This pretty much showed how JS is a hypocrite so blinkered by bias that he personifies the very evil he decries.

Let’s call a tiger a tiger. Cable news channels have two completely different facets. One facet is the “news” update – which is when channels are announcing stuff that happens – the cut and dry stuff. The other facet is “commentary”: biased, agenda driven, subjective, interpretive, talking-head bologna that preaches to a specific ideological crowd. Whether you want to admit it or not – ALL news channels have both of these facets of News and Commentary.

Now, the cable news channels have a lot higher “Commentary to News” ratio because they are filling up a 24/7 schedule. Fox is not unique in that regard – but shares the same market space as MSNBC & CNN - about 20% ‘News’ and 80% ‘Commentary’. Whether you like the commentary of a particular channel depends on your own bias. To people who are leftists (the majority of the Sift and JS) commentary on Fox News is like garlic to a vampire. To someone on the right (such as myself) commentary on MSNBC is like salt on road rash.

If Stewart was really a true “satirist” (as he likes to say he is) then he would be mocking all sides because they both have plenty of targets. However, 99 times out of 100, Stewart focuses on the side he ideologically opposes while ignoring juicy targets on the other side. A real satirist doesn’t handcuff himself like that, so what Stewart is doing is less ‘satire’ and more ‘biased commentary’ because what he selects as subject material is driven by his biases.

Stewart can’t admit that or his audience of smug, self-congratulatory neolibs would lose their self esteem. So when presented with ironclad proof that he is biased by Wallace, Stewart CANNOT bring himself to admit it. Instead he desperately cringes behind his typical dodge of being “comedy informed by an ideological background”. What a load of honk. You were nailed Stewart. Your claimed beef with Fox News (that they are somehow ‘unique’ in commentary bias) is proven demonstrably false. Instead, it was made crystal clear that you simply don’t like Fox’s brand of commentary because it ideologically opposes your own. Kind of hurts when you can’t just mack at the camera when you get pegged don’t it? You got visibly irritable and defensive because the truth hurts.

So in this interview Stewart couldn’t dive into the tall grass of his standard “Hey – I’m just a comedian! No fair! My clown-nose is on!” coward defense. The commentary of many news channels is liberally biased just as bad (or worse) than any of Fox News’ conservative commentary. Wallace proves it in black and white. In fact there are many studies that have proven this point routinely. But Stewart can’t bring himself to SAY that news outlets he shares an “informed ideological background” with are biased because that would mean that he would have to admit that he HIMSELF is biased. So in the face of all evidence he says that hack organizations like MSNBC are not biased but “trend toward sensationalism and laziness”. I haven’t heard a weaker, more pathetic rhetorical dodge in a long time.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics

Of course Stewart doesn’t want to mention polls like this that prove that FOX patrons are about 2X as ‘informed’ as people on MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, or CBC. He doesn’t want to talk about the fact that Couric’s audience is about as ‘informed’ as the average reader of the Inquirer. Of course Stewart isn’t going to admit that people who listen to LIMBAUGH are more informed than his audience. No – like Obama – Stewart only sticks to isolated, biased polls that favor his own personal world view - and ignores the evidence to the contrary. BIASED.

If you’re a fan of Stewart then bully for you. He can be entertaining sometimes, and he even has the occasional decency to admit (albeit sarcastically) his own problems – such as with the whole Weiner scandal. But those of you who are patting yourselves on the back pretending that he somehow ‘skunked’ Wallace are living in a self-insulated fanboi fantasy world.

Wallace made his point. Wallace never tried to say Fox News doesn’t have biased commentary on it. Wallace proved conclusively that other news channels – including Stewart’s own show – are primarily driven by biased commentary rather than news. To the world, Stewart proved that he cannot bring himself to simply admit that left-wing, neolib commentary is biased. Thus, proving to all that Stewart himself is an untrustworthy, intellectually hypocritical, biased tool. Game, set, and match to Wallace. Now Stewart can slink back to his show and lick his wounds by selectively re-editing reality so he doesn’t look quite as big of a tool – as is his wont.

>> ^rottenseed:

I'd also like to point out that just because John Stewart doesn't see himself as a player in the political news world, that it's not how his fans (and critics) perceive him


Bah! Listen again, he never said he wasn't a player in the political world just that he's a comedian first. It's true that satirists are inherently involved in what they are making fun of because of topic choice and what they say, but I think Stewart wins this round because he is a comedian who talks about politics (very) frequently and not a political writer who happens to be funny.

Don't discount the fact that he's on a show called "The Daily Show" which is supposed to be a mock daily news show. They can't just talk about all the planes that landed or everything politicians are doing right.

She must be a REPUBLICAN satirist. Bullshit minus the funny.

Colbert. Now there's a satirist.

How do you spell "apologist"?

Jeez holy crap, do you really believe she is a satirist in this situation?

She's a satirist first, no doubt, and the target this time was hysteria generated by the drive-by media over threats--both real and imagined--posed by radiation.


>> ^longde:

QM, there is a division of physics, called "health physics" that deals with using different types of radiation to treat disease, and the effects of different types of radiation on the human body.
So, technically speaking, what Ann is saying is true. Exposure to radiation can be helpful as well as harmful.
The flaw in her reasoning (and I don't for a second think she is making a sincere argument) is that "radiation" can be a million different things, across the EM spectrum, and also the emissions of ions and atoms. "Helpful" radiation only describes very specific types, used at very specific intensity, used for very specific durations, etc.
Bill O's geriatric, uneducated audience can't grasp that nuance, and will undoubtedly think that standing in front of Chernobyl will get rid of arthritis.

