Jon Stewart rips media's false sense of urgency

Me neither!

Smoking crank wouldn't she be so wasted that unless you explored she might not be sexually determinate.

My husband's thinking about a write in this year. Won't matter as McCain is going to win AZ without much of a fight. I might suggest Jon Stewart to him.

Jon Stewart, is a person that seems more apt at criticism than action. I would not want him for president, or bottle washer.

Oliver,
when it comes down to it most of our presidents are not 'men of action' when they're in office... they just tell other people what to do; they make decisions that lead to the actions. And unfortunately lots of the time they are puppets for fat rich white men.
The important thing is that he sees through all the BS and calls people on it. It would be great to have a president with that trait.

LaeF1, Due to you use of the term "fat rich white men," I must ask, do have a problem with or are you prejudice against people that are over weight, people that are successful, people that are white, or men?

As for the rest of you opinion regarding Jon Stewart, I don't think he sees so much through BS as much as he seems to spread BS. He distorts a lot of things and twist them to suit his agenda. And I feel certain that he has an agenda.

But the mainstream media is certainly deluting their presentation of the facts.

You know he's a comedian right? The Daily Show is a comedy show based on current events, just like Weekend Update on SNL but just daily. His agenda is to make people laugh. When he's off camera in candid moments like this, that's not what he's doing. Can I ask a question? Do you believe that the 24 hour news networks raise the political discourse or lower it?

JoulesBeef,...He's the only one who understands the idiocy of what the news has become. He takes aim and hits the bull's eye every time. He makes cable news just so much wallpaper.

I can remember being taught in junior high what news articles were supposed to be. We had to complete exercises on the difference between fact and opinion, and then, when stating our opinion, we had to give ,as best we could, some basis for that opinion. Later, as a teacher, I taught how to back up arguments with facts, examples, illustrations, and commentary from experts. Now, retired, and age 65, I am dismayed at how shoddy and shallow TV "reporting" has become. And the very LAST thing that I want to hear is a so-called justification, "that's what the audience wants to see."

junebug-404897,...It's the result of the society of instant gratification. They have jettisoned style and composition for news as cell phone text.

They have jettisoned style and composition for news as cell phone text.

Maybe so, but times change, people change. People who don't embrace technology -- even marginally -- are going to be left behind in modern and developing countries. There's always time to unplug; but to cast aside all the benefits of technology is to deny progress, deny the reality of the modern world -- for us posting on this Internet site, the technologically-advanced, modern world.

Do I need to read a three-page exposition on Obama's choice for VP? Do I want to? No. A txt can convey every bit the same information, at a fraction of the time and not regulated by the industry news cycle. I'll take my news straight-up and without flare; if I want good prose and style, there are millions of books I can read.

Enigma: Jade's comment is about the lack of "style and composition" in much of news today. As a society, we do embrace technology whether we text message or not, but utilizing the benefits of technology does not excuse abandoning style and good composition in the name of speed for television news. In fact, the technology of lap tops, digital video,and cell phones allows journalists to have it all, instant access to information, good composition, and quick dissemination.

It seems appropos when the candidates are such cartoonish comic characters themselves! Tabasco anyone? I like it on my eggs and reccommend it to you all. How elite can that be? Deliciously different!

And the very LAST thing that I want to hear is a so-called justification, "that's what the audience wants to see."

Why? News shows, like all other shows, are judged by the ad dollars they bring in. This is true everywhere in private tv companies. It naturally fosters a race to the lowest common denominator to bring in viewers.

The other model for tv is public television. Public tv in this country never dove into news reporting (though there's some great analysis), but British public television shows it can be done well.

Colbert isn't making fun of Republicans. He's making fun of people like Bill O'Reilly & Sean Hannity who happen to be republican. Even as a very liberal person, I like some conservative politicians & ideas. But I don't like asshats such as O'Reilly or Hannity.

Stewart is the current Monty Python all in one man.

I'm with you.

Stewart/Colbert - 08- I'm with you!

Beats the crap out of the choices we've got...........I wonder how much time we've got to get em on the ballots? I'll collect signatures.

Clipped to a Stewart/Colbert group I just created in response to suggestions I've seen by several people.

Never did find out what the emergency was but I did look at the ny times front page to make sure something huge hadn't just happened.

LOL. Yeah, I'll be watching TV and see all the blurbs for the nightly news, so I'll watch because I think something important is going to be said, and all they say is just nonsense or commonsense--nothing worht wasting a half-horu of my time for, at any rate.

it's often something like "a cat went up into a tree and won't come back down."

that's only a slight exaggeration.

