I was very puzzled at the interviewer when he put on the Pamela Anderson Roast and tried to compare Comedy Central to Fox News...that makes no sense whatsoever.
Karon wrote:Jon Stewart never ceases to impress me.
I was very puzzled at the interviewer when he put on the Pamela Anderson Roast and tried to compare Comedy Central to Fox News...that makes no sense whatsoever.
Karon wrote:Jon Stewart never ceases to impress me.
I was very puzzled at the interviewer when he put on the Pamela Anderson Roast and tried to compare Comedy Central to Fox News...that makes no sense whatsoever.
biccat wrote:If you think Stewart didn't drink the kool-ade heavily before that interview...I have a bridge you might be interested in.
Stewart's defense when he gets called out on being an ideological ass is "Hey, I'm a comedian" as if it's an absolute defense.
Comedy isn't a defense to a charge of bias.
Also, I liked the part where he made a racist joke against Herman Cain. That's some funny stuff right there.
I fail to see how that joke is racially motivated...
I don't think he has a valid point.
Everything in the media has an ideological message of some kind no matter what it is. Objective news is difficult to get since it not only requires a company willing to ignore its own bias and interests in spreading a message but also to accept the loss in viewers they may get from not being sensationalist or counter-mainstream...
When he said he didn't think the NY Times was biased, but just sensationalist I laughed and laughed. He's either blind or he's lying.
EDIT: I liked the Cain joke though. Cain for 2012, I don't like to Read!
I don't think Wallace landed a shot though. This interview could have gone better. They both actually took each other seriously. Some self - depracating humor on both sides would have been appropo.
biccat wrote:If you think Stewart didn't drink the kool-ade heavily before that interview...I have a bridge you might be interested in.
You do an excellent job of demonstrating just how deeply stupid and ideologically driven viewpoints from the right like yours have become, when being able to defend your stances and statements in cognizant, intellectually sound, and reasonable manner becomes 'drinking the kool-aid.' Reality and reasonability of fact and argument has nothing to do with it, nope, you're just going to write people off because of 'kool-ade.' (and it's going to be hilarious when your response is going be nothing more than finger pointing and trying to claim, 'they do it to.) It's also obvious you came running to this thread without actually having watched the interview to defend... well I have no idea what you think you're here to white knight for. Or were you trying for some sort of irony by failing to make a point with almost the same words Wallace used?
Bookwrack wrote:It's also obvious you came running to this thread without actually having watched the interview to defend... well I have no idea what you think you're here to white knight for.
I'm not white knighting. I think Wallace had both good and bad points, but Stewart was well prepared, and obviously has deft skill at deflecting or turning questions back on the interviewer.
However, anyone who thinks that Stewart is not an ideological zealot is either blind or foolish. Possibly both.
It would contain anything which would make the consumer a "disaster area" in the most literal sense possible. So I'm thinking laxatives, stimulants like caffine and guarana, and maybe something which will cause nausea after several hours.
So... when the NY Times goes after Palin it's written off as laziness and sensationalism, but when Fox goes after someone it's pure evil. Really.
Stewart is hiding behind his comedy schtick while pushing his own idealism, all the while claiming not to be an ideologue. Then he talked down to Wallace claiming "he couldn't understand" because of "the world he lives in".
When Diane Sawyer's clip was played Stewart dodged by calling it "sensationalism" and "mild disinformation". So really, Mr. Stewart: NBC spreading disinformation (his own words) is just innocent sensationalism and laziness, but Fox News is evil to the core because they have their own slant?
Stewart is the epitome of the holier than thou Left. He's smarter than us, and we can't understand him. It's OUR fault for failing to recognize his brilliance.
Lets all just admit it here. every news source , every person in this world is bias. I believe that the only true way to get fair and balanced news is to read the stuff for yourself and make your own mind up. Any one telling you the news is inherently telling it to you with there spin, it's human nature. My love for john Stewart comes from him saying his comments about people and then going to there show and saying it again to there face and not back peddling or telling them i didn't mean it like that, not from him being non biased.
voryn15 wrote:Lets all just admit it here. every news source , every person in this world is bias.
Truth.
Which only furthers the point of "certain" 24 hour news channels being bias, regardless of what they try to say or how they try to state otherwise.
I watch Jon because he's funny. I also realize that they daily show is actually acting like a news organization much, no, FAR more than anything else out there, which is a sad thing.
I see the humor in what he says, not any bias. He rips on whatever shows up that's a good target. It's just fact that fox news is like the holy grail when it comes to this...
Wallace's entire arguement seems to be "Your Journalism is biased." Stewart just can't get through to him that The Daily show and South Park are not a news program.
It's not that Fox News is right-wing news, it's the fact that Fox News has devolved into a ridiculous caricature of the right wing, intent to spread lies and sensationalism to further their agenda, and to act as an infectious plague towards members of the public which react at every available opportunity to talk-radio nonsense.
I love this interview, and I'm glad that John Stewart was able to save face and not devolve into personal attacks as so many members of the media have done to him.
when Fox goes after someone it's pure evil. Really.
Allow me to quote myself:
Fox news is heresy.
This is very interesting. If so-called right-wing news is "heresy", do you consider left wing sources Holy Writ?
When someone believes in a political ideology as a religion, it's no surprise that they're unwilling to listen to contrasting opinions.
I find you a funny man. Who said heresy has to be religiously related? You know what time it is on fox right now? Heresy. In an hour? Heresy. Heresy all the time everytime.
Heresy because they say one thing, and do another. Then believe they did what they said. They lie so much, it's sucking the brains of their viewers out, to the point that they don't question what's said.
I'm sad glenn beck is leaving, that means they thought for a second. I would rather they drove the channel on a golf cart into the abyss.
Don't get me wrong, I'm open minded. I just don't listen to the crazy, misinformed, ignorant or any combination of the three.
when Fox goes after someone it's pure evil. Really.
Allow me to quote myself:
Fox news is heresy.
This is very interesting. If so-called right-wing news is "heresy", do you consider left wing sources Holy Writ?
When someone believes in a political ideology as a religion, it's no surprise that they're unwilling to listen to contrasting opinions.
I find you a funny man. Who said heresy has to be religiously related? You know what time it is on fox right now? Heresy. In an hour? Heresy. Heresy all the time everytime.
Heresy because they say one thing, and do another. Then believe they did what they said. They lie so much, it's sucking the brains of their viewers out, to the point that they don't question what's said.
I'm sad glenn beck is leaving, that means they thought for a second. I would rather they drove the channel on a golf cart into the abyss.
Don't get me wrong, I'm open minded. I just don't listen to the crazy, misinformed, ignorant or any combination of the three.
Very true, except arguing with him is like beating a wooden stick against a carbonite Han-solo..it won't do any good.
I love Stewart, and I love that he would go on Fox News and take questions.
Fox News is idiotic, and anyone who takes them seriously is very misinformed.
All news is based off of sensationalism, suspense, and drama, its how they get viewers to keep watching. There's a reason they take so much time covering Palin: she's popular. It doesn't matter that she's a dumb bitch, she's popular, and will get the news station views.
FOX keeps making the mistake that everyone else out there thinks just like they do. They assume they can get Stewart on the show, point out he's partisan just like they are and therefore plays exactly the same role in the media they do, and then spend the rest of the interview doing the victory dance.
It's happened a lot of times now, and each and every time Stewart explains that his role in the media isn't just to shill his or anyone else's ideology, he's a comedian and here's there first and foremost to make people laugh. And they just don't get it. He says it again and again, and every time they treat it as this inscrutable thing, something so vast that their brains just sieze up trying to understand it. The idea that someone out there commenting on politics sees their role as something other than shilling their side's talking points is like some Eldritch horror to the people at FOX news. All they can do is stare blankly and repeat the charge 'nuh uh, you're liberal'.
I think they've spent so much time amongst themselves, talking about what conservatives are and what they think liberals, the idea of people with valuesets and roles outside of that narrow field is just beyond them. The idea that Stewart is making fun of them, not because they're conservative, but because they're dishonest and bad journalists, is inconceivable.
Frazzled wrote:I couldn't tell if he was lying or just drank the coolaid too deep.
Now the riddle is, which one am I talking about.
And here it is in the wild, ladies and gentlemen. It's an incredible sight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:If you think Stewart didn't drink the kool-ade heavily before that interview...I have a bridge you might be interested in.
And here it is again. Two in the one thread, truly we're blessed!
Stewart's defense when he gets called out on being an ideological ass is "Hey, I'm a comedian" as if it's an absolute defense.
It's not an absolute defence. It's a desccription of the role he takes in the media. He isn't there to be a journalist, to uncover truth and inform the viewer. That he's considered equal or better than the actual journalists tells you how bad the journalists are at their jobs. Most, because they're there for sensationalism and excitement, and FOX because they're partisan hacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:When he said he didn't think the NY Times was biased, but just sensationalist I laughed and laughed. He's either blind or he's lying.
No, he's describing the most common problem with most media sources today. FOX runs a very tight ideological ship, stories are checked to make sure they fit the GOP narrative. This doesn't happen elsewhere, instead those other sources are junk because they focus on what gets the most web hits, what gets the most excitement today.
You, of course, will continue to not understand this. To accept it, you'd have to argue that not everything is divided into pro-blue and pro-red, that there are agendas out there beyond those largely artificial divisions. That's just too big an idea right now, for you and for the FOX talking heads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Green Git wrote:So... when the NY Times goes after Palin it's written off as laziness and sensationalism, but when Fox goes after someone it's pure evil. Really.
Your mistake there comes from thinking Stewart thinks sensationalism is okay. It's a greater blight on the media than FOX's yellow journalism, because there's a lot more media agencies doing it.
The point is that the world doesn't work like FOX likes to pretend it does, in order to justify their crappy standards of media.
Stewart is the epitome of the holier than thou Left. He's smarter than us, and we can't understand him. It's OUR fault for failing to recognize his brilliance.
He's not that brilliant, and I don't think he thinks he's that brilliant. And it is entirely your fault for failing to understand what he's saying, because what he's saying is very simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Infreak wrote:I don't know that I'd call Fox the "holy grail" of anything. They just seem to be the communal punching bag.
Have to say I don't really like his "comedy" (in terms of me not finding it funny, rather than because "I h8 dem liberals!") but he was very good in that interview and my appreciation for the man behind the annoying persona has increased.
I liked the O'Reilly interviews better. Neither one approached it as an actual serious interview. Actually interviewing Stewart seriously on anything other than comedy should not have been done.
On the positive Olberman (who I remember as a portscaster actually) is on a new left wing commentary network. What an innovative breath of fresh air.
alarmingrick wrote:I'm glad you see the problem with the religious Right as well. now if you could have a word with them for us.....
Let me get this straight: The problem with the religious right is that they're religious and refuse to personally adopt the contrasting arguments of other religions. Is that your point?
