The 23 most offensive signs of Jon Stewart's "restore sanity" rally
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
topher5150
Dedicated LVC Member
It's funny how these people go on and on and on about how terrible Fox News is and it's fake etc... but John Stewart's entire program is dedicated to spoofing the news and making up their own stories
Rally to Restore Authority
What Jon Stewart really stands for.
By JAMES TARANTO
So what was that whole "sanity" gathering about? Was there a point to the joke? Yes, according to Howard Kurtz, now of the Daily Beast: "Jon [Stewart] turned serious at the end." But "did he take aim at Washington? No, it was once again the low-hanging fruit of the 24-hour cable news 'conflictinator.' This machine 'did not cause our problems'--whew, I thought he might call for banning the channels--'but its existence makes solving them that much harder. . . . If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.' "
This was a golden oldie. On Oct. 15, 2004, Stewart appeared on CNN's "Crossfire" and lectured co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala: "I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad. . . . And I wanted to--I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't--it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. . . . So I wanted to come here today and say . . . stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."
Less than three months later, as USA Today reported, CNN announced that it was canceling "Crossfire" and firing Carlson. The final episode aired June 3, 2005. Carlson now edits TheDailyCaller.com, which offered some of the funniest, snarkiest commentary on this weekend's Stewart rally.
So if the "Crossfire" guys stopped, stopped, stopped, stopped hurting America 5½ years ago, why didn't sanity come back? Stewart presumably would say because "Crossfire" wasn't the only show of its kind. Back in 2004, he also cited "Hardball" and "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass." The former is still on the air at MSNBC; we can't find any evidence of the latter and suspect Stewart might have been peddling false information.
Stewart was not just not a fan of "Crossfire" in its final days--and let's be honest, who was? He has an overarching critical theory about the media--a theory to which, as Commentary's Jennifer Rubin notes, President Obama subscribes. Here's Obama, addressing college graduates this past May:
Further, the vast majority of Americans do not watch the controversy-driven cable news shows Stewart deplores. Even the most popular among them, Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," draws considerably fewer viewers than the "CBS Evening News," the lowest-rated of the major-network newscasts.
There's no question that the media marketplace has changed a great deal with the rise of cable news, especially Fox, and also of talk radio. As Obama says, now we're "exposed to all kinds of arguments" that the less diverse media of an earlier era might have succeeded in suppressing. Some of those arguments seem insane to people who find them uncongenial.
Yet if it's "sanity" you want, Katie Couric offers no less of it than Walter Cronkite did. The difference is that she has almost none of his authority. The oft-told story of President Johnson lamenting, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America," is almost certainly apocryphal, but it was widely believed because it was believable. Applied to Couric, it can only be a laugh line.
Cronkite's authority rested in part on genuine accomplishments as a journalist, especially covering World War II. But it also depended on the monopoly status of what have come to be known as the mainstream media, and on the reputation that Cronkite and other newsmen developed for being unbiased, above politics.
That reputation might or might not have been justified at one time. But by now it is well established that mainstream journalists are far more liberal on average than the nation as a whole. Cronkite in particular, in his later years, frequently let loose with loopy liberal opinions.
And even if the media once deserved their reputation as objective truth-tellers, at some point it was clear they had squandered it. Cronkite's successor, Dan Rather, infamously tried to bring down a Republican president by telling a story based on obviously fraudulent documents (or, as the president might put it, documents "which don't rank all that high on the truth meter").
The "sanity" for which Stewart claims to long is the authority of the old mainstream media--their ability to set the boundaries of newsworthiness and respectable debate, claiming to be above politics while actually skewing leftward--though not so far or so intensely leftward as, say, MSNBC ranter Keith Olbermann.
Stewart mimics this authority by insisting that he is nonpartisan and nonideological. In truth, he is no more above politics than were Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather. But he's clever enough to know that a Ratheresque assertion of authority would make him look ridiculous. So instead he makes an appeal to antiauthority, escaping scrutiny by insisting he's just a comedian. "If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to," he smirked at Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire," back in 2004.
The kind of "sanity" for which Stewart claims to be nostalgic is a thing of the past. Its last redoubt is National Public Radio, which by firing Juan Williams has made itself look more like the Radio Moscow of a half century ago than the CBS.
