Maddow's reaction to Stewart's smackdown

[MsDoodahs]

I was sorry to see that Stewart actually told Rachel the truth. Stewart gets kudos for his courage - the smackdown was elegant.

I much prefer that she and the other MS-DNC (bend over!) hosts remain oblivious to the impact of their actions, and I do wish Stewart would stop trying to enlighten them.

It was heartening to see that she refused to accept it; however, I fear that was merely her initial reaction. I hope she doesn't do any soul searching for then, there is the possibility (though admittedly a pretty small chance) she could choose to discard her agenda driven intellectual dishonesty in favor of actually garnering increased support for portions her ideology, which would be a bad thing.

I'm thinking that the more she and her MS-DNC hosts alienate the majority, the better off we are at the moment - because it drives people to the GOP where more of the liberty candidates are at the moment as a result of our current dire fiscal situation.

[angelatc]

I was sorry to see that Stewart actually told Rachel the truth. Stewart gets kudos for his courage - the smackdown was elegant.

.

What is this smackdown of which you speak?

[MsDoodahs]

Specifically, the last clip in the series of clips posted at www.theblaze.com

It's in the piece "honest critique: Jon Stewart Clashes with Rachel Maddow."

:)

eta: I have not watched all of the clips.

[angelatc]

Specifically, the last clip in the series of clips posted at www.theblaze.com

It's in the piece "honest critique: Jon Stewart Clashes with Rachel Maddow."

:)

eta: I have not watched all of the clips.

Heh! I still don't like Stewart, but when he accuses you of being unfair to the right, you really need to step back and take a good look at yourself. I just watched the first clip, and I'll watch the others later. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/honest-critique-jon-stewart-clashes-with-rachel-maddow/

[GreenCardSeeker]

Steward struck me as awfully self-righteous there. They're both as bad, and it was quite rude of him to accuse her of doing something they both do. She had to stand there and take it though, not being as established in the media to be able to respond.

[Deborah K]

I rather liked that interview. To use a 'Bushism', I misunderestimated Stewart.

[MsDoodahs]

I rather liked that interview. To use a 'Bushism', I misunderestimated Stewart.

As did I.

Very glad Jon did the interview, as he earned some respect back from me. As for Rachel, I lost even more respect for her. Not that either of them give a rip about that, lol....

[cswake]

YouTube - "We've All Bought Into The LIBERALS vs CONSERVATIVES Theater!" Jon Stewart Interview pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_hEFYDfps)
YouTube - "Really? Do I Have To See A Guy Eat Another Guy's Brains On MSNBC?" Jon Stewart Interview pt.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UunPJgBlT7U)
YouTube - "I Think Bush Believes Saddam Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction" Jon Stewart Interview pt.3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jql0OinUiQ)
YouTube - "There Is No Honor In What I Do But I Do It As Honorably As I Can" Jon Stewart Interview pt.4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgvVMlQbSMU)

[specsaregood]

Steward struck me as awfully self-righteous there. They're both as bad, and it was quite rude of him to accuse her of doing something they both do.

Stewart is a COMEDIAN on a channel called: Comedy Central. He doesn't pretend to be a journalist or serious news commentator.

[Pericles]

As did I.

Very glad Jon did the interview, as he earned some respect back from me. As for Rachel, I lost even more respect for her. Not that either of them give a rip about that, lol....

This /\

[Andrew-Austin]

He was rambling, he could have made his points much better.

His idea of defending the sincerity of conservatism is defending the sincerity of Bush and Fox, at least in this interview. Not all that constructive, it allowed Rachel to brush aside his assertions regarding unjust bias of liberal media. I mean why bring up Bush's rationalization for war? He seemed to be saying there okay Bush is not evil in that he is insincere, but yes you are right he is just stupid. And he made this point in the context of a discussion about is the left media unfair towards conservatives. Fail.

I seem to get that he thinks the left/right paradigm is bullshit or unproductive, and that the media feeds the paradigm. But I'm not seeing him making a good argument here.


Stewart is a COMEDIAN on a channel called: Comedy Central. He doesn't pretend to be a journalist or serious news commentator.

Yet people nonetheless look to him as one, with some justification. What he thinks his position is is not important. For example if he criticizes someone in the media for not asking a politician tough questions, and then has that same politician come on his show and plays softball with him, that is being hypocrite.

Jon said "you are on the playing field, and I'm in the stands yelling things". He has a show with tons of people watching it. In this show he commentates on news, and news coverage, the show influences people. People are interested in what he has to say. He created a rally just like Beck did, that is influence. If that is not on the field I don't know what is.

But after that he did get one thing right: "I feel like you are defending yourself from things that are not coming at you from me, or from our rally or things like that, in a way that is manipulative" (he insinuated the word manipulative, but did not say it).
That explained the entire interview, and was part of the reason why it was so unproductive (the other being Jon's inability to make his points well & clearly).

[tpreitzel]

I'm in agreement about Stewart's rambling ... almost incoherent.