Do you even know what religion is? Bias against other religions is required. Otherwise, you have no grounds for maintaining your own religious beliefs. I would have thought that this was part of a fundamental understanding of humanity, but perhaps I am incorrect.
Also, I know a lot more "religious right" types who would support a Democrat than I do "progressive" types who would support a Republican.
juraigamer wrote:I find you a funny man. Who said heresy has to be religiously related?
heresy
–noun, plural -sies.
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church . the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
So you're right, it might not be based in religion, but it's based in orthodoxy. As long as you're willing to walk lock-step with "progressive" or "liberal" political views, you will see Fox News as "heresy."
juraigamer wrote:You know what time it is on fox right now? Heresy. In an hour? Heresy. Heresy all the time everytime.
Heresy because they say one thing, and do another. Then believe they did what they said.
Words, despite common misperceptions, have meanings. I would suggest you read up on the proper use of them before you use them in a conversation. It helps you avoid looking foolish.
juraigamer wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm open minded.
No, you're not. You can pretend you are, but you're not. Sorry if that ruins your day.
sebster wrote:FOX keeps making the mistake that everyone else out there thinks just like they do. They assume they can get Stewart on the show, point out he's partisan just like they are and therefore plays exactly the same role in the media they do, and then spend the rest of the interview doing the victory dance.
It's happened a lot of times now, and each and every time Stewart explains that his role in the media isn't just to shill his or anyone else's ideology, he's a comedian and here's there first and foremost to make people laugh. And they just don't get it. He says it again and again, and every time they treat it as this inscrutable thing, something so vast that their brains just sieze up trying to understand it. The idea that someone out there commenting on politics sees their role as something other than shilling their side's talking points is like some Eldritch horror to the people at FOX news. All they can do is stare blankly and repeat the charge 'nuh uh, you're liberal'.
I think they've spent so much time amongst themselves, talking about what conservatives are and what they think liberals, the idea of people with valuesets and roles outside of that narrow field is just beyond them. The idea that Stewart is making fun of them, not because they're conservative, but because they're dishonest and bad journalists, is inconceivable.
I think they've spent so much time amongst themselves, talking about what conservatives are and what they think liberals, the idea of people with valuesets and roles outside of that narrow field is just beyond them. The idea that Stewart is making fun of them, not because they're conservative, but because they're dishonest and bad journalists, is inconceivable.
You're right, Fox is not at all like:
CNN
MSNBC
Whatever the hell Olberman's new network is
This (well, and all those rubbish sitcoms) is why America should not be able to make TV. Everyone should watch the BBC and be informed with a minimum of bias and political spin
SilverMK2 wrote:This (well, and all those rubbish sitcoms) is why America should not be able to make TV. Everyone should watch the BBC and be informed with a minimum of bias and political spin
horsegak. If you think the BBC doesn't have a bias, you need to give yourself an enema.
More importantly the BBC is about as entertaining as dried snot...
Well at least it is good to see the same old names up to the same old arguments.
Seb, it's not that I don't understand what Stewart is trying to say... it's just that I don't buy it. He's like the guy that calls a chick fat and then says "It was just a joke, c'mon".
It's not that I don't understand what Stewart is trying to say... it's just that I don't buy it. He's like the guy that calls a chick fat and then says "It was just a joke, c'mon".
Stewart's most important point made in that interview is that he targets absurdity and corruption in his politically-driven comedy. That is his agenda; he is by no means partisan, and would take equal shots to both sides of the political equasion if they both deserved it equally. He doesn't target the foundations or fundamental structure of either party and honestly holds no bias against either one.
It's not that I don't understand what Stewart is trying to say... it's just that I don't buy it. He's like the guy that calls a chick fat and then says "It was just a joke, c'mon".
Stewart's most important point made in that interview is that he targets absurdity and corruption in his politically-driven comedy. That is his agenda; he is by no means partisan, and would take equal shots to both sides of the political equasion if they both deserved it equally. He doesn't target the foundations or fundamental structure of either party and honestly holds no bias against either one.
"And there you have it. At 4:25 Eastern Standard Time, this story officially became sad." Because dang it, there's nothing funny about a congressman tweeting pictures of his junk to 40,000 people!
Stewart's most important point made in that interview is that he targets absurdity and corruption in his politically-driven comedy. That is his agenda; he is by no means partisan,
(your opinion)
and would take equal shots to both sides of the political equasion if they both deserved it equally
(your opinion, but you're tacitly agreeing he's not) .
He doesn't target the foundations or fundamental structure of either party and honestly holds no bias against either one.
(your opinion, the amount of time making fun of one party or beliefs vs. the other belies the statement.)
I don't have a beef with Stewart, but the thought that he doesn't have a bias is just wrong. Lewis Black and Ron White are biased too, but thats ok.
Asherian Command wrote:But BBC is better than most american crappy networks. I loved jon stewart in this.
And he is my comedic hero no wonder.
Only if you Gordon Ramsey 24/7... Seriously, you're British. You don't know about food. Its why you conquered half the globe, so you could finally get decent takeout.
Frazzled wrote:That hurts. You hurt me as a person, and a human being.
It's ok - come to England and sample the wonders of the world!
We have food from all the corners of the globe to tickle your taste buds
but do you have queso, do you have tamales, and burros. Without the divine presence of texmex you have no soul.
Burros? You don't eat the donkeys, man.
Burritos, yes. Donkeys, no.
Edit: When Jon first joined the daily show, we went after Republicans and Democrats with equal fervor. Now, not so much. He still gives it to both sides, but it's obvious which way he's biased.
Still, he's a funny man and thinks on his feet. Not someone you want to poke with a stick during an interview on live TV.
Just don't give me any BS about Jon being an equal opportunist.
I don't see what Ballistic Score has to do with this.
It depends on how you are defining equal opportunist. If you mean he devotes an equal amount of time to lambasting politicians on both sides then obliviously he is not. If you mean what it actually means, a willingness to go after either side if the situation arises that warrants it then you would be wrong in saying that they are not equal opportunists. The Daily Show has gone after Republicans and Democrats. It isn't their fault if the Republicans (and by extension their mouthpieces in the media) make for better fodder, as traditionalists do tend to have more of a stick up their ass, and therefore are better targets for mocking. If you think they don't also take Dem's or more liberal newscasters to task when they do something worth making fun of you haven't watched the show that much.
biccat wrote:"And there you have it. At 4:25 Eastern Standard Time, this story officially became sad." Because dang it, there's nothing funny about a congressman tweeting pictures of his junk to 40,000 people!
Had you been watching the other episodes that week? Because he was very up front about the fact that Anthony Weiner was a friend of his, and he was struggling with balancing out the fact that this was comedy gold, versus the fact that this was a guy he knew personally that it was all happening to. So this whole week, he's been saying over and over that he hopes this isn't true because he doesn't want to believe that his friend was dumb enough to do this kinda gak. . . and then it is. And suddenly the story officially became sad.
The episode after the "this story officially became sad" was his public apology to his audience for not milking this story to the full for all the comedic seeds it could provide like he should have done. Also, he cut himself on a margarita glass.
Anyway, anyone thinking Jon Stewart is nothing but liberal bias should try watching any of the interviews he has done with Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a staunch conservative who has appeared on the Daily Show many, many times, mostly because even though Jon Stewart might not agree with him, and might skewer his sillier acts (playing bass for Ted Nugent, anyone?), if you know your gak and can back up your position, you'll have his respect.
Just don't give me any BS about Jon being an equal opportunist.
I don't see what Ballistic Score has to do with this.
It depends on how you are defining equal opportunist. If you mean he devotes an equal amount of time to lambasting politicians on both sides then obliviously he is not. If you mean what it actually means, a willingness to go after either side if the situation then you would be wrong. The Daily Show has gone after Republicans and Democrats. It isn't their fault if the Republicans (and by extension their mouthpieces in the media) make for better fodder, as traditionalists do tend to have more of a stick up their ass, and therefore are better targets for mocking. If you think they don't also take Dem's or more liberal newscasters to task when they do something worth making fun of you haven't watched the show that much.
And there's the follow-up to the leading question Ahtman asked 4 posts up.
B.S.
I watch the show 2-3 times per week. As I said, he goes after both sides. You agree with me there.
As I also said, he goes after the right more than the left. You agree with me there.
The why is where we differ. You say it it because the right are bad, bad men and deserve it. I say the left have more bad, bad men and should get an equal share. Jon and his staff have a left-bias.
biccat wrote:"And there you have it. At 4:25 Eastern Standard Time, this story officially became sad." Because dang it, there's nothing funny about a congressman tweeting pictures of his junk to 40,000 people!
Had you been watching the other episodes that week? Because he was very up front about the fact that Anthony Weiner was a friend of his, and he was struggling with balancing out the fact that this was comedy gold, versus the fact that this was a guy he knew personally that it was all happening to. So this whole week, he's been saying over and over that he hopes this isn't true because he doesn't want to believe that his friend was dumb enough to do this kinda gak. . . and then it is. And suddenly the story officially became sad.
Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue. I haven't watched the Daily Show since Kilborn left the Daily Show and it started to suck.
And that's why I raised the issue. Stewart was biased, not politically, but personally, against reporting/commenting on the story. He pretends he's not, but he is, as evidenced by Weinergate.
themocaw wrote:The episode after the "this story officially became sad" was his public apology to his audience for not milking this story to the full for all the comedic seeds it could provide like he should have done. Also, he cut himself on a margarita glass.
So he acknowledged that he was biased and then went on FNC to deny his bias. Brilliant.
This simply reinforces the fact that anyone who believes a word out of Stewart's mouth is engaging in selective truths. He (and his fans) admits that he doesn't always tell the truth and he won't tell you when he's lying (or, to be polite, making things up). Therefore, any assertion about his "True Beliefs" should be taken with at least a grain of salt. Instead, you can analyze his actions (including story selections and jokes) to determine that he skewers conservatives far more than liberals.
kronk wrote:And there's the follow-up to the leading question Ahtman asked 4 posts up.
To be a leading question it would have to actually been a question that required an answer, which it did not. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on both rhetorical questions as well as what it means to "lead".
kronk wrote:You say it it because the right are bad, bad men and deserve it.
Wow, now that is almost a perfect example of a strawman. Bravo sir, well done. I never said anything of the kind. At best I pointed out that staunch authority figures, and the Republicans fall into that much more than the Dems, are easier targets to make fun of. This is nothing new or surprising. It is why Charlie Chaplin's The Tramp mocks custom officials and gets one over on the cops. Groups with a stick up their ass are far more effective targets than people with a sense of humor.
kronk wrote:I say the left have more bad, bad men and should get an equal share. Jon and his staff have a left-bias.
That is because you are looking at this through your myopic political lens and not as a comedy show out to get laughs, which is preciesly what it is. He has neither an obligation or a duty to mock certain people just because you don't like their politics.
Albatross wrote:'Queso' is just Spanish for 'Cheese'. It bugs me every time Frazzled acts like it's a special new food that you can only get in Tejas....
We have Queso de Cheddar here, for example.
