The Republican Thread

[lostfan]

Kinda like Al Franken is a comedian? Sorry, I don't buy the company line on Rush Stewart for a second. He gets the best of both worlds because he hides behind his little "comedy" badge anytime he gets questioned. Its a straight up b**** move if you ask me.

So would you say the same thing about any comedian that does political comedy? You really should.

 

Al Franken WAS a comedian, now he's a comedian who ran for office and now he's a Senator.

Edited March 18, 2009 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

I'd like for you to point out where he's said "well, I don't have to defend my ideas, I'm a comedian." He still puts his opinions out there and defends them. He doesn't use the fact that he's a comedian to make his ideas immune from criticism. He uses the comedy shield to stop his targets' deflections of "well, you don't do pulitzer-prize winning journalism on your satirical comedy show, so why should we?!" Again, he's just pointing out that its his job to satirize things and its their job to be journalists. Declaring that the satirist doesn't do deep, investigative journalism or hard-hitting interviews doesn't defend against the journalists not doing journalism.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2009 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

So would you say the same thing about any comedian that does political comedy? You really should.

 

Al Franken WAS a comedian, now he's a comedian who ran for office and now he's a Senator.

 

For comedians who bring people onto their show to criticize them for actions they should have taken, when they, themselves, haven't take respective actions, I will say the samething about them.

[southsider2k5]

I'd like for you to point out where he's said "well, I don't have to defend my ideas, I'm a comedian." He still puts his opinions out there and defends them. He doesn't use the fact that he's a comedian to make his ideas immune from criticism. He uses the comedy shield to stop his targets' deflections of "well, you don't do pulitzer-prize winning journalism on your satirical comedy show, so why should we?!" Again, he's just pointing out that its his job to satirize things and its their job to be journalists. Declaring that the satirist doesn't do deep, investigative journalism or hard-hitting interviews doesn't defend against the journalists not doing journalism.

 

Journalism sucks in this country anymore, there is no two ways around that. Stewart getting on his highhorse to criticize people in retrospect for the actions they should have taken to maintain integrity in their field, according to him, while not being willing to do the same thing tells me what kind of person he is. He gets a free-ride to tear down whatever he wants, and if anyone calls him on it, he is a "comedian". He's not a comedian. Limbaugh uses satire and exagerations to push his agenda, does that stop anyone from attacking what he does? Does it make him immune from critisism? No, because he is at least honest enough not to pretend to be something he is not.

[StrangeSox]

For comedians who bring people onto their show to criticize them for actions they should have taken, when they, themselves, haven't take respective actions, I will say the samething about them.

 

 

Journalism sucks in this country anymore, there is no two ways around that. Stewart getting on his highhorse to criticize people in retrospect for the actions they should have taken to maintain integrity in their field, according to him, while not being willing to do the same thing tells me what kind of person he is. He gets a free-ride to tear down whatever he wants, and if anyone calls him on it, he is a "comedian". He's not a comedian. Limbaugh uses satire and exagerations to push his agenda, does that stop anyone from attacking what he does? Does it make him immune from critisism? No, because he is at least honest enough not to pretend to be something he is not.

To me, that's the bulls*** line. That no one can be a critic unless they themselves have done the job. That's absurd.

 

Stewart is not a journalist, so it is ridiculous to expect him to do things journalists should be doing. It is not ridiculous to expect journalists to be doing things journalists should do, and you don't need to be a journalist to call them out on it. That's like saying you can't be an art critic without being a better artist or a film critic without making a better movie. Again, Stewart's not immune from criticism. What he's not buying is that others are immune from criticism because he doesn't do something. You seem to accept their reasoning that they're immune from any criticisms.

Edited March 18, 2009 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

To me, that's the bulls*** line. That no one can be a critic unless they themselves have done the job. That's absurd.

 

Stewart is not a journalist, so it is ridiculous to expect him to do things journalists should be doing. It is not ridiculous to expect journalists to be doing things journalists should do, and you don't need to be a journalist to call them out on it. That's like saying you can't be an art critic without being a better artist or a film critic without making a better movie.

 

He is as much of a journalist as any of the right wingers who gets lit up on a daily basis. If people want to make Rush Limbaugh out to be the face of the party, they shouldn't have a problem holding Stewart to the same standards. What is bulls*** is that the only reason he isn't held to any standards is because he is too big of a coward to admit to what his purpose is.

[lostfan]

For comedians who bring people onto their show to criticize them for actions they should have taken, when they, themselves, haven't take respective actions, I will say the samething about them.

But why would he take those actions? He's not a journalist and he doesn't want to be. He's a comedian, a pretty smart and hilarious one I might add.