I vote for the latter. Right up there with Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.

Um. both.

Shakespeare does it in the comedies and King Lear. I can't remember the fairy tale but it is a constant. In Asia the Emperor is mocked by the monkey king, a Buddhist fable.

I'm not sure there are any journalists left. Most reporters seem fine with printing or broadcasting handouts from whoever the hell is popular today. At least once a week I see a story where the math doesn't make sense. Pretty clear that the news people aren't doing their jobs.

This is really picky but when I hear someone say, "Between you and I..." I want to throw my shoe at the TV.

Jade: I thought I was the only one! Someone said to me, "Oh, you are holding them to too high a standard. And I have to respond, "Yes, that is it, exactly; I am looking for standards of excellence that should be upheld as part of their responsibility as journalists who go before the public. But yes, to most people it seems to me, we are "picky." OK, so be it, I'll be picky; that will make two of us, at least.

There are still good journalists out there but they're not the ones working for the major networks. They don't do any of their own investigations or stories anyways, they just do as they're told...

I don't think it's too much to ask for journalists to do some hard research in order to ask the tough questions. They just need to ask themselves who they are working for. A good journalist works for the people, but most journalists work for the owner of their corporate MSM branch...

but like i said i really believe there still is good journalism out there, it's just a matter of switching up your sources, and above all, always listening critically and questioning motives behind the stories.

Democracy Now does a good hour long video podcast each day that always has some intelligent debates, and I also like the weekly On The Media from NPR, which takes a look at some of the very topics being discussed on this thread about how the media operates...

Did you see the interview Black had on CNN one night where he complained about the ticker across the bottom of the screen until they removed it?... hilarious!

They wont let me put a link up... but you can do a search on youtube lewis black CNN ticker and you will probably find it.

The Lewis Black YouTube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwZ-I-bJJwc

Adam - interesting commment about their similar voting record. I know that McCain has voted with the GOP 95% of the time. I would be horrified to find out that according to your statement Obama has done the same. Where did you get that information?

Obama, like McCain, voted to renew the PATRIOT Act the only time it came before him.

Obama, like McCain, voted to build that fence along the US-Mexican border.

Obama, like McCain, voted to severely restrict people's ability to file class action lawsuits.

Obama, like McCain, has voted to continue the Iraq occupation every single time he's had a chance to do so.

Obama, like McCain, voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice as the country's top diplomat.

Obama, unlike McCain, voted to retroactively legalize the president spying on American citizens' phone calls (I feel pretty comfortable saying McCain is in agreement with him on this issue, despite McCain abstaining when the vote came).

Obama, like McCain, thinks a military that spends more than every other military on Earth combined is too small.

Obama, like McCain, has been desperately trying to convince people he's head over heels in love with Jesus in an effort to get churches to land him in the White House.

I can go on. It would be significantly shorter to list the issues on which these two men disagree in any measurable fashion.

Thanks Adam, I've been wanting to make a list like that.

On top of the issues they've voted on, I would add that they both

will keep troops in Iraq for at least 3 more years. which is unacceptable IMO.

And it seems now they'd both OK offshore drilling.

They both have repeatedly rejected Kyoto protocols under pressure from the coal industry (Obama until very recently, but since 1998 he was lifting the restrictions for them).

And I doubt either of them are going to let up on the hundreds of billions in spending that goes into the "War on Terror", the "War on Drugs"... Or the NSA and all its unknown global operations.

Not enough of a change.

Adam - thanks for the list - but I really wanted to know where you got that information, not a list of votes that you think they have in common. Just getting lists doesn't help anyone - its like watching fox and believing everything you hear (no offense intended by the way).

I know the topics you are referring to and they did have the same votes on most of those (obama supports kyoto) - however - the world isn't black and white - these issues are very complex and there is more to them than basic talking points that we hear about.

I can tell you that Obama and McCain can be that similar when they both vote with their parties a high percentage of the time (96 and 88% respectively).

Obama will end the war the best way that we can. He didn't get us in there and it isn't an easy out to end it.

We have two realistic choices and based on what I think your positions are McCain is not your man.

I'm not going to sit here and link to every single one of these votes - I think most of them should be common knowledge, though I'll sadly admit they are not.

You can find many of them in a column I wrote here. The rest I think you can find if you're so inclined.

I know the topics you are referring to and they did have the same votes on most of those (obama supports kyoto) - however - the world isn't black and white - these issues are very complex and there is more to them than basic talking points that we hear about.

There are no "talking points" about the issues I've raised here because nobody from either party or campaign is talking about them.

