news program that doesn't suck for the sake of having a good news program. Generally news doesn't get high ratings, entertainment does. As a gross oversimplification the further from being a news show and the more towards entertainment the higher the ratings. However the amount of news watched remains cons
"I'm sure there are millions of smart people in the US who would watch a worthy news program if a news program were to provide "news for nerds"."
Well I'd be inclined to say that you might be talking about Lehrer's News Hour on PBS. Do you watch it? I'm guessing not because you don't seem to know one already exists. The problem with it is most people find it somewhat boring.
It being on PBS they also aren't particularly beholden to the corprate media everyone here is railing against. Everyone in this th
Yes, but there is a group of us who make more money than your average American and are in the sweet spot demographically that will not watch any of this crap. They are not able to sell advertising for us because they have no product to offer us. If they did, then they could get lucrative ads from Jaguar, Volvo, etc. They can still keep their crap news-tainment for everyone else, but I want some real news. It's not an either/or proposition.
SAw this yesterday on Fark/iFilm (Score:5, Interesting)
This is really hillarious, especially the fact that Stewart barely does anything funny at all, he's dead serious the whole time. Both the guys on Crossfire are trying to get him riled up and shut him down and they do an absolutely miserable job, and he ends up even calling the guy in the bowtie a dick!
Jon Stewart is my hero.
Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Interesting)
I shut off Crossfire because there is to much shouting and to much repetition of the same worn out talking points by the left and the right. I did watch the show yesterday thought and it was awe inspiring, especially because it was live and they kept coming back from the commercial breaks for another beating. I especially liked it when they were in Rapidfire and Stewart ignored the gong until they gave up on it.
Once again the right proved they have no sense of humour, Begala mostly kept his mouth shut and Carlson made a complete ass out of himself. Another example of the Republicans having no sense of humor the Michigan Republican party trying to charge Michael Moore with vote buying for offering clean underwear or Ramen noodles to slackers who vote. The first DA they took it to said no, she had real crime to deal with.
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them. If their ratings suck they will go off the air, but if people watch them they will keep doing what they do. Unfortunately most people want scandal, lurid crimes, partisan bickering, controversy and watching people fight. The problem here is mostly the American people and not so much the cable networks. Americans are so dumbed down most of them don't want to watch insightful debate or intelligent journalism.
Where cable news is today and is going to keep going is dictated almost entirely by FOX News. They now control a market share equal to all of the rest of the cable news networks combined, 9 of the top 10 shows through the summer. The one exception was Larry King and that is mostly because half his shows have been turned over to Court TV which obsess on the lurid trials of the day, and a quarter seem to be about Britain's royal family. Larry King has completely dumbed his show down to the level American's are comfortable with it.
The fact is a LOT of Americans are extremely partisan, and not well informed, and in particular a LOT of them are rabidly right wing partisans which is why talk radio is like it is and why FOX dominates an entire half of the cable news market.
What Stewart said was right in an ideal world but this isn't an ideal world. There are some fairly well done news shows Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Russert, Aaron Brown and they have an audience but they are never going to compete against vicious, partisan shouting matches like O'Reilly (though we can pray O'Reilly's career will crater now that the scandal mongering is aimed at him and not by him).
The hypocrisy in what Stewart said is I wager he would be a sensational flop if he were to try to do what he was telling the news networks to do. If he tried to run a news show with insightful debate and reasoned commentary (and no comedy) chances are high it would flop or end up with a subsistence market share. If anyone could do it he could and if he wants to put his money where his mouth is he should. Its pretty easy to scold the news networks to do something that would probably be ratings suicide, and then go back to doing fake news and comedy and a sure market share.
From Yahoo News
Fox News beats all rivals
Pamela McClintock, STAFF
Tue Sep 28, 6:23 PM ET
NEW YORK -- For the first time in its history, Fox News Channel beat the combined competition in primetime during the third quarter of 2004, with major headlines of the summer including the national political conventions and a brutal string of hurricanes.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 1.8 million viewers, while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News averaged a combined total of 1.7 million. The quarter ended Sunday.
