Gotta give Cramer some credit for having the balls to come on though...

that being said. Ouch.

B96vUHKN_I4

a slaughter of immense proportions.

edit: some of the unedited and uncensored footage is posted on DKTV
part1: http://www.dailykostv.com/w/000988/index.html
part2: http://www.dailykostv.com/w/000987/
part3: http://www.dailykostv.com/w/000986/

OMGWTFPWN isnt enought o describe this event.

John Liebowitz is not funny...

Is there anything that just does'nt sail a mile and a half over your head Osg?

That was hilarious. Love the Daily show.

Viacom says "OMFGWTFPWN, no Stewart vs Cramer for j00!"

I just watched the rerun, that was painful. Do these people really underestimate Stewart that much?

Is there anything that just does'nt sail a mile and a half over your head Osg?


Nothing sails over my head. I simply do not find Mr. Leibowitz and his show funny. It's beneath me.

lol

Nothing sails over my head. I simply do not find Mr. Leibowitz and his show funny. It's beneath me.

Of course you wouldn't find a guy who makes you and everyone you believe in look stupid :)

John Leibowitz make anyone look stupid? I think not.

It's real easy to sound clever with a team to write for you and to set up a dupe ;P

That being said I've always found John Stewert to be very fun to watch and have often thought his talents might be better utilized on a regular broadcast channel.

It's real easy to sound clever with a team to write for you and to set up a dupe ;P

That being said I've always found John Stewert to be very fun to watch and have often thought his talents might be better utilized on a regular broadcast channel.

Stewart writes his own questions for guests, the writers write the "bits" and sketches. He didn't dupe Cramer that's very apparent.

By dupe I meant a fool not up to the task at hand ;P

By dupe I meant a fool not up to the task at hand ;P

yea, this is kind of stewarts point in the first case; no one at cnbc has a fucking clue.

Stewart writes his own questions for guests, the writers write the "bits" and sketches. He didn't dupe Cramer that's very apparent.

What Rover said is as true as I could tell working with the show. John Oliver called John Stewart numerous times throughout the days we were at the White House (and supposedly a few times on Inauguration Day as well, though I wasn't working with them that day). It's the Daily Show With John Stewart, the latter part of the title just as important as the former.

i dunno man say what you want about writers...put me or any other A.ro member on camera and it doesnt work even with the same exact script.

But IIRC Stewarts interviews are all him.

i dunno man say what you want about writers...put me or any other A.ro member on camera and it doesnt work even with the same exact script.

But IIRC Stewarts interviews are all him.

on the other hand, put jeremy paxman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c) in stewarts seat and people will be fleeing the show in tears.

And the brilliant Tucker Carlson now chimes in...once again we see a shining example of "It is better to be thought one might be a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/15/tucker-carlson-rips-jon-s_n_175078.html

Didn't Stewart paste Carlson once as well?

The great part is that Stewart doesn't need to defend what he does - he has never pretended to be a legitimate news source, and freely acknowledges his show as satire. The proof of the power he is gaining is evident in the number of 'legitimate' sources talking about his show.

The great part is that Stewart doesn't need to defend what he does - he has never pretended to be a legitimate news source, and freely acknowledges his show as satire. The proof of the power he is gaining is evident in the number of 'legitimate' sources talking about his show.

I think The Daily Show is hilarious, but I can see their point. What Stewart does is sort of like what Elren did, hiding behind the "I'm only trying to get a rise out of you serious guys" defense anytime it's convenient.

I don't think he hides behind that. I think he uses it to shame people. "Hey, Im supposed to be a FAKE news show, why am I doing this, and why are you covering Brittany?"

I think he does to point out the absurdity of the whole thing.

Look at when he was on Crossfire and they pointed out what silly questions Stewart asked Kerry when he had the chance. It was exactly the same as how Stewart pointed out the silly questions CNBC asked those CEOs.

If Stewart wants to make a legitimate fuss, he needs to step up when he has the opportunities himself. If he wants to be all jokes, then his criticisms should be taken as jokes and not as legitimate criticism.