As for Stewart, Arden Pennell of BusinessInsider.com offers this astute observation:
What Jon Stewart really stands for.
By JAMES TARANTO
So what was that whole "sanity" gathering about? Was there a point to the joke? Yes, according to Howard Kurtz, now of the Daily Beast: "Jon [Stewart] turned serious at the end." But "did he take aim at Washington? No, it was once again the low-hanging fruit of the 24-hour cable news 'conflictinator.' This machine 'did not cause our problems'--whew, I thought he might call for banning the channels--'but its existence makes solving them that much harder. . . . If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.' "
This was a golden oldie. On Oct. 15, 2004, Stewart appeared on CNN's "Crossfire" and lectured co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala: "I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad. . . . And I wanted to--I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't--it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. . . . So I wanted to come here today and say . . . stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."
Less than three months later, as USA Today reported, CNN announced that it was canceling "Crossfire" and firing Carlson. The final episode aired June 3, 2005. Carlson now edits TheDailyCaller.com, which offered some of the funniest, snarkiest commentary on this weekend's Stewart rally.
So if the "Crossfire" guys stopped, stopped, stopped, stopped hurting America 5½ years ago, why didn't sanity come back? Stewart presumably would say because "Crossfire" wasn't the only show of its kind. Back in 2004, he also cited "Hardball" and "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass." The former is still on the air at MSNBC; we can't find any evidence of the latter and suspect Stewart might have been peddling false information.
Stewart was not just not a fan of "Crossfire" in its final days--and let's be honest, who was? He has an overarching critical theory about the media--a theory to which, as Commentary's Jennifer Rubin notes, President Obama subscribes. Here's Obama, addressing college graduates this past May:
Meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads; Xboxes and PlayStations; information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment. All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.
Back in 2004, Stewart scolded the "Crossfire" hosts for "helping the politicians and the corporations" at the expense of "the people." He said: "You're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies." But how seriously can one take this complaint that the media are handmaidens of the powerful when it is enthusiastically echoed by the most powerful man in the world?Further, the vast majority of Americans do not watch the controversy-driven cable news shows Stewart deplores. Even the most popular among them, Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," draws considerably fewer viewers than the "CBS Evening News," the lowest-rated of the major-network newscasts.
There's no question that the media marketplace has changed a great deal with the rise of cable news, especially Fox, and also of talk radio. As Obama says, now we're "exposed to all kinds of arguments" that the less diverse media of an earlier era might have succeeded in suppressing. Some of those arguments seem insane to people who find them uncongenial.
Yet if it's "sanity" you want, Katie Couric offers no less of it than Walter Cronkite did. The difference is that she has almost none of his authority. The oft-told story of President Johnson lamenting, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America," is almost certainly apocryphal, but it was widely believed because it was believable. Applied to Couric, it can only be a laugh line.
Cronkite's authority rested in part on genuine accomplishments as a journalist, especially covering World War II. But it also depended on the monopoly status of what have come to be known as the mainstream media, and on the reputation that Cronkite and other newsmen developed for being unbiased, above politics.
That reputation might or might not have been justified at one time. But by now it is well established that mainstream journalists are far more liberal on average than the nation as a whole. Cronkite in particular, in his later years, frequently let loose with loopy liberal opinions.
And even if the media once deserved their reputation as objective truth-tellers, at some point it was clear they had squandered it. Cronkite's successor, Dan Rather, infamously tried to bring down a Republican president by telling a story based on obviously fraudulent documents (or, as the president might put it, documents "which don't rank all that high on the truth meter").
The "sanity" for which Stewart claims to long is the authority of the old mainstream media--their ability to set the boundaries of newsworthiness and respectable debate, claiming to be above politics while actually skewing leftward--though not so far or so intensely leftward as, say, MSNBC ranter Keith Olbermann.
Stewart mimics this authority by insisting that he is nonpartisan and nonideological. In truth, he is no more above politics than were Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather. But he's clever enough to know that a Ratheresque assertion of authority would make him look ridiculous. So instead he makes an appeal to antiauthority, escaping scrutiny by insisting he's just a comedian. "If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to," he smirked at Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire," back in 2004.