Ay Dioss Mio! God will forgive you your blasphemy due to your utter ignorance. Don't blame yourself. Its not your fault. You weren't born in current or former portions of Mexico.
biccat wrote:
Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue.
Why is a satirical comedy show under any onus to report a story?
biccat wrote:
This simply reinforces the fact that anyone who believes a word out of Stewart's mouth is engaging in selective truths.
Says the poster who defends Fox news, an entire channel that purports to be 'fair and balanced' journalism, whilst crying foul over a comedy show not being bipartisan.
biccat wrote:
Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue.
Since when was the daily show a show that was supposed to be taken seriously? Also, WHEN did it become a news show? Last I checked, it wasn't, the only thing that was odd was the other channels that state they are news are farther from being news than the daily show... wait... I see the problem.
Frazzled wrote:You're right, Fox is not at all like: CNN MSNBC Whatever the hell Olberman's new network is
And you continue to not get it. CNN is bad because it's lazy, and dishonest, and chases cheap spectacle over actual reporting. MSNBC used to be bad in the way that CNN is bad, but recently made the decision to follow FOX's lead, and directly market to a political block. They're not quite there yet, because introducing a culture of completely dishonest, yellow journalism takes a while, but they're making their ground quickly. This new network of Olberman's will likely also be yellow journalism.
But none of that excuses what FOX is doing. Nor does it mean there isn't a fundamental difference between the nature of FOX's reporting and the reporting done by the media at large. Understanding this difference is a key to understanding media as it exists today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:horsegak. If you think the BBC doesn't have a bias, you need to give yourself an enema.
There's this idea that's really common among the US right wing. It's kind of a weird interpretation of subjectivity that made a whole portion of the left wing of academia incredibly stupid for a decade or two a while back.
The way this has been interpreted in the right wing of the US is that everyone is biased, so every source is equally reliable, so you might as well pick whoever's bias you like best and just listen to their gibberish. With the world viewed through this filter, actual reality just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if someone, like Jon Stewart, points out that something claimed by news source is complete bs, because Stewart is just another source.
It's an incredibly ridiculous way of the looking at the world, and a foundational element of how the US right wing has managed to become so ridiculous so quickly.
More importantly the BBC is about as entertaining as dried snot...
And it's because they're chasing viewers like Fraz that most journalism is so very terrible. "What's that, in depth reporting on corporate malpractice? Nah the viewer will find that dull, let's run with more breaking news on some random celebrity going into rehab!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Green Git wrote:Well at least it is good to see the same old names up to the same old arguments.
Seb, it's not that I don't understand what Stewart is trying to say... it's just that I don't buy it. He's like the guy that calls a chick fat and then says "It was just a joke, c'mon".
Oh, and Plonk.
No, it really isn't like that. That's an example of someone trying to use humour to minimise offence. Stewart is not doing that. He's saying that his role is to host a comedy show on a comedy station, where he makes fun of the media. That's his place - pointing out the absurdity of the media.
You want an analogy? Stewart is the jester in the court. Except the jester is better respected than the king. The king's response is to tell the jester he should also think of himself as a king. The jester responds that he's just a fool, and nothing but a fool, and the king really needs to stop acting worse than he does, for the sake of the kingdom.
sebster wrote:
No, it really isn't like that. That's an example of someone trying to use humour to minimise offence. Stewart is not doing that. He's saying that his role is to host a comedy show on a comedy station, where he makes fun of the media. That's his place - pointing out the absurdity of the media.
You want an analogy? Stewart is the jester in the court. Except the jester is better respected than the king. The king's response is to tell the jester he should also think of himself as a king. The jester responds that he's just a fool, and nothing but a fool, and the king really needs to stop acting worse than he does, for the sake of the kingdom.
"Wit, an't be thy will, put me in good fooling! Those wits that think they have thee, do very oft prove fools, and I that am sure lack thee may pass for a wise man"Ö"Better a witty fool than a foolish wit"
biccat wrote:
Comedy isn't a defense to a charge of bias.
This is where I talk about bias being a polite euphemism for "I don't like you." when used in the context of public discourse, rather than anything that actually has anything to do with bias.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Also, I liked the part where he made a racist joke against Herman Cain. That's some funny stuff right there.
Its racist to roughly interpret a voice used by the candidate in question?
Chrysaor686 wrote:
He doesn't target the foundations or fundamental structure of either party and honestly holds no bias against either one.
your opinion, the amount of time making fun of one party or beliefs vs. the other belies the statement
No, not really. Believing that one party or belief is more absurd than another does not in and of itself indicate an unfair bias (because plain bias really isn't important to the discussion) against that party or belief.
Very few people will ever claim that mocking white supremacists is indicative of an unfair bias against white supremacism, probably not even very many white supremacists.
Frazzled wrote:
I don't have a beef with Stewart, but the thought that he doesn't have a bias is just wrong. Lewis Black and Ron White are biased too, but thats ok.
And now Frazzled begins equivocating. There is a difference between having a particular type of bias, say a partisan bias, and another particular type of bias. The statement "Everyone is biased." is plainly true, but that statement carries no weight if you aren't going to talk about the way in which a particular person is biased.
youbedead wrote:"Wit, an't be thy will, put me in good fooling! Those wits that think they have thee, do very oft prove fools, and I that am sure lack thee may pass for a wise man"Ö"Better a witty fool than a foolish wit"
youbedead wrote:"Wit, an't be thy will, put me in good fooling! Those wits that think they have thee, do very oft prove fools, and I that am sure lack thee may pass for a wise man"Ö"Better a witty fool than a foolish wit"
Exactly!
Probably!
Don't remember high school english then , that line is from feste in twelfth night, one of Shakespeare's best characters in my opinion
biccat wrote:
Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue.
Why is a satirical comedy show under any onus to report a story?
He's not under an onus to report the story. But when he claims to be bipartisan and applies his barbs equally to the left and right, the failure to report on a story full of pure comedy gold tends to suggest the opposite.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
biccat wrote:This simply reinforces the fact that anyone who believes a word out of Stewart's mouth is engaging in selective truths.
Says the poster who defends Fox news, an entire channel that purports to be 'fair and balanced' journalism, whilst crying foul over a comedy show not being bipartisan.
Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.
Crying foul about Leibowitz "not being bipartisan" or more accurately, "biased," is what this thread is all about. If you have an issue with the topic of the thread, perhaps you should find another thread to post in? Alternatively, you could start your very own thread where you complain about Fox News.
juraigamer wrote:
biccat wrote:Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue.
Since when was the daily show a show that was supposed to be taken seriously? Also, WHEN did it become a news show? Last I checked, it wasn't, the only thing that was odd was the other channels that state they are news are farther from being news than the daily show... wait... I see the problem.
It's not supposed to be taken seriously. But as I explained to the other poster quoted in this response, the failure to report on the story reinforces the idea that Leibowitz is biased in favor of the left. Especially given that the comedic value of the issue is unquestionable.
Oh yeah, he also admitted that he didn't report on the story due to his perseonal bias. There's that part.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:This is where I talk about bias being a polite euphemism for "I don't like you." when used in the context of public discourse, rather than anything that actually has anything to do with bias.
And this is where I talk about you changing the meaning of words to suit your particularly narrow worldview instead of the commonly used definitions. I think we've done this before.
dogma wrote:Very few people will ever claim that mocking white supremacists is indicative of an unfair bias against white supremacism, probably not even very many white supremacists.
While people don't claim it, it's quite obviously true. People mock white supremacists because they are biased against white supremacy (quite correctly). However, if one were being intellectually honest, one would point out how black supremacist groups aren't subjected to the same degree of scorn and ridicule.
This could be interpreted as a separate bias, not just opposed to white supremacists, but in favor of black supremacists.
biccat wrote:Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue.
Since when was the daily show a show that was supposed to be taken seriously? Also, WHEN did it become a news show? Last I checked, it wasn't, the only thing that was odd was the other channels that state they are news are farther from being news than the daily show... wait... I see the problem.
It's not supposed to be taken seriously. But as I explained to the other poster quoted in this response, the failure to report on the story reinforces the idea that Leibowitz is biased in favor of the left. Especially given that the comedic value of the issue is unquestionable.
Oh yeah, he also admitted that he didn't report on the story due to his perseonal bias. There's that part.
If it's not supposed to be taken seriously, then why are you and all the fox news lackies getting all angry about it? Because he didn't report part of the story? Fox news does this all the time. Should i be angry at fox news for doing this as well then? Also... your asking a 25 minute program to to give a full report. Do you see the failed logic there?
juraigamer wrote:If it's not supposed to be taken seriously, then why are you and all the fox news lackies getting all angry about it? Because he didn't report part of the story? Fox news does this all the time. Should i be angry at fox news for doing this as well then? Also... your asking a 25 minute program to to give a full report. Do you see the failed logic there?
2) There's no "failed logic" in asking The Daily Show - a show that covers politics in a comedic way - to cover a story about a congressman publicly tweeting a picture of his wang, apparently intended as a DM to a young coed, (and most importantly) whose name was Weiner. The jokes write themselves, really.
So the question you should ask is "Why didn't The Daily Show" cover the issue? The answer is simple (and was provided by Stewart himself): Personal Bias.
Please remember that disagreeing with one another does not entail insulting one another. Keep in mind that personal insults are in violation of Rule Number One. Thanks!
juraigamer wrote:If it's not supposed to be taken seriously, then why are you and all the fox news lackies getting all angry about it? Because he didn't report part of the story? Fox news does this all the time. Should i be angry at fox news for doing this as well then? Also... your asking a 25 minute program to to give a full report. Do you see the failed logic there?
2) There's no "failed logic" in asking The Daily Show - a show that covers politics in a comedic way - to cover a story about a congressman publicly tweeting a picture of his wang, apparently intended as a DM to a young coed, (and most importantly) whose name was Weiner. The jokes write themselves, really.
So the question you should ask is "Why didn't The Daily Show" cover the issue? The answer is simple (and was provided by Stewart himself): Personal Bias.
Once again he did. I would say he dedicated about 3-4 times as much showtime to Weinergate as he would a "normal" scandal. From comparing the pubic hairs of jews to Endor to giant dildo powered wheels of fortune he can't go one show without mentioing it it some way. The Weiner talk just don't stop on The Daily Show. He once called it a gift from the comedy gods - and by god I mean the bottle of gin that all comics worship.
Re: "Racist" Herman Cain joke: is this the one about "I don't like to read?" The one made about a candidate who claimed that bills are too long, and when he is president, no bill will be allowed to be longer than three pages?
He did "mine the gold" from weiner-gate, making fun of his friend a lot in the process; I don't see the problem. While he does tend to go after Conservatives more, it just seems as though they tend to hand out the gold much more often; especially those 3 on Fox in the morning, feth they drive me crazy.
biccat wrote:Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.
