PDA

View Full Version : Jon Stewart's Intellectual Dishonesty


freedom0in0exile
March 18th 09, 10:27 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-18/how-jon-stewart-went-bad

There is a virtual ban on criticism of him in the press. Uncritical
praise corrupts absolutely.

Jon Stewart’s recent attack on CNBC’s Jim Cramer was so brilliantly
performed, so smoothly produced and cruelly compelling, almost nobody
noticed that it didn’t make sense. The climax came as Stewart put up a
number of grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and
unethically) depress a company’s stock price. The video was damning.
Cramer looked sweaty.

Stewart summed up the significance of what Cramer had said on the
tape: “You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the
stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG, and all this
derivative-market stuff,” he said sternly.

[snip]

Except that you can’t draw any such line. In the video, Cramer hadn’t
mentioned derivatives or securitized loans or credit-default swaps, or
any of the other exotic financial instruments that caused the fall of
AIG and the current recession. There’s no evidence that Jim Cramer had
anything to do with any of that, and Stewart didn’t offer any.

Before Cramer could defend himself, Stewart moved on to a new charge:
Cramer and his colleagues at CNBC had known that the financial sector
was in imminent danger of collapse, but had pretended otherwise—a ruse
that Stewart described as “disingenuous at best and criminal at
worst.”

This was even more farther-fetched. A ratings-hungry TV network had
the scoop of the decade but decided to sit on it? Why? In order to
curry favor with soon-to-be-disgraced corporate executives? It didn’t
make sense.

No matter. Cramer was almost incoherent by this point, cringing and
apologetic. Stewart was becoming furious. “I understand you want to
make finance interesting,” he said, “but it’s not a ****ing game. And
I, I, I—when I watch that, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me.”

Cynics might assume that the fury was a pose. Humor requires ironic
detachment, and nobody as funny and sophisticated as Jon Stewart could
possibly be getting that mad on TV over something so abstract. A fair
assumption, but wrong. Stewart really was enraged. It was all
entirely, strangely real.

I know this from my own run-in with Stewart, on CNN’s Crossfire a few
weeks before the 2004 election. Stewart spent a couple of segments
lecturing Paul Begala and me about how we were somehow “helping the
politicians and the corporations,” a charge that baffled me then (I’ve
never particularly liked either one), as it does now.

Unlike most guests after an uncomfortable show, Stewart didn’t flee
once it was over, but lingered backstage to press his point. With the
cameras off, he dropped the sarcasm and the nastiness, but not the
intensity. I can still picture him standing outside the makeup room,
gesticulating as the rest of us tried to figure out what he was
talking about. It was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen.

Finally, I had to leave to make a dinner. Stewart shook my hand with
what seemed like friendly sincerity and continued to lecture our
staff. An hour later, one of my producers called me, sounding
desperate. Stewart was still there, and still talking.

No one this earnest can remain an effective satirist, and at times
Stewart seems like less a comedian than a courtier to the
establishment.

[snip]

Four years later, Stewart had become, if anything, even softer. Over
the course of a reverential eight-and-a-half minute interview with
Barack Obama six days before the election, Stewart failed to ask a
single substantive question, much less venture into policy (though, as
with Kerry, he did open with, “How are you holding up?”). Instead,
like the cable-news morons that he often criticizes, Stewart stuck
strictly to the horserace, at one point even resorting to a sports
metaphor.

And he sucked up, hard. “So much of this has been about fear of you,”
Stewart empathized. “Has any of this fear stuff stuck with the
electorate?”

Facing puffballs like this, Obama coasted through with snippets from
his stump speech. The result wasn’t simply uninformative, it was
boring. Obama didn’t say a single interesting thing, and Stewart
wasn’t funny.

If you didn’t actually see the show, you wouldn’t know any of this,
since there is a virtual ban on critical stories about Jon Stewart in
the press. Nobody in memory has received a longer free ride. (CNBC
stands in such awe of Stewart, the network hasn’t even tried to defend
itself, even against his claim that its programming might be
criminal.)