CNN came in a distant second, averaging 882,000 viewers, while MSNBC drew 421,000. Headline News averaged 226,000 in primetime, and CNBC attracted a paltry 133,000.
Most of the cable news nets were up significantly vs. Q3 2003 thanks to a busy news cycle. The one exception was CNBC, which was down 13%.
Buoyed by the Olympics and convention coverage, MSNBC saw the most growth in its primetime aud, up a hefty 55%. Fox News came in second in terms of growth, up 39%. CNN was up 19% and Headline News 17%.
In the key news demo, Fox News averaged 405,000 viewers in 25-54, a 44% improvement on the same period in 2003. CNN averaged 195,000 viewers in the demo, up 17%. At 115,000, MSNBC was up 34%.
Headline News averaged 75,000 viewers in the demo, up only 6% from the same frame last year. CNBC improved its performance in the demo, averaging 53,000 viewers, a 36% jump.
Fox News' third-quarter performance further solidified its dominance in the field of cable news, as well as its increasing strength against even the broadcast nets. During the Republican National Convention in late August, Fox News won out over ABC News, CBS News and NBC News, also a first for a cable news net.
Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Bush on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" drew a whopping 4.6 million viewers.
Fox News had nine of the 10 top programs during the third quarter, with O'Reilly remaining at No. 1, averaging 2.4 million viewers. The one exception was CNN's "Larry King Live," which was No. 6, averaging 1.3 million viewers.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Hence Jon Stewart's comment: "At least I can sleep at night." It's clear that if Stewart wanted to, he could put together a political wrestling federation show that would blow Crossfire and everything else off the map. But he doesn't, because he's not evil. The fact that the news networks can't make as much money if they're not evil doesn't excuse them from responsibility. "The people want to be lied to" is a lousy excuse, and Stewart called the Crossfire folks on this. They need to do some kind of the
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:4, Insightful)
What Stewart was doing there was classic "do as I say not as I do".
When I watched him on Crossfire I cheered him on. Smart, well informed people desperately want more of exactly what he was advocating. But then you think about it in a practical sense. The problem is most people aren't smart, well informed people so neither is most of the TV and TV news they watch. Its one of those cases where its impossible to tell which is the chicken and the egg, though I'm pretty sure if all TV news suddenly turned smart, nonpartisan and informed I doubt the American people would necessarily follow, they would probably just switch to a Sports channel. If you want most people to watch news it in fact needs to have a heavy dose of comedy, sporting event and or theater.
I love Jon Stewart, but for him to say "At least I can sleep at night" is kind of hypocritical. Either he should put on a show that what he was demanding so dtirdently, informed debate and smart journalism, or stick to satirizing journalism and leave it alone.
I didn't suggest he put together a "political wrestling federation show", I suggested he put on a show that does what he was telling the news networks to do, and probably watch it flop. Otherwise he should stick to comedy and satire. The comedy and satire angle is already doing a much better job of shredding the news networks, and especially shredding them in the ratings race, than preaching to them that they should aspire to an ideal that probably wouldn't work in our less than ideal world. Lehrer, Russert, Brown and Rose do a fair job of doing what Stewart proposed and they just don't compete well with partisan flame throwing.
Most people want to either:
A. Watch news heavily biased to their partisan view, and especially a media star that holds their partisan view shred the people they disagree with, which is why O'Reilly and Rush are #1.
B. Watch one side that matches their partisan view fight with the other side, the classic Crossfire. In fact neither side really ever wins but you always believe your side wins everytime.