I think it would have been better to say all network news is just biased, sensationalist garbage, but you had to go and say Fox was "actually fair and balanced". So, does "actually fair and balanced" equate to "yea, sometimes we make gak up, and report a ton of fallacies"?
themocaw wrote:Re: "Racist" Herman Cain joke: is this the one about "I don't like to read?" The one made about a candidate who claimed that bills are too long, and when he is president, no bill will be allowed to be longer than three pages?
biccat wrote: Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism.
If you believe that, truthfully, then I will stop attempting to shed the light on the lies, as nothing will get through.
My mom is in the same state as you, I can't talk to her about anything regarding politics and I'm a conservative republican, as is she. Damn channel drives us apart. I wonder if I can sue for that...
Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism.
Yep, i'd say you are. and maybe a little high..... I'm not really too concerned about how you see the interview given your political position.
not that it's wrong. i just don't think you will ever see the hypocrisy of your beloved FOX.
so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.
also, did anyone catch JS corrcting himself lastnight? he said that FOX viewers are the most misinformed watchers, and Politifact corrected him. he was big enough
to admit it. think Fox will every admit to errors?
biccat wrote:
Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.
Why do you bother to engage in any debate over politics if you are so absolutely entrenched and utterly immobile in your beliefs?
Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the right? If so, I'm not sure why as 'the right' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice.
youbedead wrote:Don't remember high school english then , that line is from feste in twelfth night, one of Shakespeare's best characters in my opinion
Nah, I went to highschool when staking our own literary identity away from the old empire was all the rage. So we read lots of Australian literature instead, most of which was terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha!
That's beautiful. I mean seriously, you just keep on keeping on, don't you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
themocaw wrote:Re: "Racist" Herman Cain joke: is this the one about "I don't like to read?" The one made about a candidate who claimed that bills are too long, and when he is president, no bill will be allowed to be longer than three pages?
Yeah.
What's that? FOX ignoring the actual substance of a comment in order to twist it towards some kind of racial insult? Surely not.
Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism.
Yep, i'd say you are. and maybe a little high..... I'm not really too concerned about how you see the interview given your political position.
not that it's wrong. i just don't think you will ever see the hypocrisy of your beloved FOX.
so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.
also, did anyone catch JS corrcting himself lastnight? he said that FOX viewers are the most misinformed watchers, and Politifact corrected him. he was big enough
to admit it. think Fox will every admit to errors?
Yeah i saw it and thought of this thread. I also like how he listed all the stories that they busted fox for, for being outright lies and that fox has had the #1 worst lie of the year for a few years running.
biccat wrote:
And this is where I talk about you changing the meaning of words to suit your particularly narrow worldview instead of the commonly used definitions. I think we've done this before.
The common definition of "bias" is a preference for one thing over another (we could get into the "unfair" aspect as well, but that's even more nebulous). The vast majority of people who have an opinion on a set of things prefer some of those things over others. Its possible to be neutral, but one cannot hold a neutral position and advocate a given set of policy choices. Therefore, if Stewart* is biased (and he states directly that he is informed by an ideology), and advocating a set of policy choices, the charge of bias is irrelevant as it is necessarily true. As such, the charge is made either to dispute a claim to the absence of bias (something Stewart does not claim) or to euphemistically refer to another quality of the person in question, and/or a quality of the speaker. In the case of most uses of the term it seems to be a matter of "and" where the conjunction lies between a political ideology, and the speaker's feelings regarding that ideology. Hence, bias generally means "I don't like your political positions."
I'm not changing the meaning of the word "bias" I'm explaining why the charge is nonsense from a political standpoint if used at face value, and why people who charge people with it are either foolish, or speaking euphemistically.
*Feel free to substitute any other person for Stewart.
biccat wrote:
While people don't claim it, it's quite obviously true. People mock white supremacists because they are biased against white supremacy (quite correctly). However, if one were being intellectually honest, one would point out how black supremacist groups aren't subjected to the same degree of scorn and ridicule.
This could be interpreted as a separate bias, not just opposed to white supremacists, but in favor of black supremacists.
First, one can not correctly hold an unfair bias against something. Obviously people who mock white supremacists hold a bias against them, but that bias is not necessarily unfair. If it were, then mocking pedophiles would also be indicative of an unfair bias. Similarly, if a conservative position is pro-life, and I'm biased against pro-life positions, then it is not unfair to mock people who hold pro-life positions. Impolite certainly, but not unfair.
In any case, not mocking a group is not the same as tacitly approving of that group's action, even if you spend time mocking similar groups. One might simply be unaware of the group in question, or consider their behavior to less significant when compared to that of the mocked group. Because of the time-sensitivity we all experience there will always be groups that go relatively unnoticed in terms of political commentary; which is also why many people simply don't discuss black supremacist groups in the sphere of laymen (academics do it all the time).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
2) There's no "failed logic" in asking The Daily Show - a show that covers politics in a comedic way - to cover a story about a congressman publicly tweeting a picture of his wang, apparently intended as a DM to a young coed, (and most importantly) whose name was Weiner. The jokes write themselves, really.
They did it cover it, pretty extensively actually.
alarmingrick wrote:
also, did anyone catch JS corrcting himself lastnight? he said that FOX viewers are the most misinformed watchers, and Politifact corrected him. he was big enough
to admit it. think Fox will every admit to errors?
I did, I thought it was good to know that fox viewers aren't the lowest, only almost always very low on the scale. The list of fox lies though, that was the icing on the cake. Props to Jon for admitting he was wrong, well, only slightly hahahaha.
alarmingrick wrote:
so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.
Its not a flub. Its accurate. Its just gauling to you that there is a conservative news station vs. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC. Thats why their ratings are so good. Too much competition for the leftwing view, and almost no competition for the right. Its a perfect market.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
biccat wrote:
Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.
Why do you bother to engage in any debate over politics if you are so absolutely entrenched and utterly immobile in your beliefs?
alarmingrick wrote:
so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.
Its not a flub. Its accurate. Its just gauling to you that there is a conservative news station vs. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC. Thats why their ratings are so good. Too much competition for the leftwing
He claiming it's a flub because fox doesn't claim to be conservative, they claim to be fair and balanced. However, wallace ( and this is one of the reasons i quite like him) realizes this is bollocks and instead treats it as reporting from the other side. Personally I hold Wallace in a much higher regard then most fox reporters
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Why do you bother to engage in any debate over politics if you are so absolutely entrenched and utterly immobile in your beliefs?
Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the right? If so, I'm not sure why as 'the right' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice.
Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the ideals of tyranny the left? I'm not sure why as 'the left' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice. We'll both be the first ones against the wall for having political opinions.
But, yeah, see Frazzled's point about entrenched political beliefs. There are a lot of OT posters here who have firmly established political beliefs.
Do you think all "right wingers" should be cast out so you can enjoy the OT as your personal political stomping grounds?
alarmingrick wrote:
so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.
Its not a flub. Its accurate. Its just gauling to you that there is a conservative news station vs. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC. Thats why their ratings are so good. Too much competition for the leftwing
He claiming it's a flub because fox doesn't claim to be conservative, they claim to be fair and balanced. However, wallace ( and this is one of the reasons i quite like him) realizes this is bollocks and instead treats it as reporting from the other side. Personally I hold Wallace in a much higher regard then most fox reporters
Agreed. I like Wallace. They can keep their moniker, but I don't see why FOx doesn't take pride in stating its a new station form a conservative viewpoint. Most of their commentators do. But then again, none of the other stations admit their bias so it all works out.
No, Jon Stewart, you're not just a comedian
When he's not actually doing it on his show, the "Daily Show" host's media criticism can come across as trite
By Will Bunch
FOX
Jon StewartThis originally appeared at Attytood, Will Bunch's blog at Philly.com
TV funnyman (I love that phrase) Jon Stewart is back in the news again, as he so frequently seems to be. For reasons I don't fully understand, Chris Wallace thought it would be a good idea to invite the host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on his program, "Fox News Sunday," and Stewart agreed to come on. Of course, Stewart showed his gratitude by telling Wallace that he was "insane" and saying that FNC is disproportionately responsible for poisoning the discourse in this country.
Stewart called Fox News a "relentless agenda-driven 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system" -- that sounds about right. But then he added this:
"Here's the difference between you and I. I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, there's no question about that. But the thing that you will never understand ... is that Hollywood, yeah, they're liberal, but that's not their primary motivating force. I'm not an activist. I am a comedian."
Longtime readers know I have a tangled view of Jon Stewart and his role in our vast and all-powerful media universe. Like a lot of folks who love both politics and the absurdity of politics, I live for the arrival of Stewart and "TDS" at 11 p.m., and I get anxious and uneasy during those way too many weeks the show is on vacation, as it was last week. That's because I think when he's doing his "day job" during those 30 minutes he is -- bizarre as it sounds -- the best working journalist in America. The examples are many -- his legendary takedown of CNBC that shone light on the financial crisis in a way that mainstream media wasn't capable of doing, his relentless fact-checking of the TV news, and -- most nobly of all -- his fight for the 9/11 rescue workers when it became clear that our politicians and journalists were too craven to do anything.
But outside of "The Daily Show," in interviews like the one he gave to Chris Wallace and even his famous 2004 confrontation that may or may not have killed CNN's "Crossfire," I find that Stewart (and it pains me to say this, as such a fan) can come across as kind of lame, his "media criticism" beyond trite. In interviews, his complaints against the media tend to be an unsophisticated "pox on all of your houses." I thought his largely pointless D.C. mall rally in late October repeated the mistake he makes in these interviews -- trying to argue that our discourse is too loud while ignoring the real point that he hammers home on "The Daily Show," that our politics is irrational.
But the lamest thing of all, frankly, is Stewart trying to absolve responsibility from the gravitas of what he does -- and make no mistake, the gravitas is there -- by claiming that merely, "I am a comedian." That's true, but he fails to see what many others realize, which is that he is also much more than a comedian. In a world where far too much of highly paid professional journalism, especially inside the Beltway, has become a joke, it has fallen on the comedians -- Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher perhaps the most prominent -- to say what on-one-hand, on-the-other hand journalists are too tied up in knots to tell you, that much of America's discourse in 2011 is bat-guano insane.
Actually, Jon Stewart, you are an activist, and the cause you fight for is most worthy because -- as you do correctly note -- it is not a purely ideological one, but the cause of reason. And the fight against illogic is not a "fair and balanced" one, that the most dangerous bogus ideas may be concentrated in the spots where global warming doesn't exist and the way to balance a budget deficit is more tax cuts for rich people. For whatever reason, in the past your friend and colleague Colbert -- who coined "truthiness" and said that reality has a known liberal bias -- has gotten it a lot better than you do.
Maybe Stewart is starting to get it, too. He did say on Sunday that he has an ideology that "is non-partisan and focuses on 'absurdity,' 'anti-corruption' and 'anti lack-of-authenticity.'" That sounds exactly right, so now it's time to drop the "just a comedian" shtick, which comes off like a giant cop-out, exactly the kind of thing that you normally expose so very well, night after night.