{F0F - Today, Jeff Zucker took the moron to task -- effectively)

The relationship between Stewart and the media is a marriage of the
self-loathing and the self-loving: He insists their real news is fake,
they insist his fake news is real. He doesn't take them seriously at
all. They take him way too seriously. But nobody takes anybody as
seriously as Jon Stewart takes himself.

A serious man needs a serious mission, however, and this is suddenly a
problem. With Bush gone and the Republican Party in chaos, most of
Stewart’s targets have disappeared. Yet rather than pivot with the
times and challenge those now in power, Stewart continues to attack
the same old enemies, at this point mostly straw men and pipsqueaks. A
couple of weeks ago, he spent an entire seven minutes mocking the
crowd at a CPAC conference.

His studio audience loved it, though that isn’t saying much. Stewart’s
audience would erupt if he read the phone book, or did his monologue
in German, a response that over time is a threat to any man’s soul.
During many segments, Stewart’s audience doesn’t laugh so much as
cheer, a distinction that would bother most comedians. Stewart keeps
them around anyway. Uncritical praise corrupts absolutely.

As Stewart becomes more self-righteous, he inevitably becomes less
funny. Sanctimony is the death of humor, and also of innovation. Where
a show like South Park challenges its audience’s every conceivable
assumption, The Daily Show has become safer than Jay Leno, pandering
night after night to the converted. Can you remember the last time
Stewart said anything his viewers might disagree with?

Like most sermons, Stewart’s showdown with Jim Cramer ended with a
neat moral lesson. Once journalists who cover business regain their
sense of responsibility and “start getting back to fundamentals on the
reporting,” Stewart said gravely, “I can get back to making fart
noises and funny faces.”

But it’s too late. The great comedian is gone, maybe forever. Jon
Stewart is stuck in lecture mode.

Mike in Texas
March 18th 09, 10:45 PM
freedom0in0exile wrote:
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-18/how-jon-stewart-went-bad
>
> There is a virtual ban on criticism of him in the press. Uncritical
> praise corrupts absolutely.
>
> Jon Stewart’s recent attack on CNBC’s Jim Cramer was so brilliantly
> performed, so smoothly produced and cruelly compelling, almost nobody
> noticed that it didn’t make sense. The climax came as Stewart put up a
> number of grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and
> unethically) depress a company’s stock price. The video was damning.
> Cramer looked sweaty.
>
> Stewart summed up the significance of what Cramer had said on the
> tape: “You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the
> stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG, and all this
> derivative-market stuff,” he said sternly.
>
> [snip]
>
> Except that you can’t draw any such line. In the video, Cramer hadn’t
> mentioned derivatives or securitized loans or credit-default swaps, or
> any of the other exotic financial instruments that caused the fall of
> AIG and the current recession. There’s no evidence that Jim Cramer had
> anything to do with any of that, and Stewart didn’t offer any.

Didn't Stewart tell Cramer straight up that it wasn't about Cramer?

Mike (Just say no to Santellian Tea-bagging)

March 19th 09, 06:40 PM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:27:51 -0700 (PDT), freedom0in0exile
> wrote:

>http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-18/how-jon-stewart-went-bad
>
>There is a virtual ban on criticism of him in the press. Uncritical
>praise corrupts absolutely.
>
>Jon Stewart’s recent attack on CNBC’s Jim Cramer was so brilliantly
>performed, so smoothly produced and cruelly compelling, almost nobody
>noticed that it didn’t make sense. The climax came as Stewart put up a
>number of grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and
>unethically) depress a company’s stock price. The video was damning.
>Cramer looked sweaty.
>
>Stewart summed up the significance of what Cramer had said on the
>tape: “You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the
>stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG, and all this
>derivative-market stuff,” he said sternly.
>
>[snip]
>
>Except that you can’t draw any such line. In the video, Cramer hadn’t
>mentioned derivatives or securitized loans or credit-default swaps, or
>any of the other exotic financial instruments that caused the fall of
>AIG and the current recession. There’s no evidence that Jim Cramer had
>anything to do with any of that, and Stewart didn’t offer any.
>
>Before Cramer could defend himself, Stewart moved on to a new charge:
>Cramer and his colleagues at CNBC had known that the financial sector
>was in imminent danger of collapse, but had pretended otherwise—a ruse
>that Stewart described as “disingenuous at best and criminal at
>worst.”
>
>This was even more farther-fetched. A ratings-hungry TV network had
>the scoop of the decade but decided to sit on it? Why? In order to
>curry favor with soon-to-be-disgraced corporate executives? It didn’t
>make sense.
>
>No matter. Cramer was almost incoherent by this point, cringing and
>apologetic. Stewart was becoming furious. “I understand you want to
>make finance interesting,” he said, “but it’s not a ****ing game. And
>I, I, I—when I watch that, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me.”
>
>Cynics might assume that the fury was a pose. Humor requires ironic
>detachment, and nobody as funny and sophisticated as Jon Stewart could
>possibly be getting that mad on TV over something so abstract. A fair
>assumption, but wrong. Stewart really was enraged. It was all
>entirely, strangely real.
>
>I know this from my own run-in with Stewart, on CNN’s Crossfire a few
>weeks before the 2004 election. Stewart spent a couple of segments
>lecturing Paul Begala and me about how we were somehow “helping the
>politicians and the corporations,” a charge that baffled me then (I’ve
>never particularly liked either one), as it does now.
>
>Unlike most guests after an uncomfortable show, Stewart didn’t flee
>once it was over, but lingered backstage to press his point. With the
>cameras off, he dropped the sarcasm and the nastiness, but not the
>intensity. I can still picture him standing outside the makeup room,
>gesticulating as the rest of us tried to figure out what he was
>talking about. It was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen.
>
>Finally, I had to leave to make a dinner. Stewart shook my hand with
>what seemed like friendly sincerity and continued to lecture our
>staff. An hour later, one of my producers called me, sounding
>desperate. Stewart was still there, and still talking.
>
>No one this earnest can remain an effective satirist, and at times
>Stewart seems like less a comedian than a courtier to the
>establishment.
>
>[snip]
>
>Four years later, Stewart had become, if anything, even softer. Over
>the course of a reverential eight-and-a-half minute interview with
>Barack Obama six days before the election, Stewart failed to ask a
>single substantive question, much less venture into policy (though, as
>with Kerry, he did open with, “How are you holding up?”). Instead,
>like the cable-news morons that he often criticizes, Stewart stuck
>strictly to the horserace, at one point even resorting to a sports
>metaphor.
>
>And he sucked up, hard. “So much of this has been about fear of you,”
>Stewart empathized. “Has any of this fear stuff stuck with the
>electorate?”
>
>Facing puffballs like this, Obama coasted through with snippets from
>his stump speech. The result wasn’t simply uninformative, it was
>boring. Obama didn’t say a single interesting thing, and Stewart
>wasn’t funny.
>
>If you didn’t actually see the show, you wouldn’t know any of this,
>since there is a virtual ban on critical stories about Jon Stewart in
>the press. Nobody in memory has received a longer free ride. (CNBC
>stands in such awe of Stewart, the network hasn’t even tried to defend
>itself, even against his claim that its programming might be
>criminal.)
>
>{F0F - Today, Jeff Zucker took the moron to task -- effectively)
>
>The relationship between Stewart and the media is a marriage of the
>self-loathing and the self-loving: He insists their real news is fake,
>they insist his fake news is real. He doesn't take them seriously at
>all. They take him way too seriously. But nobody takes anybody as
>seriously as Jon Stewart takes himself.
>
>A serious man needs a serious mission, however, and this is suddenly a
>problem. With Bush gone and the Republican Party in chaos, most of
>Stewart’s targets have disappeared. Yet rather than pivot with the
>times and challenge those now in power, Stewart continues to attack
>the same old enemies, at this point mostly straw men and pipsqueaks. A
>couple of weeks ago, he spent an entire seven minutes mocking the
>crowd at a CPAC conference.
>
>His studio audience loved it, though that isn’t saying much. Stewart’s
>audience would erupt if he read the phone book, or did his monologue
>in German, a response that over time is a threat to any man’s soul.
>During many segments, Stewart’s audience doesn’t laugh so much as
>cheer, a distinction that would bother most comedians. Stewart keeps
>them around anyway. Uncritical praise corrupts absolutely.
>
>As Stewart becomes more self-righteous, he inevitably becomes less
>funny. Sanctimony is the death of humor, and also of innovation. Where
>a show like South Park challenges its audience’s every conceivable
>assumption, The Daily Show has become safer than Jay Leno, pandering
>night after night to the converted. Can you remember the last time
>Stewart said anything his viewers might disagree with?
>
>Like most sermons, Stewart’s showdown with Jim Cramer ended with a
>neat moral lesson. Once journalists who cover business regain their
>sense of responsibility and “start getting back to fundamentals on the
>reporting,” Stewart said gravely, “I can get back to making fart
>noises and funny faces.”
>
>But it’s too late. The great comedian is gone, maybe forever. Jon
>Stewart is stuck in lecture mode.
>

