Most people in Stewart's audience are probably going to vote Kerry anyway.

My sense is that the majority of young folks out there need to be burned at least once by a Carter-style presidency before coming to their senses.

Oh, and Crossfire. Just one more example of why FOXNews is cleaning CNN's clock. Does anyone actually watch that garbage?

Minor nit: I think you meant "Reno 911" rather than "Reno 9-11". It has to do with folks who respond when you dial 911 rather than anything that happened on 9-11. Not that I've watched the show beyond one episode that convinced me I didn't want to watch any more.

It's kinda sad actually. Jon Stewart was a lot more "fair and balanced" long ago, say, up until spring this year. But sometime after the DNC settled on Kerry, he increasing tilted left. His coverage of the Democratic Primaries was hilarious.

I still remember the day Baghdad fell and Jon stewart said that if you had opposed the war and could watch that scene without feeling even a bit of joy for the Iraqis, you were hopelessly lost to the ideological left. He then said that if you had supported the war but didn't feel even a pang of regret that the conflict could not be solved diplomatically and military intervention was required, you were hopelessly lost to the ideological right.

Jon Stewart, however, seems to have been fallen pray to the first horn of his own dilemma...

For me it comes back to the old adage "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." The MSM insiders have gained a form of absolute power in coloring and slanting content. It think the public-at-large sees them as having spun out of control; tantrumesque; disingenuously simplistic; dogmatic. Celebrity invites Hubris. Stewart apparently lacks the character to escape its seductive grip. Now he is paying for it. He thought he knew all of what made him successful. Well.. he didn't.

Right on, Bill. Once upon a time, Stewart was mostly a humorist. These days, it's a little different. Whether Stewart likes it or not, he is now in the same role as Carlson, Wolf Blitzer, and other journalists because he books and interviews prominent politicians and interviews them in a format that is at least partly news-oriented.

Given that, I don't see how Stewart can lob brickbats at Carlson et. al. unless he's willing to present a viable alternative to the media that he drubs.

I can't help contrasting Stewart's treatment of Kerry with Letterman's treatment of Kerry. While Letterman still didn't hit Kerry hard, he still asked questions about Kerry's Iraq policy, even after the obligatory "Top Ten" list from Kerry.

Stewart? Well, he was just Kerry's "butt-monkey," as Carlson says.

--|PW|--

Well said. The appeal of the earlier Daily Show was precisely that it was willing to go after both left and right, up to and including France... Come to think of it, the coverage of the events leading up to and including Operation Iraqi Freedom was among the very best of the Daily Show. Colin Powell's UN presentation ("Super PowerPoint"), Chirac telling the new EU members to shut up, the Iraqi ministry of information defending an increasing shrinking piece of Iraq under Saddam's control. Wish I can find those clips.

But even back then, judging from the live audience responses, I get the sense that more of his fans were left than right tilting. I suspect that Stewart might have misjudged that this is the strength of his appeal and tilted accordingly.

Bad mistake...obviously I'm not the only fan he lost this year.

My Wife and I use to love the Daily Show, then about a year or so it become aggresivly partisian and we stopped watching.

Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn (which follows the Daily Show) was a good substitute but it's being canceled after the elections.

I find it kind of humorous that some people are following Carlson's line and instead of talking about the near wall-to-wall entertainment/scandal as political news, "partisan hackery" on all of the news channels, we're going to focus on the journalistic ethics of a satire show. And forgetting the fact that before it is political satire or anything else, The Daily Show is media satire. The whole point of the show is to ridicule the media's collective ineptitude to provide any sort of balanced or in-depth perspective on politics/celebrity/crime, or almost anything. Plus to make fun of idiots. And as far as Stewart endorsing a candidate, would everyone get upset if Letterman or Leno said who they will probably vote for? Chappelle? Puppets?
And as for the Stephen Hayes interview, I haven't seen it yet, but I can't imagine Stewart taking someone who is so obviously full of sh!t seriously. A Douglas Feith memo? Please.
And why can't Stewart have his show the way he wants it yet condemn the news media for not living up to its responsibility? That's what he does on his show anyway. He just picked Crossfire as a place to be serious about it. Oh, the irony.