Will Bunch is a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and author of the political blog Attytood. More: Will Bunch
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Why do you bother to engage in any debate over politics if you are so absolutely entrenched and utterly immobile in your beliefs?
Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the right? If so, I'm not sure why as 'the right' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice.
Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the ideals of tyranny the left? I'm not sure why as 'the left' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice. We'll both be the first ones against the wall for having political opinions.
But, yeah, see Frazzled's point about entrenched political beliefs. There are a lot of OT posters here who have firmly established political beliefs.
Do you think all "right wingers" should be cast out so you can enjoy the OT as your personal political stomping grounds?
I dated a right wing American girl prior to Mrs S, we had some highly enlightening discussions and her arguments moved my position from hardline socialist to freemarket socialist. I now believe that many industries are better served by the free market and the forced evolution that can inspire.
I have several friends on the right, both here in the US and back in the UK. They will concede points as I will concede points during a debate.
You will not concede, even when confronted with solid fact you will argue that black is white entirely based on loyalty to one side and ultra-partisan entrenchment. So, I wonder, what is the point of you entering into debate here when you will not alter your point of view or accept anything you are shown other than your own belief on entering the discussion. What discussion is that? It is just anyone else banging their head against a brick wall. You are like poster Fateweaver, only you couch the same rhetoric and vitriol in more polite language. Not getting foamy-mouthed doesn't change the underlying problem that you've come here to do battle rather than talk.
I mean, even given my question, your response is antagonistic and confrontational with your tyranny flamebaiting. You are not here to discuss, engage or learn or even refine your own viewpoint, only to confront and attack anyone with a differing viewpoint to your own, in the hope of browbeating them out of the discussion.
I won't be going anywhere, but I am now putting you on ignore, as you are not contributing, only confronting. I do look forward to those with right wing politics who can sway me or get me to look at something from a different angle with a mature discussion.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I have several friends on the right, both here in the US and back in the UK. They will concede points as I will concede points during a debate.
I am more than willing to concede points when any of my points have been affirmatively refuted. But unfortunately there's a dearth of well-reasoned discourse from the left. That's not a failing of the dakka forum members, but rather a failing of left-wing arguments. Ultimately, progressivism (the modern left) is internally inconsistent and tyrannical.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I mean, even given my question, your response is antagonistic and confrontational with your tyranny flamebaiting.
Yes, your question was totally reasonable and non-antagonistic.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:You are not here to discuss, engage or learn or even refine your own viewpoint, only to confront and attack anyone with a differing viewpoint to your own, in the hope of browbeating them out of the discussion.
I'm here to educate. But again, this is totally non-antagonistic. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, read some of the people who respond or attack right-wing views without any knowledge of the basis for those views. The refusal to engage or refine viewpoints is not exclusive to the right.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I won't be going anywhere, but I am now putting you on ignore, as you are not contributing, only confronting. I do look forward to those with right wing politics who can sway me or get me to look at something from a different angle with a mature discussion.
Good to hear. I wish you luck in your future at dakka. When you shut out those who you disagree with, I'm sure the experience will be significantly more enjoyable.
biccat wrote:
I am more than willing to concede points when any of my points have been affirmatively refuted. But unfortunately there's a dearth of well-reasoned discourse from the left. That's not a failing of the dakka forum members, but rather a failing of left-wing arguments. Ultimately, progressivism (the modern left) is internally inconsistent and tyrannical.
The issue, of course, is that you tend to make unfalsifiable, or incredibly difficult to falsify by way of techne (note, this doesn't mean that the point is sound, it means it is analogous to sophistry), claims. If you say X is "inconsistent and tyrannical" we not only have to decide the boundaries of X, but further weed through the entirety of X in order to prove that it is both entirely consistent and non-tyrannical. That's the nature of sweeping rhetoric. It is designed to shut down honest debate in lieu of presenting statements that are satisfying to the speaker, or his target audience.
Not that the purpose of dakka is honest debate, but it bears remembering what is actually going on here, most of the time, before you talk about affirmative refutation.
In any case, the idea that any significant political movement in America is tyrannical indicates to me that you have no idea what tyranny means. Tyranny doesn't require a tyrant, but to claim that either the left or the right, as cumbersome as those terms are, is actually engaged in the arbitrary use of power is just nonsense. Both the left and the right wield power towards their political ends, which are generally related to their own interests. Neither side overtly dispenses state assets for no reason other than liking a person. In fact, if you want to see that sort of behavior en masse, at least in the last century, you would have to look to Africa or Southeast Asia.
I'm just going to cut out the parts where you accuse me of sophestry. It's humorously ironic, but not particularly relevant.
dogma wrote:Tyranny doesn't require a tyrant, but to claim that either the left or the right, as cumbersome as those terms are, is actually engaged in the arbitrary use of power is just nonsense.
A government that engages in the arbitrary use of power may be tyrannical, but a tyranny is not necessarily arbitrary. Rather, tyranny is a government where exercise of power is unchecked by law or justice (utilizing the term according to a formal legal meaning of equality before the law rather than the more abstract meaning generally attributed thereto of general equality).
That doesn't mean that the tyrannical ruler is unfocused or doesn't have objectives, simply that they are unchecked by a governing authority.
The political Right tends to have a dogmatic and stringent view of the Constitution, particularly as it is applied to government power. This suggests (although not necessarily in practice) that the political Right is more accepting of limitations on exercise of power. The political left seems to have no concern with these limits.
Certainly you could point to leftist support for certain freedoms, but this support is generally quite arbitrary upon closer examination.
Which is why I generally have respect for libertarian ideology, except for a few areas where they read more into Constitutional limitations than are really there (although, there are a couple cases from the early '70s that might support such an interpretation).
biccat wrote:I'm just going to cut out the parts where you accuse me of sophestry. It's humorously ironic, but not particularly relevant.
Wait, are you saying that accusing someone of sophistry is an expression of sophist tendencies on my part? If that's the case, then that's false. I'm not using sophistry by accusing you of using it. In this context, as I'm referencing your tendencies relative to your statements to MGS I'm using legitimate ad hominem. In order for me to be using sophistry in the course of my accusation I would have to be somehow attempting to deceive, I'm not, I'm clearly stating that you use sophistry quite frequently.
biccat wrote:
A government that engages in the arbitrary use of power may be tyrannical, but a tyranny is not necessarily arbitrary. Rather, tyranny is a government where exercise of power is unchecked by law or justice (utilizing the term according to a formal legal meaning of equality before the law rather than the more abstract meaning generally attributed thereto of general equality).
That doesn't mean that the tyrannical ruler is unfocused or doesn't have objectives, simply that they are unchecked by a governing authority.
No, that's authoritarianism. Tyranny is a particular type of authoritarianism which deals in the arbitrary abuse of the populace without any necessary political end in mind. There have been very few truly tyrannical states in history, and those that have existed haven't lasted long.
biccat wrote:
The political Right tends to have a dogmatic and stringent view of the Constitution, particularly as it is applied to government power. This suggests (although not necessarily in practice) that the political Right is more accepting of limitations on exercise of power. The political left seems to have no concern with these limits.
Well, no, it only suggests that the political right has chosen to adopt constitutionalist rhetoric.
Either way, given that, as you note, the right has played fast and loose with constitution when it has found it expedient to do so, and that the left has done the same, arguing that the left somehow shows no concern for it (despite protesting the Patriot Act on those grounds) is just incorrect. They might show less concern, but they certainly show more than none. And, really, I would argue that there are certain elements on both the right, and left that are generally unconcerned with the Constitution, just as there are certain elements of each side that concern themselves with it a great deal (or at least the expedient parts of it).
Not explicitly including a thing in your list of political positions and concerns does not mean you have no concern for it, or that you endorse an opposing position, it simply means that other matters of are of greater relative importance to either you, or you audience.
biccat wrote:
Certainly you could point to leftist support for certain freedoms, but this support is generally quite arbitrary upon closer examination.
I could just a easily point to self-identified conservatives who support the freedom of religion so long as the religion is "Christian".
biccat wrote:I'm just going to cut out the parts where you accuse me of sophestry. It's humorously ironic, but not particularly relevant.
Wait, are you saying that accusing someone of sophistry is an expression of sophist tendencies on my part? If that's the case, then that's false. I'm not using sophistry by accusing you of using it. In this context, as I'm referencing your tendencies relative to your statements to MGS I'm using legitimate ad hominem. In order for me to be using sophistry in the course of my accusation I would have to be somehow attempting to deceive, I'm not, I'm clearly stating that you use sophistry quite frequently.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that you accusing someone of sophestry is ironic. Humorously so, in fact.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
A government that engages in the arbitrary use of power may be tyrannical, but a tyranny is not necessarily arbitrary. Rather, tyranny is a government where exercise of power is unchecked by law or justice (utilizing the term according to a formal legal meaning of equality before the law rather than the more abstract meaning generally attributed thereto of general equality).
That doesn't mean that the tyrannical ruler is unfocused or doesn't have objectives, simply that they are unchecked by a governing authority.
No, that's authoritarianism. Tyranny is a particular type of authoritarianism which deals in the arbitrary abuse of the populace without any necessary political end in mind. There have been very few truly tyrannical states in history, and those that have existed haven't lasted long.
Well, if you divorce the meaning of Tyranny from it's origin "tyrant" (tyrannos), you could arrive at this conclusion. However, given the (relative) success of tyrants in early Greece, I would say you're changing the definition of the word. Possibly for deceptive reasons, although I'll leave that to the reader.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
The political Right tends to have a dogmatic and stringent view of the Constitution, particularly as it is applied to government power. This suggests (although not necessarily in practice) that the political Right is more accepting of limitations on exercise of power. The political left seems to have no concern with these limits.
Well, no, it only suggests that the political right has chosen to adopt constitutionalist rhetoric.
Fair enough. But rhetoric matters at least somewhat, especially where limits on legal authority are concerned.
dogma wrote:Either way, given that, as you note, the right has played fast and loose with constitution when it has found it expedient to do so, and that the left has done the same, arguing that the left somehow shows no concern for it (despite protesting the Patriot Act on those grounds) is just incorrect. They might show less concern, but they certainly show more than none. And, really, I would argue that there are certain elements on both the right, and left that are generally unconcerned with the Constitution, just as there are certain elements of each side that concern themselves with it a great deal (or at least the expedient parts of it).
I didn't say they were unconcerned with the Constitution, I said they were unconcerned with Constitutional limits of government power. Shouting "THE CONSTITUTION" is a great rabble-rousing talking point, but if you fail to adhere to the limits expressed therein, the words are meaningless.
Also, most opposition to the Patriot Act isn't actually based on the problems with the Patriot Act. Most people (supporters and opponents) don't understand how it actually changed the law. Most of the stuff people complained about had been on the books for more than a few years.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Certainly you could point to leftist support for certain freedoms, but this support is generally quite arbitrary upon closer examination.
I could just a easily point to self-identified conservatives who support the freedom of religion so long as the religion is "Christian".