America is pretty much polarized to 40-45% Republican/Right and 40-45% Democrat/Left and maybe 10-20% independent who are either kind of indifferent, dislike them both or actually try to make smart decisions based on issues in defiance of insurmountable odds. The right is going to watch Fox, the left is going to watch CNN, not sure who watches MSNBC. You can get both sides to watch Crossfire because both sides are equally and badly represented.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Jon Stewart is a comedian. Success, for him, would be network late night talk. He is not a journalist. He has no journalistic training. He is not Jim Lehrer. What is wrong with a cable comedian screaming down the cable news guys? He is doing a responsible job as a comedian. His satire is already a better news show than crossfire.
Right?
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that Jon Stewart decided that he agreed with your analysis: there's no way to get an audience for a political show of the type he wants. So he went and got on a comedy show which talks about political topics.
Stewart never said not to "do as I do". He was just very clear about this: If you're doing entertainment, such as theatre or comedy, you should be labeling it theatre or comedy rather than journalism. Otherwise, you're doing a grave disservice to the surprising number of Americans who can't tell the difference.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1, Troll)
Well yes he did. He basically said because you are "journalists" you can no longer do theater, try to be entertaining or try to pump up your ratings. If they listened to him they would be consigned to massively boring, their ratings would crater, and the ratings of "The Daily Show" would go through the roof because everone would be compelled to turn to Stewart to get what they want which is news as theater.
All this was pretty well nailed in the movie "Network" yea
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
What he's saying is, all these shows that are purported to be "news" shows, especially the ones on CNN, are not serving the country because they are NOT doing journalism.
Furthermore, I believe the oft-mentioned "American Public" want some real news. They don't want to be sheeple, but they don't have any other choices. The highest rated show on TV? 60 Minutes. Yes, they can have a definate spin to their questions. Yucca mountain reporting comes to mind, and I'm what you'd call an environmentalist, but even I could see they were asking loaded questions and trying to paint the NRC in a bad way. But the point is, for the most part, 60 Minutes tries to do in-depth reporting and tries to be fair, much more fair than other news shows, and they have great ratings. People want it. The country needs it.
The proof is in The Daily Show's high ratings and awards. It's a very sad commentary, and Jon Stewart knows it, that a *lot* of people get their news from his show because
- there aren't any better alternatives
. That's sad and Jon is trying to make everyone aware of that. Did you hear the reaction of the crowd during the Crossfire appearance? They were clapping for what Jon was saying. They agree! We want better journalism, and we want it to be on our TV!MOD PARENT UP (Score:1)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1, Redundant)
"The proof is in The Daily Show's high ratings and awards. It's a very sad commentary, and Jon Stewart knows it, that a *lot* of people get their news from his show because there aren't any better alternatives"
I think you are wrong and I think this is the crux of the issue here. People don't watch
"The Daily Show" "because there aren't any better alternatives". They watch it precisely because its funny and its good theater. Straight news is mostly unhappy news or not interesting to most people news. I t
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
The Daily Show is a parody of the media. If the media ceased to be absurd, Jon Stewart would be out of work. Is it really so hard to believe that an intelligent person might be so exasperated with what passes for news these days that he would take advantage of a golden opportunity to let everyone know how he feels?
Keep in mind that t
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:4, Insightful)
talking points is what these news networks are all about these days. i don't know how it happens but all of a sudden every one is calling kerry "a flip floppper" and backing it up with stats and numbers. meanwhile bush could just as easily be called a "flip flopper" though over things arguably more substantiative like his 2000 campaign comment that "we should not be involved in nation building excercizes." sooooo, what's the plan for iraq?
the "reports" and "journalists" today are just part of the political machine, they don't think for themselvs or ask questions which would mean anything. it's sad.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
It's called the Echo Chamber, the Great Right-Wing Wurlitzer.
Basically, the conservative think-tanks come up with a new talking point for the week. Then, the president, his VP and all his advisors and cabinet members start using this talking point, Rush Limbaugh starts using it, Fox "News" starts us
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Alas it would also go over the head of 90% of the public and bomb.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a flawed argument. Americans aren't naturally ignorant sheeple. They have just been conditioned over the last twenty years by this sort of crap to lose their ability to distinguish between news and editorial. Sure, Americans love scandal and sleaze, but the drug dealer and the pimp share responsibility in the plights of the crack-addicted whores they prey upon. Jon stood up basically said, "I'm one of your viewers. I'm not your crack whore. I want this relationship to stop and could you please stop pimping out the public and selling them crack? You're hurting them. Stop. You've got them hooked and they can't help themselves, so please just stop."