Dude,
When are we going to get the Team America review?

"Does anyone actually watch that garbage?" - Stewart claimed to watch Crossfire every night, weird.

If he wants to skewer famous news figures he has to watch O'Reiley first, but when they set him up for a Factor spike he punted(not a leagal volleyball play).

I'll take a partisan fake news show over a partisan real news show anyday. Jon Stewart says - on nearly every show - "this is fake news." Also, Stewart makes no bones about his partisan point of view - it's a major part of the show.

Stewart blasted these people for having the opportunity to present a debate, but never allowing one to happen. These shows have the opportunity to present interesting and thoughtful dialog, but they don't. Their only purpose is to stir the shit pot.

The sad truth is that I have heard far better interviews on the Daily Show than I have ever heard on Crossfire or O'Reilly. They are truly presenting in a Pro Wrestling format (like Stewart suggested). There's nothing more unproductive than having 2-4 diametrically opposed guests on at the same time -- with only 10-15 minutes (interlaced with commercials) to discuss an issue of major importance. It's no wonder people are so uninformed and confused in the U.S. It's difficult to extract lies, truth, and distortions from the ensuing mele.

Ok Bill, he may have been throwing stones from a glass mansion. But Stewart can get on a show like Crossfire, and normal people cannot. Normal people want to say the same thing to the likes of Carlson and Begala, "please, just stop".

And I want to say the same things to Jon Stewart.

As the prior comments note, the Daily Show audience (the Bill Maher audience, Fahrenheit 9/11 moviegoers, etc) were already in the Kerry Kamp.

However, those "voters" consistently disappoint come election time. Just ask Dean about his DeanoManiacs who failed to show in the primaries.

It was funny watching Jon Stewart, the first show after Sept. 11, when he had Ollie North on. He was practically begging Ollie to save him from the terrorists. Jon was quite willing at that point to write a blank check for Bush to do anything, I guess now Jon thinks it's back to normal. The show has become to political for me anymore.

Bill, sorry, but you're not famous enough to be on a fake news show.

sonofnixon? I hope this election proves you wrong. If us "voters" come out in full force, Bush will surely lose - but you already know that. BTW - I can only assume that the quotes around "voters" implies that these are so-called voters? Or did you mean something else?

Bill, sorry, but you're not famous enough to be on a fake news show.

I was invited on Paula Zahn a month or so back, so perhaps my chance to tell Jon Stewart where to go is closer than you think ...

Bill, I had no idea. Sorry for the dig, and congratulations. I will never be on either show. Now, back to my evil lab...

Bill:
PLEASE tell Stewart where to go! PLEASE! And remind him that he used to be funny, before he went over to the Kerry Kamp.
Is Mahr an example of the same thing or has he always been self-absorbed and snotty?

Dan

I don't think it's fair to say that he's no longer funny. It's just that he's no longer funny to certain people. Everything in life is about perspective. From mine, he is downright hilarious (mostly).

Hey, don't blame Jon, He's just following orders from above!

I'll take a partisan fake news show over a partisan real news show anyday. Jon Stewart says - on nearly every show - "this is fake news." Also, Stewart makes no bones about his partisan point of view - it's a major part of the show.

Agreed, though I'll prefer a non-partisan fake news show even better...the Dailyshow used to be able to poke fun at *both sides* of the aisle (of both the political and media realms at that), and that's what made it funny, for me at least.

Stewart likes to slide out of public responsibility for accuracy by citing the fact that the Daily Show is a comedic farce, but that defense is undermined by the fact that his show has a very large practical influence, his partisanship is overt and pointed, his analysis is frustratingly superficial...