I think he's funny, and generally agree with his criticisms. I also see how his maneuvering is a bit bullshit.

Look at when he was on Crossfire and they pointed out what silly questions Stewart asked Kerry when he had the chance. It was exactly the same as how Stewart pointed out the silly questions CNBC asked those CEOs.

If Stewart wants to make a legitimate fuss, he needs to step up when he has the opportunities himself. If he wants to be all jokes, then his criticisms should be taken as jokes and not as legitimate criticism.

I think he's funny, and generally agree with his criticisms. I also see how his maneuvering is a bit bullshit.

well, to quote stewart from crossfire:

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
What is wrong with you? (APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you -- when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.
STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago.
STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

how can you seriously compare comedy central to cnbc?

I'm not. Pay attention.

Not sure if it's english as a second language or his own personal paradigms that made him miss that San.

Not sure if it's english as a second language or his own personal paradigms that made him miss that San.

im impressed you managed to drool out another one of your retarded posts. my personal paradigms? what the shit, dude?

I'm not. Pay attention.

oh, im sorry, how could i think you were comparing them, my mist- hey, wait a minute...


Look at when he was on Crossfire and they pointed out what silly questions Stewart asked Kerry when he had the chance. It was exactly the same as how Stewart pointed out the silly questions CNBC asked those CEOs.

If Stewart wants to make a legitimate fuss, he needs to step up when he has the opportunities himself. If he wants to be all jokes, then his criticisms should be taken as jokes and not as legitimate criticism.

you are comparing them, you are saying that his show has to behave like a legitimate news source to be able call other news sources on their shit. why the would he need to do that? do you even know what satire is?

besides, all of the stupid people criticizing stewart over this is doing so because they, for some drug induced reason, think hes sucking up to obama. i can only assume this is because the same people sucked up to bush religiously.

This isn't complicated. I'm not comparing Comedy Central or CNBC to anything. Jim Cramer is more a clown than Jon Stewart has ever been. The network they're on is irrelevant to any meaningful discussion.

If Stewart just wants to be a clown, then that's fine. He's funny.

However, that's not what he's doing. He's playing the clown when it suits him, but then hides behind "BUT I'M TEH CLOWN" whenever his serious side gets called out.

However, that's not what he's doing. He's playing the clown when it suits him, but then hides behind "BUT I'M TEH CLOWN" whenever his serious side gets called out.I believe that's the role of the classic court jester, something sorely missing from the White House these days.

This isn't complicated. I'm not comparing Comedy Central or CNBC to anything. Jim Cramer is more a clown than Jon Stewart has ever been. The network they're on is irrelevant to any meaningful discussion.

If Stewart just wants to be a clown, then that's fine. He's funny.

However, that's not what he's doing. He's playing the clown when it suits him, but then hides behind "BUT I'M TEH CLOWN" whenever his serious side gets called out.

i think you need to separate 1. calling people on their shit and embarrasing them and 2. conducting seriously journalistic interviews, hes never claimed an attempt at 2, but does 1 regularly. this was, stupidly enough, 'escalated' to an ass-kicking by jimbo, not stewart.

When he has people like Mike Huckabee and Ralph Reed on to have serious conversations about abortion and gay marriage, I never hear anyone degrade those conversations with the fact that his show is on Comedy Central and shouldn't be taken seriously. Those parts of the show aren't less serious just because they happen to be on Comedy Central, and he certainly doesn't act the clown all the time.

You can't have that one both ways, just because it's an easy defense when it suits him/you.

He has Ralph Reed and Mike Huckabee on because they are on the "book tour" promoting their book. They discuss abortion and things like that because that is what Huckabee and Reed make money doing. I can't imagine having Ralph Reed on to discuss building model ships.

Sure. They wouldn't, in a million years, go on his show otherwise. I'd like to see more of that. He'd make a better funny journalist than serious comedian.

Doesn't change that it's horseshit maneuvering for him to hide behind the Comedy Central name only when it's opportune.