Bravo.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1, Flamebait)
Perhaps you should provide some support for this. Here is my evidence that many are:
- Jerry Falwell
- Pat Roberts and the 700 Club
- Jim and Tammy Fay Baker
- Jimmy Swaggert
- Oral Roberts
- Billy Graham and son
I'm wagering all the sheeple that follow these conmen and give them huge sums of money are also Bush supporters.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the flaw is in your reasoning.
Channels like CNN are owned by large corporations with significant politcal interests. To pretend it's all about what the viewers want is to display extreme ignorance of the system.
The corporate media in this country have their own interests.
A really quick and easy example would be these channels' coverage of new movie releases:
Ever notice how new movies tend to get reported on/advertised by the channels who just happen to be associated with the company that made the movie?
Try thinking about this one for a second:
Maybe Nader wasn't allowed in the poresidential debates because the MEDIA's interests did not want him there. Say what you will, Nader basically decided the last election. If there was no Nader, we would have a different president right now.
In addition, I think most americans recognize that having a third party in the debates would have made them much more interesting.
Perhaps the REAL reason Nader was not allow in the presidential debates was because neither the corporate new media, nor their advertisers had bought him off. Seems logical doesn't it?
Re:No Nader helps Kerry more than it hurts Bush. (Score:3, Insightful)
No I do not. Having a thrid party there who would actually answer the questions asked of him and calls others on their BS would make things MORE INTERESTING.
(actually the MEDIA doesn't decide who gets to debate so your whole premise is flawed)
The debate format is controlled by two parties
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
I'm not wrong, you're just blind.
"The Commission on Presidential Debates" is nothing but the embodiment of the combined will fo 3 groups:
Those are the groups who control the presidential debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a nothing in the
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2, Interesting)
We had a similar occurence, here in Canada, during our Federal elections. We had a televised debate where every "major" party's leader was invited to debate on live television. Jim Harris' Green Party (which has candidates in EVERY riding in Canada, and a serious and complete political platform) was not invited.
The Bloc Quebecois, however, WAS invited to join, even though they are a FEDERAL political party that a) is a seperatist party and wants Canada's federation
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
People do have other choices yet the still watch Fox and are being turned into Rupert Murdoch's own personal army of zombies. At some point you do have to concede that maybe most people may actually LIKE being slaved to corporations, after all most of them work form them, and they were giving American's a pretty sweet life compared to the rest of the world until recently.
Before you flame me I am mostly playing devil'
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Obviously there are problems with state run media as well.
The problem in this case case been pretty well spelled out by Ted turner himself: link [slashdot.org]
A. He has zero chance of winning like all the current crop of 3rd party candidates.
Acutally, the funny thing about a winner-take-all election is that is give the media MASSIVE amounts of power to control the outcome. People tend to vote their fears instead of their h
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
No, it doesn't seem logical at all. It seems more logical that Nader was not on the podium because he is not a viable candidate with any chance of winning the election.
Say what you will, Nader basically decided the last election. If there was no Nader, we would have a different president right now.
You sound like you thi
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Which proves that your voting system is fatally flawed.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Which proves that your voting system is fatally flawed
"Fatally flawed" is a considerable leap in logic and hyperbole. The election process may indeed be flawed, but that was not your original point. You were expounding the virtues of the Nader candidacy and creating grand conspiracy theories about his exclusion from the debates at the command of the corporations.
I think your tendancy to jump to such extreme conclusions with su
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Everyone who's informed enough to think, "Hey, I'll vote for Nader" is informed enough to know that John Kerry is infinitesimally less likely to win if they vote Nader instead of him.
