C L O W N!

Stephen Colbert, who ever the hell you are, What channel are you even on? I can tell you this. The 87,000 people at that rally could not care less what you think. If you want to have your own rally to help support getting Honor back into this country. Go for it. Or just sit in front of a camera drooling on yourself like a two year old. Its up to you son….

The only way Colbert could draw a crowd would be to bring in Hollywood or music talent. Copycats are the fondest form of flattery so I doubt they’ll give Beck the satisfaction.

The 87K lie from CBS? Really….

Stephen and Jon are so jealous of Beck’s ability to draw a crowd….now that’s the funny part of all of this.

Sounds to me like some people are worried.

Beck has already done the job of Restoring Truthiness.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/during-his-speech-to-restore-honor-beck.html

Poor liberals. As on one hand they hate glenn beck, on the other they want to be just like him. That may be part of the reason that liberals always seem to have so much inner rage. A sad confused group.

BatBoy said:
C L O W N!

Not quite, they’re actually a pair of court jesters and they wear that title with pride since, much like The Bard’s jesters, they’re the only ones who can raise above personal issues to see what’s really happening and call out both sides for being self-involved tools.

Now that’s real grassroots unlike Glenn Beck’s corporate sponsored event.

Burnnotice said:
Stephen Colbert, who ever the hell you are, What channel are you even on? I can tell you this. The 87,000 people at that rally could not care less what you think. If you want to have your own rally to help support getting Honor back into this country. Go for it. Or just sit in front of a camera drooling on yourself like a two year old. Its up to you son….

No, he was not too bad with Glen. He was lambooning the attendence inflation game.

BR said:
Poor liberals. As on one hand they hate glenn beck, on the other they want to be just like him. That may be part of the reason that liberals always seem to have so much inner rage. A sad confused group.

I don’t hate Glenn Beck. This is America , and he has every right to become a millionaire by selling his political and now religious, snake oil.

moriarty70 said:
Not quite, they’re actually a pair of court jesters and they wear that title with pride since, much like The Bard’s jesters, they’re the only ones who can raise above personal issues to see what’s really happening and call out both sides for being self-involved tools.

Right. And they readily admit they are clowns. Their audience knows they are clowns. They get to call BS what it is. There’s another clip on mediate of Stewart calling Obama on his BS.

Susan recommended me a nice community, ______ B l a c k w h i t e C u p i d * C 0 m ______ where black & white singles are looking for lovers to share interracial lifestyle with…. :D

I don’t get this. Even Geraldo Rivera thought Glenn’s rally was a good thing. There wasn’t any politics mentioned except for the one veiled reference by Sarah Palin, which I didn’t appreciaite. Getting back to God was the main message. I don’t know why Colbert would want to actually do this. Can’t imagine a bunch of pot-smoking college kids making a diffference (except for voting for Obama). Even if it’s just a joke, I don’t get it. I guess they’re running scared.

I find it rather amusing that certain PMSNBC employees ignore the 300,000 number from NBC (not exactly right-leaning, don’t you know) and take the 87,000 number from I Smell BS (CBS),

TfT said:
The 87K lie from CBS? Really….

Stephen and Jon are so jealous of Beck’s ability to draw a crowd….now that’s the funny part of all of this.

I think it’s funny that you think they’d be jealous of Glenn Beck.

Watch Glen Beck’s Unelectable on Netflix. He tells the audience there that he is a clown, that he was a raging alcoholic and that a lot of the time he doesn’t know what he’s doing. On his show, he always says that he could be wrong and the audience should do their own homework. It’s kind of hard to mock someone who is already self-deprecating, and that sincerity rings true with a lot of people. That being said, though certainly left of center, Colbert and Stewart are certainly entertaining. Cheers, hippies.

BR said:
Poor liberals. As on one hand they hate glenn beck, on the other they want to be just like him. That may be part of the reason that liberals always seem to have so much inner rage. A sad confused group.

I find it interesting that people who defend Glenn Beck constantly tout his popularity and assume jealousy on part of the criticizing party. I guess Beck’s detractors are just like the terrorists, they want everything we have and are jealous of our success.

Sounds to me like projected ego-centrism.

Tony the Fist said:
On his show, he always says that he could be wrong and the audience should do their own homework.

That is one of the issues I have with Beck, personally. He knows that once he says something, it will get sucked up in the news cycle and repeated ad nauseam. If people do their own research, they are primed with what Beck said and will subconsciously look for evidence that confirms that primed assumption. That’s basic cognition. And most of us American’s really can’t be bothered to conduct our own research anyways.

Restore Truthiness! finally something thats not for old white right wingers.
And you gotta love the God Geese T’s
HIIIIkarious!

” If people do their own research, they are primed with what Beck said and will subconsciously look for evidence that confirms that primed assumption. That’s basic cognition.” I understand your point, but should Beck never be allowed to voice his opinion? Should we would only list Olby or Ed who in their arrogance believe they have a monopoly on truth and if you disbelieve them, you’re an idiot? Positing that people don’t research things, especially in the Internet age is mere speculation.

Calvin said:
I don’t get this. Even Geraldo Rivera thought Glenn’s rally was a good thing. There wasn’t any politics mentioned except for the one veiled reference by Sarah Palin, which I didn’t appreciaite. Getting back to God was the main message. I don’t know why Colbert would want to actually do this. Can’t imagine a bunch of pot-smoking college kids making a diffference (except for voting for Obama). Even if it’s just a joke, I don’t get it. I guess they’re running scared.