I think if you parsed the "freedom of religion" a bit more, you would find this to be mostly untrue.
biccat wrote:That doesn't mean that the tyrannical ruler is unfocused or doesn't have objectives, simply that they are unchecked by a governing authority.
The political Right tends to have a dogmatic and stringent view of the Constitution, particularly as it is applied to government power. This suggests (although not necessarily in practice) that the political Right is more accepting of limitations on exercise of power. The political left seems to have no concern with these limits.
This is just piffle, and completely useless as a descriptor of how the world actually works.
Any effort to describe the world through the lens of two incredibly broad political factions will fail. That mistake is a big part of what made communism fail, it's a big part of what makes libertarianism so silly. It's a big part of why, despite your obvious interest and reading on the subject, your political views are woefully silly.
biccat, Please tell us if Fox is so wonderful and fair, why aren't you defending any of the above mentioned links? ^
Following the tenets of fox news, only choose to reply to the questions that help your cause, and ignore anything that might undermine it.
While truthfully I disliked how the poster of the videos named themselves, as it only gives ammo to those that wish to try to dismiss it, the videos were quite valid. I would have personally interrupted the interviewer if I saw them dodging the other side like was shown.
I always tell myself to stay away from the off topic forum and always fail. You are all far too interesting.
As a moderate with conservative leanings who lives in Hollywood, CA (one of the liberal capitals of the U.S.), I have heard many parts of these arguments before, and I have to say that a lot of the left likes to throw out the word "silly" and insult the intelligence of conservatives.
Conservatives like to claim that leftists are supportive of tyrannical governments and are willfully biased.
I hate that so much name calling is thrown in since, frankly, most of your other comments are so interesting and intelligent. Even the comments I disagree with are interesting.
I'm not a Jon Stewart fan because I hate Smugness, just hate it. Which also has put me off of Fox News because they are rocking the Smugness too.
But I must agree with those who say the "I'm only a commedian" is a cop out.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I always tell myself to stay away from the off topic forum and always fail. You are all far too interesting.
As a moderate with conservative leanings who lives in Hollywood, CA (one of the liberal capitals of the U.S.), I have heard many parts of these arguments before, and I have to say that a lot of the left likes to throw out the word "silly" and insult the intelligence of conservatives.
Conservatives like to claim that leftists are supportive of tyrannical governments and are willfully biased.
I hate that so much name calling is thrown in since, frankly, most of your other comments are so interesting and intelligent. Even the comments I disagree with are interesting.
I'm not a Jon Stewart fan because I hate Smugness, just hate it. Which also has put me off of Fox News because they are rocking the Smugness too.
But I must agree with those who say the "I'm only a commedian" is a cop out.
I can't help but agree that it's impossible to communicate when all that's heard is name calling, labeling, and just yelling in general. i would much
rather discuss the differences.
but i don't understand how "i'm a comic" is a cop out? He's a freakin' comedian! I think saying he's copping out is a cop out for those who don't
agree with his humor.
"but i don't understand how "i'm a comic" is a cop out? He's a freakin' comedian! I think saying he's copping out is a cop out for those who don't
agree with his humor. "
Maybe it's because I don't get his humor . . . but I do feel like his approach to political humor is a little lopsided when, let's face, most of our politicians are clowns at least once in their tenure. . .
But heck, I'm a clown even before the drinks show up . . .
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:"but i don't understand how "i'm a comic" is a cop out? He's a freakin' comedian! I think saying he's copping out is a cop out for those who don't
agree with his humor. "
Maybe it's because I don't get his humor . . . but I do feel like his approach to political humor is a little lopsided when, let's face, most of our politicians are clowns at least once in their tenure. . .
But heck, I'm a clown even before the drinks show up . . .
It just feels to me like somebody bashing El Rush for not picking on the right when he makes his parodies. he's free to do what he does, which i can't stand, so why not Jon Stewart?
The problem is, the Daily Show is a news satire program that does a better job of making a fair and balanced presentation of the news than ACTUAL news programs, and so this leaves people like Fox viewers befuddled and confused. They think that if a comedy show does a better job of telling the news than their own favorite channel, then it needs to treated like a news program, and not a comedy show.
That was pretty much the core of Wallace's failure in that interview, especially when he showed the Pam Anderson roast clip. He was attacking like the Daily Show was a rival news show, and not a comedy that just happens to do a better job of telling the news than anything his network can muster.
Bookwrack wrote:The problem is, the Daily Show is a news satire program that does a better job of making a fair and balanced presentation of the news than ACTUAL news programs, and so this leaves people like Fox viewers befuddled and confused. They think that if a comedy show does a better job of telling the news than their own favorite channel, then it needs to treated like a news program, and not a comedy show.
That was pretty much the core of Wallace's failure in that interview, especially when he showed the Pam Anderson roast clip. He was attacking like the Daily Show was a rival news show, and not a comedy that just happens to do a better job of telling the news than anything his network can muster.
I think they were reaching for anything to try to discredit him. Just it's hard to grab something that's not there.
Wow all the sudden the thread took a turn for the better!
I don't see being a comedian as being a cop out for why stewart says what he says, he does work for comedy central after all...
But I do see how he could be seen as lopsided in his presentation. Be it personal bias or not, what stewart says about fox does carry weight, not all of it perhaps.
As to the show always targeting a certain group, it doesn't. Obama has be hit with a great deal by the show, as has quite a few other non-fox affiliates (weiner ring a bell?).
The issue I see is what material is available when the show is getting written, and odds are something fox news has shown/done/said is prime material for a joke, simply because they deliver the material so consistently.
This isn't true of just fox though. I forget which channel it was, but when they changed their motto to "Learn forward" and in their ad showed only one person leaning backwards... well...
Most of the material writes itself. When someone states something one day, and the next tries to state the didn't (when it was filmed, see mccain and Mexicans/illegals starting the wildfires in arizona) boom, instant joke.
Sadly, this is a common thing from out representatives, whom I must say are either not representing properly, or can't hold themselves to higher standards. Is it too much to take a stand and keep it rather than flopping around?
Bookwrack wrote:The problem is, the Daily Show is a news satire program that does a better job of making a fair and balanced presentation of the news than ACTUAL news programs, and so this leaves people like Fox viewers befuddled and confused. They think that if a comedy show does a better job of telling the news than their own favorite channel, then it needs to treated like a news program, and not a comedy show.
That was pretty much the core of Wallace's failure in that interview, especially when he showed the Pam Anderson roast clip. He was attacking like the Daily Show was a rival news show, and not a comedy that just happens to do a better job of telling the news than anything his network can muster.
Also the rallies he and Colbert had at the capital muddied the issue.
alarmingrick wrote:biccat, Please tell us if Fox is so wonderful and fair, why aren't you defending any of the above mentioned links? ^
Several reasons:
1) I'm not going to watch 30 minutes + of youtube videos that are pieced together to show a supposed Fox bias.
2) Anyone can assemble a list of instances that "proves" bias. The allegation against Fox isn't that they're biased at certain points, it's that they're systematically biased, which must be shown by more than a collection of instances. Put briefly, the plural of anecdote is not data.
3) I'm assuming a lot of those are from Fox's opinion segments (Hannity, O'Reilly) rather than their news segments. It's important to distinguish the two.
4) I don't have the time or interest to respond to everyone who raises an issue. When that issue is raised as merely a collection of links to some guy's video blog, I have even less interest in responding.
alarmingrick wrote:biccat, Please tell us if Fox is so wonderful and fair, why aren't you defending any of the above mentioned links? ^
Several reasons:
1) I'm not going to watch 30 minutes + of youtube videos that are pieced together to show a supposed Fox bias.
2) Anyone can assemble a list of instances that "proves" bias. The allegation against Fox isn't that they're biased at certain points, it's that they're systematically biased, which must be shown by more than a collection of instances. Put briefly, the plural of anecdote is not data.
3) I'm assuming a lot of those are from Fox's opinion segments (Hannity, O'Reilly) rather than their news segments. It's important to distinguish the two.
4) I don't have the time or interest to respond to everyone who raises an issue. When that issue is raised as merely a collection of links to some guy's video blog, I have even less interest in responding.
The first piece is a reporter, not a talking head mentioned.
hard to waive their flag and say 'they rock' if you aren't willing to see, or even try, the whole picture.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Zomg opposite signs, I'm totally surprised! And totally hadn't already seen them.
Well, I guess all those people that attended felt they had to balance Beck's rally out.
Beck's rally was self expressedly conservative. You just proved Biccat's case.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Besides the Colbert KEEP FEAR ALIVE extravaganza was way better.
I proved him right because people they have no control over brought anti-beck/anti-conservative signs?
Sure, I guess you could put it that way.
Do you really think that the "Restoring Sanity" rally was not intended as a counterpoint to Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally? That it just happened to be at the same place, had a similar name, was around the same time and similarly promoted? While the stated intent may have been humor, the clearly expressed intent was a liberal counterpoint to Beck's rally.
Oh, and Beck actually advertised his as "nonpartisan." But we all know what he really meant, *wink*.
I don't think it was necessarily intended to be a liberal counterpoint, but a counterpoint indeed to the absurdness of a 'Restoring Honor' rally. I always enjoy labeling people 'liberal' and 'conservative' anyway, makes name-calling much easier if they are just a mouth-breather that I can look down upon.
Yea, Beck and nonpartisan are not allowed in the same sentence.
biccat wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that you accusing someone of sophestry is ironic. Humorously so, in fact.
Unless you're using some type of Alanis Morissette "irony" any accusation I make regarding sophistry can only be ironic in the way I described. Irony doesn't mean "What person X said made me think of something else." It means "What person X said expressed something in opposition to what their intended meaning was."
You could not mean anything other than what I described if you used the word correctly.
biccat wrote:
Well, if you divorce the meaning of Tyranny from it's origin "tyrant" (tyrannos), you could arrive at this conclusion. However, given the (relative) success of tyrants in early Greece, I would say you're changing the definition of the word. Possibly for deceptive reasons, although I'll leave that to the reader.
Again, that's incorrect. Even the Greek definition of "tyrant" turns on cruelty and extremism, not the mere rule in the absence of law. In the ancient Greek cruelty and extremism distinguished tyranny from autocracy. This is basic Greek political philosophy, and is covered extensively in Plato's Republic. Note in particular that Plato was not intrinsically opposed to autocracy (in fact, his titular republic would have been considered an autocracy then), but used tyranny as a pejorative reference to a particular type of poorly managed autocracy.
I'm not changing any definitions. I merely know what these words mean, even in the archaic sense.
biccat wrote:
Fair enough. But rhetoric matters at least somewhat, especially where limits on legal authority are concerned.
I don't see why. There's no particular reason to assume that what someone says they believe regarding the limits of legal authority has anything to do with their propensity to, in action, respect that legal authority. In fact, you note this below.
biccat wrote:
I didn't say they were unconcerned with the Constitution, I said they were unconcerned with Constitutional limits of government power. Shouting "THE CONSTITUTION" is a great rabble-rousing talking point, but if you fail to adhere to the limits expressed therein, the words are meaningless.