I can tell you that Obama and McCain can be that similar when they both vote with their parties a high percentage of the time (96 and 88% respectively).

Yeah, it's great they've had token opposite views on things such as gas taxes and farm subsidies. While these things are no doubt important to a lot of people, I'm not willing to concede that the president can spy on my phone calls for the sake of having them. This rules out a vote for Obama.

Obama will end the war the best way that we can. He didn't get us in there and it isn't an easy out to end it.

Pretending for a moment that there is any reason to believe Obama is serious about getting US combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months like he says (though no such reason exists), how do you explain the fact that he proposes expanding by 100,000 combat troops a military that already spends more than that of every other country on Earth combined? What does he have planned that involves a bigger military after he says the military's costliest and most-involved current activity will be ended?

Getting out of Iraq is a small point of the bigger issue: the US' bull@!$%# tactic of diplomacy-by-intimidation needs to stop, but Obama proposes continuing it.

We have two realistic choices and based on what I think your positions are McCain is not your man.

Yes, those two choices are: continue supporting the bomb-loving, corporation-appeasing, oppressive, intrusive Republicans and Democrats, who agree on virtually everything important and who have worked together to approve and implement all the awful things people like to blame exclusively on President Bush; or refuse to continue supporting these people as they strip you of your civil liberties, waste your tax dollars on a bottomless pit of a military and watch on as insurance corporations deny health care to millions upon millions of people, to name just a few of the many problems for which these two groups are responsible.

I feel your pain and frustration but we have to take baby steps. The ideas that you are espousing are excellent but quite honestly they won't fly in a one fell swoop approach by any candidate. Thats the reason third party candidates don't get anywhere. Also remember that the president doesn't operate in a vacuum (president occupant not included) and requires the congress to help move an agenda.

Sadly you are faced with either wasting a vote on a third party candidate or trying to find the best major party candidate that will get you moving (slow or not) in the direction you think we should ultimately be headed. Anything else is just going to frustrate you further and won't move the ball one inch.

Voting for the lesser of two evils has never done the world any good that I can see.

The options are the lesser of two evils to somebody - no candidate fits the bill for everyone.

The reason 3rd party candidates don't get anywhere is because we're taught in school that we have a 2 party system. We've let the idiots have our government regulate primaries, which it has no authority to do, thereby disenfranchising any other party.

The plain fact is that our government has gotten out of control, expecting the parties who are conspiring to bend you over to protect you from themselves is probably not a good plan.

What should we do about it?

I feel your pain and frustration but we have to take baby steps. The ideas that you are espousing are excellent but quite honestly they won't fly in a one fell swoop approach by any candidate. Thats the reason third party candidates don't get anywhere. Also remember that the president doesn't operate in a vacuum (president occupant not included) and requires the congress to help move an agenda.

Obama is addressing none of the issues I'm talking about. None. It may not be realistic for Obama to say "I propose we slash the military budget in half next year," but it's not unrealistic to want him to say "The US spends too much on its military; we should be talking about that."But he doesn't say that - he says it needs to be bigger.

And besides - things like the PATRIOT Act weren't passed in increments, so why should we accept slowly getting rid of it (pretending that were even possible or that that is what is happening).

There is no such thing as "incremental change" for the better. It has never happened and never can happen. It's been decades of "baby steps" that have the president spying on American phone calls, the US military holding thousands of people without charges and millions upon millions of people unable to access health care because of corporate greed - and you here defending a candidate that supports these things!

Sadly you are faced with either wasting a vote on a third party candidate or trying to find the best major party candidate that will get you moving (slow or not) in the direction you think we should ultimately be headed. Anything else is just going to frustrate you further and won't move the ball one inch.

When neither "major party" candidate will in fact get you moving in the right direction, the only way to "waste your vote" is to continue supporting said candidates anyway. This is exactly what you are here proposing. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the same side as the Republicans - therefor, a vote for either is pointless if its done to oppose the other.

no candidate fits the bill for everyone.

And I'm not saying they should. I'm saying Obama stands for virtually none of the things people voting for him think he stands for.

Adam - I guess we will just not get to any common ground on this topic. What you said is nice but there is an entire country out there and it is next to impossible to run for office any more as a result of all the misinformation and large pools of uninformed voters. Look at some of the posts on this blog for example - there are discussions on how terrible Michelle Obama is based on the dress she chose, how Cindy McCain is a drugged all the time - and there are still people who insist that Obama is a muslim with a secret plot to destroy the country. Imagine having to run for president with this kind of nonsense swirling around - and then people wonder why nobody is talking about the issues.

