parrot 790 Posted March 13, 2009 I don't watch all of Stewart's appearances but he didn't go on THAT show to talk politics. Just like he doesn't seriously talk economics. He was there begging them to actually do their focking jobs. I think we'd all be a lot better off if all those political hack shows weren't biased and actually approached issues in an unbiased manner and not through partisan goggles. It was, and still is, a great message Stewart was trying to send. It's a shame you don't see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,174 Posted March 13, 2009 The hack shows appeal to their target audience. They are not supposed to be un-biased. Strike's quote makes sense if we are talking only about actual real journalists. I want my hacks to hack, and I want my news anchor to give me unbiased accounts of the events. There is a difference and a place for both. The only time one of them should be called out is when they try to be one but say they are another (i.e. Chris Matthews). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 31 Posted March 13, 2009 The hack shows appeal to their target audience. They are not supposed to be un-biased. Strike's quote makes sense if we are talking only about actual real journalists. I want my hacks to hack, and I want my news anchor to give me unbiased accounts of the events. There is a difference and a place for both. The only time one of them should be called out is when they try to be one but say they are another (i.e. Chris Matthews). Yeah, no one minds that Stewart is a hack. Oh...I forgot, it's a comedy show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted March 13, 2009 QUOTE(Strike @ Mar 13 2009, 07:13 PM) I don't watch all of Stewart's appearances but he didn't go on THAT show to talk politics. Just like he doesn't seriously talk economics. He was there begging them to actually do their focking jobs. I think we'd all be a lot better off if all those political hack shows weren't biased and actually approached issues in an unbiased manner and not through partisan goggles. It was, and still is, a great message Stewart was trying to send. It's a shame you don't see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 790 Posted March 13, 2009 The hack shows appeal to their target audience. They are not supposed to be un-biased. Strike's quote makes sense if we are talking only about actual real journalists. I want my hacks to hack, and I want my news anchor to give me unbiased accounts of the events. There is a difference and a place for both. The only time one of them should be called out is when they try to be one but say they are another (i.e. Chris Matthews). So you don't think a Bill Reilly or a Rush Limbaugh should be called out on their hypocrisy, since everyone knows they're hacks? Let's just say I disagree. Maybe I don't want the hacks to hack. Maybe I want the hacks on both sides to occasionally shut the fock up for ten minutes so reasonable people can try to come to reasonable solutions. Maybe I want hacks to realize that they're a big part of the problem, which is exactly what Stewart was trying to tell them. And they must have done a pretty sh!tty job of appealing to their target audience seeing as how they got canceled and all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,174 Posted March 13, 2009 Maybe I don't want the hacks to hack. Then turn the channel or dial? Maybe I want the hacks on both sides to occasionally shut the fock up for ten minutes so reasonable people can try to come to reasonable solutions. This happens, it just doesn't get ratings or talked about, but if you want it it is out there. Maybe I want hacks to realize that they're a big part of the problem, which is exactly what Stewart was trying to tell them. I can agree with that point, but Stewart needs to own it too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted March 13, 2009 I can't stand Stewart, and I think he's a complete partisan piece of sh!t, and only attacked Cramer because he dared badmouth Obama. If Cramer were screaming that Obama is doing everything right, Stewart woudn't say a thing to him. However, as much as I hate Stewart and think his motives in this attack were all wrong....he was right and he embarrassed Cramer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 790 Posted March 13, 2009 I do turn the channel, believe me, but a lot of people don't. A lot of people actually believe the crap that Bill Oreilly or Bill Maher tell them just as if they were a news anchor. So just because maybe you and I make that distinction, doesn't mean that their crap isn't just as potentially damaging as a biased news anchor. So when they're full of sh!t, as they so often are, I'm all for pointing it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,174 Posted March 13, 2009 I can't stand Stewart, and I think he's a complete partisan piece of sh!t, and only attacked Cramer because he dared badmouth Obama. If Cramer were screaming that Obama is doing everything right, Stewart woudn't say a thing to him. However, as much as I hate Stewart and think his motives in this attack were all wrong....he was right and he embarrassed Cramer Exactly. It's not that I totally disagree with Stewart (as he had good points). It's just that coming from him it is funny. It's as if Bill O'Rielly came out and called Bill Maher a bad journalist because he was biased and didn't present the news fairly and had an agenda. I mean, Bill would be technically correct, but who the hell is he to say that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,174 Posted March 13, 2009 I'm all for pointing it out. Me too. I just wish it came from a credible source. 60 minutes needs to do a story about it or something. But it makes me when I see John Focking Stewart get on his high horse about this particular topic, no matter if I actually agree with him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsbigmoni 1 Posted March 13, 2009 I can't stand Stewart, and I think he's a complete partisan piece of sh!t, and only attacked Cramer because he dared badmouth Obama. If Cramer were screaming that Obama is doing everything right, Stewart woudn't say a thing to him. However, as much as I hate Stewart and think his motives in this attack were all wrong....he was right and he embarrassed Cramer So many people are missing the point. This is what makes GE's CEO attack so smart. He said, "You can't criticize the president because the media will attack you." Now, if you attack him for making such a stupid comment, you're playing right into his hands and perpetuating what he said. Since people don't want to validate his comments, they don't really say much about it and approach it very cautiously. This lets the people who don't like obama run wild and keep repeating it over and over. How many times have we seen it mentioned here? Let me explain why stewart attacked CNBC. It was not some personal vendetta against santelli flaking. Stewart clearly explained that the piece about cnbc was made to play while santelli was there. He was gonna show it to santelli to get his reaction. Obviously it wasn't going to be 8 minutes long, but it would've got the point across. Stewart goes after obama a lot. He's not in the tank for him. He supports teh bailout, but he will take shots at that as well. His whole problem with the people complainin about the bailout is the fact that wall street is complaining about the money they are receiving. They played a huge role in this happening, and now they're being offered a bailout and they want to change how that is given. His point is, stfu, you got us into this mess so we can't just listen to what you guys want. Like he said last night, he believes there are two wall streets. The one that we see that guarantees us long term gains if we're patient. The other is the one we don't see where its all about short-term profits. Its hard to reconcile those two worlds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