Well that may be. But at least he never slept with Lumbergh.

Here you go, Walter.

Anyone notice the contradiction in stating that Stewart has a "very large practical influence" and should act accordingly and also saying that everyone who watches his show are voting Kerry anyway? If he's just preaching to the choir, how much influence could he have?

It's just that he's no longer funny to certain people. Everything in life is about perspective.

Perhaps the most valid/accurate statement that you've contributed thus far, AS.

I'll admit that if he didn't offend my political sensibilities, I'd find him (often) hilarious.

Bill,
Unfortunately I will have to disagree with you on this one.
Just like how conservatives tell liberals to stop complaining about Rush, Glenn Beck, and other sydicated Talk radio / media. john Stewart wears his liberalism on his sleave. He also makes it clear that his news is fake. It is not his fault that people take his "fake news" as real news. Most of the people who wathc the show aren't looking for news, but more to watch a comedy show. Stewart also make s a point to not only make fun of conservatives when they screw up. He has done a very good job of making fun of the DNC. The peice on Kerry, the best "not-Bush" candidate. Stewart appeals to the younger crowd, who generally lean left anyways. the DNC and other Left wingers use that to help genrate their own following in the young crowd. At leat he's funny, not like Franken. He's a form of entertainment, not news. He's clear about that, and the DNC uses that fact to help their own ratings.

Mantis -

"Anyone notice the contradiction in stating that Stewart has a very large practical influence" and should act accordingly and also saying that everyone who watches his show are voting Kerry anyway?

Your typical lack of attention to detail doesn't bode well for your larger political opinions - I said that he has a very large practical influence. Others that contradicted by saying that he's merely preaching to the choir are disagreeing with me. See how that works?

And even someone that largely agrees with both sentiments could have a point - because even if only 30% of his 1 million plus viewers are Bush supporters, a small influence on their opinion could have a large impact on the election.

No successful negative argumentation for you this time, my friend. Don't be sad - go back to the drawing board.

And put a cold compress on that welt on your ass - looks painful.

"Anyone notice the contradiction in stating that Stewart has a "very large practical influence" and should act accordingly and also saying that everyone who watches his show are voting Kerry anyway? If he's just preaching to the choir, how much influence could he have?"

There is no contradiction. Bill is the one stating that Stewart has an influence on what young voters think. I'm the one stating that almost all of his audience is already in the Kerry camp.

Bill is the big-time blogger. I'm the guy who writes snarky comments in response to his big-time blogging. Plus, I suppose you could always make the argument that his audience is in the Kerry Camp because they get their politics from people like him, which I think would be using my observation to further Bill's argument.

I think.

He's a form of entertainment, not news. He's clear about that, and the DNC uses that fact to help their own ratings.

Perhaps you're right but ...

1. Why does he have foreign policy wonk like Stephen Hayes on his show and then conduct a mocking and 99% serious interview? By your equation, he should probably stick to making fart jokes with sock puppets.

2. I'm not whining about his right to do it - I'm just calling him an asshole - and a hypocrite. Crossfire isn't serious news, and everyone is very well aware of it, except, apparently, Jon Stewart.

If he criticized the NBC Nightly News, it might be a different story.

Partly the reason his ratings have been dropping slightly is because of guests like Stephen Hayes. Most people watching the show, don't care about Stpehen Hayes. Thats usualy the time when they switch channels to Adult Swim or turn the XBOX back on. most people watching the daily show are takign bong rips during the commercial time and probably won't wake up in time to vote.
As to him being a hypocrite; Like I said before, at least it's entertaining. Thats the fun in it I thought.

"bong rips"

Huh? When did the terminology change from "hits" to "rips"? I'm getting old. When Stephen Hayes comes on I usually crack open the Economist, Foreign Policy, or the latest CATO Journal. Though I wish I had an X-Box -- sounds like fun.

