1000th Neoconservative
Remember my animated editorial cartoon, in which Jon Stewart welcomes his 1000th neoconservative? Turns out I wasn't imagining that Stewart gives much more time to right-wing nuts than progressives.
Might sound like he's making fun of them, but in reality he's allowing them to promote their views and sell their books. Meanwhile, liberal books get remaindered.
Might sound like he's making fun of them, but in reality he's allowing them to promote their views and sell their books. Meanwhile, liberal books get remaindered.
posted by Ted Rall at
2:18 PM
41 Comments:
Shouldn't Stewart run his show as he sees fit? If that includes having reasonable dialog with conservatives, what's the problem? In truth Ted, the only thing that would satisfy you is something like this.
Jon Stewart: "Today we have Bill Kristol on the show. Let's bring him out."
Bill Kristol: "Hi Jon, nice to be here."
Jon Stewart: "You're a war monger who has hastened the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, yet you've never apologized. You have blood on your hands. Have you no shame? Will you now apologize to the world?"
Bill Kristol: [walks off]
Jon Stewart: "Don't let the door hit ya' where the good lord split ya'!"
[Audience hoots and hollers]
Jon Stewart: "Now I want everyone to go out and buy Ted Rall's new book, 'Why I Hate America and How You Can Too.'"
Sorry Ted. The rest of us live in a nice little town called Reality.
Obviously he can run his show as he sees fit. But progressives should stop seeing him as their hero when he is, in reality, a strike breaker as well as enabler for anti-American propaganda.
Stewart is an "enabler for anti-American propaganda."?
What's your evidence?
I think Stewart could use a few more progressive guests on his shows.
You claim Jon Stewart is an "enabler for anti-American propaganda."
I ask for the second time: Where is your evidence?
Actually, he usually enables them to appears like the asses that they are. They are just usually too dim to realize they've been punked.
Neo-cons like William Kristol despise America, yet Jon Stewart allows them to spew their hateful bile.
I think it's preferable for him to invite neocons in and throw soft punches at them, than to invite a creep like Barney Frank and caress the little bastard's ego.
As for him being a strike breaker, I think you should let go of the 30s for good, Ted. TV writers are really not a good stand-in for the "oppressed of the world."
Well, Ted, there is a question that really begs to be answered, and I'm going to ask that question of you:
What if Jon Stewart actually invited you on his show? Would you decline his offer because he is a strike-breaker, or would your need for media exposure decide that Stewart's strike-breaking is really just a minor thing?
This is a question I think everyone at this blog is eager for you to answer.
Meanwhile, liberal books get remaindered.
Am I the only one to find irony in the fact that Ted Rall has done more than his share of bashing his fellow Democrats/liberals in the past year.
Ted, nobody in the "media" has done more to promote liberal ideas and causes than Stewart with the possible exception of Olbermann (although I bet you would find fault with him too). Stewart is like a good pitcher, he can pitch out of the strike zone and make the batter still swing. That's what he does with the neocons, he is nice enough to get them on the show, but still makes them look like dicks.
Re: "This is a question I think everyone at this blog is eager for you to answer." -- SS
Speak for yourself.
It's always classy to me how Ted Rall essentially whines that no one pays attention to him. Admit it: You just want to be on Stewart or Colbert, and since they don't invite you on, you bitch about how they are conservative.
Sure, I'd be happy to go on Stewart. But it wouldn't change my life...I know that from having been on Maher and other TV shows.
But I'd really be happy to see Ward Churchill or another real leftie.
And what I'd LOVE would be for lefties to stop thinking of rightists as lefties.
I think that Jon Stewart is an excellent interviewer, and my interpretation (be it accurate or not) is that he is respectful of all his guests and has civil dialogue with them, regardless of who they are. Stewart knows that his audience is younger and more liberal. He also states very publicly that he is interested establishing civil dialogue in today's thorny American political discourse, which he sees as having been ravaged by the culture war bigotry that's been going on since the 1960s.
I think it is reasonable that Stewart have far more ring wingers on his show than left wingers, for several reasons. First, the demographics of his audience. Second, it's a comedy news show, and they're a LOT more funny. Simply put, Ted, you try to be a cartoonist but you take yourself and your position way too seriously to actually be funny in an interview.
Last, I think that this younger demographic recognizes the idiocy of Bill Kristol's position and that Stewart's respectful treatment of him exposes that further. This is far more effective than the self-gratifying Ann Coulter style bashing which you seem to want to see instead.
When you talk about these issues, Ted, you come across as bitter, resentful and angry. It's a very negative way of behaving, and it does not attract people. This is why Obama won, it's why bush won, it's why Clinton won, and it's why Reagan won. They all had a positive message and their opponents had a negative one.
I don't think this reflects poorly on people to gravitate towards positive energy instead of negative. Jon Stewart definitely presents a positive energy. I think too often you, Ted, present a negative one.