[specsaregood]

For example if he criticizes someone in the media for not asking a politician tough questions, and then has that same politician come on his show and plays softball with him, that is being hypocrite.


I disagree. If you put him up on a news network and he did that, THEN he would be a hypocrite. People don't watch his show and guests don't come on his show to get tough questions. Its the same argument he took with mathews/tucker on crossfire all those years ago.

[MyLibertyStuff]

I'm in agreement about Stewart's rambling ... almost incoherent.

Yea half the time I was wondering how often he smokes due to his rambling

[Brian4Liberty]

The interview seemed to be all about Stewart trying to remove himself from the game. Don't blame me, don't thank me, I'm just a simple entertainer. Sorry, you can be doing a children's show and still have your spin and inject your propaganda.

As for Maddow, he wants her to be a serious, objective news person. Sorry, that doesn't exist, even when they do a good job of hiding their true feelings or agenda.

[MyLibertyStuff]

He also came off to me as someone who tries to make their ideas sound complex to impess people. Not all the time, but in this interview...

[Bruno]

Yea half the time I was wondering how often he smokes due to his rambling

marijuana? Don't blame it on that, I wouldn't doubt if he either doesn't smoke or does so infrequently.

[Andrew-Austin]

I disagree. If you put him up on a news network and he did that, THEN he would be a hypocrite. People don't watch his show and guests don't come on his show to get tough questions. Its the same argument he took with mathews/tucker on crossfire all those years ago.

His show is a news show, and its a commentary show, and its comedy show. It is all of those things, the comedy aspect does not give him free reign to to disregard all of his advice to the MSM. Making jokes at certain things is expressing a view on them. He pleads with the MSM they have so much power to do good, but he also has power to do good. Sometimes they use it, like the daily show's coverage of the Iraq war, but a lot of the times they don't. Okay maybe I don't expect him to grill his guests, but he could ask better and tougher questions while still being funny. Is there no bias in the daily show as a whole, can't it improve a lot as well? Easily, if TDS staff take up more of Stewart's advice.

People don't look to his show for a bias free experience, but they don't w/ the MSM either. People don't have that high of expectations for cable news, because they have come to expect it, that does not mean they can't live up to a greater standard. I don't see why his show is just in some completely different dimension in his opinion.

[KurtBoyer25L]

I too am gaining a lot of respect for Stewart. What he is saying is that true liberals, if honest and benevolent people, would want Ron Paul over Nancy Pelosi without a thought; true conservatives, if same, would pick Dennis Kucinich over Michael Steele.

A truly uncorrupted, classical liberal government would produce a much smaller, cheaper, efficient and pro-peace animal in all three branches. Very preferable to to a corrupted "conservative" federal government, circa 2000-2008 for instance.

[jmhudak17]

Wow. I have a lot more respect for Stewart now. I honestly thought he was far-left.

[hazek]

He was soo fking incoherent it's really frustrating especially since he had an hour long to really get his points across.

He did much better in the 14min he had on Crossfire 6 years ago: YouTube - jon stewart on crossfire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE)

[hazek]

His show is a news show, and its a commentary show, and its comedy show. It is all of those things, the comedy aspect does not give him free reign to to disregard all of his advice to the MSM. Making jokes at certain things is expressing a view on them. He pleads with the MSM they have so much power to do good, but he also has power to do good. Sometimes they use it, like the daily show's coverage of the Iraq war, but a lot of the times they don't. Okay maybe I don't expect him to grill his guests, but he could ask better and tougher questions while still being funny. Is there no bias in the daily show as a whole, can't it improve a lot as well? Easily, if TDS staff take up more of Stewart's advice.

People don't look to his show for a bias free experience, but they don't w/ the MSM either. People don't have that high of expectations for cable news, because they have come to expect it, that does not mean they can't live up to a greater standard. I don't see why his show is just in some completely different dimension in his opinion.


Is this really so hard to grasp???

He is a comedian, he can talk about real problems all he wants and express his view all he wants but at the end of the day he is making jokes and no one will take his views however true and right seriously and he doesn't expect anyone to do so either.

But news shows have journalists working there, journalist who are suppose to be objective and unbiased and are suppose to serve the public good but instead are everything but.
http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles

[Fields]

He's being put on the spot and having a conversation. I tend to like this and find it more useful then if she would have posed say 10 questions that he had ahead of time.

[AParadigmShift]

Interesting, if even at times rambling.

It seemed that some of the more meandering answers to the questions posed were being formulated by Stewart to ease any discomfort Ms. Maddow may have over his POV, a courtesy he need not have extended.

Though, I suppose a more direct route would have been taken as bad form among [imagined?] shared-ideological travelers.

Plus, only suggesting that MSNBC's commentators (that's you, Ms. Maddow) are equal to Fox News' commentators without any qualifications wouldn't have required the expanse of time allotted for the interview - so, a meandering we went....