They were comedians playing an angle for laughs. That’s all there is to get. There’s certainly no reason for for Colbert and Stewart to be running scared. It’s apples and oranges. They’re Comedians who use political satire. Beck is whatever he is, a political commentator who goes to extremes for ratings. Nothing wrong with Beck’s rally. It’s good for people to get off their asses and get involved in the process. For the record though, there was a political rally with Michelle Bachmann planned immediately after to take advantage of his crowd. Beck coincidentally offers high praise for Bachmann.

I find it rather amusing that certain PMSNBC employees ignore the 300,000 number from NBC (not exactly right-leaning, don’t you know) and take the 87,000 number from I Smell BS (CBS),

Do you smell the same BS when Beck says 500.000 or Bachmann claims a million? Colbert wasn’t claiming that number to be factual. He and Jon were poking fun at the stupid numbers game.

Tony the Fist said:
I understand your point, but should Beck never be allowed to voice his opinion? Should we would only list Olby or Ed who in their arrogance believe they have a monopoly on truth and if you disbelieve them, you’re an idiot? Positing that people don’t research things, especially in the Internet age is mere speculation.

Beck should and is allowed to voice his opinion, but as someone with such a huge podium he has a responsibility to provide more than speculation. Olby and Ed are of the same kind and, like Beck, they are very irresponsible with what they say. Frankly, I see the Becks and Olbermanns of the world as more damaging to this nation than they realize. They are the instruments cleaving our nation apart.

“Positing that people don’t research things, especially in the Internet age is mere speculation.”

There is a difference between researching on the internet and knowing how to research on the internet. People will Google, but they will never verify sources. Look at think tanks like the Heritage Institute or the Center for American Progress. They frequently cite their reports with references to opinion articles they themselves have written. That’s not research.

First of all, I’m sure this announcement of an announcement has something to do with the trip to Washington at the end of October for the midterms. Most likely something along the lines of a live audience needed for the filming of the show.

Secondly

gar said:
The only way Colbert could draw a crowd would be to bring in Hollywood or music talent. Copycats are the fondest form of flattery so I doubt they’ll give Beck the satisfaction.

If you watch Beck, his whole act is based on Colbert–except Beck isn’t doing satire or being ironic. It seems to me Beck on Fox is essentially a clone of Colbert.

Stephen Hogan said:
Beck should and is allowed to voice his opinion, but as someone with such a huge podium he has a responsibility to provide more than speculation. Olby and Ed are of the same kind and, like Beck, they are very irresponsible with what they say.

I should say that this is especially the case since they have little boxes underneath them that constantly reinforces the ‘news’ schema.

Tony the Fist said:
Watch Glen Beck’s Unelectable on Netflix. He tells the audience there that he is a clown, that he was a raging alcoholic and that a lot of the time he doesn’t know what he’s doing. On his show, he always says that he could be wrong and the audience should do their own homework. It’s kind of hard to mock someone who is already self-deprecating, and that sincerity rings true with a lot of people. .

I am sometimes inclined to give Beck the benefit of the doubt on sincerity because of the style you mention. Then he demonstrates to me that it’s more likely all part of the ploy. Make fun of yourself a bit. Admit to minor mistakes {but don’t address the bigger ones} Invite people to look things up knowing most of them won’t, or will only see conformation.
I just finished a lengthy discussion in another thread about Beck’s contradicting himself by praising MLK one day, then dissing the president through BLT the next. He contradicted himself by telling people to leave their churches if they mentioned social justice, and then claiming to promote religious unity. When challenged by Jim Wallis and Bill Press on those positions he didn’t want an in depth discussion. Instead he admits to a minor mistake about “holding” some document. It’s a ploy. He has little interest in honestly informing his audience. He is playing to his target audience for money and some people are buying what he’s selling.

CosmosDan said:
They were comedians playing an angle for laughs. That’s all there is to get. There’s certainly no reason for for Colbert and Stewart to be running scared. It’s apples and oranges. They’re Comedians who use political satire. Beck is whatever he is, a political commentator who goes to extremes for ratings. Nothing wrong with Beck’s rally. It’s good for people to get off their asses and get involved in the process. For the record though, there was a political rally with Michelle Bachmann planned immediately after to take advantage of his crowd. Beck coincidentally offers high praise for Bachmann.

Seems a bit extreme length to go for a joke. Yeah, I didn’t really appreciate Bachmann doing that. I read that on Breitbart and just shook my head.

CosmosDan said:
Do you smell the same BS when Beck says 500.000 or Bachmann claims a million? Colbert wasn’t claiming that number to be factual. He and Jon were poking fun at the stupid numbers game.

I’m pretty sure 500,000 was another number NBC put out there, not Glenn, who just repeated it. So the only one I have a problem with is Bachman. Although she said she got got that number from a National Parks person she spoke to. Still, sounds like Bachmann is trying to just boost her political cause (and the crowd numbers). Glenn’s rally was clearly not political. Interesting article that explains what Glenn is doing. http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/15295.html

“He has little interest in honestly informing his audience. He is playing to his target audience for money and some people are buying what he’s selling.” Perhaps, I don’t know Mr. Beck personally. Of course, my friend, neither do you, but isn’t it kind of funny that this and Jon Stewart post had barely any comments until someone mentioned Glen Beck? Curiouser and curiouser.

Tony the Fist said:
” I understand your point, but should Beck never be allowed to voice his opinion? Should we would only list Olby or Ed who in their arrogance believe they have a monopoly on truth and if you disbelieve them, you’re an idiot? Positing that people don’t research things, especially in the Internet age is mere speculation.