Sure. They wouldn't, in a million years, go on his show otherwise. I'd like to see more of that. He'd make a better funny journalist than serious comedian.

Doesn't change that it's horseshit maneuvering for him to hide behind the Comedy Central name only when it's opportune.


You're a joke.

You're a joke.

Well that was constructive....

Par for the course with him these days...

He's not as bad as Wiggo by a long stretch. Wiggo slings insults right and left when you talk over his head.

I wasn't even attacking him, merely stating I wasn't sure if you were having problems due to language or your own personal paradigms ( a set of filters we process information through ).

We all have them you fucking inbred welfare case.

Shut it or move on, lord you're such a biased pos it's hard to even talk to you.

I think The Daily Show is hilarious, but I can see their point. What Stewart does is sort of like what Elren did, hiding behind the "I'm only trying to get a rise out of you serious guys" defense anytime it's convenient.


Actually, this seems to be more a description of what you have devolved to; most of your posts of the last couple months seem more designed to get a rise out of someone than to contribute anything.

It is like you have grown bored with this forum, and want to push others to also grow tired of visiting the same old sarcastic crap so that you will not have to waste your time here. Just my observation, of course, so quite meaningless.

Look at when he was on Crossfire and they pointed out what silly questions Stewart asked Kerry when he had the chance. It was exactly the same as how Stewart pointed out the silly questions CNBC asked those CEOs.

One was talking about a show that presents itself as a 100% serious money/business news channel, the other a satire show. It's blatantly different.

I can't tell exactly what you're arguing. You've switched from saying he's hiding behind being a comedian, to hiding behind what network he's on, 2 very different things that are bullshit in 2 very different ways.


Actually, this seems to be more a description of what you have devolved to; most of your posts of the last couple months seem more designed to get a rise out of someone than to contribute anything.

It is like you have grown bored with this forum, and want to push others to also grow tired of visiting the same old sarcastic crap so that you will not have to waste your time here. Just my observation, of course, so quite meaningless.

I'd say it's more being a devil's advocate. If he didn't want to waste his time here he could just leave or shut the site down.

Par for the course with him these days...

But you ARE a joke!

It takes a comedian to report the truth, and you fault the comedian for having the excuse "I am just a comedian"

You miss the point I think.

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Stewart isn't hiding.

When Socrates would go up to the great and important men of Athens, engage them in an argument and completely lay them to waste, he would make a point to let the men know what a fool HE was.

Sire! I bring good tides! The English were afraid to jump into the sea and fight our brave sailors like men!

The role of the Jester has always been one that has the ability to speak truth to power. He could say things nobody else could and level critique nobody else would dare too. If even the fool can see it, why can't you? Thats the point!

Twain, Swift, Aristophanes... All of them... they argent hiding, they are holding up a mirror to show the world its own ridiculousness. Laughter is the way in. Every one of them would draw you in and then get deadly serious. Its how its been done for 3,000 years. If you think Stewart is hiding, then you just don't understand what he is doing.

He's not as bad as Wiggo by a long stretch. Wiggo slings insults right and left when you talk over his head.

I wasn't even attacking him, merely stating I wasn't sure if you were having problems due to language or your own personal paradigms ( a set of filters we process information through ).

We all have them you fucking inbred welfare case.

Shut it or move on, lord you're such a biased pos it's hard to even talk to you.

you are not even capable of talking over elrens head fandros. have to love it when a retarded hick calls anyone else inbred though, the irony is hilarious.

You miss the point I think.

Stewart isn't hiding.

When Socrates would go up to the great and important men of Athens, engage them in an argument and completely lay them to waste, he would make a point to let the men know what a fool HE was.

The role of the Jester has always been one that has the ability to speak truth to power. He could say things nobody else could and level critique nobody else would dare too. If even the fool can see it, why can't you? Thats the point!

Twain, Swift, Aristophanes... All of them... they argent hiding, they are holding up a mirror to show the world its own ridiculousness. Laughter is the way in. Every one of them would draw you in and then get deadly serious. Its how its been done for 3,000 years. If you think Stewart is hiding, then you just don't understand what he is doing.