People present, I would think, are not the target market for shows like the Daily Show. And yes, hacing an Xbox kicks ass. As for the terminology, "rips" may just be a Hawaii thing. I'm not really sure.

Well, Bill, considering I wasn't pointing to anyone in particular as contradicting him/herself, just commenting on those two (potentially, I suppose) contradicting views on Stewart's influence (and am in essence asking which is it?), I don't see the problem. And since you say yourself that "others contradicted" you, I don't see how pointing out that contradiction reveals a lack of attention to detail or negative argumentation on my part, but feel free to read whatever you want into it.
Furthermore I would submit that the supposed 21% of voters who regularly get their presidential campaign news from TDS and SNL probably wouldn't be getting any such news if not from those shows, and the responsibility to educate those people on important issues should probably fall on the 21% themselves, not on the comedy shows they watch.

As for the welt on my ass, thanks for caring.

An excerpt from Paul Craig Roberts - The Brownshirting of America,

"Show hosts, who advertise themselves as truth-tellers in a no-spin zone, quickly figured out that success depends upon constantly confronting listeners with bogymen to be exposed and denounced: war protesters and America-bashers, the French, marrying homosexuals, the liberal media, turncoats, Democrats, and the ACLU."

The important thing here is that Jon Stewart never professes to be a "truth-teller in a no-spin zone" like so many of these show hosts. Also, he does not invite guests on his show and denounce them as anti-American if they don't agree with his point of view. He will show his bias, but he treats his guests with respect, chats with them during commercials, and shakes their hands at the end of the interview. He consistently shows respect for his guests -- unlike the pro wrestling style news show hosts.

And put a cold compress on that welt on your ass - looks painful.

and

As for the welt on my ass, thanks for caring.

Is this argument turning into another JibJab movie, or what?

As for the substance of the argument, anyone who says they get their political news from The Daily Show is probably either:

a) Making up their answers just to mess with the pollsters;

b) High, and therefore just guessing;

c) If not giving a false answer for one reason or another, then hardly worth worrying about. Sure, they get the same vote as anyone else, but they probably won't use it. Plus, even if they do, they'll be more than balanced out by Rush Limbaugh listeners, who actually do believe he's a legitimate source of political commentary.

And lest this turn into another example of "liberal media bias", let's not forget, let's not forget, that Stewart is followed immediately on Comedy Central by Colin Quinn, who is as overtly partisan in the other direction (but still entertaining). Granted, Quinn is not as sharp and didn't go on Crossfire, but you get my point.

Watch the Daily Show tonight. Notice how all jokes at Republicans' expense end in a twisted or made-up fact, or a non-sequitor.

Interestingly, the jokes at Democrats' expense requires no such fabrication. I kid you not.

Reg: I watch the show every night. I'm aware of what you are saying, but you are wrong in saying "all jokes" regarding Republicans end falsely, and jokes regarding Democrats require "no such [false] fabrication." Really, that's not correct at all.

The show is undoubtedly slanted towards the left, but not all jokes made about the Republicans end with a made-up fact or non-sequitor. It's the nature of comedy to exaggerate -- that's what makes comedy funny. But the show would not work if every punchline was a non sequitor -- people just wouldn't get it. There's a hint of truth in most things, and total lampoon in the rest. Keep in mind, this is a fake news show, comedy -- you know funny?

AS--maybe it's just me, but I don't find the author of a book titled "The Brownshirting of America" a particularly compelling source.

Considering he's not using that source to back anything up or provide evidence of anything, but rather to borrow a point which you can decide for yourself the veracity of (turn on TV, watch), whether the source is compelling or not doesn't really matter, now does it?

I used to think Stewart was funny. I noticed his leftward tilt some time in the spring, which bothered me. I wondered why it would show up then, and what to make of it bothering me. was it just because I can't stand what Kerry, Kennedy, Hilary, McAuliffe et al have proven themselves willing to do/say/lie in order to win in November, and what their powerbrokering means to the future of American politics?

here's my conclusion: I don't think it's my politics at all, because they stood up to his jokes before then. Stewart was funny because he came across as removed from it all, and therefore able to really poke fun at his targets with impunity. now that he's not, the joke is on somebody, instead of everybody. mostly it's on Stewart, judging by the ratings drop.