I echo Stephen’s post. ALL political pundits have some responsibility to offer accurate information. Someone said in the UK they actually have guidelines about commentary to prevent TV personalities from mutilating the facts too much.

It’s east to have an opinion but a lot harder to have an informed opinion. To do decent research people need to look at both sides of an issue. Consider the praise and the criticism and the relevant facts. Give consideration to the source. I expect and can sift trough a certain amount of bias. When pundits are way over the top in their bias and/or ignore relevant facts to distort the truth, and do it as part of a repeating pattern, they loose credibility with me. The public needs to be accurately informed to make reasonable judgments. Misleading them seems to be better for ratings.

Stephen Hogan said:
I find it interesting that people who defend Glenn Beck constantly tout his popularity and assume jealousy on part of the criticizing party.

Don’t forget that whenever someone says anything that isn’t glowing about Sarah Palin, they’re “scared” and whenever they discuss the President or his policies, it represents “in-fighting”. People aren’t allowed to think for themselves or to question their leaders, we’re all just supposed to toe the line.

Tony the Fist said:
“He has little interest in honestly informing his audience. He is playing to his target audience for money and some people are buying what he’s selling.” Perhaps, I don’t know Mr. Beck personally. Of course, my friend, neither do you, but isn’t it kind of funny that this and Jon Stewart post had barely any comments until someone mentioned Glen Beck? Curiouser and curiouser.

I wouldn’t claim to be 100% positive because I don’t know him. I’m just commenting on a repeating pattern I see on his show. I’ve done the research he suggests and it’s relatively easy to see how he distorts the truth and contradicts himself repeatedly.
Yes, people are concerned that his pattern of distorting the truth seems to be embraced by so many. As Americans we’re all in the same boat and I’d like to see more respectful honest fact based discussion about the issues. I hope I’m not expecting too much.
Thanks for you civility btw.

Magister said:
Don’t forget that whenever someone says anything that isn’t glowing about Sarah Palin, they’re “scared” and whenever they discuss the President or his policies, it represents “in-fighting”. People aren’t allowed to think for themselves or to question their leaders, we’re all just supposed to toe the line.

The whole BS concept of all the liberals think this way and all the conservatives think another way is completely false. We need to get away from that language and discuss specific issues based on the facts surrounding that issue, without political labels. We need to start from a common desire to solve problems and move our nation forward. Neither side has all the answers.

“It’s east to have an opinion but a lot harder to have an informed opinion.” True, but you’re positing that Beck doesn’t have any informed opinions. I always hear how he’s wrong, but no one ever explains how. I say no matter who it comes to, if you’re going to attack, attack an idea, not the person.

“Thanks for you civility btw.” No problem, Cosmos, I appeciate yours as well. Cheers, buddy.

@CosmosDan: Oh, come on. You don’t buy that all libs are X and everyone on the right is Y? I bet you don’t think that all of the organized and unorganized political parties are racist due to the beliefs of some individual members.

I mean… after all, we are Americans; we should all fit in a box.

Burnnotice said:
Stephen Colbert, who ever the hell you are, What channel are you even on? I can tell you this. The 87,000 people at that rally could not care less what you think. If you want to have your own rally to help support getting Honor back into this country. Go for it. Or just sit in front of a camera drooling on yourself like a two year old. Its up to you son….

gar said:
The only way Colbert could draw a crowd would be to bring in Hollywood or music talent. Copycats are the fondest form of flattery so I doubt they’ll give Beck the satisfaction.

And once again, satire is misunderstood. Oh, well. (I’m sure there are more satire misunderstandings below, but these were the first two.)

TfT said:
The 87K lie from CBS? Really….

Stephen and Jon are so jealous of Beck’s ability to draw a crowd….now that’s the funny part of all of this.

See, just went down one more comment and found another one.

moriarty70 said:
Not quite, they’re actually a pair of court jesters and they wear that title with pride since, much like The Bard’s jesters, they’re the only ones who can raise above personal issues to see what’s really happening and call out both sides for being self-involved tools.

Ah, see, someone who understood the satire.

Goes to show how out of touch and loony the left is as they keep attacking and misrepresenting the Beck rally that raised over $5MM for the Special Operations Warrior Fund. Now, I wouldn’t expect that to be a favorite charity of the left, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to overtly attack it. Then again, my expectations of the left are rarely met.

lonestar77 said:
Goes to show how out of touch and loony the left is as they keep attacking and misrepresenting the Beck rally that raised over $5MM for the Special Operations Warrior Fund. Now, I wouldn’t expect that to be a favorite charity of the left, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to overtly attack it. Then again, my expectations of the left are rarely met.

They’re not ‘attacking’ the rally. They’re poking fun at it. And they certainly did not attack the Special Operations Warrior Fund.

Are you politicizing charity? Gosh, nothing escapes being filed as ‘left’ or ‘right’ these days.

@lonestar77: I don’t have the dollar figures, but I’m sure Colbert has raised at least $5m for a diverse line-up of charities. He’s done it primarily through audience donations. I’ve never heard, so just out of curiousity: How did Beck’s rally raise the funds?

As to the matter of supporting the troops, I’ll add that Colbert did a week of shows as an USO tour and he’s doing two shows saluting the troops this week to mark the end of combat operations in Iraq.

Tony the Fist said:
“It’s east to have an opinion but a lot harder to have an informed opinion.” True, but you’re positing that Beck doesn’t have any informed opinions. I always hear how he’s wrong, but no one ever explains how. I say no matter who it comes to, if you’re going to attack, attack an idea, not the person.