[lostfan]

Journalism sucks in this country anymore, there is no two ways around that.

Anymore? When was it ever good? There are no "good old days" of American journalism.

/bmags

[StrangeSox]

He is as much of a journalist as any of the right wingers who gets lit up on a daily basis. If people want to make Rush Limbaugh out to be the face of the party, they shouldn't have a problem holding Stewart to the same standards. What is bulls*** is that the only reason he isn't held to any standards is because he is too big of a coward to admit to what his purpose is.

 

Rush Limbaugh wants to be the face of the GOP/ conservatism. That's the difference, imo. TDS has a left-lean, but they make fun of everyone.

 

Is South Park or SNL on the same level as Rush in your mind?

[lostfan]

SS, Keith Olbermann fits the description of what you're talking about much better than Stewart does.

[southsider2k5]

But why would he take those actions? He's not a journalist and he doesn't want to be. He's a comedian, a pretty smart and hilarious one I might add.

 

Of course that is what he says. Why would he want to do all of the work of having integrity, when he gets to make his point and not be held responsible for his body of work like any other journalists? That's exactly why he hides as a "comedian".

[southsider2k5]

SS, Keith Olbermann fits the description of what you're talking about much better than Stewart does.

 

While I can't stand the guy, I have more respect for KO, than JS. He at least is who he is.

[southsider2k5]

Rush Limbaugh wants to be the face of the GOP/ conservatism. That's the difference, imo. TDS has a left-lean, but they make fun of everyone.

 

Is South Park or SNL on the same level as Rush in your mind?

 

Exactly. Jon Stewart doesn't even have the sack to be who he is instead of hiding.

[lostfan]

Of course that is what he says. Why would he want to do all of the work of having integrity, when he gets to make his point and not be held responsible for his body of work like any other journalists? That's exactly why he hides as a "comedian".

I just can't get down with this logic. If I was to accept it at face value, I'd find anybody who did political humor a pathetic hypocrite. I'm a political junkie so good political humor is hilarious to me, I don't even care about the lean.

[southsider2k5]

I just can't get down with this logic. If I was to accept it at face value, I'd find anybody who did political humor a pathetic hypocrite. I'm a political junkie so good political humor is hilarious to me, I don't even care about the lean.

 

That's where we all disagree. Stewart isn't attempting satire. Its hit and run journalism of the lowest degree. I don't see him as a comedian, not for a second.

[StrangeSox]

Exactly. Jon Stewart doesn't even have the sack to be who he is instead of hiding.

 

Who is he?

 

In my opinion, he's someone with obvious liberal leanings but still finds plenty of things wrong with both rep's and dem's. His biggest target, however has always been the media and he openly criticizes their shoddy work. He uses a nightly comedy show to point out absurdities and make people laugh. What is he hiding there? Who is he hiding behind?

 

Should South Park not satirize anyone since they don't openly advance a political ideology, formulate bills and parties or do in-depth journalism? Or do they also lack sack? Did Carlin lack sack because he had obvious political leanings behind his comedy?

Edited March 18, 2009 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Who is he?

 

In my opinion, he's someone with obvious liberal leanings but still finds plenty of things wrong with both rep's and dem's. His biggest target, however has always been the media and he openly criticizes their shoddy work. What is he hiding there? Who is he hiding behind?

 

Should South Park not satirize anyone since they don't openly advance a political ideology, formulate bills and parties or do in-depth journalism? Or do they also lack sack?

 

I don't really feel like getting into a silly semantic arguement, so I will repeat what I keep saying.

 

That's where we all disagree. Stewart isn't attempting satire. Its hit and run journalism of the lowest degree. I don't see him as a comedian, not for a second.

[lostfan]

That's where we all disagree. Stewart isn't attempting satire. Its hit and run journalism of the lowest degree. I don't see him as a comedian, not for a second.

Fair enough. What do you see in Colbert, then? Since his act is obviously making fun of right-wing talk show hosts.

[lostfan]

I don't really feel like getting into a silly semantic arguement, so I will repeat what I keep saying.

It's not really semantics though, it's the source of your disagreement with me and StrangeSox (who seems to have the same position as me)

[southsider2k5]

Fair enough. What do you see in Colbert, then? Since his act is obviously making fun of right-wing talk show hosts.

 

Not much. But then again, when people start taking as bible what Colbert saids, it might matter. Since no one is running around posting links to the Colbert report as some kind of political statement truism, I don't really care too much.

[southsider2k5]

And looking back, you edit a lot StrangeSox! Get your whole thought out, then hit the post button!