So Kristol is a nutjob....fine, you don't have to be angry about it. you're just running a racket inside your head.
censorship only would make the conservatives more popular. By exposing them like Stewart does, anyone with a brain would never buy their book. Sorry Ted, totally not with you on this one.
Jon Stewart is about the only interviewer who actually asks the righties hard questions. He should interview as many as he can.
I'd highly recommend his interview with Bubbles Greenspan from a season or two ago. Stewart didn't treat him with the unearned reverence that mainstream business reporters give him. Stewart asked Greenspan tough questions and Greenspan was completely unprepared to answer. If "serious" journalists had done that twenty years ago, we may not be in this economic mess now.
Where di you see a study that shows The Daily Show has more neo-conservatives then progressives? I looked at his guest list on wikipedia and I couldn't tell you the political affiliation of most of his guests.
I did find this by one blogger I've never heard of:
"For the year 2007, The Daily Show has taped 138 new episodes. (The first episode of 2007 aired on January 8, and the last new episode aired on November 1.) Those 138 episodes (numbered 12001-12138 on The Daily Show's online video archive) have featured 140 in-studio guest appearances (some guests appeared twice, but are counted as separate appearances.) Of those 140 guest appearances, 51 were deemed by this reporter to have outstanding political biases or affiliations. Of those 51, 25 were conservative or Republican, while 27 were liberal or Democratic. "
Speak for yourself.
It was a fair enough question, Anon. People are sometimes faced with difficult choices. Ted is mad at Jon Stewart for two reasons: one is that he doesn't have enough people to the left of the spectrum on his show, and the second is that he's a strike-breaker.
My prediction was that Ted would choose go on the show, and perhaps mention the strike in passing to Stewart, and ask him why he made the decision to "cross the picket line". But of course, that's just speculation.
;-)
And what I'd LOVE would be for lefties to stop thinking of rightists as lefties.
It depends on what your definition of what you think a "lefty" is. Ted, I've read many of your columns and you differ on many positions of what would define a liberal, but you would still be a liberal. To me sometimes, you think anybody who disagrees with you is a "rightist."
And, there is another issue that Ted has mentioned in his replies: How is Bill Kristol anti-American? I know about neo-con philosophy, but not everyone's familiar with it.
What this really boils down to is a riff on Bill Hicks' bit about Jay Leno. After tearing Leno apart, Bill sarcastically says to himself "You're just jealous because you've never been on the show." Bill then quietly replies to himself "You're so right."
Jon Stewart definitely presents a positive energy. I think too often you, Ted, present a negative one.
We need both. Actually, head-in-the-sand America could do with a bit less of the feel-good energy.
The Daily Show has some good writers and their segments are more often hit than miss.
But I don't watch the interviews. Stewart allows McCain and Huckabee to wink at the audience as if we're in on the joke. I agree with Ted. It'd be much better if Stewart booked some real leftists, but that would be contrary to his "sensible centrist" position.
We don't need exposure to right-wing views--we're surrounded by them. How about inviting Noam Chomsky to the show at least as many times as McCain?
And what does it say that comdians--Maher, Garofalo, and Stewart--are largley the spokespeople of the alternative left. That it's a joke?
Ted's right - I have said this about and to Thom Hartmann as well - they get 100% of the time on conservative shows, 80% of the time on "middle-of-the-road" shows, and about 60% of the time on liberal shows.
Then people wonder why liberals don't do as well with books, etc.
Stop giving the worst offenders a venue, I say. No more David Horowitz or Marc Morano, like, ever. no glenn beck, ann coulter, michelle malkin, michael savage, ever. No karl rove, richard perle, john bolton, ever. No teabagger herders, not ever.
If radio segregates more that way, good, it'll be more like the internet and cable tv. And if cable tv loses a little by backing down off the neocon thing a bit, well, fine, maybe if people who always look to see even public tv and radio and most cable "news" be nothing but right wing punditry will turn off the tv, learn about the world, and cease being fanatical assholes.
right-wingers are not more funny - dennis miller? jackie mason? vs bill hicks or george carlin? aggie dude pushing that trope straight outta fox is only funny in the laughing AT you sense.
also at national lampoon, Douglas kenney vs. p j o'rourke? (hint: virtually nothing anyone calls classic national lampoon was o rourke, who mostly did long-winded masturbation festivals about how good he was - the famous stuff was all Kenney and other "liberals" (although the overall humor approach would better be described as irreverent) made o'rourke look like the wannabe wm. buckley he actually was - a complete Herb who would help write ethnic jokes and that was about it.
stewart might be a poor example, because cable is more volunteer media, really. the real issue is, just as no one ever got fired for buying microsoft, no one ever gets fired for having a conservative guest. but the most popular show on msnbc, phil donahue, got fired for not having enough (>70%) right-wing guests, and for disagreeing with the ones it had on.
Ted,
Ward Churchill may share a last name with one of the most infamous colonizers of the last century. Unfortunately for him, his first name more accurately described his position. He was a ward of the state.