I just finished a long discussion with lots of info in a thread here about Black liberation theology. It’s in the comments of the “Bill Press Challenges Glenn Beck ” article. Briefly

I have no problem with the platitudes Beck repeated at the rally. The principle of religious unity and patriotism without political divisiveness are honorable goals to encourage. My issue is that he doesn’t seem to support those consistently, which leads me to question his sincerity. Not long before his religious unity rally he was advising Christians to leave their church if they taught “code words” like social justice. Then at his rally he honors MLK who worked diligently for social justice. How did he miss that? The day following his rally for religious unity he calls BLT a perversion of the gospel and selects a quote that refers to it as demonic. What kind of religious unity is that? Doing a little research it’s plain to see that MLK and BLT advocated the same principles. He uses MLK to reclaim the civil rights movement while criticizing Obama about BLT which is a child of the civil rights movement and addressed the same injustices as MLK. It’s intellectually and morally inconsistent, and IMO, intentional. Lots more details in that other thread.
I essentially agree with your point about disputing the facts and the idea rather than the person but at some point, when someone has shown themselves to be consistently and intentionally inaccurate their credibility should be questioned. I’d like to discredit the methodology he uses to distort the truth, not the man himself. Your point is well taken though and I’ll try to revise my language so it’s more about the issue.

There is no one better equipped to hold a mocking rally in Washington than Colbert, the Glenn Beck of comedy.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/06/stephen-colbert-glenn-beck-of-comedy.html

CosmosDan said:
Right. And they readily admit they are clowns. Their audience knows they are clowns. They get to call BS what it is. There’s another clip on mediate of Stewart calling Obama on his BS.

They usually only admit to being clowns when one of their attempted “points” gets demolished by facts. Don’t act like Stewart doesn’t try to make political points, because he does. He has the fallback position of being a clown as a buffer of criticism when he’s wrong. He’s done that several times when he’s been called out. The “I’m just a comedian” defense is great when you’re wrong.

Haimerej said:
They usually only admit to being clowns when one of their attempted “points” gets demolished by facts. Don’t act like Stewart doesn’t try to make political points, because he does. He has the fallback position of being a clown as a buffer of criticism when he’s wrong. He’s done that several times when he’s been called out. The “I’m just a comedian” defense is great when you’re wrong.

Stewart is one of the ‘strange’ people that will admit that he is wrong. Case in point, he admitted that he was wrong when he called for the NRA to put off their meeting in Denver after Columbine.

I see no need for them to admit they’re clowns when 1) the show that proceeds them is a guy making fun of viral videos and 2) there’s a logo at the bottom-right that reads ‘Comedy Central’. Pretty self-evident, really. When Stewart makes a point to describe his unique position, he frequently does so with an exhaustive tone. I can understand why.

I’m interested, though. When has he really been ‘called out’?

Haimerej said:
They usually only admit to being clowns when one of their attempted “points” gets demolished by facts. Don’t act like Stewart doesn’t try to make political points, because he does. He has the fallback position of being a clown as a buffer of criticism when he’s wrong. He’s done that several times when he’s been called out. The “I’m just a comedian” defense is great when you’re wrong.

No, he has the I’m a comedian defense going from the beginning. Remember the John Edwards announcing he’s running for president on his show. Jon’s response, “You do know we’re a fake news show, right?” They do political satire, (as well as social satire), which is always going to criticize current political trends. Does he score political points? Well, that’s debatable. He sure isn’t doing so when he attacks Dems and Reps in the same segment. What points are he scoring there? The thing is, you, like a lot of people, have confused satire with actual journalism. Sure, they are making a commentary on the way things are. That’s the nature of comedy. They will ALWAYS go for the joke first. It’s what they do. They aren’t on FOX News, or MSNBC, or History Channel, they are on Comedy Central for a reason. They always admit to being comics. It’s what they do. And if you read that there is a political agenda then you miss the point of satire. Again, and this goes for everyone on this site, they are not journalists, or pundits, they are satirists. And will always consider themselves as such.

Calvin said:
I don’t get this. Even Geraldo Rivera thought Glenn’s rally was a good thing. There wasn’t any politics mentioned except for the one veiled reference by Sarah Palin, which I didn’t appreciaite. Getting back to God was the main message. I don’t know why Colbert would want to actually do this. Can’t imagine a bunch of pot-smoking college kids making a diffference (except for voting for Obama). Even if it’s just a joke, I don’t get it. I guess they’re running scared. I find it rather amusing that certain PMSNBC employees ignore the 300,000 number from NBC (not exactly right-leaning, don’t you know) and take the 87,000 number from I Smell BS (CBS),

I found this website from someone who is a professional at crowd estimates. He put the crowd at Beck’s rally at between 80-87,000. This is the same guy who incurred wrath from liberals when he put Obama’s inauguration attendance below one million at around 800,000. Am I biased? Maybe, but this guy provides a thoughtful analysis and expertise and he’s not a partisan.
http://stevedoig.com/archives/250

Either way you slice it, Beck’s rally was significant and well-attended. No doubt about that. But the fact that Michelle Bachmann said it was over a million just shows how seriously we should take her…not very seriously at all.

Would Colbert’s rally be as well-attended as Beck’s was? Absolutely not. Colbert is a satirist. We watch his show to laugh at the absurdity of those he lampoons. Beck is a commentator who has a passionate following that urges those like-minded to follow him to help restore a country they feel is being destroyed. If this were a political tea party rally, it would probably have been attended less, but since this was a rally about restoring honor and faith, hope and charity to our country and raising money for our troops, it’s no wonder there were a lot of people there.

