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.

That was a bit incoherent. All the "research" about the photo and then doesn't tell the story behind it (young woman was injured, and her boyfriend was comforting her.)

I did like his point that about racial stereotypes, but that is about it.

I agree, and the city of Vancouver has a big bill on it's hands [that's true]

What I found compelling was the photo, it's like a Banksy mural.
A statement in it's time.

I'd heard the male is an Aussie and that his parents saw the photo and called CBC.

Well that's good, gotta enjoy the moment I guess. Good shot too.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Not everybody's rioting

>> ^Zifnab:

My mother is very proud, she called me after the game to check. I only lit a few cars on fire a little...
Seriously though, I watched the game at a friends place and then went home and watched the riot on TV. Stupid idiots, makes me want to puke to see drunken assholes acting like this.>> ^therealblankman:
I'm pretty sure that the little bastard in the thumbnail is @Zifnab. Dude, why do you misbehave so? Is your mother proud?



I watched the last 2 periods from the CBC plaza! Walked home, turned on the TV and saw 2 cop cars on fire pretty much next to where I had been standing. We really ought to put up a fence around Surrey and the Fraser Valley to keep these yahoos out of our beautiful city.

Not everybody's rioting

You will find my avatar in this video
http://videosift.com/video/The-Dentist-Of-Jaipur

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
oooh to be so beautiful and so delicious!

btw, wtf is your avatar?
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Look how pretty. http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2011/06/02/pei-blue-lobster-584.html

oooh to be so beautiful and so delicious!

btw, wtf is your avatar?
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Look how pretty. http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2011/06/02/pei-blue-lobster-584.html

Look how pretty. http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2011/06/02/pei-blue-lobster-584.html

and no offense


Lets not pretend you weren't well aware of the offense in your post.

but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought


I'm talking about psychology, and the reasons people do things. That's very different than justification. And where did I say the war should have happened? Do you think it should have happened? Either way, it's irrelevant to the point at hand: American political support for "hitting back" was a prime reason the war happened. D

because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right


So, in summary, you're dismissing me (and anyone who doesn't fit in with your narrow world view) as some kind of sheep. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone hand wave away an argument this way on the Internet, I'd have many dollars.

But yeah - I'm sure you meant "no offense". You won't catch me saying "no offense" in this post - I think your world view is the result of living in an Internet echo chamber, and only reading the sites and absorbing the opinions of people who agree with you. Yes, I read mainstream news (here in Canada I don't see a lot of Fox or CNN, but I like the BBC/CBC). I also read a lot on the web. Lots of left leaning stuff, but also conservative commentators like Instapundit who, while I don't usually agree with, sometimes has insights and news that shake my preconceptions. That's important.

etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind


Yeah - you don't understand the very rich and powerful. To the extent that they want money, they want money to "win" - to make the deal or be part of a big transaction or be right, or leverage that money to the next win. But their prime motivator is glory, and validation (especially public, but also from friends and other people in power). People who aren't rich don't get this because there's a bunch of stuff they want and can't buy. They can't imagine what it would be like to have "enough" money and power. Nothing George Bush wants (and doesn't already have) can be had for money, and nobody who's opinion he cares about cares how much money he has. Glory, legacy, victory - that's what motivates a guy with all the power in the world.

The other thing you don't understand is that these guys (and most people in general) don't do things they think are wrong. George Bush, however stupid you think he is, doesn't think "oooh, if we invade we'll get all this money". The advisers who know they'll make a profit, they make a difference, sure. Of course money is a factor. The group think carries a strong confirmation bias for the course that will make money. But, in the end, people in that room are building on an honest base of "we'll kill some terrorists" and "they hit us first".

There's many corners of Internet group think where "the most cynical guy must be right". This is a normal stage in intellectual development, as you move into questioning your parents' and teachers' worldview. It's healthy to an extent, but too many people now get stuck there forever - the availability of like minds on the Internet amplifies this effect. You have to understand, though, that this kind of worldview isn't reality and doesn't help you understand the world. Just as not everything is as it seems, not everything is not as it seems.

It's a pleasant fiction to believe that the "people at the top" are hyper competent string pullers - but looking back at history, it's scarcely right. The sad, scary reality is that they're people a lot like us. And until you understand that, you'll never understand world politics or history.

>> ^entr0py:

It took him a while, but he did claim responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks. Not just that al-Qaeda did it, but that he personally recruited the hijackers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.
html
<a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20080701092211/<a rel="nofollow" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms">http://classic-web.archive.org/web
/20080701092211/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/
08/27/AR2006082700687.html


i'd suggest that the audio confession tape is as curious as the likely fake videotape confession. could be wrong of course. but lets look at the rather impractical nature of both recruiting, training, and running an urban airport operation from the hills of afghanistan.
Note that the tape surfaces on the eve of an election.

2nd, rather trite reasons for the 9-11 attack are given. a fairly large red flag. as to why the operation was carried out in the first place, it was unlikely anything but an operation designed to create a predictable response. A terrorist operation cannot defeat the U.S. militarily. However, history is full of empire's that crumbled partly as a result of military over-extension, and the election of bush and his cabinet of warhawks presented an incredible opportunity to goad the U.S. into stretching itself thin. Which it did, and continues to do. Basic Sun Tzu: entice your enemy into an un-winnable battle.

or fuck me, maybe i'm just crazy. maybe i'm just overly suspicious because we never get the straight story from this government: i'm pretty sure we dropped nukes on japanin WWII because of the soviet threat, that Vietnam had nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with markets/labor/raw materials, that Oswald wasn't the only Kennedy shooter and he was killed to keep him quiet, that Iraq was about oil, and that we sure as hell haven't been in Afghanistan for 10 years because of one guy.

It took him a while, but he did claim responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks. Not just that al-Qaeda did it, but that he personally recruited the hijackers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20080701092211/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

A very impressive interview by Jian Ghomeshi.

Indeed. And the NDP opposition will certainly be interesting!>> ^Zifnab:

No shit, I didn't see that coming a few weeks ago. I am happy with the decimation of the Bloc and the fact that Elizabeth May was elected.
>> ^Fusionaut:
Fuck!

No shit, I didn't see that coming a few weeks ago. I am happy with the decimation of the Bloc and the fact that Elizabeth May was elected.
>> ^Fusionaut:

Fuck!

Fuck!