Jon Stewart tells it like it is.

[Suu]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

He's just fucking awesome.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

He's just fucking awesome.

Once again, Jon being a better journalist than an actual journalists.

[Phox]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

He's just fucking awesome.

Once again, Jon being a better journalist than an actual journalists.

Sadly that is true.

[Jenne]

Well, he was emoting.  That's not journalism per se.  What he was doing is what he does when he's being interviewed--when you watch/listen to them, he tries to get down to what it is he likes and dislikes--about the world, about US politics, about his job in general.  This was a pep talk.  A locker room pep talk.  A "come on America, we can do better than this!" sort of soliloquy.  I love it when he does it, and this is why I crush on him like HARD.  And I don't usually drool over celebrities in actual fact because they are after all, just people.

But what he said was awesome moreso because he is trying to get everyone to see the humanity behind the tragedy--the lives lost and what they counted for and not just the fact they were killed in such a terrible, horrible way.  THAT was truly amazing.  And he's right all the way down the line--IMHO, there's no simple way to explain the crazy, and yet we really do need to hope for a better way of expressing ourselves in our politics.

[Kai]

Well, he was emoting.  That's not journalism per se.  What he was doing is what he does when he's being interviewed--when you watch/listen to them, he tries to get down to what it is he likes and dislikes--about the world, about US politics, about his job in general.  This was a pep talk.  A locker room pep talk.  A "come on America, we can do better than this!" sort of soliloquy.  I love it when he does it, and this is why I crush on him like HARD.  And I don't usually drool over celebrities in actual fact because they are after all, just people.

But what he said was awesome moreso because he is trying to get everyone to see the humanity behind the tragedy--the lives lost and what they counted for and not just the fact they were killed in such a terrible, horrible way.  THAT was truly amazing.  And he's right all the way down the line--IMHO, there's no simple way to explain the crazy, and yet we really do need to hope for a better way of expressing ourselves in our politics.

But, you see, that's the thing a really good journalist would do.

[Phox]

Well, he was emoting.  That's not journalism per se.  What he was doing is what he does when he's being interviewed--when you watch/listen to them, he tries to get down to what it is he likes and dislikes--about the world, about US politics, about his job in general.  This was a pep talk.  A locker room pep talk.  A "come on America, we can do better than this!" sort of soliloquy.  I love it when he does it, and this is why I crush on him like HARD.  And I don't usually drool over celebrities in actual fact because they are after all, just people.

But what he said was awesome moreso because he is trying to get everyone to see the humanity behind the tragedy--the lives lost and what they counted for and not just the fact they were killed in such a terrible, horrible way.  THAT was truly amazing.  And he's right all the way down the line--IMHO, there's no simple way to explain the crazy, and yet we really do need to hope for a better way of expressing ourselves in our politics.

But, you see, that's the thing a really good journalist would do.

Agreed.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. A journalist's job is not to convince... it is to report. Period.

As far as I can tell, we don't actually have any journalists anymore.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. A journalist's job is not to convince... it is to report. Period.

As far as I can tell, we don't actually have any journalists anymore.

Assange.

Also, there's no crime in editorializing, as long as it's labeled an op-ed piece.  America's three greatest print-journalists (Clemmens, Mencken, and Royko) were all fond of editorializing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. A journalist's job is not to convince... it is to report. Period.

As far as I can tell, we don't actually have any journalists anymore.

Assange.

Also, there's no crime in editorializing, as long as it's labeled an op-ed piece.  America's three greatest print-journalists (Clemmens, Mencken, and Royko) were all fond of editorializing.

Oh yeah, Assange.

No, there's nothing at all wrong with editorializing, but editorializing is. by definition, NOT REPORTING. It's NOT JOURNALISM. It is, by definition, OPINION.

I am alarmed and disturbed by how many people here have expressed a belief that editorializing is what "a good journalist" ought to be doing. It shows just how far the breakdown of journalism has come, and how badly our expectations have deviated from the principles of actual journalism.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. A journalist's job is not to convince... it is to report. Period.

As far as I can tell, we don't actually have any journalists anymore.

Assange.

Also, there's no crime in editorializing, as long as it's labeled an op-ed piece.  America's three greatest print-journalists (Clemmens, Mencken, and Royko) were all fond of editorializing.

Oh yeah, Assange.

No, there's nothing at all wrong with editorializing, but editorializing is. by definition, NOT REPORTING. It's NOT JOURNALISM. It is, by definition, OPINION.

I am alarmed and disturbed by how many people here have expressed a belief that editorializing is what "a good journalist" ought to be doing. It shows just how far the breakdown of journalism has come, and how badly our expectations have deviated from the principles of actual journalism.