Jon Stewart born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.

ted

BuffetHater
March 19th 09, 09:11 PM
> Jon Stewart born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.
>
> ted

Sounds Irish to me. And james jahosaphat cramer is irish sounding
too,
no wonder they are both short, rich and like to fight.

Begorah!

Poetic Justice[_2_]
March 19th 09, 09:19 PM
FTOH wrote:
> Mike in Texas > wrote on Wed 18 Mar 2009
> 11:45:45p:
>
>> freedom0in0exile wrote:
>>> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-18/h
>>> ow-jon-stewart-went-bad
>>>
>>> There is a virtual ban on criticism of him in the press.
>>> Uncritical praise corrupts absolutely.
>>>
>>> Jon Stewart's recent attack on CNBC's Jim Cramer was so
>>> brilliantly performed, so smoothly produced and cruelly
>>> compelling, almost nobody noticed that it didn't make
>>> sense. The climax came as Stewart put up a number of
>>> grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and
>>> unethically) depress a company's stock price. The video
>>> was damning. Cramer looked sweaty.
>>>
>>> Stewart summed up the significance of what Cramer had said
>>> on the tape: "You can draw a straight line from those
>>> shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear and
>>> at AIG, and all this derivative-market stuff," he said
>>> sternly.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Except that you can't draw any such line. In the video,
>>> Cramer hadn't mentioned derivatives or securitized loans
>>> or credit-default swaps, or any of the other exotic
>>> financial instruments that caused the fall of AIG and the
>>> current recession. There's no evidence that Jim Cramer had
>>> anything to do with any of that, and Stewart didn't offer
>>> any.
>> Didn't Stewart tell Cramer straight up that it wasn't about
>> Cramer?
>
> The bottom line seems to me that one comedian blames another
> comedian for that he isn't serious enough. Where
> presentations of Cramer not packed with clues indicating that
> they were primarily entertainment?
>
>
>
In any case, Cramer got the message and he once again loves Obama.

Isn't Liberalism a grand thing.