The kind of "sanity" for which Stewart claims to be nostalgic is a thing of the past. Its last redoubt is National Public Radio, which by firing Juan Williams has made itself look more like the Radio Moscow of a half century ago than the CBS.
As for Stewart, Arden Pennell of BusinessInsider.com offers this astute observation:
The real lesson for media companies from this weekend has nothing to do with left vs. right.
It's that reporters and TV journalists who actually express opinions are interesting. They can turn the power of their personality into content people care about, attract large audiences, and generate advertising revenue.
Call it Personality Media. And traditional media ought to be paying close attention--it can mean big money for media companies if handled properly.
One [of] the reigning champions of Personality Media is Glenn Beck. Another is Jon Stewart.
Stewart is smart and talented, often entertaining and sometimes interesting. But he is a creature of the "conflictinator." His claim to be an opponent of it is a fraud. The more charitably inclined will call it an ironic pose, but it's phony either way.It's that reporters and TV journalists who actually express opinions are interesting. They can turn the power of their personality into content people care about, attract large audiences, and generate advertising revenue.
Call it Personality Media. And traditional media ought to be paying close attention--it can mean big money for media companies if handled properly.
One [of] the reigning champions of Personality Media is Glenn Beck. Another is Jon Stewart.
To meet girls of course!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
The Daily Show doesn't claim to be real. I don't know what show you guys are watching-NEVERMIND-you guys probably don't watch it. Stewart just gives his opinion in a funny way and points out all the mistakes and double talk, flip-flopping that every politician does. He also makes fun of the JAG-OFFS that report the news. I feel a lot of the time he is somewhat right and makes good points. Now some of the other parts of the show are stupid, but the first part of the show is pretty good.
Now I tend to stay away from polictics. They are all crooked. Wanting nothing more than to line their pockets for life. Think about it like this. They go through the effort and spend millions for a job that pays less than most CEOs make. Take away all the pensions and give pay raises like minimum wage goes up. Make them pay for their housing and taxes. Take away all the aides doing everything for them. See how many people want to run for office then.
Not on a regular basis. We prefer honest and accurate news sources to those that mislead.
Actually, more often then not he manufactures those "mistakes, "double talk" and "flip-flopping". Almost any and every clip (especially of non-liberals) is taken out of context and distorted in a way that fits Stewart's hard left point of view. This is pretty much the same thing Michael Moore does except Stewart uses the guise of being a comedian and aiming to get laughs as a cover.
However, that is not how his audience looks at it and he (and everyone else) knows it.
People in his audience would do themselves a HUGE favor to very critically examine what Stewart says and not accept him as a legitimate news source (something he denies that his show is, BTW). Otherwise we get ignorant buffoons that we not only get condescended to and insulted by but who's uninformed and foolish votes the country has to suffer.
Stewart's shows only serves to dumb down discourse and make "mutually respectful" dialogue utterly impossible. It turns irrationality and political ignorance in to virtue's (under the guise of cynical, enlightened detachment). The ignorant and vindictive signs from the rally are a GREAT example of that, as is the "Obama = Kenysian?" video. As to Stewart and his show's record of civility, you might want to double check that as well.
Oh, and here is another great synopsis I read concerning the Stewart Rally;
Of all people, do we really need lectures on how to handle our politics from a dishonest comedian who’s made a career of smirking from the sidelines, tearing down whoever he sees fit, and who hides behind the cowardly cloak of “performer/moderate” in order to avoid putting his own ideas and beliefs out there to face the same scrutiny that his pile-on team of writers put everyone else through?
And we all know where Jon Stewart wants to take us, and that’s back. Back to the days before Fox News and MSNBC, back before journalism started to get a little honest about their political viewpoints.
The fight going on in the media, the one that so offends Stewart’s sensibilities, is happening because finally! the healthy flag of open partisanship is being planted where once the dishonest but oh-so sober and thoughtful flag once few — the same flag that allowed an Uncle Walter to help lose a war and condemn millions to slavery and death with what I’m sure would be the Jon Stewart-approved tone of declaring Vietnam lost.