"An excerpt from Paul Craig Roberts - The Brownshirting of America"

Yes, well I'm sure you'd look fondly about passages from a book called the "Pol Potting of the DNC."

Must "Rethuglicans" always be Nazis? Can't they be Napoleons or Caesars or Cylons? It shows a distinct lack of creativity.

Right on, Mr Vee

I'm a Cylon. A Cylon, dammit.

You know, it's amazing. All these people saying things along the lines of "Oh, he used to be so funny, but then he went and got all partisan. He was so much better when he went after both sides."

It's the exact same language you read when liberals whine about Dennis Miller.

"...if everything is such a silly joke ... he wouldn't become angry, serious or aggressively condescending during certain political interviews."

See: Tonight's TDS interview with Ed Koch.

Dennis Miller before 9-11 always struck me as more of a libertarian in his politics, not a liberal. Since 9-11, he seems to me to be a single issue Bush voter, not a typical full-time Republican.

I think the reason why he is less funny now is that he doesn't do the deep-reference schtick he did on HBO as much anymore, which is really what made him unique. It is probably more difficult to do when you are doing a show every weekday instead of once a week.

"I used to think Stewart was funny. I noticed his leftward tilt some time in the spring, which bothered me. I wondered why it would show up then, and what to make of it bothering me. was it just because I can't stand what Kerry, Kennedy, Hilary, McAuliffe et al have proven themselves willing to do/say/lie in order to win in November, and what their powerbrokering means to the future of American politics?

here's my conclusion: I don't think it's my politics at all, because they stood up to his jokes before then. Stewart was funny because he came across as removed from it all, and therefore able to really poke fun at his targets with impunity. now that he's not, the joke is on somebody, instead of everybody. mostly it's on Stewart, judging by the ratings drop."

Exactly tee bee. Over here (Portugal) we also get the Daily Show (even if it is with a 10-12 day delay), and when i used to watch it all the time. But since John became more and more of a political hack i've stopped watching it. I wanted to be entertained, not pissed off. And the constant lies (disguised as jokes of course) that he spewed just turned me off.

when i used to watch it all the time. But since John became more and more of a political hack i've stopped watching it. I wanted to be entertained, not pissed off.

Exactly how I feel about it.

madne0 -- you give me hope for one of the most beautiful places on the planet, in which "watermelons" continue to grow unabated. we visited friends in Lisboa, Evora, and went down to Faro for a few days in June; our friends kept bringing the talk back to American politics and how Europe sees the US as overstepping by going to Iraq. the kicker? Tonio's favorite source was Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men." we're thinking of sending Hardy and Clarke's "MM is a .... White Man" along with vacation pics.

Granted, humor is subjective, but to dismiss Jon Stewart and the show as superficial is so far off the mark as to be itself laughable. The Daily Show's stock in trade is to expose hypocrisy and bias... and doing it in a funny way does not invalidate its worth. One recent memorable example was footage of Ashcroft appearing before a Senate committee refusing to release an administration memo that the committee wanted... just because he didn't want to. Stewart was outraged: "You need a reason! Executive privilege? The Fifth Amendment? Writ of Douchebaggery?" A smart joke; funny and hardly superficial. Is there more humor done at Republicans' expense? Yes, they are the party in power, and their antics give comedians much more to work with.

One more example: after one of the conventions, one Republican party hack was a guest on the show (wish I could remember; he was black; maybe a congressman from New Mexico?), and his first talking point was the canard that "Kerry is the most liberal Senator." Stewart politely wanted the source of that. The hack was unable to answer, referring to vague "studies." Jon wouldn't let that go, returning again and again to ask how this conclusion was arrived at... and with no satisfactory answer, he would not let the guy off the hook. Polite and funny all the time, but relentless.

