I hate that damn bow tie, too.

I just watched the Crossfire clip. Constant Reader liberal japonicus [Oopsie edited out] was right: the transcript doesn't do it justice. What comes across in print as being plausibly silly shows up in the flesh as something less amused and a whole lot more irate. Hell, my mostly apolitical fiancee only listened to the clip (she's getting some long-overdue miniatures painting in) and she thought Jon Stewart gutted those two... those two... those two pundits. You folks know that I don't agree with Mr. Stewart's politics; but he said a whole lot of things that should've been said to those people and all of their ilk - Left, Right, Center or beyond Pluto - years ago.

Well done.

(Links via Ken Layne: alas, I agree with him that Jon Stewart is going to pay for this eventually.)

Moe

Comments

[martin]

These pretend pundit media clowns all need to be gutted again and again. If we could somehow bring back reasonable and sane discourse, perhaps we might restore some sense of fair play in our socio-political system. Odd as this may sound, I take the losing LA Dodgers coming out and shaking the hands of the victorious Cardinals as a tiny signal that perhaps the tide can turn. Good sportsmanship has to start somewhere. Why not in sports?

But until that time, take 'em all down.

[Jim Treacher]

I'm sure Carlson thought calling Stewart "John Kerry's butt-boy" was the height of wit, but he may as well have just shot himself in the head right there. That was all she wrote.

If Stewart does pay for it, it'll probably be for the wrong reasons.

[wilfred]

Bravo Moe! Stewart's appearance on Crossfire was the breath of fresh air I've longed for lo these many months. I think Carlson and Begala both deserved what Stewart gave them right between the ears.

And may this please start a trend across our TV sets.

[Opus]

You know, I think Jon was going to make a few comments and then let it go...but then Tucker starting in on him for failing to be a journalist when interviewing Kerry, and you could see Jon look at him and decide he wasn't going to quit until he'd put both of those clowns down.

Begala did himself no good by staying mostly silent and when he did speak, it was nonsense. And Jon called him on it, correctly -- the spin may reflect one's candidate preference, but it does not defend that preference with reason or truth. It really was startling (except, not) to see both "pundits" unable to either digest or respond to Jon's criticisms.

[liberal japonicus]

thanks for the shoutout, Moe. Opus, I agree that Begala did himself no good, but I'm not sure what he could have said that would have reflected well on him and not been construed as anything but a kick in Tucker's goolies. But I'm not sure what one can expect from someone who (I think) sits across from Robert Novak and not ask him directly 'why are you not in a jail cell right now?'. The person who has come closest was Mark Shields on Capital Gang, but even then, it was a very oblique, 3 cushion shot rather than anything direct.

After the takedown, I googled some of Stewart's transcripts. It seem pretty clear that he has been getting more and more worked up about this and this was Krakatoa. Here are the links
Stewart with Moyers
Stewart on O'Reilly(!) (Partial from Wonkette)
Stewart on Nightline (partial)
Another very strange one with Ted Koppel
This seems to be the same one, but is different, with some off camera stuff here

And this is an older one of Stewart with Kurtz, where he lists his reactions to various journaliststowards the end

I don't vouch for the chronology, but this thing has been building up for a while. Someone noted that they did their second cm break almost immediately after the first and speculated as to what Stewart was being told. He certainly didn't listen, though.

[John Thullen]

I have a friendly question for Moe, who runs this very fine site, which is a refuge for angry commenters like me, who need to sit in a metaphorical "church" in some nice shoes every once in a while just to be quiet for a few moments and witness what used to be called civil discourse.

I admit I occasionally belch in the sanctuary, but I'm terminally dyspeptic.

I was listening to Air America the other day in the car (for the first time, you'll be amazed to know) and I decided that it was by and large boring, juvenile crap. And just what the doctor ordered and precisely the result of how we have been led down this uncivil path by a certain group of boring, juvenile crapster revolutionaries in the Republican Party who decided at some indistinquishable point (Limbaugh?, the Gingrich lynch mob?, the end of the Fairness Doctrine?) to radically change the discourse from one which largely but more or less mildly favored a slightly left-of center point of view to one which (yeah, I know the far Left had a potty mouth), through incredibly demogogic use of the language, galvinized the Republican, and mostly civilized, electorate at the voting booth.

And it worked.