March 19th 09, 09:24 PM
Poetic Justice wrote:
> FTOH wrote:
>> Mike in Texas > wrote on Wed 18 Mar 2009
>> 11:45:45p:
>>> freedom0in0exile wrote:
>>>> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-18/h
>>>> ow-jon-stewart-went-bad
>>>> There is a virtual ban on criticism of him in the press.
>>>> Uncritical praise corrupts absolutely.
>>>>
>>>> Jon Stewart's recent attack on CNBC's Jim Cramer was so
>>>> brilliantly performed, so smoothly produced and cruelly
>>>> compelling, almost nobody noticed that it didn't make
>>>> sense. The climax came as Stewart put up a number of
>>>> grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and
>>>> unethically) depress a company's stock price. The video
>>>> was damning. Cramer looked sweaty.
>>>>
>>>> Stewart summed up the significance of what Cramer had said
>>>> on the tape: "You can draw a straight line from those
>>>> shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear and
>>>> at AIG, and all this derivative-market stuff," he said
>>>> sternly.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Except that you can't draw any such line. In the video,
>>>> Cramer hadn't mentioned derivatives or securitized loans
>>>> or credit-default swaps, or any of the other exotic
>>>> financial instruments that caused the fall of AIG and the
>>>> current recession. There's no evidence that Jim Cramer had
>>>> anything to do with any of that, and Stewart didn't offer
>>>> any.
>>> Didn't Stewart tell Cramer straight up that it wasn't about
>>> Cramer?
>>
>> The bottom line seems to me that one comedian blames another
>> comedian for that he isn't serious enough. Where
>> presentations of Cramer not packed with clues indicating that
>> they were primarily entertainment?
>>
>>
> In any case, Cramer got the message and he once again loves Obama.
>
> Isn't Liberalism a grand thing.


Quit drinking the Kool aid , investing has got nothing to do with
Liberalism or Conservatism. Cramer was touting crap and got caught.

March 19th 09, 09:43 PM
jon stewart is a known communist. what elese would you expect from him ?
hahhahahahhahahahha


"THE BLACK HAND" is the name of the international
terrorist group that is causing all the problems.

March 19th 09, 10:35 PM
wrote:
> jon stewart is a known communist. what elese would you expect from him ?
> hahhahahahhahahahha
>
>
> "THE BLACK HAND" is the name of the international
> terrorist group that is causing all the problems.
>

Balls, you wouldn't know a Communist from a turnip. You are a Bescumber
Buncome of the highest order.

March 20th 09, 12:00 AM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:27:51 -0700 (PDT), freedom0in0exile
> wrote:

>http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-18/how-jon-stewart-went-bad
>
>There is a virtual ban on criticism of him in the press. Uncritical
>praise corrupts absolutely.
>
>Jon Stewart’s recent attack on CNBC’s Jim Cramer was so brilliantly
>performed, so smoothly produced and cruelly compelling, almost nobody
>noticed that it didn’t make sense. The climax came as Stewart put up a
>number of grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and
>unethically) depress a company’s stock price. The video was damning.
>Cramer looked sweaty.
>
>Stewart summed up the significance of what Cramer had said on the
>tape: “You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the
>stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG, and all this
>derivative-market stuff,” he said sternly.
>
>[snip]
>
>Except that you can’t draw any such line. In the video, Cramer hadn’t
>mentioned derivatives or securitized loans or credit-default swaps, or
>any of the other exotic financial instruments that caused the fall of
>AIG and the current recession. There’s no evidence that Jim Cramer had
>anything to do with any of that, and Stewart didn’t offer any.
>
>Before Cramer could defend himself, Stewart moved on to a new charge:
>Cramer and his colleagues at CNBC had known that the financial sector
>was in imminent danger of collapse, but had pretended otherwise—a ruse
>that Stewart described as “disingenuous at best and criminal at
>worst.”
>
>This was even more farther-fetched. A ratings-hungry TV network had
>the scoop of the decade but decided to sit on it? Why? In order to
>curry favor with soon-to-be-disgraced corporate executives? It didn’t
>make sense.
>
>No matter. Cramer was almost incoherent by this point, cringing and
>apologetic. Stewart was becoming furious. “I understand you want to
>make finance interesting,” he said, “but it’s not a ****ing game. And
>I, I, I—when I watch that, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me.”
>
>Cynics might assume that the fury was a pose. Humor requires ironic
>detachment, and nobody as funny and sophisticated as Jon Stewart could
>possibly be getting that mad on TV over something so abstract. A fair
>assumption, but wrong. Stewart really was enraged. It was all
>entirely, strangely real.
>
>I know this from my own run-in with Stewart, on CNN’s Crossfire a few
>weeks before the 2004 election. Stewart spent a couple of segments
>lecturing Paul Begala and me about how we were somehow “helping the
>politicians and the corporations,” a charge that baffled me then (I’ve
>never particularly liked either one), as it does now.
>
>Unlike most guests after an uncomfortable show, Stewart didn’t flee
>once it was over, but lingered backstage to press his point. With the
>cameras off, he dropped the sarcasm and the nastiness, but not the
>intensity. I can still picture him standing outside the makeup room,
>gesticulating as the rest of us tried to figure out what he was
>talking about. It was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen.
>
>Finally, I had to leave to make a dinner. Stewart shook my hand with
>what seemed like friendly sincerity and continued to lecture our
>staff. An hour later, one of my producers called me, sounding
>desperate. Stewart was still there, and still talking.
>
>No one this earnest can remain an effective satirist, and at times
>Stewart seems like less a comedian than a courtier to the
>establishment.
>
>[snip]
>
>Four years later, Stewart had become, if anything, even softer. Over
>the course of a reverential eight-and-a-half minute interview with
>Barack Obama six days before the election, Stewart failed to ask a
>single substantive question, much less venture into policy (though, as
>with Kerry, he did open with, “How are you holding up?”). Instead,
>like the cable-news morons that he often criticizes, Stewart stuck
>strictly to the horserace, at one point even resorting to a sports
>metaphor.
>
>And he sucked up, hard. “So much of this has been about fear of you,”
>Stewart empathized. “Has any of this fear stuff stuck with the
>electorate?”
>
>Facing puffballs like this, Obama coasted through with snippets from
>his stump speech. The result wasn’t simply uninformative, it was
>boring. Obama didn’t say a single interesting thing, and Stewart
>wasn’t funny.
>
>If you didn’t actually see the show, you wouldn’t know any of this,
>since there is a virtual ban on critical stories about Jon Stewart in
>the press. Nobody in memory has received a longer free ride. (CNBC
>stands in such awe of Stewart, the network hasn’t even tried to defend
>itself, even against his claim that its programming might be
>criminal.)
>
>{F0F - Today, Jeff Zucker took the moron to task -- effectively)
>
>The relationship between Stewart and the media is a marriage of the
>self-loathing and the self-loving: He insists their real news is fake,
>they insist his fake news is real. He doesn't take them seriously at
>all. They take him way too seriously. But nobody takes anybody as
>seriously as Jon Stewart takes himself.
>
>A serious man needs a serious mission, however, and this is suddenly a
>problem. With Bush gone and the Republican Party in chaos, most of
>Stewart’s targets have disappeared. Yet rather than pivot with the
>times and challenge those now in power, Stewart continues to attack
>the same old enemies, at this point mostly straw men and pipsqueaks. A
>couple of weeks ago, he spent an entire seven minutes mocking the
>crowd at a CPAC conference.
>
>His studio audience loved it, though that isn’t saying much. Stewart’s
>audience would erupt if he read the phone book, or did his monologue
>in German, a response that over time is a threat to any man’s soul.
>During many segments, Stewart’s audience doesn’t laugh so much as
>cheer, a distinction that would bother most comedians. Stewart keeps
>them around anyway. Uncritical praise corrupts absolutely.
>
>As Stewart becomes more self-righteous, he inevitably becomes less
>funny. Sanctimony is the death of humor, and also of innovation. Where
>a show like South Park challenges its audience’s every conceivable
>assumption, The Daily Show has become safer than Jay Leno, pandering
>night after night to the converted. Can you remember the last time
>Stewart said anything his viewers might disagree with?
>
>Like most sermons, Stewart’s showdown with Jim Cramer ended with a
>neat moral lesson. Once journalists who cover business regain their
>sense of responsibility and “start getting back to fundamentals on the
>reporting,” Stewart said gravely, “I can get back to making fart
>noises and funny faces.”
>
>But it’s too late. The great comedian is gone, maybe forever. Jon
>Stewart is stuck in lecture mode.
>