This is not a superficial man or a superficial show. I get the distinct impression of a guy who cares and a show with more integrity than anything on the major news channels.

Brad -

When you read as much about foreign policy and the strategy behind the WOT as I do, and you watch John Stewart turn administration moves into semi-serious "jokes" that are much more preachy and simplistic than they are funny, then you might get a different impression. Of course there are funny parts of the show, but when Stewart preaches the latest shallow talking points of the left, it's very superficial.

Not to mention - he's such a damn dumb-ass, he isn't aware of the fact that the word terror is, in fact a noun.

Stewart is not a smart man, and many of his jokes about complex things expose this fact.

1. The Ashcroft example you cite puzzles me - that's somehow "deep" to you? Funny, but ...

2. And this:

and his first talking point was the canard that "Kerry is the most liberal Senator." Stewart politely wanted the source of that. The hack was unable to answer, referring to vague "studies." Jon wouldn't let that go, returning again and again to ask how this conclusion was arrived at

If Stewart was actually "deep" in his eviscerations, he would have been afraid of the man answering correctly - the source is the National Journal, a very well-respected NON-PARTISAN publication, that DID, in fact rate Kerry as the most liberal senator for the recent calendar year. I believe Edwards was number 4.

And after watching that joke, as he tore apart that Republican "hack," you came away with the idea that "heh, Stewart really exposed that anti-Kerry talking point," when in fact, that specific anti-Kerry talking point is correct, and Stewart was a "hack" as well.

So you see Brad, it isn't that Jon Stewart is deep, it's that people like you are ignorant enough about the issues to think that he's deep. Smary sarcasm does not make one "deep."

Drop the Daily Show and read some blogs, will you?

hey Bill,

You have completely missed Jon Stewart's point. Seriously, are you that ignorant?

When Stewart railed against the folks at Crossfire for partisan hackery, he had every right to do so, because they claim to be journalists, and they're NOT doing their job as journalists (seriously, I'll debate you on this topic until you pass out). Stewart is in the perfect position to throw stones at their glass houses because he hosts A COMEDY SHOW ABOUT FAKE NEWS. Regardless of whatever limited persuasion he might have, CNN, et al, reaches more viewers by and large. But the real point I think he was trying to make, and doing so as meekly as he could, is to say to them, "MY COMEDY SHOW ABOUT FAKE NEWS HAS MORE CREDIBILITY THAN YOUR SHOW ABOUT SO-CALLED REAL JOURNALISM (and every other news media outlet for that matter)."

That point was obvious to my 15 year old niece. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for missing it.

Ya' know, the best part is that you take Jon Stewart as seriously as you do. Because ultimately, he is a comedian. As a comedian, he goes for the best of the easiest jokes, whatever they are. To dissemble the jokes he goes for - when you yourself are not a comedian (you're not even amusing) - is to paint yourself a fool. You see the attack, but not the gag, which means that you not only are lacking a sense of humor, but you are lacking insight. I think that speaks to your credibility. But you're a blogger, so who cares about your credibilty?

but thanks for giving me the forum to vent.

poof.

You have completely missed Jon Stewart's point. Seriously, are you that ignorant?

First of all, no and no. I agree with Jon Stewart's point. I just think that Jon Stewart can't shuck responsibility by claiming to be a strict comedian.

And while Carlson and the Prince of Evil may hypocritically claim journalistic cred during their displays of hackery, Begala and Carville are operatives. And by the way ...

A COMEDY SHOW ABOUT FAKE NEWS.

It's a comedy show about "REAL" news, my friend.

From the rest of your comments, I see that you must have jumped over from Salon.

Perhaps it's time to close the comments, so that trolls don't invade and trash the place.

Seethe in impotent rage, gentle Saloniacs!