[southsider2k5]

It's not really semantics though, it's the source of your disagreement with me and StrangeSox (who seems to have the same position as me)

 

I guess depending on how you look at it... Still, who is posting SNL or South Park as a source to defend their political beliefs? Who is posting those sources as a reply to something in the news? How many of those shows have politicians on there to make political statements?

 

By the same definition, no one should ever attack Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

[lostfan]

I guess depending on how you look at it... Still, who is posting SNL or South Park as a source to defend their political beliefs? Who is posting those sources as a reply to something in the news? How many of those shows have politicians on there to make political statements?

 

By the same definition, no one should ever attack Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

I cite George Carlin sometimes (got shot down in my argument a couple times though, lol)

[StrangeSox]

And looking back, you edit a lot StrangeSox! Get your whole thought out, then hit the post button!

 

Yeah, I really should type up a post and let it sit for a few minutes before replying because I almost always end up amending it or rewording something because I didn't like how something was written.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...opinion/columns

 

Don't Blame Jim Cramer

 

What Jon Stewart needs is Jon Stewart. He could use a droll comedian to temper his ferocity and correct him when he's wrong, as he was about the financial media, particularly CNBC and its excitable analyst Jim Cramer. They didn't cover up the story of financial shenanigans. They didn't even know it existed.

 

For proof, I can offer some names. Let's start with Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, who was instrumental in building what is now probably the world's most reviled corporation, AIG. He resigned as chairman and CEO in 2005, but still it is logical to assume that few people knew more about the company than Greenberg. He kept much of his net worth in AIG stock. He's now lost much of that worth.

 

Or take Richard Fuld. He is the former chairman of Lehman Brothers, which, as we all know, is no more. He lost about $1 billion.

 

Or take Citigroup's former chairman, Sanford Weill. He lost about $500 million.

 

Or take all the good people at Bear Stearns, the company Cramer adored almost to the bitter end. They went down with their stock.

 

If these people kept their money in these companies -- financial and insurance giants they had built and knew from the inside -- how was even Jim Cramer to know these firms were essentially hollow?

 

I give you one other name: Richard Cohen. He who writes this column had some of his (extremely) hard-earned retirement funds in AIG stock. This was because I was a cautious investor, and what could be safer than an insurance behemoth? Who knew that in faraway London, a division of AIG was fooling around in stuff that virtually cratered the whole company? Not my broker. Not me. Not even Greenberg.

ad_icon

 

Now we get back to Stewart. The gravamen of his charge is that the financial media, particularly CNBC and Cramer, knew all the time what was happening and was, in effect, shilling for the industry. "Listen, you knew what the bankers were doing, yet were touting it for months and months," he told Cramer in probably the most celebrated showdown since the Earps and Doc Holliday met the Clantons and others at the O.K. Corral.

 

The Washington Post and the New York Times both covered Cramer's appearance on Stewart's show and so did the august Financial Times, on Page 1 yet. Trouble was, Cramer almost instantly sank into a classic case of Stockholm syndrome, agreeing much of the time with his captor. He came with sleeves rolled up but with the droopy eyes of a chastised puppy. He allowed that he actually was, really, an entertainer. No!

 

The acclaim visited on Stewart for spanking Cramer tells you something. In the first place -- and by way of a minor concession -- he's got a small point. CNBC has often been a cheerleader for the zeitgeist -- up when the market's up, down when it's down. This is true of the business media in general.

 

But the role that Cramer and other financial journalists played was incidental. There was not much they could do, anyway. They do not have subpoena power. They cannot barge into AIG and demand to see the books, and even if they could, they would not have known what they were looking at. The financial instruments that Wall Street firms were both peddling and buying are the functional equivalent of particle physics. To this day, no one knows their true worth.

 

It does not take cable TV to make a bubble. CNBC played no role in the Tulip Bubble that peaked, as I recall, in 1637, or in the Great Depression of 1929-41. It is the zeitgeist that does this -- the psychological version of inertia: the belief that what's happening will continue to happen.

 

Stewart, too, rides the zeitgeist. The hunt is on for culprits and scapegoats, and Stewart has served up a cliche: the media. As with the war in Iraq, for which credulous media should take some responsibility, the sins are blown out of proportion. It would be one thing if Wall Street titans by the score were selling their company stock and the media were failing to report it, but when someone puts his money where his mouth is, you have to pay attention. The big shots believed.

 

Stewart plays a valuable role. He mocks authority, which is good, and he mocks those, such as the media, who take the word of authority as if, well, it's authoritative. But given the outsize reception to his cheap shot at business media, he ought to turn his wit inward: Mocker, mock thyself.

 

[email protected]