Haimerej said:
They usually only admit to being clowns when one of their attempted “points” gets demolished by facts. Don’t act like Stewart doesn’t try to make political points, because he does. He has the fallback position of being a clown as a buffer of criticism when he’s wrong. He’s done that several times when he’s been called out. The “I’m just a comedian” defense is great when you’re wrong.

Perhaps you could provide one example of this. I don’t remember it happening. When he mentions being a comic is when he is criticized by the media for not being hard enough or reporting hard news.

I didn’t pretend anything. I think his and Colbert’s satire make great political points on a regular basis. You just have to understand satire enough to get it. Stewart has actually been praised by his conservative guests for allowing them time to express their views rather than shouting them down when they disagree. He doesn’t cut their mike, he lets them speak. He often has to edit an interview for TV but puts it on the web site in it’s complete form.

CosmosDan said:
Perhaps you could provide one example of this. I don’t remember it happening. When he mentions being a comic is when he is criticized by the media for not being hard enough or reporting hard news.

Indeed, most famously during the Crossfire interview with Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala.

Stephen Hogan said:
Stewart is one of the ’strange’ people that will admit that he is wrong. Case in point, he admitted that he was wrong when he called for the NRA to put off their meeting in Denver after Columbine. I see no need for them to admit they’re clowns when 1) the show that proceeds them is a guy making fun of viral videos and 2) there’s a logo at the bottom-right that reads ‘Comedy Central’. Pretty self-evident, really. When Stewart makes a point to describe his unique position, he frequently does so with an exhaustive tone. I can understand why. I’m interested, though. When has he really been ‘called out’?

The most prominent thing was what he did on “Crossfire.” Just do a search for, “Jon Stewart- clown nose on, clown nose off.”

Permatiltx said:
No, he has the I’m a comedian defense going from the beginning. Remember the John Edwards announcing he’s running for president on his show. Jon’s response, “You do know we’re a fake news show, right?” They do political satire, (as well as social satire), which is always going to criticize current political trends. Does he score political points? Well, that’s debatable. He sure isn’t doing so when he attacks Dems and Reps in the same segment. What points are he scoring there? The thing is, you, like a lot of people, have confused satire with actual journalism. Sure, they are making a commentary on the way things are. That’s the nature of comedy. They will ALWAYS go for the joke first. It’s what they do. They aren’t on FOX News, or MSNBC, or History Channel, they are on Comedy Central for a reason. They always admit to being comics. It’s what they do. And if you read that there is a political agenda then you miss the point of satire. Again, and this goes for everyone on this site, they are not journalists, or pundits, they are satirists. And will always consider themselves as such.

*sigh

You realize he’s been on other shows before, right? Serious shows discussing serious issues?

Furthermore, if you actually believe that he never lobbies or plays politics on the Daily Show, I’ve got some ocean front property in Kansas if you’re interested.

CosmosDan said:
Perhaps you could provide one example of this. I don’t remember it happening. When he mentions being a comic is when he is criticized by the media for not being hard enough or reporting hard news. I didn’t pretend anything. I think his and Colbert’s satire make great political points on a regular basis. You just have to understand satire enough to get it. Stewart has actually been praised by his conservative guests for allowing them time to express their views rather than shouting them down when they disagree. He doesn’t cut their mike, he lets them speak. He often has to edit an interview for TV but puts it on the web site in it’s complete form.

What he did to Jim Cramer is a good example of what I’m talking about. There are more examples if you do the search for “Jon Stewart- clown nose on, clown nose off.”

For those needing an example, here’s a good one-

http://patterico.com/2009/03/14/i-always-see-the-clown-nose-on-jon-stewart/

It has a transcript of the Crossfire appearance.

Haimerej said:
What he did to Jim Cramer is a good example of what I’m talking about. There are more examples if you do the search for “Jon Stewart- clown nose on, clown nose off.”

Jim Cramer stepped into his own pile of crap on that one. Perhaps Cramer was upset that he was included in the segment, or maybe the executives told him to go on attack, but Stewart attacked the network and Cramer decided to be the front man. Stewart was pointing out the failure of a “financial news network” to do any real reporting, and instead seem to be pushing speculation.

The Crossfire interview was a nearly similar situation. He was saying that the state of our news media has not taken on an adversarial role and doesn’t allow for nuance.

There is a huge difference between a satire show and the news—or at least there used to be. Now the lines (not because of Stewart) are very vague.

Also, consider Stewart’s interview with John Yoo and subsequent apology for failing to “nail” him. If he’s simply a comedian with a comedy show, what business is it of his to “nail” someone over a political issue? Why would he argue, as he did on Crossfire after being all sanctimonious, that he’s “just a comedian” for not getting tough with John Kerry but then feel the need to apologize for not getting tough with a guest that doesn’t fit his and his audience’s ideology?

Clown nose on, clown nose off…

marcus.lewis said:
Jim Cramer stepped into his own pile of crap on that one. Perhaps Cramer was upset that he was included in the segment, or maybe the executives told him to go on attack, but Stewart attacked the network and Cramer decided to be the front man. Stewart was pointing out the failure of a “financial news network” to do any real reporting, and instead seem to be pushing speculation. The Crossfire interview was a nearly similar situation. He was saying that the state of our news media has not taken on an adversarial role and doesn’t allow for nuance. There is a huge difference between a satire show and the news—or at least there used to be. Now the lines (not because of Stewart) are very vague.