I'm confused, is rhetoric meaningless, or not?
Either way, as you noted in your earlier post, conservative adherence to the limits of government authority is a matter of constituionalist rhetoric. If it isn't, then its just an argument from preference, which is every bit as "arbitrary" as the progressive arguments you've been referencing for the past few pages.
biccat wrote:
Also, most opposition to the Patriot Act isn't actually based on the problems with the Patriot Act. Most people (supporters and opponents) don't understand how it actually changed the law. Most of the stuff people complained about had been on the books for more than a few years.
That's the ultimate basis, sure, but the argument was framed using the Constitution. The point being that both sides of the argument will use that document as a beat-stick when they feels its useful.
biccat wrote:
I think if you parsed the "freedom of religion" a bit more, you would find this to be mostly untrue.
Mostly, yes, but the point is that when you vaguely define a particular group, "leftists" for example, or a particular concept ("freedoms") its very easy to conceive of the support for only selected elements of that concept, by selected elements of that group as being somehow arbitrary, when they're in fact nothing of the sort. Arbitrary does not mean without a reason I accept, it means without reason.
juraigamer wrote:Doesn't matter what he really meant. Anyone can advertise something, it doesn't mean they always adhear to it.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. Welcome to the conversation. Let me know if you're having trouble elsewhere and I can help you along.
juraigamer wrote:I mean, "Fair and balanced" is simply the same deal. False advertising. Tell me about the legal dangers of false advertising mr lawyer.
Depends, are you asking for legal advice? If so, you'll have to call my secretary and set up an appointment. I'll warn you, I'm not cheap. Send me a PM for details.
On the FNC front, it's a trademark, so deal with it.
@ dogma: now you're changing terms from one post to another. If you're not going to be consistent and continue to engage in borderline sophestry, I'm not sure the value of continuing this conversation.
juraigamer wrote:Doesn't matter what he really meant. Anyone can advertise something, it doesn't mean they always adhear to it.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. Welcome to the conversation. Let me know if you're having trouble elsewhere and I can help you along.
juraigamer wrote:I mean, "Fair and balanced" is simply the same deal. False advertising. Tell me about the legal dangers of false advertising mr lawyer.
Depends, are you asking for legal advice? If so, you'll have to call my secretary and set up an appointment. I'll warn you, I'm not cheap. Send me a PM for details.
On the FNC front, it's a trademark, so deal with it.
@ dogma: now you're changing terms from one post to another. If you're not going to be consistent and continue to engage in borderline sophestry, I'm not sure the value of continuing this conversation.
actually, welcome yourself to the conversation. we're (and have been)saying the same thing about Fox (lack of) news.
Your point about what? The daily show? Joh Stewart?
You stated that comedy isn't a defense of bias, I stated that fox news is consistently advertising false information. I don't know if you got off topic at some point, but the thread is about Jon on FNS, and what this means.
You say Stewart is bias. We say everyone is naturally bias.
biccat wrote: [the daily show]
It's not supposed to be taken seriously.
If you believe this, why are you up in arms defending the channel in this thread? You won't concede, your simply trolling in favor of fox news.
We cannot discuss this subject with you. You believe you are correct, and nothing anyone can say, show, prove or post can attempt to dissuade you. Another casualty of the ongoing lies of
And I'm done. This isn't worth my time and I wish I listened to the others in the tread who stated that. Talking to a brick wall is all well and good, but trying to get the wall to move that way... well it just doesn't work.
Your point about what? The daily show? Joh Stewart?
No, my point that despite advertising the "Reclaiming Sanity" rally as neutral, it was intended as a left-wing response to Glen Beck's totally-not-right-wing rally.
juraigamer wrote:You stated that comedy isn't a defense of bias, I stated that fox news is consistently advertising false information. I don't know if you got off topic at some point, but the thread is about Jon on FNS, and what this means.
Um...what? The thread may have meandered somewhat, but the ultimate issue is whether Stewart is biased, as pointed out by Matthews. Fox can be biased, but that doesn't mean that their point is invalid. For example, Russia today just announced that it was raining in Moscow. Does that mean that it's sunny in Moscow, or can we take them at their word?
juraigamer wrote:You say Stewart is bias. We say everyone is naturally bias.
Which is irrelevant, especially since Stewart claims he's not biased. You're reinforcing the point, not rebutting it.
juraigamer wrote:
biccat wrote: [the daily show]
It's not supposed to be taken seriously.
If you believe this, why are you up in arms defending the channel in this thread? You won't concede, your simply trolling in favor of fox news.
What on earth does this have to do with anything? I accuse TDS of being biased, so I'm wrong for defending Fox? How does that follow?
juraigamer wrote:We cannot discuss this subject with you. You believe you are correct, and nothing anyone can say, show, prove or post can attempt to dissuade you. Another casualty of the ongoing lies of
Yes, linking to "crooksandliars.com" totally reinforces your point. Would you like me to link to FreeRepublic to reinforce my point that Fox isn't biased? Honestly, at least some degree of intellectual honesty would be appreciated.
juraigamer wrote:And I'm done. This isn't worth my time and I wish I listened to the others in the tread who stated that. Talking to a brick wall is all well and good, but trying to get the wall to move that way... well it just doesn't work.
You're trying to convince me by attacking my beliefs. Here's a hint: that doesn't work.
Does anyone else wonder why Fox is so concerned about what a lowly comedian thinks or says?
could it be that exposing the truth about them, no matter where the exposure comes from, is dangerous to them?
Seems to me if he's "a nothing that doesn't matter" that they are elevating him by their focus on him.
I find it quite humorous that there's so much regard for BBC in the world. Sure their bias is less than overt, but they control the narrative by suggesting that "solar panels are the future" and accept the notion that Climate change (or whatever the hell it is now) is man made. It's very subtle in its manipulation of people. There's no real debate, it's a nice, gentle filter to make you hardly notice. Same with most newspapers and news magazines. TIME is especially guilty as they had the "We're All Socialists Now" Cover two years ago. Not only did that prove they're completely in the tank for Obama, but it shows that they are also out of touch with most of the nation.
This is what I see from Fox, a channel that has high ratings because they actually get good interviews on their "news maker shows". One of their better shows is Fox Report with Brett Baier. That is one of the few shows where there can be one or two liberals and one or two conservatives talking about an issue and there's a decent debate with some pretty good dialogue. One of the worst is Bill O'Reilly, he is too damn narcissistic to ever let someone talk (his favorite tactic of saying "we know all that already" is very irritating) and he's only gotten worse in the past couple of years.
One thing I do notice about MSNBC is they're much like the BBC is narrative controlling. They accept the premise that "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution (it's not, the whole purpose of the Establishment clause was to prevent the Federal Government from creating state religion, while the individual states did have the right to. This clause didn't prevent God being in public buildings either, as most of our laws are based in ancient Judeo-Christian law, the clause is also very loose in it's definition of "religion" too), the Tenth Amendment doesn't matter anymore, that the Interstate Commerce Clause means the Federal Government has the right to regulate every kind of interstate commerce (or lack thereof in the case of Wickard v. Filborn, while the whole point of the Clause was to allow the Federal Government to oversee transactions between individual states the other countries, and to allow for universally accepted coinage to be used as to avoid more "almost civil wars" between Virginia and North Carolina), the Obamacare will save money (no, it gutted $500 billion from Medicare which is conveniently ignored all the time by the Left, and has a base cost of $1 Trillion dollars), that stimulus and Keyenesian economics is the only way to make economies grow (This is epic fail on a grand scale as this assumes "static economics" will continue. People adapt to changes in the short and long term. It was also avarice by rather large Unions, Left-Friendly Corporations [GE for Example] and large Democrat voting blocs, as soon as these groups got paid, the checks stopped flowing) That the only way to make the Debt go down is to raise taxes (This will cause contraction of an economy unseen in this country, more and more people with any kind of capital will sit on it, or better yet cease working so they don't have to pay more taxes, eventually people get tired of getting more and more of their money taken to feed the parasites of society.) The Second Amendment is for militias only (which is untrue) etc...etc...
The one thing all of the media were guilty of was accepting the idea that the Uprising in Egypt was about freedom, this is nonsense. 70,000 people have been arrested since the military took the government over and the Muslim Brotherhood is now the "Peace and Justice Party" of Egypt.
I could go one about the Media and narrative shifting. It's quite refreshing to watch a newscaster fumble over an obvious bias and then they push it as universally accepted truth.
biccat wrote:Do you really think that the "Restoring Sanity" rally was not intended as a counterpoint to Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally? That it just happened to be at the same place, had a similar name, was around the same time and similarly promoted? While the stated intent may have been humor, the clearly expressed intent was a liberal counterpoint to Beck's rally.
Oh, and Beck actually advertised his as "nonpartisan." But we all know what he really meant, *wink*.
Of course Stewart's campaign was the counter to Beck's. Your mistake is in assuming that because Stewart is criticising Beck, it must be left vs right.
It's actually 'sensible, rational discussion' vs 'ludicrous, fantastical, fearmongering nonsense'.
Beck was at the time the most prominent example, so he's going to be the prime target. But Stewart also went after Olbermann, exactly to make the point that the most important thing is to bring sanity back to the debate, to get rid of the directly aligned pundits and their stupid nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:I find it quite humorous that there's so much regard for BBC in the world. Sure their bias is less than overt, but they control the narrative by suggesting that "solar panels are the future" and accept the notion that Climate change (or whatever the hell it is now) is man made.
That isn't bias, that's a basic acceptance of reality.
It is a vitally important role of the media to recognise that beyond all the political bs there are basic, undeniable realities. One of the biggest problems with US media is that they simply aren't willing to do that, and it's produced this horribly artificial world of political reporting, where they just show a quote from one side, a quote from the other, and never bother to tell anyone if one side or the other is actually saying anything that's true.
This is what I see from Fox, a channel that has high ratings because they actually get good interviews on their "news maker shows".
They get high ratings compared to other cable news channels. Which is like being the most successful stand up in Spokeville, Illinois.
They get this because there is simply a market for 'tune in and be outraged by the world' rightwing media, that doesn't exist on the same level on the rightwing. It's the same market that so many talkback radio channels tap into.
The relative success of these stations only measures the popularity of the message, it doesn't measure the accuracy or the quality of it's sender.
as most of our laws are based in ancient Judeo-Christian law, the clause is also very loose in it's definition of "religion" too
Go look up the 10 Commandments. See how many are actually illegal under US law. Then consider any historic state that didn't also have those same commandment in law.
Then understand Christianity is a guide to your personal life, it is not a call to build a state and hold everyone to your morals. Then go look up Greek, Roman and Byzantine principles of government, and see their heritage in modern societies.
