Rachel Maddow vs. Jon Stewart

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I thought it was pretty painful to watch and could only stand the first segment of the interview. Stewart took way too long to talk and even when he did make points, a lot of them came across as not very well thought out, lacked evidence, or were just plain unclear. Plus Maddow put him in the position to basically either defend conservatives or "attack" liberals when she asked him questions like, "who on the left is suppressing speech?" or something like that. And of course Stewart's answers were weak. Stewart seemed to try to balance liberal and conservative extremism, but frankly just lacked the knowledge to defend that position mainly due to what I think is his liberal bias. However, with that said, I do agree with Stewart's general position that the media pays too much attention to the extreme elements of each side, if that's even what he was trying to say.
 

D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Posts
8,858
Media
0
Likes
84
Points
133
One of the key points Jon Stewart made was that cable news has stressed that THE difference is liberal vs. conservative, or red state vs. blue state.

He pointed out that the key difference might be corrupt vs. non-corrupt, or even extremists vs. regular people.

Yet ... a bunch of the responses here go back to liberal vs. conservative.

Hmmmmmm?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I thought it was pretty painful to watch and could only stand the first segment of the interview. Stewart took way too long to talk and even when he did make points, a lot of them came across as not very well thought out, lacked evidence, or were just plain unclear. Plus Maddow put him in the position to basically either defend conservatives or "attack" liberals when she asked him questions like, "who on the left is suppressing speech?" or something like that. And of course Stewart's answers were weak. Stewart seemed to try to balance liberal and conservative extremism, but frankly just lacked the knowledge to defend that position mainly due to what I think is his liberal bias. However, with that said, I do agree with Stewart's general position that the media pays too much attention to the extreme elements of each side, if that's even what he was trying to say.

Well, not to overly defend Stewart but he was sick during the time of the interview and it was for 50 minutes. Watch the unedited version.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, not to overly defend Stewart but he was sick during the time of the interview and it was for 50 minutes. Watch the unedited version.

Last night I went out with friends, got home late and was only able to see an edited portion (maybe I just wasn't looking in the right place: I'd had a coupla cocktails), so I didn't bother responding, because I didn't have the proper info to do so intelligently.

I found this link here, which should go directly to the entire, unedited interview this afternoon, and watched it in its entirety. I found it fascinating.

First of all, in full disclosure, I'm a massive fan of both Stewart and Maddow; The Daily Show is a staple of my entertainment diet and has been for at least ten years. I remember Maddow during the '08 election, before landing her own show, and was enormously impressed at how she effectively "contained" Pat Buchanan, all without breaking a sweat. She is perhaps the brightest and most passionate telejournalist I've ever seen: certainly of her generation.

That having been said, I believe that, in many ways, she squanders her brilliant talents on a show that, for all its earnestness, takes the Daily Show paradigm and attempts to apply it to real journalism. As Stewart continuously points out, he's a satirist/comedian (though I truly believe he's being disingenuous as regards his influence, which I'll get to below) and he plays by very different rules: he doesn't have to get it right, he just has to get it funny.

People dismiss her as smarmy when she attempts this eye-rolling "humor", and if we're judging her by the strict criteria of professional journalism, they have a point. But her show is really an infotainment melange of reportage and commentary, and in allowing the commentary to overwhelm the topics she chooses, she misses more opportunities than she hits. This feeds the incorrect and distorted feeling of "parity" with some of the worst excesses of Fox, but she does that all by herself.

Just because I happen to agree with her commentary/POV doesn't mean that I don't recognize it. To a huge extent, the entire interview was Stewart continuously (if not especially eloquently) pointing this out, too. I found her defensiveness cagey, too: she'd ask him a question about "the left" then react that she doesn't do what he responds back with. This irritated me repeatedly: he'd respond in generalities and she'd take it personally. Then, when he spoke of her specifically, she'd hedge, parse and qualify. This was not Maddow at her best.