My question (verbosity is also an unfortunate characteristic of today's discourse) for Moe is:

While I examine my base assumptions implicit in this comment ;), at what point did you begin to examine your base assumptions regarding our political discourse?

Before the Republican Party lowered the bar across the board as a purposeful means to an end? After it was effective in creating a majority? Or, when a whole lot of liberal but mostly civilized types decided to jump into the cesspool too, because swimming in that dirty water looked like a winning strategy?

I agree with Moe completely on Jon Stewart's takedown of our nation's punditry.

P.S. Yes, I lived through LBJ's tactics and the Nixonian debacle, and I was utterly disgusted by the rhetoric during the election of 1800, although I was still busy sweeping up after the French Revolution. So I'm not a virgin who thinks someone started something recently. It's just that there is a new (or the reappearance of something old), umm, tone to the rhetoric of the punditry which seems to have its secondary source circa @the late 1980s)

[Moe Lane]

"While I examine my base assumptions implicit in this comment ;), at what point did you begin to examine your base assumptions regarding our political discourse?"

Generally speaking, somewhere around 1992, I guess. I watched Pat Buchanan speak at the convention, scratched my head and realized that he was a prime-grade schmuck (stuck around with the Democrats for a couple more years because of that, actually). Then I watched other commentators, realized that they weren't much better, watched the Republican talking heads mostly out themselves as condescending tools during the Clinton administration and the Democratic ones do the same after Bush got elected (and especially after 9/11).

I don't know if this answers your question, John; I've generally always loathed people who liked to tell me what I'm really thinking, and Jeebus knows that the talking head pundits like to do precisely that, so picking an exact date is a little difficult for me.

Moe

[Bernard Yomtov]

Let me just state my agreement with Moe and with Stewart. His categorization of Crossfire and the like as being to political debate as WWF is to real wrestling was on the mark, except that WWF has fewer pretensions.

[John Thullen]

Yup, and thanks.

[Slartibartfast]

As the token VRWC representative here, I'm applauding strenuously for Stewart. I absolutely loathe pundits in general; sometimes I listen to the local AM stations (for the record, because the music stations absolutely blow, and because I've had it with NPR's seemingly interminable pledge drive) and I can't stand to listen to Rush for more than a few minutes. Or Neal Boortz. Or Sean Hannity. These are guys you habitually listen to if you've abdicated your responsibility to think for yourself. I don't always disagree with them, but I do disagree with the perennial message, which is that Democrats are, in general, shallow, pseudo-intellectual bedwetters.

So friggin' hat's off to Stewart. I've never been much of a fan of his, but then again I've never thought the comedic potential of politics exceeded the tragic component enough to elicit a chuckle. Just reading the transcript, he mopped the floor with these guys.

Having said that, I'm thinking that Moe and I have been to many of the same places, politically, and I'm thinking that puts both of us in good company. Or something.

[kenB]

My jaw was hanging open during most of that clip (save only for the times that I was laughing), but in the end I found it a little disappointing -- I don't think Stewart was ever able to articulate his objections well enough to reach anyone who didn't already agree with him.

Also, I think he came off a little too sanctimonious. The problem isn't really Crossfire and the pundits, it's the people who choose to watch them instead of any real in-depth analysis, whose minds are already made up and who just like to cheer on their own guy and boo the other side. Stewart kept on defending himself by saying that his is just a comedy show, but the fact is that it's only because of the comedy that he's able to take the shots that he does. If his show was simply a sincere and non-infotaining search for truth, it would have an audience in the low three digits.

But in any case, I'll be very curious to see where this goes, if anywhere. I wonder when they'll have him back on Crossfire -- just think of the ratings bonanza the sequel would be.

[Chuchundra]

I wonder how anyone might make Stewart "pay" for his smackdown of Carlson and Begala. I can only see good things coming of of this for him.

Yes, he'll probably get more than a few sniffy Op Eds directed his way, but I can't see that as damaging him in any way, especially since all the people who really know how to write agree with him anyway.

[Anarch]

Jesus. H. Christ.

Stewart's likely gonna burn for this -- I don't know how, but he will -- but it was so worth it.