He was an un-tenured professor of fluff to raise my GPA studies at the University of Colorado. He deliberately made an utterly uncontroversial claim in the most inflammatory manner possible. One can only assume he was trying to raise is profile by such attention whoring. He sure as hell didn't have any original thoughts that would merit attention. His brilliant plan backfired when the good people of Colorado decided to stop cutting him a check.
Everyone knows about blowback. Even the CIA, hardly a center of anti-imperialist thought, has studied it extensively. Claiming 9-11 was due to blowback and peppering your treatise with references to "little Eichmans" is not serious scholarship. Its a combination of the blindingly obvious and deliberately offensive.
Phil Donahue lost his show because his ratings were pathetic. And that's a difficult accomplishment given the pathetic ratings of the other hosts on GE TV.
Quoth Delgado:
but the most popular show on msnbc, phil donahue, got fired for not having enough (>70%) right-wing guests, and for disagreeing with the ones it had on.
Never mind the ratings. Yes, I remember one such incident of Phil trying to one up one of his "conservative" guests. Just after some discussion, the particulars of shich I can't remember, Phil fires off, all sanctimoniously, at William Donohue (then head of the Catholic League ):
"Do you believe homosexuals go to Heaven?"
William retorts immediately:
"Yes!"
Cut to Phil's disappointed mug and the break. What a silly douche bag Phil was.
Anonymous: 1. Ward Churchill WAS tenured. 2. The US govt. acknowledges the blowback nature of Bin Laden, a US proxy, attacking America.
Shady Pines: 3. As you should have read in my post, and/or looked up, he had the highest ratings on MSNBC - higher than Chris Matthews - higher than anyone there.
So:
Fascists 0 Reality 3
It's gonna be a blowout.
George Carlin was too smart to be a lefty or a righty. Like all truly great comedians, he spoke truth to power by exposing the excesses and vanities of all. To be sure, he bashed our corporate masters as the business criminals they are, but he also had choice barbs for the pretensions of guilty white liberals, the arrogance of Captain Planet environmentalists and the language mangling of overzealous feminists.
To use his name as some sort of opponent process to hacks and whores like Dennis Miller is to imply that he was somehow in the same bush league and, therefore, is an insult to a great man's career.
"Do you believe homosexuals go to Heaven?"
William retorts immediately:
"Yes!"
Cut to Phil's disappointed mug and the break.
That's what Phil gets for inviting the Catholic Inquisition on his show.
Susan, I don't think you realize how Phil's quip blew back on his face. Read the exchange once again.
Ted's right about Stewart: he has Kristol on every 3 months, and as idiotic as Bill may be, you can always count on Jon to pull his punches in classic gatekeeper demeanour.
But then, what would you expect from two members of the tribe but (yet) more dog and pony?
"(AP) MSNBC fired Phil Donahue on Tuesday, abruptly ending the veteran talk show host's return to television after six months of poor ratings."
Apology accepted.
Churchill was indeed tenured. He was also a plagiarizer and a liar.
I believe that it did blow back on Phil, Incitatus. I was focusing on William Donoghue. Having been raised a Catholic, I know it's not doctrine that homosexuals go to heaven. They go to hell, according to doctrine.
Anyway, Phil Donoghue's show ratings were high enough to stay on the air. But it didn't. So much for the vaunted liberal-dominated media theory.
Shady Pines = shady quote mining?
"In the 8 p.m. slot, Mr. Donahue's show averaged 439,000 viewers over the past month, far short of his competitors, Connie Chung on CNN, who had 970,000 viewers, and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, who dominated the hour with 2.7 million viewers.
Mr. Donahue's show had been growing slightly over the past few months, and he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC, even the channel's signature prime-time program "Hardball With Chris Matthews." Mr. Matthews's show has averaged 413,000 viewers over the last month."
emphasis added
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/business/media/26PHIL.html?ex=1099195200&en=1229e072f5289851&ei=5070
Susan, you got your doctrine all twisted up, probably because of well-intentioned, but ill-prepared Catechists. So, probably were Phil's. Funny, I had you figured as Jewish turned Buddhist, for some odd reason.
I'm not sure what you mean by "doctrine all twisted up". But those who participate in sex with the same gender are not "heaven-bound" in the catholic church. However, "celibate" people can be. So William Donoghue was probably talking about "celibate" people when he said "Yes!"
Nobody is "heaven-bound" in Catholic doctrine, Susan. That's a Protestant concept.
So you don't want people who despise America to be on "The Daily Show", when you yourself demonstrably despise America (I've read you for YEARS, if you've said one nice thing about America, I must have missed it amongst the insults). Ted, the reason people buy books from Malkin and Beck and Levin is that those books don't insult their audience to get their point across. It's been their stock and trade for years - if you're the vinegar, they're the honey, and who would you buy a book from - the guy who says, "you're a-okay" or "you're an idiot living in a country of idiots making the world an awful place." For having the mob pegged, you have absolutely no idea how to manipulate them to your advantage.
Post a Comment
<< Home