Then realise your claim that your laws are based in ancient Judeo-Christian law is complete nonsense.
the Obamacare will save money (no, it gutted $500 billion from Medicare which is conveniently ignored all the time by the Left, and has a base cost of $1 Trillion dollars
The difference betwen projecting a saving and having no mechanism to enforce cuts if the savings do not eventuate, and 'gutting' a program is vast.
that stimulus and Keyenesian economics is the only way to make economies grow
Keynesian economics argues no such thing. That's simply absurd. It is a useful tool to maintain aggregate demand in the short to medium term, during a period of economic decline.
It has nothing to do with long term growth.
People adapt to changes in the short and long term.
That vague little truism has no relevance to the fundamental debate over why stimulus spending can be a good thing - the idea that Say's Law doesn't hold, and that there is a business cycle in which aggregate demand ebbs and flows over time.
That the only way to make the Debt go down is to raise taxes (This will cause contraction of an economy unseen in this country, more and more people with any kind of capital will sit on it, or better yet cease working so they don't have to pay more taxes, eventually people get tired of getting more and more of their money taken to feed the parasites of society.)
That's an entirely fictional claim, with no evidence in observed or projected econometrics.
Really, your whole summary is just terrible. All you've done is show how harmful the glut of lies and gibberish spewed by the media is to viewers. Instead of becoming grounded in basic fundamentals of economics (or simply being presented with the actual level of debate between economists and leaving the detail in the background) you've been fed ludicrous fantasies driven by political agendas, that question the most basic elements of accepted economics, and champion long discredited nonsense. The result is that you've come to base your political views on incoherent gibberish, and in turn the politicians in your country have followed you and 300 million other ill-informed people to build policies around that incoherent gibberish.
Then you all wonder why government policy isn't working like you thought it would.
People who criticize Stewart or Colbert always seem to ignore the fact that they also criticize the president and liberals, and always seem to miss their generally nonpartisan ripping of incompetent news organizations and reporters, whether Fox or MSNBC or whoever. The restore sanity thing was ripping on hysteria and sensationalism and fearmongering in our media, which is all over the political spectrum. Beck was a prominent example, and a total ass.
Stormrider wrote:I find it quite humorous that there's so much regard for BBC in the world. Sure their bias is less than overt, but they control the narrative by suggesting that "solar panels are the future" and accept the notion that Climate change (or whatever the hell it is now) is man made. It's very subtle in its manipulation of people. There's no real debate, it's a nice, gentle filter to make you hardly notice.
That's what debate is.
For some reason many people, and Americans especially so, seem to have debate enshrined as this thing which is devoid of coercion, manipulation, or emotional appeals. It isn't. In fact those tactics are encouraged. If you watch any competitive debate you will be guaranteed to see all of those tactics employed.
Stormrider wrote:
Same with most newspapers and news magazines. TIME is especially guilty as they had the "We're All Socialists Now" Cover two years ago. Not only did that prove they're completely in the tank for Obama, but it shows that they are also out of touch with most of the nation.
Well, no, not really. Every person in the developed world lives in a socialist system, and most of them benefit from it. The only issue is that, in the United States, the word socialist is a pejorative.
The sign "keep your government hands off my medicare" exemplifies this stupidity.
Stormrider wrote:
One thing I do notice about MSNBC is they're much like the BBC is narrative controlling. They accept the premise that "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution (it's not, the whole purpose of the Establishment clause was to prevent the Federal Government from creating state religion, while the individual states did have the right to.
They don't anymore, not after the Bill of Rights was extrapolated to state law.
Additionally, in the context of the federal government, the 1st amendment is a de facto separation of Church and state.
Stormrider wrote:
This clause didn't prevent God being in public buildings either, as most of our laws are based in ancient Judeo-Christian law, the clause is also very loose in it's definition of "religion" too.
It doesn't define religion at all, that is left to those interpreting it.
Stormrider wrote:
The one thing all of the media were guilty of was accepting the idea that the Uprising in Egypt was about freedom, this is nonsense. 70,000 people have been arrested since the military took the government over and the Muslim Brotherhood is now the "Peace and Justice Party" of Egypt.
I don't even know where to begin berating you for what is wrong with this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Which is like being the most successful stand up in Spokeville, Illinois.
Hey now, Spokeville is in Wisconsin, don't lump us in with them.
For some reason many people, and Americans especially so, seem to have debate enshrined as this thing which is devoid of coercion, manipulation, or emotional appeals. It isn't. In fact those tactics are encouraged. If you watch any competitive debate you will be guaranteed to see all of those tactics employed.
At some point shouting 'bias!' became this way of being able to immediately dismiss whatever the other person was saying. It didn't have to be wrong, just biased.
Really weird times we're living in.
Hey now, Spokeville is in Wisconsin, don't lump us in with them.
And Spokeville, Wisconsin would have sounded better too. feth.
So Jon Stewart is standing around yelling that the Emperor has no clothes on, and Fox News is trying to claim that he's naked too. Except, if he is naked, who cares? He's not the Emperor.
themocaw wrote:So Jon Stewart is standing around yelling that the Emperor has no clothes on, and Fox News is trying to claim that he's naked too. Except, if he is naked, who cares? He's not the Emperor.
biccat wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that you accusing someone of sophestry is ironic. Humorously so, in fact.
Unless you're using some type of Alanis Morissette "irony" any accusation I make regarding sophistry can only be ironic in the way I described. Irony doesn't mean "What person X said made me think of something else." It means "What person X said expressed something in opposition to what their intended meaning was."
You could not mean anything other than what I described if you used the word correctly.
biccat wrote:
Well, if you divorce the meaning of Tyranny from it's origin "tyrant" (tyrannos), you could arrive at this conclusion. However, given the (relative) success of tyrants in early Greece, I would say you're changing the definition of the word. Possibly for deceptive reasons, although I'll leave that to the reader.
Again, that's incorrect. Even the Greek definition of "tyrant" turns on cruelty and extremism, not the mere rule in the absence of law. In the ancient Greek cruelty and extremism distinguished tyranny from autocracy. This is basic Greek political philosophy, and is covered extensively in Plato's Republic. Note in particular that Plato was not intrinsically opposed to autocracy (in fact, his titular republic would have been considered an autocracy then), but used tyranny as a pejorative reference to a particular type of poorly managed autocracy.
I'm not changing any definitions. I merely know what these words mean, even in the archaic sense.
biccat wrote:
Fair enough. But rhetoric matters at least somewhat, especially where limits on legal authority are concerned.
I don't see why. There's no particular reason to assume that what someone says they believe regarding the limits of legal authority has anything to do with their propensity to, in action, respect that legal authority. In fact, you note this below.
biccat wrote:
I didn't say they were unconcerned with the Constitution, I said they were unconcerned with Constitutional limits of government power. Shouting "THE CONSTITUTION" is a great rabble-rousing talking point, but if you fail to adhere to the limits expressed therein, the words are meaningless.
I'm confused, is rhetoric meaningless, or not?
Either way, as you noted in your earlier post, conservative adherence to the limits of government authority is a matter of constituionalist rhetoric. If it isn't, then its just an argument from preference, which is every bit as "arbitrary" as the progressive arguments you've been referencing for the past few pages.
biccat wrote:
Also, most opposition to the Patriot Act isn't actually based on the problems with the Patriot Act. Most people (supporters and opponents) don't understand how it actually changed the law. Most of the stuff people complained about had been on the books for more than a few years.
That's the ultimate basis, sure, but the argument was framed using the Constitution. The point being that both sides of the argument will use that document as a beat-stick when they feels its useful.
biccat wrote:
I think if you parsed the "freedom of religion" a bit more, you would find this to be mostly untrue.
Mostly, yes, but the point is that when you vaguely define a particular group, "leftists" for example, or a particular concept ("freedoms") its very easy to conceive of the support for only selected elements of that concept, by selected elements of that group as being somehow arbitrary, when they're in fact nothing of the sort. Arbitrary does not mean without a reason I accept, it means without reason.
*popcorn*
They should have you two hash it out in a national debate that is viewed, live, in schools across the USA.
biccat wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that you accusing someone of sophestry is ironic. Humorously so, in fact.
Unless you're using some type of Alanis Morissette "irony" any accusation I make regarding sophistry can only be ironic in the way I described. Irony doesn't mean "What person X said made me think of something else." It means "What person X said expressed something in opposition to what their intended meaning was."
You could not mean anything other than what I described if you used the word correctly.
biccat wrote:
Well, if you divorce the meaning of Tyranny from it's origin "tyrant" (tyrannos), you could arrive at this conclusion. However, given the (relative) success of tyrants in early Greece, I would say you're changing the definition of the word. Possibly for deceptive reasons, although I'll leave that to the reader.
Again, that's incorrect. Even the Greek definition of "tyrant" turns on cruelty and extremism, not the mere rule in the absence of law. In the ancient Greek cruelty and extremism distinguished tyranny from autocracy. This is basic Greek political philosophy, and is covered extensively in Plato's Republic. Note in particular that Plato was not intrinsically opposed to autocracy (in fact, his titular republic would have been considered an autocracy then), but used tyranny as a pejorative reference to a particular type of poorly managed autocracy.
I'm not changing any definitions. I merely know what these words mean, even in the archaic sense.
biccat wrote:
Fair enough. But rhetoric matters at least somewhat, especially where limits on legal authority are concerned.
I don't see why. There's no particular reason to assume that what someone says they believe regarding the limits of legal authority has anything to do with their propensity to, in action, respect that legal authority. In fact, you note this below.
biccat wrote:
I didn't say they were unconcerned with the Constitution, I said they were unconcerned with Constitutional limits of government power. Shouting "THE CONSTITUTION" is a great rabble-rousing talking point, but if you fail to adhere to the limits expressed therein, the words are meaningless.
I'm confused, is rhetoric meaningless, or not?
Either way, as you noted in your earlier post, conservative adherence to the limits of government authority is a matter of constituionalist rhetoric. If it isn't, then its just an argument from preference, which is every bit as "arbitrary" as the progressive arguments you've been referencing for the past few pages.
biccat wrote:
Also, most opposition to the Patriot Act isn't actually based on the problems with the Patriot Act. Most people (supporters and opponents) don't understand how it actually changed the law. Most of the stuff people complained about had been on the books for more than a few years.
That's the ultimate basis, sure, but the argument was framed using the Constitution. The point being that both sides of the argument will use that document as a beat-stick when they feels its useful.
biccat wrote:
I think if you parsed the "freedom of religion" a bit more, you would find this to be mostly untrue.
Mostly, yes, but the point is that when you vaguely define a particular group, "leftists" for example, or a particular concept ("freedoms") its very easy to conceive of the support for only selected elements of that concept, by selected elements of that group as being somehow arbitrary, when they're in fact nothing of the sort. Arbitrary does not mean without a reason I accept, it means without reason.
*popcorn*
They should have you two hash it out in a national debate that is viewed, live, in schools across the USA.
about food. Its why you conquered half the globe, so you could finally get decent takeout. 