So in January 2005, if people are bitching about "spoilers", I don't think I'll have anything charitable to say to them.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Insightful)
But, I disagree with two things in your post:
First, the fact that shows like Crossfire get good ratings doesn't enter
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I think soon as Jon Stewart starts presenting himself as too serious, then he will not be able to get the guests he does, nor be able to act the way he does on show from too much outside pressure. He is walking a fine line between popularity with the rest of us for pointing out abusrdities in what he sees, and still getting the access he does to people like John Kerry, Rudy Gulliani, etc.
He can only be so hard hitting, before all of a sudden he is a Gary Treudeau, and respected by people who read him, as well as critically, but, will have no access to the people he is discussing.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Face it, TDS has a comparatively well educated, young demographic. Jon is building himself quite a reputation with that demographic. I think he could get away with a second, more legitimate, news show airing right afterwards. With a large and under-represented demographic like his, not appearing on
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Which allows me to segue gracefully back to Jon Stewart's point: Crossfire would be a much more honest show if they had Madden and Terry Bradshaw hosting instead of Paul and Tucker or Carville and Novak. (Oh, and by the way, in case you didn't know, while Carville is probably the most obnoxious blowhard on the
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
It's not hypocrisy to criticize someone for failing to meet the standards of their profession, if you don't meet those standards because you aren't in the same profession.
I don't hire a forensic specialist to check documents I receive, but I can still criticize Dan Rather
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Maybe there is some such vague ethical responsibility but it is next to non existent today. There have already been one or two court cases from journalists suiting FOX. FOX producers tried to compel journalists to be untr
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Shows like "Meet the Press" started fading, and "argument shows" like "The McLaughlin Group" and "Crossfire" started being produced. The whole point of the a
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Dont think I really agree. Russert does a pretty decent job most of the time. He's done a pretty good lately of holding people feet to the fire when they say one thing and then do or say something that completely contradicts it. I'd say he's head and shoulders above O'Reilly and Wolf Blitzer. Don't know about you but if you go from Russert to Wolf on Sunday morning I can't last more than a couple minutes on Wolf before I HAVE to hit the mute button.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
It was a more civilized time, before the "gotcha" type of "journalism" reared out of the mire...
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Today these shows are vying for an audience against 100+ TV channels, DVD's, the Internet and video games just to name a few. Its pretty obvious they have to do something to garner attention which nearly inevitably leads to news turning to theater, comedy, scandal and sporting event to draw an au
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
I said it was quaint, but it's still light years better than Crossfire or O'Reilly.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:5, Interesting)
"I dearly wish I could get CNN international because CNN U.S. seems to be intentionally very dumbed down for an American audience."
Weird. I wish I could get CNN U.S., because CNN international seems to be intent on projecting an image of calm to the world rather than exposing the incredible mess that is U.S. election politics. From way over here in .ie [failteireland.ie], it seems like any fool
should be able to see that re-electing Bush would be an insane
choice. But clearly many non-foolish Americans disagree, and
I for one would like to know what they're being told that
we're not.
--Adrian.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
It boils down to (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'm serious, the US has attitudes that are culturally much different that that of Europe. In particular, the US learned different lessons from the last century of history. For example, "Patriotism" and "Nationalism" got really bad names in Europe because of WWI and WWII and their apparent causes. Europeans became deeply suspicious of them for that reason, but USians found those attributes a good thing, because it helped them WIN those wars. I guess I'm saying that it's not the the US gets so much different information, (ignorance, FUD, etc) but that USians seem to view it with a much different perspective than the rest of the world.
I'm not sure that it is wrong or right. It just is.
Re:It boils down to (Score:2)
Your point is brilliant, and shows the danger of not focussing on fundamentals. Patriotism toward a bad government is bad. Patriotism toward a good government is a limited good, requiring that the government stay good and that the individual frequently check the government's performance with respect to his standards.