Obviously, Stewart was way off his game, too. Why he agreed on the timing of this interview, when he was sick as a fucking dog makes no sense. I also found him conciliatory when he could/should have been more combative: he drew blood with Tucker Carlson or Jim Cramer and could have done so with her if he chose. Instead, he feinted in a deference obviously coming from his admiration of her and an overall sympathy with her POV. He seems to have requested the interview with her specifically; I wonder how different it might have been with Olbermann or Chris Matthews.

I also find his crutch of being a satirist to be increasingly tiresome, in light of his actual prestige with the American people. Bill Maher doesn't do it, George Carlin never did it, nor did Richard Pryor, and frankly none of them had/has his impact or influence. His modesty, in this case, really is kinda hollow and pretty contrived (no matter how sincerely and frequently he repeats it). He's not a journalist, but he commands incredible power to shape the public narrative, and does so four nights per week. His political voice carries farther than does Palin's or Huckabee's, and he knows it.

He hints that, at some point, he'll probably leave The Daily Show, with just the slightest tip of his hat to getting directly involved in politics. That would be extremely interesting, though obviously more constricting and less lucrative financially.

Back to the interview: it was a draw. Even as it stands it's compelling, but it could have been electric had Jon been really on his game.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I honestly can't find a thought you expressed that I can disagree with, Bbucko.
When Maddow puts away the ridicule, she does have a spot on focus and analysis that is very difficult to counter. She's a quintessential investigative journalist that usually talks about news items before many others catch on. At the same time, since Laurence O'Donnell has his new show I've been finding myself more drawn to his program especially since he has no problem calling people out for regurgitating the talking points and dodging questions. I've been finding myself watching less of Olbermann and more of O'Donnell these days.

I don't think Stewart's message would have come off as peaceful if Olbermann or Matthews was giving the interview. Although I don't think he would have went in for the kill like he did with Tucker Carlson, I do think there tempers may have been a bit higher.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I honestly can't find a thought you expressed that I can disagree with, Bbucko.
When Maddow puts away the ridicule, she does have a spot on focus and analysis that is very difficult to counter. She's a quintessential investigative journalist that usually talks about news items before many others catch on. At the same time, since Laurence O'Donnell has his new show I've been finding myself more drawn to his program especially since he has no problem calling people out for regurgitating the talking points and dodging questions. I've been finding myself watching less of Olbermann and more of O'Donnell these days.

I don't think Stewart's message would have come off as peaceful if Olbermann or Matthews was giving the interview. Although I don't think he would have went in for the kill like he did with Tucker Carlson, I do think there tempers may have been a bit higher.

I've been a fan of O'Donnell since the old McLaughlin Group days (I'm shocked that it's still on :rolleyes:).

I really tried to sort through the differences between my enthusiastic admiration for Maddow and Stewart and why the interview wound up being such a minuet instead of an Apache. It wasn't exactly softball, but in the end, as I said above, it wasn't either participant's shining hour.

I really wish it had be rescheduled for a time when Stewart wasn't quite so under the weather, but I really really wish it would have been with Matthews (or better yet, Maher).
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I've been a fan of O'Donnell since the old McLaughlin Group days (I'm shocked that it's still on :rolleyes:).

I'm sure you've seen the classic SNL sketch featuring Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman and John Goodman doing a parody of The McLaughlin Group. If not, email me and I'll send it to you. It's hysterical.

I really tried to sort through the differences between my enthusiastic admiration for Maddow and Stewart and why the interview wound up being such a minuet instead of an Apache. It wasn't exactly softball, but in the end, as I said above, it wasn't either participant's shining hour.

I really wish it had be rescheduled for a time when Stewart wasn't quite so under the weather, but I really really wish it would have been with Matthews (or better yet, Maher).

Maher vs. Stewart would be VERY interesting. Although I'm sure the two men do respect each other, sparks would definitely fly if we placed them on a debating platform where you didn't had to worry too much about basic cable censors. I'd definitely watch it. Chris Matthews interrupts people too much when he interviews people and that tends to annoy me.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,838
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm sure you've seen the classic SNL sketch featuring Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman and John Goodman doing a parody of The McLaughlin Group. If not, email me and I'll send it to you. It's hysterical.
Are you referring to The Sinatra Group?