Jim Cramer defended himself well. By all accounts, he holds up much better in the unedited interview. But this belies the point that he’s just a comedian. He’s not. His interviews are NOT satire. They are real interviews.

He attacked the Crossfire hosts for being partisan hacks while he was being a hack himself when Kerry came on his program. As you saw with the Cramer interview and others, he DOES take stances on political issues. The argument that his show is merely a comedy show doesn’t always apply.

It seems his fans have taken to his argument. On one hand, his show is merely satire. On the other hand, he makes political points. This is the perfect buffer for criticism. When he’s right, he’s the new “Edward R Murrow” according to the LA Times. When he’s wrong, “Hey, it’s just a comedy show.”

John Yoo was on there for the purpose of defending his position. John Kerry for the purpose to get elected. If you look at the interviews done right before elections with candidates, most of them are pretty softballs. Also, Stewart has most definitely changed his style of interview over the past 6 years. For the past few years, his interviews with notables have become increasingly more in depth (partly because they now have the space for the extended interview on their website http://www.thedailyshow.com ).

I

marcus.lewis said:
John Yoo was on there for the purpose of defending his position. John Kerry for the purpose to get elected. If you look at the interviews done right before elections with candidates, most of them are pretty softballs. Also, Stewart has most definitely changed his style of interview over the past 6 years. For the past few years, his interviews with notables have become increasingly more in depth (partly because they now have the space for the extended interview on their website http://www.thedailyshow.com ). I

Do you work for the Daily Show? What’s with the plug of their website?

The point was that you can’t come out and criticize people as hacks when you’re doing your own hackery. Compare Kerry’s interview and Obama’s interview with McCain’s. Who faced tougher questions?

Right after accusing people of being hacks, he defends his own hackery by saying he’s just a comedian on a comedy show. That’s weak sauce. There are plenty of examples of him being tough with ideologically opposed guests. The only time he’s tough on a Democrat is when they’re beyond defensible, like Blago.

Fox viewers and Beck fans are all morons. MORONS

Get your IQ’s tested then stick a loaded NRA gun in your mouths and pull the trigger.

It would save the planet and save this country.

Haimerej said:
*sigh

You realize he’s been on other shows before, right? Serious shows discussing serious issues?

Furthermore, if you actually believe that he never lobbies or plays politics on the Daily Show, I’ve got some ocean front property in Kansas if you’re interested.

*Sigh (see I can be condescending as well. It’s very easy. Now, to the point at hand. Of course, I don’t thing condescension is a valid arguing point so I’ll end it here.)

We aren’t debating him on other shows. We are debating the Daily Show, which is a comedy show. He does tend to hold himself pretty well on the “serious” shows. See The O’Reilly Factor as well as Crossfire. The thing is that he is a comedian first, especially on this show. Now, it is a show that deals with political satire, thus to say it doesn’t delve into politics would be naive. It definitely does throw politics into the game, but most of the time it does show the absurdity that is the American political system. Therefore it stays within the realm of satire. But to say he lobbies? What does he lobby for? Obama? Well, no, he’s made fun of Obama. MSNBC? Well, no, he has made fun of MSNBC. What does he lobby for? Say one thing, and I’ll see if they have made fun of it on the Daily Show. I love the show, I watch it regularly, so having to go back and take a look at various things would be a treat.

But you seem to have missed the point about John Yoo-

John Yoo DID defend himself. He calmly, rationally, explained his position. Stewart was out of his league in that interview. I would call it one of his better moments though, because he had to accept that Yoo was in fact holding a position that was defendable, rather than frothing at the mouth and calling for his head.

That’s why his apology was so disappointing. That was obvious pandering to his political allies.

Haimerej said:
Do you work for the Daily Show? What’s with the plug of their website?

The point was that you can’t come out and criticize people as hacks when you’re doing your own hackery. Compare Kerry’s interview and Obama’s interview with McCain’s. Who faced tougher questions?

Right after accusing people of being hacks, he defends his own hackery by saying he’s just a comedian on a comedy show. That’s weak sauce. There are plenty of examples of him being tough with ideologically opposed guests. The only time he’s tough on a Democrat is when they’re beyond defensible, like Blago.

Nope; I’m not affiliated with TDS in anyway. It just seems like many people only watch the interview snippets.

Having said that. The John McCain interview wasn’t hard at all. It was a comedic interview… a lot softer than the previous 9 times Jon interviewed John. I would say that the McCain interview was equally as soft as the Kerry interview. Just give them a watching and I think you’d agree.

Permatiltx said:
*Sigh (see I can be condescending as well. It’s very easy. Now, to the point at hand. Of course, I don’t thing condescension is a valid arguing point so I’ll end it here.)

Accusing me of confusing journalism and satire is what made you deserving of condascension. Maybe you should re-examine your own responses.

blockquote cite=”comment-141364″>Permatiltx said:
We aren’t debating him on other shows. We are debating the Daily Show, which is a comedy show.

Actually, I was debating the issue of how Jon Stewart uses his clown nose to buffer any criticism that comes his way. Perhaps you should check what I was talking about before jumping in and misconstruing it.

blockquote cite=”comment-141364″>Permatiltx said:

He does tend to hold himself pretty well on the “serious” shows. See The O’Reilly Factor as well as Crossfire. The thing is that he is a comedian first, especially on this show. Now, it is a show that deals with political satire, thus to say it doesn’t delve into politics would be naive. It definitely does throw politics into the game, but most of the time it does show the absurdity that is the American political system. Therefore it stays within the realm of satire.