[MsDoodahs]

It seemed that some of the more meandering answers to the questions posed were being formulated by Stewart to ease any discomfort Ms. Maddow may have over his POV

Agree.

[RM918]

He's also dealing with a stomach virus. I commend him for being able to sit in one spot for that long.

[misconstrued]

I'm in agreement about Stewart's rambling ... almost incoherent.

He was sick with the flu. May have had something to do with it.

I really like Stewart. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is fair and seems to listen with an open mind. He has also always been respectful to Ron Paul when he has been on the show.

[zade]

I'm glad to see some people coming around that Jon Stewart isn't an evil Marxist, but a smart, rational guy. For what it's worth:

YouTube - Ron Paul talks about his respect for Jon Stewart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-YZueRAOR0)

[Dripping Rain]

I watched the whole thing. I failed to see any smackdown. That was the tamest and lamest criticism ive ever seen Stewart do.
He didnt even challenge her when she was generalizing that the tea party people are about 2nd amendment remedies and some other bullshit charge
I used to respect Jon Stewart but everyday he loses more respect in my eyes.
Funny How he now suddenly respects the tea party.
they can both go to hell

[dannno]

Anybody who thought he was rambling has attention span issues, sorry. Have you ever heard Noam Chomsky speak? That's just how they talk. Most on the left are intellectuals. Doesn't mean they are right.

Considering he spent 90% of the time criticizing Maddown and MSNBC, I call smackdown!

That was awesome.

[tremendoustie]

I like Stewart. Say what you want, he's damn good at seeing through certain kinds of BS.

[Ninja Homer]

YouTube - "There Is No Honor In What I Do But I Do It As Honorably As I Can" Jon Stewart Interview pt.4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgvVMlQbSMU)

OK, I gotta set the record straight here... Rachel Maddow thought the term "teabagger" was funny because she didn't think that the people who were sending teabags knew what the slang "teabagging" meant? Seriously?

As far as I know, this is the first mention of sending tea bags as a protest in modern history: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=12707

Now notice my reply, all of 34 minutes later, when I pointed out the humor of "teabagging". This was almost 2 years before Maddow had even heard of people sending tea bags as a form of protest. Hell, I might have been the first person in history to associate sending tea bags with the slang term "teabagging"... but I thought it was pretty obvious and a bit of stupid humor. Stewart is right... it was maybe funny for a day, probably less.

[Free Moral Agent]

I couldn't get through all the clips, too much rambling. I'd rather him take O'Donnel to task than Maddow.

[jtstellar]

I disagree. If you put him up on a news network and he did that, THEN he would be a hypocrite. People don't watch his show and guests don't come on his show to get tough questions. Its the same argument he took with mathews/tucker on crossfire all those years ago.

actually a more accurate way to put it is if stewart specifically stated "anyone who interviews should meet certain criteria" then failed to do it himself, whether the criteria made any sense. either way, i'm not sure why stewart is worth a dam being defended.

[jtstellar]

I couldn't get through all the clips, too much rambling. I'd rather him take O'Donnel to task than Maddow.

as if liberals haven't done enough of that. liberals know their talking points well and their echo chamber is huge. they pretty much all mirror what each other say--bigger government. conservatives on the other hand lack still people who fully understand the issues. they simply fail to respond efficiently to liberal attacks.

so why do you want to see another half-knowing neo-con grilled again? another one of those fruitless activities. it is to liberals that more responses need be directed.

[tremendoustie]

OK, I gotta set the record straight here... Rachel Maddow thought the term "teabagger" was funny because she didn't think that the people who were sending teabags knew what the slang "teabagging" meant? Seriously?

As far as I know, this is the first mention of sending tea bags as a protest in modern history: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=12707

Now notice my reply, all of 34 minutes later, when I pointed out the humor of "teabagging". This was almost 2 years before Maddow had even heard of people sending tea bags as a form of protest. Hell, I might have been the first person in history to associate sending tea bags with the slang term "teabagging"... but I thought it was pretty obvious and a bit of stupid humor. Stewart is right... it was maybe funny for a day, probably less.

Oh, I remember. These people think movements don't exist until they're being pushed by Rush Limbaugh or MSNBC. Ron Paul? A gadfly. Carbon copy the Ron Paul Revolution, but pump it on Fox News and set it up to promote mainstream republicans, and suddenly its the birth of a new movement -- a movement that conveniently no longer undermines their left-right narrative.

They have no interest in getting the real story, they just live in their own self generated little world. They don't try to respond to the people -- they try to control the people. It gets pretty transparent after a while.

If a movement is born, and Rachel Maddow, Bill O, and their current and historical ilk ignore it, does it matter? 20 years ago, no. 10 years ago, not much. Now, yes -- enough to affect, but not redefine the mainstream political narrative. A few years from now, assuming freedom of communication persists? Hold on to your hats.

[anaconda]

I've been watching...when does the "smackdown" of Rachael begin? What Part? Time counter? I haven't seen it yet..

Stewart is a thoughtful smart fellow. Maybe he will come over to our side by 2012.