Re:It boils down to (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you reconcile Americans supposed fondness for "Nationalism" with the current trend among American government and business to sell America down the river in the name of "Globalization". Globalization is a death knell for "Nationalism".
You could argue thats the government and not the people, yet the people who are supporting Bush are in supporting an administration who is openly infatuated with the globalization that will ultimately trump their nationalism. Not sure
Re:It boils down to (Score:2)
Not for the United States. The American "brand" is dominant, and will be for a long time. American brands, fast food, movies, and music are dominant in the world. No other culture projects so much influence. This used to be called "the Americanization of the world"
Re:It boils down to (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that qualifies as backward looking. Toyota has already passed Ford as the #2 car maker and I wouldn't be surprised if Toyota and Honda ultimately dominate the automotive sector.
Airbus is demolishing Boeing in commercial airliners lately.
Exactly how many American brands do you see on the electronics shelf outside of Ipod and computers most of which are built in Asia and just have an American brand stamped on them.
How much stuff in Walmart is actually made in the U.S., so its got a GE brand on it, not sure stamping GE on a Chinese built phone qualifies as any real economic achievement.
Not sure fast food, convenience stores and increasingly bad movies and music are really brands you can hang your hat on with pride.
Not sure you were aware but "Lord of the Rings" was produced in New Zealand. A LOT of top flight movie production is happening in Canada, Australia and New Zealand now. Aussie actors are doing pretty well at the box office too.
Canada dominates animation software development.
I guess there's Microsoft but I'm not sure that monopoly is a badge of honor either and I wager the world outside the U.S. will abandon it in favor of Linux.
"American is the best nation in the world!"
Again backward looking. Charlie Rose recently did a show on future American competitiveness. Again he cited Weta Studios and Peter Jackson's confidence he could put together a better top flight studio in New Zealand that would out compete the "distractions" in LA. Lord of the Rings proved that he did to and it didn't hurt that there is a big currency advantage there as there is in Canada and Australia.
There is apparently a flood of applications from the top flight graduate students coming in to places like Oxford and the University of Toronto. Its partially because its turned incredibly hard to get visas to study or work in the U.S. thanks to "Homeland Security". They are apaprently doing a great job of hassling top graduate students trying to get in the country while there is still a flood of illegals pouring across the border which would be the easy route for a terrorist to get in to the U.S. now.
The U.S. is also now considered somewhat dangerous for foreign students since the U.S. began arresting and detaining people for long periods without access to a lawyer, family or a trial and often sending them to foreign powers to be tortu..er..interrogated.
And of course the U.S. is just a really expensive place to start any company thanks to skyrocketing insurance costs, cost of living, payroll taxes, etc.
All in all if you are forward looking I'm not sure you can say it is the greatest nation any more in any category other than military dominance. It is #1 in that department and in health care costs. Unfortunately those tend to sap the life out of a robust economy not enhance it.
Re:It boils down to (Score:2)
Microsoft dominates computer. America makes the best/most successful drugs. Coca Kola, McDonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, General Motors, Yahoo, Amazon, Google, GE, Exxon, etc. The list goes on and on. Huge US corporations that dominate industries. While the product made be m
Re:It boils down to (Score:1)
Re:It boils down to (Score:2)
Forgetting the Straw Man for a moment, I have to point out the two words in your passage I made bold.
The US may very well have the "best" healthcare system in the world -- depending on what the definition of "best" is. Such a statement can't be confirmed nor d
Re:It boils down to (Score:2)
It means "inexpensive" and "complete coverage".
It was a good Straw Man argument though.
Thanks. I've been studying Frank Luntz.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Viewpoint is what people in this country, and seem to be looking for. People here seem to like their facts pre-digested so that instead of thinking for themselves, someone has already done the thinking for them. Much of the public wants a well understood perspective on the news as well as on their politicians. They want their information fed with an angle attached. Normal journalism is about pre
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1, Flamebait)
I think you are greatly overestimating most American's who are supporting Bush.