Sure.  First you do the research, then you dump all the hideous shit in the light of day, THEN you can relax for a minute and dance on your victim's carcass with an op-ed.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. A journalist's job is not to convince... it is to report. Period.

As far as I can tell, we don't actually have any journalists anymore.

Assange.

Also, there's no crime in editorializing, as long as it's labeled an op-ed piece.  America's three greatest print-journalists (Clemmens, Mencken, and Royko) were all fond of editorializing.

Oh yeah, Assange.

No, there's nothing at all wrong with editorializing, but editorializing is. by definition, NOT REPORTING. It's NOT JOURNALISM. It is, by definition, OPINION.

I am alarmed and disturbed by how many people here have expressed a belief that editorializing is what "a good journalist" ought to be doing. It shows just how far the breakdown of journalism has come, and how badly our expectations have deviated from the principles of actual journalism.

Sure.  First you do the research, then you dump all the hideous shit in the light of day, THEN you can relax for a minute and dance on your victim's carcass with an op-ed.

YES.

[Jenne]

Exactly, Rog and Nigel.  You see, a "journalist" is not someone who tells you, necessarily, what to think.  Just what to think ABOUT.

[Triple Zero]

So um I watched this clip yesterday, and isn't he also referring to stuff like we're doing with GabbyGASM?

Collecting all those out of context images and teabaggers with signs and such in order to pin the shooting of that woman on the teabaggers while in reality most probably their admittedly aggressive and violent rhetoric didn't have much to do with the event because it was a deranged maniac that might not even have had a teabagger-related motive?

Cause I was wondering about that myself, when the thread was started, I didn't comment because obviously people are having fun doing it, and I'm not going to stand in the way of a Discordian activity over politics that aren't my own in the first place

But it does remind me again of when Pim Fortuyn was shot. Now our shouting idiots masses (same people that voted for Wilders, I'm sure) maybe weren't as loud, obnoxious and stupid as your Teapartiers. But they certainly did try to pin it on the left, for "demonizing" Pim Fortuyn. It was the word of the week.

However, in the end, it didn't really have much effect at all. Which makes sense, because the left knew it wasn't responsible. Because it was some radical environmentalist that did it for his own reasons, not for the things that the left had been mostly critiqueing him for (mostly his negative views on immigrants and muslims*).

Seems that is quite similar to this situation. So you can dig up violent slogans and maps with crosshairs, but the teapartiers also know that they weren't responsible, because this guy was a deranged maniac. And pointing out the violent slogans isn't suddenly going to make them feel guilty about it, because they just wave it away as "the left trying to pin this on us".

On the other hand, if it's fun, I don't really think it can hurt much either. I mean, sure, Jon Stewart is all for Reason and Bringing Back Sanity, but that's not necessarily our goal.

See, the thing is, Teapartiers will have to tone down their violent rhetoric after this anyway. Those "we didn't bring bullets ... this time" slogans will be in incredibly bad taste if a Teabagger brings them to the next demonstration. So that's one battle already won.



(*which were actually a lot milder than Wilders', in retrospect)

[LMNO]

Jon's personal views sometimes appear on Daily Show, but usually they have a core mission, to create humor and satire through cognitive dissonance, absurdity, and revealing hypocrisy.

They also have to put on a 30 minute show 4 nights a week, which means they'll also go after low-hanging fruit.

So, you'll have Stewart saying that Crazy People Do Crazy Things in Crazy Times for Crazy Reasons, so Let's All Stop Being Crazy, and then the staff of the Daily Show will go into the archive reels and look for the first evidence of Crazy Things, and they happen to be Teabaggers (because it's kind of hard to find leftists after 2008 who are as blatantly weird).  So they'll show that.  And other easy targets.  Because nuance is harder to make fun of.

[Phox]

So um I watched this clip yesterday, and isn't he also referring to stuff like we're doing with GabbyGASM?

Collecting all those out of context images and teabaggers with signs and such in order to pin the shooting of that woman on the teabaggers while in reality most probably their admittedly aggressive and violent rhetoric didn't have much to do with the event because it was a deranged maniac that might not even have had a teabagger-related motive?

Cause I was wondering about that myself, when the thread was started, I didn't comment because obviously people are having fun doing it, and I'm not going to stand in the way of a Discordian activity over politics that aren't my own in the first place

I did indeed point that out in the second post of GabbyGASM, Trip. But fuck them. We aren't here to play nice, be fair, or give them the same benefit of the doubt we complain that they deny others.