Re: Dishonesty. Jon Stewart was born Johnaton Stuart Leibowitz, 1946.

ted

March 20th 09, 12:37 AM
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:27:51 -0700 (PDT), freedom0in0exile
> > wrote:
>
>> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-18/how-jon-stewart-went-bad
>>
>> There is a virtual ban on criticism of him in the press. Uncritical
>> praise corrupts absolutely.
>>
>> Jon Stewart’s recent attack on CNBC’s Jim Cramer was so brilliantly
>> performed, so smoothly produced and cruelly compelling, almost nobody
>> noticed that it didn’t make sense. The climax came as Stewart put up a
>> number of grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and
>> unethically) depress a company’s stock price. The video was damning.
>> Cramer looked sweaty.
>>
>> Stewart summed up the significance of what Cramer had said on the
>> tape: “You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the
>> stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG, and all this
>> derivative-market stuff,” he said sternly.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Except that you can’t draw any such line. In the video, Cramer hadn’t
>> mentioned derivatives or securitized loans or credit-default swaps, or
>> any of the other exotic financial instruments that caused the fall of
>> AIG and the current recession. There’s no evidence that Jim Cramer had
>> anything to do with any of that, and Stewart didn’t offer any.
>>
>> Before Cramer could defend himself, Stewart moved on to a new charge:
>> Cramer and his colleagues at CNBC had known that the financial sector
>> was in imminent danger of collapse, but had pretended otherwise—a ruse
>> that Stewart described as “disingenuous at best and criminal at
>> worst.”
>>
>> This was even more farther-fetched. A ratings-hungry TV network had
>> the scoop of the decade but decided to sit on it? Why? In order to
>> curry favor with soon-to-be-disgraced corporate executives? It didn’t
>> make sense.
>>
>> No matter. Cramer was almost incoherent by this point, cringing and
>> apologetic. Stewart was becoming furious. “I understand you want to
>> make finance interesting,” he said, “but it’s not a ****ing game. And
>> I, I, I—when I watch that, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me.”
>>
>> Cynics might assume that the fury was a pose. Humor requires ironic
>> detachment, and nobody as funny and sophisticated as Jon Stewart could
>> possibly be getting that mad on TV over something so abstract. A fair
>> assumption, but wrong. Stewart really was enraged. It was all
>> entirely, strangely real.
>>
>> I know this from my own run-in with Stewart, on CNN’s Crossfire a few
>> weeks before the 2004 election. Stewart spent a couple of segments
>> lecturing Paul Begala and me about how we were somehow “helping the
>> politicians and the corporations,” a charge that baffled me then (I’ve
>> never particularly liked either one), as it does now.
>>
>> Unlike most guests after an uncomfortable show, Stewart didn’t flee
>> once it was over, but lingered backstage to press his point. With the
>> cameras off, he dropped the sarcasm and the nastiness, but not the
>> intensity. I can still picture him standing outside the makeup room,
>> gesticulating as the rest of us tried to figure out what he was
>> talking about. It was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen.
>>
>> Finally, I had to leave to make a dinner. Stewart shook my hand with
>> what seemed like friendly sincerity and continued to lecture our
>> staff. An hour later, one of my producers called me, sounding
>> desperate. Stewart was still there, and still talking.
>>
>> No one this earnest can remain an effective satirist, and at times
>> Stewart seems like less a comedian than a courtier to the
>> establishment.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Four years later, Stewart had become, if anything, even softer. Over
>> the course of a reverential eight-and-a-half minute interview with
>> Barack Obama six days before the election, Stewart failed to ask a
>> single substantive question, much less venture into policy (though, as
>> with Kerry, he did open with, “How are you holding up?”). Instead,
>> like the cable-news morons that he often criticizes, Stewart stuck