[Gromit]

I don't know how he could possibly be hurt by this. Stewart is a Viacom employee who carries his entire network on his shoulders, and he mouthed off on an AOL/Time Warner network. Even after this incident, I'm sure any network would give their eyeteeth to ink a deal with the man. The worst that will happen is that for a while he might get invited on fewer "straight" news shows (which is a complete mischaracterization of Crossfire, sure, but I think my meaning is clear).

And if any harm does come to the man, the 18-34 demographic will grab pitchforks and torches and take to the streets. In fact, I might go buy a pitchfork right now, just in case.

[Slartibartfast]

I've got two spading forks and a hay fork. Anyone wanna borrow one?

No torches, though, alas. Not even a tiki torch.

[Jesurgislac]

I'll take the spading fork, thanks. Though I'm three years over the demographic, I liked what Jon Stewart had to say, and how he said it.

[liberal japonicus]

Some very confused thoughts here. I have found myself affected by the exchange more than anything has in a long while. The torture legislation depresses me, but this affects me in a different way. What eats at me is that we seem to have reached a point in the political discourse of our country that we need a court jester. This is not intended as a slam at Jon Stewart, but to suggest that something is very very wrong. The idea of someone asking a court jester 'Why didn't you ask some hard hitting question' brings a momentary smile, but what I think (fear?) is that the king is a divided electorate, which allows the media to spin out endless shows that reinforce that divide, because a 70/30 electorate would mean that the media has to take sides and alienate 30% of the consumers, which would be an anathema. I see no way out.

How was your weekend?

[Phil]

I finally actually watched it rather than just reading the transcript and . . . man, Stewart was looking at Carlson like he was having trouble even breathing the same air. If looks could kill, and all that. Best exchange:

CARLSON: Let's talk about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story. What do you think of that?

STEWART: I don't. What do you think? Where's your moral outrage on this one?

CARLSON: I don't have any.

STEWART: I know.

Stewart's look on that last line actually might have had physical force behind it.

[John Thullen]

Let's not forget, too, the purposeful effort over the past 24 years to transform the media from a public trust (a cynical one, yes) into just another business (in which cynicism is just another product line).

Smackdown humiliation, as in Roman times, sells.

The basis of reality programming is humiliation and public dissing of the loser. It's hard to watch and captivating at the same time, because winners like to make sure losers are shamed mercilessly so that everyone knows just how winning the winners are. Kind of like actual reality in the Ayn Rand economy.

Paddy Chayevsky, the George Orwell of our time, knew what was coming.

My reality programming would consist of Donald Trump being gang-fired on his own show while being hung out the window of the Trump Tower by his socks, or losers on the blind date shows stalking the winners (it could be a long-running mini-series) mercilessly.

There is too much humiliation of losers afoot today. Eventually, losers get pissed off and do really stupid, society-damaging things. Never justified, of course, but if you crave reality, sometimes someone gives you way too much of it.

The beautiful, money-making angle behind all of it is the masochism of the losers. I seem to recall bad dates and getting fired as bad enough without getting it all over everyone else on T.V.

You can see where Abu Gharib came from.

[felixrayman]

Sometimes all it takes is one honest man.

[M G K]

Stewart's going to "pay"?

No, Stewart's going to get PAID. Look, guys - the last time Jon Stewart's contract with Comedy Central was up, every single major network and news channel except Fox offered him a job, and when I say "a job", I mean "next in line to become chief anchor" - at least that was definitely the understanding at NBC and possibly CBS depending on who you talk to.

This latest round of pundit abuse is just cementing Stewart's public reputation as a man of integrity and principle. The next time his contract with Comedy Central expires, the networks will be offering him high-seven-figure-deals and be blatantly offering up chief anchor roles. Perhaps he will take them, perhaps not (Stewart is well known for loving his current job greatly). But in the world of broadcasting, it's more or less established fact at this point that the only reason Jon Stewart hasn't successfully taken up the mantle of this generation's Walter Cronkite is because for whatever personal reasons he doesn't want to do that yet.

Do you think all the politicians go on The Daily Show because they want to tell jokes? No. They know who the public trusts, and they want to be seen with that man EARLY, and build a relationship with him if at all possible. You got to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

[Matt Newman]

Um, I don' think it's exactly chief anchor he got offered.
It's more like Leno/Letterman's successor, which he
must have realized is a few years away yet.

[Anarch]

The worst that will happen is that for a while he might get invited on fewer "straight" news shows (which is a complete mischaracterization of Crossfire, sure, but I think my meaning is clear).

