http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction
He's just fucking awesome.
Quote from: Suu on January 11, 2011, 06:44:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Suu on January 11, 2011, 06:44:17 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction
He's just fucking awesome.
:mittens:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on January 11, 2011, 06:48:29 PM
Once again, Jon being a better journalist than an actual journalists.
Sadly that is true.
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.
Quote from: Jenne on January 11, 2011, 07:07:50 PM
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.
Quote from: ϗ on January 12, 2011, 03:04:17 AM
Quote from: Jenne on January 11, 2011, 07:07:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:32:35 AM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 03:35:02 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:32:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:41:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 03:35:02 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:32:35 AM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 03:44:32 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:41:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2011, 03:35:02 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 12, 2011, 03:32:35 AM
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.
Exactly, Rog and Nigel. You see, a "journalist" is not someone who tells you, necessarily, what to think. Just what to think ABOUT.
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)
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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2011, 07:17:21 PM
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.
But I though we were better than they were...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 13, 2011, 07:37:38 PM
But I though we were better than they were...
Better in some ways, worse in others. We are only monkeys.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 13, 2011, 07:27:57 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2011, 07:17:21 PM
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.
Satirizing isn't about playing fair, it's about making a point in an extremely unfair way.
MY point behind GabbyGASM isn't to play fair, it's to shame the Tea Partiers into drawing a line in the sand between themselves and the fringe lunatics, instead of embracing the fringe lunatics as they have been up until now in some sort of revolutionary role-playing fantasy.
Great point, Nigel.
Quote from: Nigel on January 13, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 13, 2011, 07:27:57 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2011, 07:17:21 PM
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.
Satirizing isn't about playing fair, it's about making a point in an extremely unfair way.
MY point behind GabbyGASM isn't to play fair, it's to shame the Tea Partiers into drawing a line in the sand between themselves and the fringe lunatics, instead of embracing the fringe lunatics as they have been up until now in some sort of revolutionary role-playing fantasy.
Exactly what we need to be doing, Nigel.
It's called political warfare, people, not "political debate where we all stick our pinkie fingers out and calmly discuss with lunatics what is bothering them so much." Suck it up.
Quote from: Nigel on January 13, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
MY point behind GabbyGASM isn't to play fair, it's to shame the Tea Partiers into drawing a line in the sand between themselves and the fringe lunatics, instead of embracing the fringe lunatics as they have been up until now in some sort of revolutionary role-playing fantasy.
Okay well that's a good reason.
The way Phox explained it, "fuck them, don't give them the benefit of the doubt they deny others" is
exactly the same thing they do, and well, you can see how much the other side cares about what Teapartiers shout.
It's just that "they're doing it to us/others as well" on its own is a bit of a shoddy reason to do something.
So I'm glad Nigel explained this, because getting Teapartiers to distance themselves from the fringe lunatics
is a useful reason to do it.
Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2011, 08:50:51 PMIt's called political warfare, people, not "political debate where we all stick our pinkie fingers out and calmly discuss with lunatics what is bothering them so much." Suck it up.
Even in political warfare it's good if your actions have a reason. I thought at first it was done in order to discredit the Teapartiers, but the thing is, it doesn't actually discredit anyone, because all sides already believe they are 100% right anyway, so nobody's listening anymore on this hyperpolarised playing field.
Seemed I was wrong,
Then Nigel explained there's another reason besides discrediting them, and that's to try and get them to say, "we're not
that crazy", which is going to cost them, cause as she said, right now they got the entire spectrum, from the slightly retarded all the way down the complete wonky nutter that
does in fact want to shoot everyone. By pushing it, they might be forced to denounce the crazies, which is going to cost them a lot of crazies, and that could be a lot of their base.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2011, 10:55:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 13, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
MY point behind GabbyGASM isn't to play fair, it's to shame the Tea Partiers into drawing a line in the sand between themselves and the fringe lunatics, instead of embracing the fringe lunatics as they have been up until now in some sort of revolutionary role-playing fantasy.
Okay well that's a good reason.
The way Phox explained it, "fuck them, don't give them the benefit of the doubt they deny others" is exactly the same thing they do, and well, you can see how much the other side cares about what Teapartiers shout.
It's just that "they're doing it to us/others as well" on its own is a bit of a shoddy reason to do something.
So I'm glad Nigel explained this, because getting Teapartiers to distance themselves from the fringe lunatics is a useful reason to do it.
Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2011, 08:50:51 PMIt's called political warfare, people, not "political debate where we all stick our pinkie fingers out and calmly discuss with lunatics what is bothering them so much." Suck it up.
Even in political warfare it's good if your actions have a reason. I thought at first it was done in order to discredit the Teapartiers, but the thing is, it doesn't actually discredit anyone, because all sides already believe they are 100% right anyway, so nobody's listening anymore on this hyperpolarised playing field.
Seemed I was wrong,
Then Nigel explained there's another reason besides discrediting them, and that's to try and get them to say, "we're not that crazy", which is going to cost them, cause as she said, right now they got the entire spectrum, from the slightly retarded all the way down the complete wonky nutter that does in fact want to shoot everyone. By pushing it, they might be forced to denounce the crazies, which is going to cost them a lot of crazies, and that could be a lot of their base.
Now, now Trip. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that was my (or anyone else's) reason for participating.
Yeah, it's all good. I missed the point at first, and now I see it :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2011, 12:40:02 AM
Yeah, it's all good. I missed the point at first, and now I see it :)
Yeah, no worries. :wink:
So basicly if Obama can't be a weatherman secret muslim
then Karl Rove can't be Thomas Jefferson?
http://www.newshounds.us/2011/06/28/jon_stewart_destroys_chris_wallaces_rebuttal_of_fox_news_fairness_and_balance.php
I love that man.
Oh yeah, that was HI-larious.
I'm wondering what they'll choose to pick on him about next.
Oh and last night's rebuttal? Even better.
I hadn't seen the original interview on wallace's show, watching it now -------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyUdBp-cck
His rebuttal last night:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-28-2011/oh--for-fox-sake---who-s-the-biggest-a--hole-?xrs=share_copy