>> strictly to the horserace, at one point even resorting to a sports
>> metaphor.
>>
>> And he sucked up, hard. “So much of this has been about fear of you,”
>> Stewart empathized. “Has any of this fear stuff stuck with the
>> electorate?”
>>
>> Facing puffballs like this, Obama coasted through with snippets from
>> his stump speech. The result wasn’t simply uninformative, it was
>> boring. Obama didn’t say a single interesting thing, and Stewart
>> wasn’t funny.
>>
>> If you didn’t actually see the show, you wouldn’t know any of this,
>> since there is a virtual ban on critical stories about Jon Stewart in
>> the press. Nobody in memory has received a longer free ride. (CNBC
>> stands in such awe of Stewart, the network hasn’t even tried to defend
>> itself, even against his claim that its programming might be
>> criminal.)
>>
>> {F0F - Today, Jeff Zucker took the moron to task -- effectively)
>>
>> The relationship between Stewart and the media is a marriage of the
>> self-loathing and the self-loving: He insists their real news is fake,
>> they insist his fake news is real. He doesn't take them seriously at
>> all. They take him way too seriously. But nobody takes anybody as
>> seriously as Jon Stewart takes himself.
>>
>> A serious man needs a serious mission, however, and this is suddenly a
>> problem. With Bush gone and the Republican Party in chaos, most of
>> Stewart’s targets have disappeared. Yet rather than pivot with the
>> times and challenge those now in power, Stewart continues to attack
>> the same old enemies, at this point mostly straw men and pipsqueaks. A
>> couple of weeks ago, he spent an entire seven minutes mocking the
>> crowd at a CPAC conference.
>>
>> His studio audience loved it, though that isn’t saying much. Stewart’s
>> audience would erupt if he read the phone book, or did his monologue
>> in German, a response that over time is a threat to any man’s soul.
>> During many segments, Stewart’s audience doesn’t laugh so much as
>> cheer, a distinction that would bother most comedians. Stewart keeps
>> them around anyway. Uncritical praise corrupts absolutely.
>>
>> As Stewart becomes more self-righteous, he inevitably becomes less
>> funny. Sanctimony is the death of humor, and also of innovation. Where
>> a show like South Park challenges its audience’s every conceivable
>> assumption, The Daily Show has become safer than Jay Leno, pandering
>> night after night to the converted. Can you remember the last time
>> Stewart said anything his viewers might disagree with?
>>
>> Like most sermons, Stewart’s showdown with Jim Cramer ended with a
>> neat moral lesson. Once journalists who cover business regain their
>> sense of responsibility and “start getting back to fundamentals on the
>> reporting,” Stewart said gravely, “I can get back to making fart
>> noises and funny faces.”
>>
>> But it’s too late. The great comedian is gone, maybe forever. Jon
>> Stewart is stuck in lecture mode.
>>
>
> Re: Dishonesty. Jon Stewart was born Johnaton Stuart Leibowitz, 1946.
>
> ted


So what, John Wayne was born Marion Robert Morrison, what's your point?

Trailer Trash
March 20th 09, 02:58 AM
BuffetHater writes:

>Jon Stewart born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.

>ted

Sounds Irish to me. * And james jahosaphat cramer is irish sounding
too,

no wonder they are both short, rich and like to fight.

Begorah!


Pug Mahon!

Doobie Keebler[_2_]
March 20th 09, 11:48 AM
On Mar 18, 5:27*pm, freedom0in0exile >
wrote:

> There is a virtual ban on criticism of him in the press. Uncritical
> praise corrupts absolutely.

WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP!



>
> Jon Stewart’s recent attack on CNBC’s Jim Cramer was so brilliantly
> performed, so smoothly produced and cruelly compelling, almost nobody
> noticed that it didn’t make sense. The climax came as Stewart put up a

> {F0F - Today, Jeff Zucker took the moron to task -- effectively)
>
> The relationship between Stewart and the media is a marriage of the
> self-loathing and the self-loving: He insists their real news is fake,
> they insist his fake news is real. He doesn't take them seriously at
> all. They take him way too seriously. But nobody takes anybody as
> seriously as Jon Stewart takes himself.