My estimation is there are a couple big groups who support Bush:
A) America's fundementalist Christains, the moral majority being one facet
B) America's business community and especially the wealthy elite
Many in group A are in rural America, the Midwest and the South. Many of them are very fundamentalist.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a lot of talk about Bush's foreign policy but very little of it gets to the core issue: Bush believes in a foreign policy that is, simplistically, shoot first and ask questions later.
If you can understand that about Bush's core policy, then actions like the Iraq war are more explainable. Confronted with a rogue nation, conflicti
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
In case you haven't paid attention to the history of the UN, it was precisely created in such a way that it could NOT stop or act against the interests of any of the principal powers, i.e., the permanent members of the Security Council, including the U.S.
The whole problem with Bush is not necessarily that he has a policy of pre-emption, but that the threshold for a
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
On top of that you have the fact that most political debate is about at the level presented above: "If you like Bush, you must either be stupid or evil". That just tends to make it easier to stay 'loyal'. Because everybody knows they aren't stupid or evil, so the "other" side, in addit
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Many people will vote against Kerry because of his anti-Vietnam war stance. There are still many unhealed wounds over the issue in this country, and there are many who believe that we were 100% right in the matter and therefore anyone who criticises is wrong.
3. Large portions of the populace that i
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Shock horror, when you choose not to vote you get screwed over by politicians.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
No they couldn't [wsu.edu]
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
No. They are fools. Trust me. I've talked to them. Like Bush, they have an incredibly simplistic worldview.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:4, Interesting)
The news shows are like they are because people watch them. [...] Americans are so dumbed down most of them don't want to watch insightful debate or intelligent journalism.
It's more than that. The problem with TV news is that they have to fill a time-slot every day. This gives it the advantage of providing immediate, real-time coverage during a crisis. However, when there's no crisis, they have to find something to fill the time slot, which means that most news coverage is irrelevant most of the time. That makes it boring and needlessly depressing.
The Daily Show works around this by being funny. If there's nothing relevant to talk about it, at least you can get a few laughs off it.
I'm not sure what Fox News does, since I've seen maybe ten minutes' worth of it total, but from what I've heard of it, it looks to me like they're trying to fake relevance by pitching themselves as the last defender of All That Is Good And Decent from the Evil Liberal Conspiracy.
And frankly, if it's a choice of that or some talking head discussing the ramifications of the President's nasal polyps, I'd watch Fox News too.
Even Slashdot is a better news source. At least here, if nothing's happened today, I can read about the robot drum machine or look at pictures of some cool casemod.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1, Troll)
I think that The Varsity on the Dennis Miller show is pretty good. Though it does feature comedy, the debaters on both sides are several notches above most other programs. It would be intersting to watch Stewart (who leans left) and Miller (who leans right and is quite proud of it) square off.
Speaking to "the haves and the have-mores." G
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe its just perception but I don't actually remember Miller leanly right before 9/11 at least as publicly as he does now. Maybe he did he just wasn't obvious about it or I missed it. It seems to me that as soon as 9/11 happened he knew he could lean right in public and actually advance his career instead of wreck it so he did and it appears it worked very well.
"Indeed, it has become a crime to be successful."
If you are successful because
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think that just because people do something over and over again that they would prefer it to something else? What if those people never learned that they could have something better? What
Prisoner's Dilemma in action (Score:2)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
I think there's a real chicken-and-egg situation buried in that statement. The big upswing in partisanship seems to have coincided with the explosion of right wing talk radio. There didn't seem (to me) to be the rabid partisanship and "us-versus-them" political out
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Generally, I'd agree with you. However, it seems to me that John Stewart's argument was particularly that the news organizations were failing to understand that their job was not to cater to the whims of the American public (or corporations or whoever) and provide an entertaining show. Their respo
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
You are acting like these people are some kind of public servents, who will be assured success if they are just sc
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:3, Insightful)
However, as human beings, they still have ethical obligations inherent in whatever roles they choose to play. You could argue that drug-dealers and pimps and hit-men, well, there's a DEMAND, right? There are people who want those services, or they'd be out of jobs, right?