"Issue no. 3, the bald chick—what's with her head? Let's start with the chick. What gives, cue ball? I'm looking at you, I'm thinking: fourteen in the side pocket!"
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Are you referring to The Sinatra Group?

"Issue no. 3, the bald chick—what's with her head? Let's start with the chick. What gives, cue ball? I'm looking at you, I'm thinking: fourteen in the side pocket!"

LOL... I remember this one. When he called Sinead O'Connor "Uncle Fester", I fell on the floor laughing. However, this isn't the skit I was referring to. The one I was talking about has Dana Carvey imitating the moderator and it was so spot on. I found a downloadable Flash video of the skit. I'll send you & UncleBB the d/l link in your mailbox.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm sure you've seen the classic SNL sketch featuring Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman and John Goodman doing a parody of The McLaughlin Group. If not, email me and I'll send it to you. It's hysterical.

I had forgotten it until you sent the link, then it all came flooding back. For many reasons, the period from 1994-2004 remains a nearly-complete blur to me, especially compared with the periods before or since. It can't be blamed on drugs, as I stopped using illicit drugs in 1983, nor alcohol as I abstained for most of those years, too. Chalk up another reason why my ex-partner Ken was such a pernicious and sinister source of negativity in my life, as our years spent are a black hole in my otherwise impressively intact memory :rolleyes:

I wish they'd have written Jan Hook's Clift character a little better, though. While fab in print, in person Eleanor Clift is a whiny, insufferable knee-jerk twat. I could never listen to her screechy voice without cringing, even if I agreed with her main point. And she was the worst over-talker of the entire group. I think she was kept around to make Libs look idiotic and incapable of controlling their emotionalism. O'Donnell, even when pushed (hard) never lost his cool.

But, even with Buchanan around, no one was more smug, arrogant or snide than Tony Blankley. His dandified appearance was as loathsome as that weird now-it-is, now-it-isn't pretentious accent he'd affect so randomly. He almost succeeded at making Kudlow seem reasonable :eek:

Maher vs. Stewart would be VERY interesting. Although I'm sure the two men do respect each other, sparks would definitely fly if we placed them on a debating platform where you didn't had to worry too much about basic cable censors. I'd definitely watch it.

Though ill-suited to the format of Real Time, an HBO debate with Maher would have been quite a spectacle: something I'd pay money to watch.

Chris Matthews interrupts people too much when he interviews people and that tends to annoy me.

He is deadly on TV, imo.
I hate not only his rude interruptions, but his awful, nails-scraping-the-blackboard voice.
He is more unnatural on television than any other regular performer I can think of.

Much as I respect his intelligence and wits, Matthews is a bully: an irritating, aggressive bully. His only real rival in the 24/7 news biz is Hannity: comparisons are justifiable based on tone alone (though Hannity willfully distorts stories in ways Matthews wouldn't even dare trying).

The more I think of it, the more it seems apparent that Stewart's beef really is more with him than it could ever have possibly been with Maddow, especially as Matthews maintains an entirely unjustified myth of being Independent (or at least did back when I'd watch Hardball: admittedly, it's been years now).

Matthews' inferiority complex over Russert was blindingly obvious, the fact that it hasn't ceased since the latter's unexpected death reveals how petty and shallow a man he truly is. Had such a debate have occurred with a healthy and focused Stewart, it would have taken weeks to get the blood off the floor, and it would have made Stewart's critique so much more obviously self-evident.

Stewart and Maddow's croquet game would have been a cage fight with Matthews. Again, if Stewart wanted to seriously discuss his problem with "objectivity" on cable news in general and with the the media's construction of the stale "left/right/red/blue" polarization of the electorate specifically, he picked the lightest of the offenders at MSNBC to the detriment both of his valid point and the sheer infotainment value such a debate could have had.