Stewart simply could not be more wrong about what’s best for politics in this country. The media’s baby steps out of their partisan closets and the declaring of an open war for their side is one of single most healthiest things to happen to our politics in decades…
Because it is honest.
And we all know where Jon Stewart wants to take us, and that’s back. Back to the days before Fox News and MSNBC, back before journalism started to get a little honest about their political viewpoints.
The fight going on in the media, the one that so offends Stewart’s sensibilities, is happening because finally! the healthy flag of open partisanship is being planted where once the dishonest but oh-so sober and thoughtful flag once few — the same flag that allowed an Uncle Walter to help lose a war and condemn millions to slavery and death with what I’m sure would be the Jon Stewart-approved tone of declaring Vietnam lost.
Stewart simply could not be more wrong about what’s best for politics in this country. The media’s baby steps out of their partisan closets and the declaring of an open war for their side is one of single most healthiest things to happen to our politics in decades…
Because it is honest.
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
Its a :q:q:q:qing joke show. Geeezzzusss let me know when you pop out that diamond. If someone really gets their news(and takes it as seriously as you do) from Jon Stewart, they are sadly misinformed. Bottom line he is funny and I don't think alot of people take it real serious. Yes a lot of people are fed up and don't care. No matter who is running the goverment, someone is always gonna feel the negative effects. No one in office gives a :q:q:q:q about any of us.
And there is that condescension masquerading as enlightened objectivity that is characteristic of Stewart's audience. So much for mutually respectful discourse.
Again, you might want to double check the facts on that.
While it is not a majority or even a plurality that view Stewart as a credible source (the Time poll's figure of 44% was in an unscientific online poll), it is still a lot of people; enough to dumb down discourse, especially in the youth, were he is wrongly attributed a lot of unquestioned credibility.
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
And there is that condescension masquerading as enlightened objectivity that is characteristic of Stewart's audience. So much for mutually respectful discourse.
I was mearly saying you are uptight. I don't see that as disrespect. I don't follow Jon Stewart. If a few dumbasses take him for real thats their problem.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You were 'merely' INSULTING Shagdrum, which on its face is comical considering you don't know him and have no way of knowing whether or not he's uptight. It's actually common knowledge that many, many people take Jon Stewart seriously for news. For you to dismiss that FACT while insulting Shag in the same breath shows you aren't a critical thinker and your purpose here is to mock and condescend.And there is that condescension masquerading as enlightened objectivity that is characteristic of Stewart's audience. So much for mutually respectful discourse.
I was mearly saying you are uptight. I don't see that as disrespect. I don't follow Jon Stewart. If a few dumbasses take him for real thats their problem.
All you needed to do was look at the photos and realize what kind of people are attracted to a rally run by this buffoon. Or maybe you were in one of the photos and you're feeling a little butt hurt by it...?
If what you say is true, there is NO reason for the cursing or (more importantly) the condescension.
Before labeling me as "uptight" you should have critically considered what I had to say. Instead, you dismissed it out of hand and justified it through condescension. That lack of consideration destroys any chance for "mutually respectful" dialog.
Back on the topic of the thread, here is another fact worth considering
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in April 2007, 16% of Americans said they regularly watched "The Daily Show" or the Comedy Central spin-off, "The Colbert Report." Those numbers are comparable to some major news programs. For instance, 17% said they regularly watched Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," and 14% watched PBS' "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" regularly
The Pew poll is a scientific poll.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-...hner-sought-economic-advice-from-jon-stewart/
No Joke: Treasury Sec Geithner Sought Economic Advice From… Jon Stewart?
Policymakers sometimes drop by the set of Jon Stewart’s Comedy Central “Daily Show” set for some laughs, but according to Bloomberg, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner visited the comedian for an off-the-record April meeting to discuss the U.S. economy.
The meeting, which took place at Stewart’s New York office on April 2, appears on Geithner‘s appointments calendar posted on the Treasury Department’s website.
Bloomberg reports:
Geithner didn’t stay for a television interview with Stewart although other administration officials — most notably President Barack Obama last week — have turned up for on-camera chats.