>> ^quantumushroom:
From the actual column: "Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so."
Not exactly announcing THE DEBATE IS OVER like the hoaxers pushing man-made global warming hysteria.

Here some more info copied from it dupe:

"From YT: A great English icon visited an Aussie one when Stephen Fry came to the Sydney Opera House to discuss travel, language, the three W's (Wilde, Waugh and Wodehouse) and everything in between, in a 90 minute talk-fest. The night involved a cracking 45 minute chat by Fry and then a 45 minute Q&A with First Tuesday Book Club's Jennifer Byrne.

A true polymath and the epitome of a Renaissance Man, Stephen Fry is a natural treasure in his native land of England. A writer, presenter, social commentator, satirist, actor and TV personality, Fry's diverse interests and enthusiasms have seen him become one of a small handful of global cultural figures who have a significant presence in every form of media; radio, TV, film, print and online.

Better known for playing the lead in the film Wilde, Fry was Melchett in the Blackadder television series and is the host of the ABC TV quiz show, QI. He also presented the television series Stephen Fry In America, which saw him travelling across all 50 U.S. States in a London cab.

Apart from his work in television, Fry has contributed columns and articles for newspapers and magazines, and has written four novels and an autobiography, Moab Is My Washpot and appears frequently on BBC Radio.

Fry wields considerable influence through his use of the social networking site Twitter and is frequently asked to promote various charities and causes, often inadvertently causing the host website to crash due to the sheer volume of traffic generated by his large number of followers."

Part 1

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbHUWktyd1E
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs9Lwh0QuTk
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0mDW4bdlI
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSbwSZVJ3Wk

The Sound of Young America did a pretty funny interview with the creator Chris Morris: http://www.maximumfun.org/sound-young-america/satirist-chris-morris-writer-director-four-lions-interview-sound-young-america

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

(Clown nose on!) "Hey - don't criticize me! I'm just a comedian!"
(Clown nose off!) "Come to my rally!"
(Clown nose on!) "It's to 'restore sanity'..." (wink wink)
(Clown nose off!) "I wouldn't say it that way dude..."
Stewart's schtick gets tiresome pretty quick. He'll make like he's a serious 'satirist' and then whenever he starts having to actually take a stand for something he dives for the tall grass and whine that he's just a comedian. He can be funny. Every once in a while he put a fig leaf over his bias and take a poke at the other asile. But for the most part he's just another neolib apologist flack that likes to hide behind his clown nose.


I was going to disagree with you because you're ugly but I think you're right. I've had similar problems with the way Stewart conducts himself but I've come to the realization that I can't stop him so he can do whatever the fuck he wants. I can change the channel if I really want to...which I do when Colbert comes on cause he's just too much.

(Clown nose on!) "Hey - don't criticize me! I'm just a comedian!"
(Clown nose off!) "Come to my rally!"
(Clown nose on!) "It's to 'restore sanity'..." (wink wink)
(Clown nose off!) "I wouldn't say it that way dude..."

Stewart's schtick gets tiresome pretty quick. He'll make like he's a serious 'satirist' and then whenever he starts having to actually take a stand for something he dives for the tall grass and whine that he's just a comedian. He can be funny. Every once in a while he put a fig leaf over his bias and take a poke at the other asile. But for the most part he's just another neolib apologist flack that likes to hide behind his clown nose.

He should have won for satirist of the year, except that it would have let his audience in on the joke.

What I am disputing is religion as the driving force behind all the madness out that way.


And I think at least on that I am with you in disagreeing with Hitchens. I'm not sure just how much of the mess out there Hitchens attributes to religion, but I do believe I estimate it much lower than he does as well. The questioner in this video though made the different point of claiming the driving force behind all the madness out that way is America foreign policy, which I disagree with as strongly as Hitchens and am glad he set it straight so well.


What interventions are you talking about?


The most stark comparison is the one Hitchens references in the video. When America intervened by supporting those committing genocide against the people of East Timor, Al-Qaida cared not. It was when America ceased to support that genocide and sided instead with the victims in East Timor, that WAS listed as Al-Qaida's third greatest reason to hate America. Any support whatsoever for the state of Israel, meaning anyone not helping to entirely eliminate the state of Israel, is number one. It would not be enough to stop supporting Israel, nothing short of helping to completely erase it is enough. Similarly we must also repress our own people as well and restrict religious freedoms least any satirist draw inappropriate pictures of the prophet and bring death on us all.

The worst of the things America has done, like say Cambodia, Africa or South America doesn't make the list for Al-Qaida's reasons at all.

Show me one clip of Jon Stewart claiming he's a journalist in any way. He's a fucking satirist. He has zero responsibility to be nonpartisan, in fact, it's his job to take a side and express his personal opinion. He's not "hiding behind being a comedian"... he IS a fucking comedian.

If Jon Stewart renames his show "The Daily News" then we can all come down on him like a ton of bricks.

QM just likes to ruffle liberal feathers.

I'm 100% sincere and try to keep the abrasiveness to a minimum. Bill-O is a brilliant satirist or the real O'Reilly. Either way: comedy.

Thank, Young Turd Guy, for your vital correction of a satirist. Let me know when you start on all the liberally-biased garbage that has passed for "news" the last 8 years.


"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war...it was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

--Mark Halperin, SLIME Magazine, on election media coverage

he did exactly the right thing. he is paid and elected to govern, not to help bad satirists make TV for foreign countries.