Which is why I was referring to how he deals with criticism of the positions he takes, not the criticism of his show. When he is personally criticized for things he personally says, he defends himself by saying he’s a comedian.

blockquote cite=”comment-141364″>Permatiltx said:
But to say he lobbies? What does he lobby for? Obama? Well, no, he’s made fun of Obama. MSNBC? Well, no, he has made fun of MSNBC. What does he lobby for? Say one thing, and I’ll see if they have made fun of it on the Daily Show. I love the show, I watch it regularly, so having to go back and take a look at various things would be a treat.

Show me the video in which he was critical of health care reform, cap & trade, or any other initiative that lines up with the left. There are several videos of him going after the opponents of these issues. Keep in mind, I’m talking about the ISSUE itself. There are people out there who think that cap and trade, for example, shouldn’t be done at all. When Stewart goes after the opponents of the issue, that’s different than pointing out the bungling of it by people who support it.

Haimerej

You’re right. Stewart does lean left… I think he would be the first person to tell you that. Is that the point you are trying to make? If so, I don’t think anyone with any cognitive function will argue that you’re wrong.

marcus.lewis said:
Nope; I’m not affiliated with TDS in anyway. It just seems like many people only watch the interview snippets. Having said that. The John McCain interview wasn’t hard at all. It was a comedic interview… a lot softer than the previous 9 times Jon interviewed John. I would say that the McCain interview was equally as soft as the Kerry interview. Just give them a watching and I think you’d agree.

I’ll agree that the election interview wasn’t bad, but I remember him being pretty adversarial with him before. Looking it up, it seems the interview was in 2007 over the Iraq War.

But the point I made has been made by you, implicitly. There are times when Stewart actually does “real journalism” by giving tough interviews (Yoo and Cramer, for example).

So his criticism of partisan hackery falls flat when his own hackery comes through in his interviews.

marcus.lewis said:
Haimerej You’re right. Stewart does lean left… I think he would be the first person to tell you that. Is that the point you are trying to make? If so, I don’t think anyone with any cognitive function will argue that you’re wrong.

My point was that he uses his clown nose to deflect criticism of the things he says when he’s wrong.

We kinda got side tracked while I was making the point that he actually does get serious and try to make serious points. I think it’s cowardly for him to fall back on “I’m just a comedian” when his points get thrown back in his face.

I think he uses his clown nose to deflect criticism of him not doing tough interviews. I think you’re pretty correct in you statement, but we have to separate his segments. First two segments, mostly satire. Interview segment, a much more of a comedian interviewing someone; i.e., Chris Hardwick’s The Nerdist, or Dennis Miller’s old show on HBO. Stewart does make serious points, but again—he is a comedian. He’s going to have his own view point. WHat I can say, is that most often times, Stewart has the best conversations with those he politically disagrees with. When I see a conversation like that, I don’t look for winner’s or losers, I look for just a really good conversation.

marcus.lewis said:
I think he uses his clown nose to deflect criticism of him not doing tough interviews. I think you’re pretty correct in you statement, but we have to separate his segments. First two segments, mostly satire. Interview segment, a much more of a comedian interviewing someone; i.e., Chris Hardwick’s The Nerdist, or Dennis Miller’s old show on HBO. Stewart does make serious points, but again—he is a comedian. He’s going to have his own view point. WHat I can say, is that most often times, Stewart has the best conversations with those he politically disagrees with. When I see a conversation like that, I don’t look for winner’s or losers, I look for just a really good conversation.

Personally, I think his John Yoo interview is one of the best one-on-one’s in the last decade.

It just bothers me that he uses the clown nose defense while criticizing other media or when he says something wrong. Sure, his show isn’t news, but he does try to make serious points and I’m sure we’re all familiar with the polling that shows a lot of young people consider him their news source.

Point taken. I don’t disagree with you very much.

Although, some of the mike huckabee interviews have been really good as well.

Haimerej said:
*sigh

You realize he’s been on other shows before, right? Serious shows discussing serious issues?

Furthermore, if you actually believe that he never lobbies or plays politics on the Daily Show, I’ve got some ocean front property in Kansas if you’re interested.

He does a fake news show with political satire. Of course he plays politics. If you’re saying that he at times is somewhat serious about the points he makes I’d agree. His interviews are often playful but he gives his honest views about things. That’s one of the things I like. It’s comedy and often exaggeration, with selected clips, but he also gets to make a point. When he thinks the GOP is full of crap he says so, with jokes. If he think the Dems are full of crap he says so, with more jokes. I think he has some serious interviews and some are just movie promos or something.

Well the rodeo drunk clown is at it again—always the drunk —justs has to keep grand standing—got to have that attention. Becker you are one dry drunk—-love the Stewart and Colbert shows tell it like it is! Thank Meg McCain about the freak show Palin is! This country loves stupid!!!!!!!

Haimerej said:
Do you work for the Daily Show? What’s with the plug of their website?

The point was that you can’t come out and criticize people as hacks when you’re doing your own hackery. Compare Kerry’s interview and Obama’s interview with McCain’s. Who faced tougher questions?

Right after accusing people of being hacks, he defends his own hackery by saying he’s just a comedian on a comedy show. That’s weak sauce. There are plenty of examples of him being tough with ideologically opposed guests. The only time he’s tough on a Democrat is when they’re beyond defensible, like Blago.