“Jon Stewart is influential in America, so we took the opportunity for the two to meet and to discuss the economy,” Treasury spokesman Steve Adamske said in an e-mail yesterday. Stewart’s program has poked fun at Geithner, including a segment last year about the Treasury secretary’s trouble selling his New York home.
On the same day he met with Stewart, Geithner spoke on the phone with Democratic lawmakers including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, according to the appointments calendar.
Geithner also spoke with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Max Baucus of Montana, all Democrats.
The Geithner-Stewart summit-of-sorts was held on a day of some good news for the administration: Labor Department figures for March showed employment figures had improved the most in three years. …
Spokesman Steve Albani of the Comedy Central network declined immediate comment on the meeting between Geithner, 49, and the 47-year-old Stewart.
Reflecting on the news, the Wall Street Journal noted today on its blog that Jon Stewart has apparently “jumped from fake news to real power broker.”
No Joke: Treasury Sec Geithner Sought Economic Advice From… Jon Stewart?
Policymakers sometimes drop by the set of Jon Stewart’s Comedy Central “Daily Show” set for some laughs, but according to Bloomberg, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner visited the comedian for an off-the-record April meeting to discuss the U.S. economy.
The meeting, which took place at Stewart’s New York office on April 2, appears on Geithner‘s appointments calendar posted on the Treasury Department’s website.
Bloomberg reports:
Geithner didn’t stay for a television interview with Stewart although other administration officials — most notably President Barack Obama last week — have turned up for on-camera chats.
“Jon Stewart is influential in America, so we took the opportunity for the two to meet and to discuss the economy,” Treasury spokesman Steve Adamske said in an e-mail yesterday. Stewart’s program has poked fun at Geithner, including a segment last year about the Treasury secretary’s trouble selling his New York home.
On the same day he met with Stewart, Geithner spoke on the phone with Democratic lawmakers including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, according to the appointments calendar.
Geithner also spoke with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Max Baucus of Montana, all Democrats.
The Geithner-Stewart summit-of-sorts was held on a day of some good news for the administration: Labor Department figures for March showed employment figures had improved the most in three years. …
Spokesman Steve Albani of the Comedy Central network declined immediate comment on the meeting between Geithner, 49, and the 47-year-old Stewart.
Reflecting on the news, the Wall Street Journal noted today on its blog that Jon Stewart has apparently “jumped from fake news to real power broker.”
Stewart long has declared that he isn’t a journalist and has he talked down his influence. Now, it is time to give up the pretense. Face it, Jon Stewart, you are a major cultural and political force in America,
dude.
dude.
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
All you needed to do was look at the photos and realize what kind of people are attracted to a rally run by this buffoon. Or maybe you were in one of the photos and you're feeling a little butt hurt by it...?
Seems to me you guys are the ones with hurting asses. Those signs, to me, are a joke. You all take Jon Stewart too serious. Now I want all you babies to grab your bottle and blankie, and go to sleep. No bedtime story for you.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
"I'm really smart. What's wrong with you children?"
...he said, condescendingly.
KS
...he said, condescendingly.
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
Ok I'll bite. Whats the conspiracy? Once again, to me, those signs are just a$$holes being(or trying to be)funny. I'm sorry that Jon Stewart makes you guys paranoid. Politics is all about who can brainwash more people. I feel sorry that you all fell for the BS that is spewed at you. Don't read so far into everything. When you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah that 'Fearful Crackers' is hilarious. It's totally a play on...something. And I'm sure the 9/11 Truth sign was a joke too, right? Yeah, he wasn't serious. Heck, we have posters on this forum who use the term Faux News all the time.
Feel free to show me where I said there was a conspiracy, Mr. Straw Man Ranty Rant. I'll wait.
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah that 'Fearful Crackers' is hilarious. It's totally a play on...something.
Feel free to show me where I said there was a conspiracy, Mr. Straw Man Ranty Rant. I'll wait.
Look under your username.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Um...yeah, okay. What's your point again? Tell me where I said there was a conspiracy.
Who said anything about a "conspiracy"?
That is certainly partially true, but it is not the whole truth. Do you really find the worldview reflected in those signs unimportant?
So...ignorance is a virtue?