You're seriously comparing Jon Stewart to Socrates now?

I don't dislike the guy. I think he's smart and funny, and I regularly watch the show. However, he's also not Socrates, and he's certainly not above the fray or without ego in these things.

It's annoying that you guys are so far off in left field that you're forcing me to argue against someone I actually like.

Alas, the Jester could find himself in the stocks, or worse if the joke hit too close to home. That's the problem with people in power. They just can't take a joke, sometimes...

And I don't think Socrates had a staff to write his skits for him.

this was, stupidly enough, 'escalated' to an ass-kicking by jimbo, not stewart.How did Cramer do any ass kicking? The show I watched was pretty one sided.

There is, by the way, a simpler method of looking at this. Regardless of Stewart's possible ego, bias, hiding-behind-whoevers-skirts, was he wrong in the interview? Because if not, I'm not sure what the actual argument here is.

I don't think he was wrong in the interview. He definitely creamed Cramer.

How did Cramer do any ass kicking? The show I watched was pretty one sided.

There is, by the way, a simpler method of looking at this. Regardless of Stewart's possible ego, bias, hiding-behind-whoevers-skirts, was he wrong in the interview? Because if not, I'm not sure what the actual argument here is.

no, im saying cramer escalated it into a situation where he got his ass handed to him by trying to 'attack' the daily show, primarily with his appearances on the today show, and on morning joe (god, what a pompous ass that guy is btw)

Joe Scarborough is a perfect example that it takes neither brains nor skill to get ahead in the USA.

It's annoying that you guys are so far off in left field that you're forcing me to argue against someone I actually like.

Whose forcing you? You were the instigator. All anyone said was Stewart obliterated Cramer and well...you decided Stewart was hiding behind being a comedian.

Eh, not really. Try reading the thread.

I read it...it's pretty clear.

A decent commentary on the Stewart/Cramer interview was posted on Balkinization this weekend:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/03/stewart-cramer-interview-and.html

Specifically, he states that we should be mindful of the fact that Cramer, whatever else he is, was trained as, and considers himself, a journalist; and since what Stewart was calling him on was his abandonment/betrayal of journalistic principles and ethics, Cramer couldn't meaningfully defend against that charge. In other words, he collapsed in a way that a non-journalist (who wouldn't be defending an identity) would not have. Additionally...

(Meat of the commentary here):

The reason we don't see interviews like this on television is first, that interviewees don't sit there and take accusations of this type-- they fight back, spin, obfuscate, or change the subject; and second, that if a contemporary reporter started laying into a subject the way Stewart laid into Cramer, no one would ever agree to an interview with that reporter again. It was a rare combination of circumstances that led Cramer to agree to sit still and listen to Stewart engage in his j'accuse.

What is important about the interview, however, is that both Stewart and Cramer are playing journalistic roles. Stewart is a comedian who does journalism through comedy; Cramer is a financial journalist who does journalism through entertainment. They are two sides of the same coin. One is interviewing the other, and what they are talking about is journalism itself. That is why the exchange is significant.

*Both* participants were trying to make a statement via this interview, only one of the messages was more coded than the other - the message being tapped by a trustee in a prison cell, if you will. Cramer, despite the punishment he took, clearly knew what he would be getting into with regard to this interview and his 'statement' on co-optation should not be ignored in the glare from the more obvious one.

Closing paragraph here:

We should congratulate Jon Stewart for outstanding television, and for an absorbing interview that raised really important issues. In this sense, he is doing great journalism. But we should not assume that regular journalists could simply imitate his mannerisms and his aggressive questioning tactics and turn journalism around. Their subjects will not behave like Jim Cramer, a journalist, did. Professional journalists must abandon the bad habits of contemporary journalism, and the sycophancy, corruption, and complicity that come with them; but to do that, they also have to find some way to free themselves from much larger social and economic forces that lead to co-optation

Regards,
Nydia

Im not saying he is Socrates.

Im saying he is a social critic and a satirist.