OMG! The Daily Show is teh gay!!!

[Sorry, couldn't resist ;)]

[liberal japonicus]

Folks, maybe it's possible that Stewart sees an angle on this, and is looking to cash in. Maybe. But if you saw the clip, then the guy deserves an Oscar because he did a note perfect version of someone who is actually interested in and sorely troubled by the state of political discourse. ( "The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made." as George Burns used to say)

Now, you may object and say that he used humor, so therefore, he can't be taken seriously. But it is a different criticism altogether to say that he is looking for the angle to catapult himself into super-stardom. I'm not sure if that is what MGK is really saying, but reading the various interviews, Stewart knows his strength is comedy and plays to that strength. Carlson's underlying criticism that if he were really interested in this, he would become a real journalist is basically a ju-jitsu argument from authority. O'Reilly's shtick was that his audience is composed of stoned college students. Unfortunately for the media, this is not someone they can shut up by simply denying the airtime oxygen.

[hilzoy]

I also loved that clip, and completely agreed with Stewart. We do need the media, and they are completely letting us down by trivializing everything. -- I watched CNN on Friday afternoon, as the story about the soldiers who refused orders came out, and Wolf Blitzer asked the Pentagon correspondent whether there was any evidence that they were trying to make a political statement. She emphatically denied that they were, which made sense to me: it would have been a very odd way to make a statement. But then, this afternoon, when I flipped on Late Edition while eating lunch, there he was again, darkly raising the possibility that this was a political statement, which as best I can tell is an idea that exists only in his head. And he wasn't raising this possibility in conversation with the Pentagon correspondent in order to put it to rest; he was discussing it as a real possibility. Ugh.

In completely unrelated news, I have finally got wi-fi, after a long and at times dispiriting struggle (my cable modem was the culprit.) Yay.

[liberal japonicus]

I think the person to watch for info on the order refusal story is Phil Carter (blog here) I just went by for an update, and there wasn't one, but he did have a piece of news that left me slack jawed, which was that they are dispatching the 11th Armoured to Iraq. This is the Army's "Opposition Force" or OPFOR, which was used to train units. As Carter says, this is like eating your seed corn (which, if you are a Civil War history buff should ring some bells)

[hilzoy]

LJ -- they;ve been talking about sending it for some time, and actually I was under the impression they had done so a few weeks back. But it is completely amazing that they're doing this, and a sign that the army is way, way overstretched. Very bad.

[M G K]

Er, guys.

When I say "he was offered serious news jobs", I am not bellwethering. The last go-round he was basically being offered extremely high-paying positions that varied between highly prominent Andy Rooneyish positions on newscasts up to and including shows akin to "Nightline" but for Stewart. (I know agents. They all talk to each other.) And yes, he turned them all down to go back to The Daily Show.

His contract with Comedy Central ends in two and a half years, and at that time the news nets will be falling over themselves to offer him the plummest jobs. This is because Stewart has very gradually gained a reputation as a truth-teller - he polls as more trustworthy than any anchor currently working other than Brokaw and Jennings (yes, he beats Koppel and Rather). The trappings of television journalism are not so difficult to master that Stewart couldn't easily handle them, and that trustworthiness factor is what seals the deal for the news divisions.

If he wanted to, he'd be on a major network right now. Emphasis on "right" and "now".

[liberal japonicus]

"The trappings of television journalism are not so difficult to master..."

Tell that to Connie Chung :^>

[Katherine]

One guess whose side I take in this fight.

I am not so surprised. Stewart can be serious when he wants to, and the show has taken on an air of not-so-quiet desperation lately. They seem to be where I have been, on and off, since October of 2002. (I am not entirely happy about this; to make really good satire you have to care, but you can't care too much. On the other hand it just makes me love them all the more.)

Elsewhere: "To have a Democratic strategist and a Republican strategist on is not a debate — it’s Coke and Pepsi discussing beverage supremacy."

As for the idea that it's the audience's fault: maybe, maybe not. Cable news ratings are not especially high, and no one has really tried doing a good news program except PBS. God bless Jim Lehrer, but he really is boring. NPR does a better job.

The really pathetic thing is that CNN knows that the crap it sells in the U.S. won't cut it in other countries--watch CNN international some time.