I can't say that I argue with some of your thoughts - I just don't think that it is realistic at this point in time verbalize them as a candidate. If Obama came out and said he wanted to cut military spending in half the election would be over and McCain would be picking out carpet for the oval office - people would say "he won't keep us safe", "he hates the military men and women and what they stand for", "he will destroy the power of america". It would be political suicide on a grand scale.

As for the wasted vote issue - if you don't win you can't govern - enough said.

And regarding the baby steps approach - there are plenty of examples of change through baby steps - lets look at the most obvious right now - Obama. Blacks were slaves in this country 145 years ago. Couldn't vote 100 years ago - segregated 40 years ago. Baby steps suck - I won't lie - but with a large and largely uniformed electorate as our fellow citizens its the only option.

I do enjoy reading your comments though - they are thought provoking and I definitely understand where you are coming from.

I just don't think that it is realistic at this point in time verbalize them as a candidate.

My candidate opposes the Patriot Act and wants to shrink the military. If you agree with those positions I can find no rational reason for you to support a candidate who doesn't.

I can - yours isn't going to get elected so he isn't going to be able to do either of those things.

I can - yours isn't going to get elected so he isn't going to be able to do either of those things.

What good voting for the eventual winner if said winner doesn't stand for the things you think he should stand for?

Adam - there will NEVER be a candidate that will stand for the things you think he/she should if we don't make some sort of progress in this country. There are 300 Million people in the country - what are the odds that a candidate will run and hit every one of your issues? In the mean time you write in Daffy Duck or just don't vote and we get nowhere. Change is incremental and slow - sorry but thats how it is. You have to find the candidate that is as close to your positions as possible and keep moving the ball forward.

Or, another way of looking at it, SM, is that there will never be a real change until people such as yourself start thinking outside of the 2 party system.

That's what they don't want you to do because then they actually have to be more accountable for what they say and do. Look at the way both McCain and Obama voted with one another listed above... Take any major issue right now, and BOTH parties are responsible. It is not asking too much to have another candidate that didn't vote for all those things.

Both parties also work together on another thing - and this is critical - they won't allow a third party candidate into the debates. That would mess up their whole plan.

Issues important to me: I am against the wars, against surveillance on all americans, against the further expansion of the military, and most importantly, against corporate control in politics. And I am not alone here. Not looking for a perfect candidate. I think these are reasonable and common requests.

Go ahead and try to convince me otherwise, I'll admit I'm on the fence still, but keep in mind I don't think your ball is moving forward if you are voting Obama. It's still going backwards, it's just moving a little slower than if McCain were in charge.

Not going to try to convince you otherwise - I don't happen to disagree with you on some of those issues. Where we disagree is on how to get it fixed and a 3rd party isn't going to make it happen - unless one of them can find a normal person to run instead of strange goofy guys that come from nowhere.

Adam - there will NEVER be a candidate that will stand for the things you think he/she should if we don't make some sort of progress in this country.

I think what you mean is, "There will NEVER be a candidate that will stand for the things you think he/she should if we don't make standing for the things you think he/she should a requirement to earn your vote."

Change is incremental and slow - sorry but thats how it is. You have to find the candidate that is as close to your positions as possible and keep moving the ball forward.

Change is incremental and slow, and voting for the lesser of two evils has resulted in the two main parties agreeing on 90% of issues and presenting no real differences. Voting that pattern keeps the ball moving downward, not forward.

He doesn't actually own them. My understanding is that his wife owns them, and they signed a pre-nup stating he wouldn't get her money or houses in the event of a divorce. That said, there was no excuse for him not being prepared for that question.

Well in a nutshell, the issue is that both sides of the fence are reaching for the regular joe... and in doing so, criticizing the opposite side for being an elitist.

Obama is attacked for his education and his demeanor by McCain... but McCain doesnt have any room to talk because he was practically raised on a silver spoon.

In terms of houses... I think that the regular joe would see that someone who doesnt know how many houses he even owns is rather rich and elite.

Your sock analogy doesnt really work because most people can afford 20 pairs of socks... most people cannot afford more than one house (if they can afford one house at all). And whereas socks dont have a value high enough to keep an exact account of them, houses should. I would definitely know how many houses I had.

And by pointing out that McCain doesnt know, it's pointing out that he is so well off that it doesnt really matter to him when the number of houses went from 2 to 10 to 20 or any number in between.

WHAT?

:/ Nevermind

You must be a staff writer for Jon Stewart! Bravo!

we have opted to provide biased reporting and try to pass it as unbiased.

Shouldn't that read "fair and balanced".?