I looked at your link and I’ve seen the video several times. Respectfully, I think you’re missing the point about this interview. You can and should accuse people of being political hacks when they aren’t supposed to be one. Jon waited for Tucker to make the point he said he had, and Tucker made the mistake of comparing crossfire to The Daily Show. He’s not supposed to be hard hitting political commentary and they are. That was his whole point. He was telling them that the general public needs honest informed intelligent debate about the issues and Crossfire was letting them down. He’s not supposed to do that…THEY ARE, or were. That’s why Tucker’s point wasn’t really relevant. He wasn’t defending himself by pointing out he’s a comic. He was explaining that he’s a comic and you shouldn’t expect him to offer insightful hard hitting commentary on the issues. That’s not in his job description. IT”S IN THEIRS!
That’s like the plumber saying the electrician is doing a crappy job and the electricians defense is, “you didn’t fix the electrical problems when you were here” Yeah we know. That’s not his job that’s yours. He’s doing his job.
I do agree that was a serious moment. They wanted him to come on and be funny for ratings sake, and he didn’t cooperate. Instead he told them an honest opinion they didn’t like. IMO, he was right. We have too much distorted commentary and not enough factual, two sided honest discussions.

Haimerej said:
But you seem to have missed the point about John Yoo-

John Yoo DID defend himself. He calmly, rationally, explained his position. Stewart was out of his league in that interview. I would call it one of his better moments though, because he had to accept that Yoo was in fact holding a position that was defendable, rather than frothing at the mouth and calling for his head.

That’s why his apology was so disappointing. That was obvious pandering to his political allies.

I haven’t seen that interview but It sounds interesting. I’ll try to find it on their site.

Haimerej said:
My point was that he uses his clown nose to deflect criticism of the things he says when he’s wrong.

We kinda got side tracked while I was making the point that he actually does get serious and try to make serious points. I think it’s cowardly for him to fall back on “I’m just a comedian” when his points get thrown back in his face.

Sometimes the discussion is just a matter of opinions , and it’s reasonable to recognize it as such. Pundits and comics have opinions. That’s fine. I just want the pundits to try and get their facts straight and be willing to be corrected and open to new facts, the way Jon seems to be.

BR says: “Poor liberals. As on one hand they hate glenn beck, on the other they want to be just like him”

THAT’s rich. Liberals do not want to be deceitful hypocrites. If there’s a Colbert/Stewart rally in Washington, it will be to mock Mr. Beck, not to be like him.

God, this rodeo clown has people hoodwinked.
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/farce-on-washington-glenn-beck-and.html

Haimerej said:
Accusing me of confusing journalism and satire is what made you deserving of condascension. Maybe you should re-examine your own responses.

blockquote cite=”comment-141364″>Permatiltx said:
We aren’t debating him on other shows. We are debating the Daily Show, which is a comedy show.

Actually, I was debating the issue of how Jon Stewart uses his clown nose to buffer any criticism that comes his way. Perhaps you should check what I was talking about before jumping in and misconstruing it.

blockquote cite=”comment-141364″>Permatiltx said:

Show me the video in which he was critical of health care reform, cap & trade, or any other initiative that lines up with the left. There are several videos of him going after the opponents of these issues. Keep in mind, I’m talking about the ISSUE itself. There are people out there who think that cap and trade, for example, shouldn’t be done at all. When Stewart goes after the opponents of the issue, that’s different than pointing out the bungling of it by people who support it.

Why would he have to be critical of those issues? He did criticize the opponents but often for style and dishonest content of their criticism. Hyperbole for a comedy show is one thing. Hyperbole from politicians about a very serious issue is a lot less attractive. Honestly though, I’d have to review that time to be sure.

moriarty70 said:
Not quite, they’re actually a pair of court jesters and they wear that title with pride since, much like The Bard’s jesters, they’re the only ones who can raise above personal issues to see what’s really happening and call out both sides for being self-involved tools.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

ConLoonPatrol says: “Fox viewers and Beck fans are all morons. MORONS
Get your IQ’s tested then stick a loaded NRA gun in your mouths and pull the trigger.
It would save the planet and save this country.”

This kind of rhetoric only serves the cons you seek to patrol. No, ConLoonPatrol, J.S. Mill had it right: “The antidote to bad speech is more speech.” That was the inspiration for my starting The Glenn Beck Review. Please share this URL:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com

That and my wife telling me to stop yelling at the television and do something about it.

GlennBeckReview said:
That and my wife telling me to stop yelling at the television and do something about it.

I think your wife was really trying to tell you to shut up in a nice way.

StandUp says: “I think your wife was really trying to tell you to shut up in a nice way.”

She thinks Glenn Beck is evil; is that nice enough for you Beckerhead?

Burnnotice says: “Stephen Colbert, who ever the hell you are, What channel are you even on? I can tell you this. The 87,000 people at that rally could not care less what you think. If you want to have your own rally to help support getting Honor back into this country. Go for it.”

Yeah, it would be a first.

BatBoy said:
C L O W N!

HAAA!! Glenn Beck is the clown. A rodeo clown. He said it himself.

OH YES… please do it Jon and Stephen. I am sooooo there.

Tea Party loons *vomits*

Your head looks like this melon dude, but I think this one might have more substance in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryhTGITTUOs&feature=channel

GlennBeckReview said:
There is no one better equipped to hold a mocking rally in Washington than Colbert, the Glenn Beck of comedy.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/06/stephen-colbert-glenn-beck-of-comedy.html

Glen Beck is his own comedy show!! So when he cries are those fake tears or real tears? Every week he contradicts what he says.