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Well yes you are. The bulk of your post seems to suggest you are unaware you are living in a capitalist system, a jungle where survival of the fittest rules the day. You have to be very young or old, idealistic and or naive to value public service over making money in such a system. You are talking like you want to be in a true socialist system where everyone is out to serve the common good. Nothing wrong with that, but that is not what America is all abou
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Yes, America is a fairly capitalist system, but it's certainly not totally capitalistic. Even so, a capitalist system only means that there are no governmental controls on commerce. It doesn't mean that there are no ethical controls. Private citizens are still able to police themselves, and "vote with their dollars," as the saying goes. And even w
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Didn't say there weren't. What I did say was the American system actively, actively works against these traits in people.
In the majority of Americans they come after money and power on the priority list. For example you don't find any of these positive traits in car salesman, at least while they are on the job. They are kind of the worst case but they are what the capitalist system tur
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Do you even live in America? You sound like someone who either:
-or-
B) leads a very sheltered life where he's been abused in some way, on a regular basis.
What I did say was the American system actively, actively works against these traits in people.
How? True, if you are unscrupulous and are willing to exploit the system, you can find ways to reap material benefits. First of all, that's true of any system. Secondly, the people who are lik
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
What 'American System'? Are you talking societal, governmental or economic?
"For example you don't find any of these positive traits in car salesman, at least while they are on the job."
I know quite a few who are honest. If they were all dishonest, then nobody would buy a car from a car salesman.
"will probably climb over your broken body"
Which is a worldwide trait only not echoed in Wombles. Japane
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Not from this Briton, although there is a popular movement out there in the world that seems to blame America for a huge number of things.
Personally I just think your government system has been subverted to create a *very* assymetric society, but that's by-the-by.
"You know what? Some of them are honest."
How about Realtors?
You appear to have come across someone here who uses blanket generalisations as a method of
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
I'm often willing to take that chance, since, if the post is being made in earnest, even if only for the sake of argument, it might be worth taking up the other end in the hopes of changing some minds.
Now, I know you can't really change a person's mind so easily, but it's also not usually without an effect. People become persuaded and turned around in strange and complex ways, and maybe you convince someone a little, or you at least get them to question what they're
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
I'm pretty much the same, but I've taken a huge back seat to some arguments because it's patently obvious that some people are so set on promoting their own ignorance and sticking to an agenda that isn't even close to being internally consistent that you may as well waste the breath on someone willing to compromise.
That does mean that I end up ignoring extremists, but I think the point is that extremists are a lost cause.
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
The rationale behind the the laws that governed broadcast media were as follows: Because the the broadcast media were using the public airwaves, they were to devote a certain amount of programming to serve the public interest. This included having a certain amount of news, and that news was to be presented in a fair
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
I'd be overjoyed if a 3rd party displace
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
On the day of the Arizona debate, he had representatives from both campaigns on to discuss immigration, and it was pretty funny watching him press the Bush guy about the term "undocumented worker". He made the guy squirm, but Lou couldn't make him say "Illegal Alien".
Anyway, I think Lou will come around eventually from being anti-immigration
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:1)
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
But there is a flaw in Stewart's arguement. The news shows are like they are because people watch them.
It isn't a matter of providing the most entertaining show for the masses, it is about having a news program that doesn't suck for the sake of having a good news program. Generally news doesn't get high ratings, entertainment does. As a gross oversimplification the further from being a news show and the more towards entertainment the higher the ratings. However the amount of news watched remains cons
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)
Well I'd be inclined to say that you might be talking about Lehrer's News Hour on PBS. Do you watch it? I'm guessing not because you don't seem to know one already exists. The problem with it is most people find it somewhat boring.
It being on PBS they also aren't particularly beholden to the corprate media everyone here is railing against. Everyone in this th
Re:Dead serious is right (Score:2)