Does a new day require a new Daily Show?

November 8th, 2008

So, viagra usa health will Jon Stewart of The Daily Show be forced to start making fun of the same politicians he’s fawned over for the last couple of years?

After all, sildenafil treat isn’t his humor all about “speaking truth to power?”

Well, the Democrats have all the power now. Shouldn’t they be the new targets for his jabs and “genius?”

Or will he keep kicking the Republicans while they’re down?

Entry Filed under: Media

18 Comments Add your own

  • 1. folkbum  |  November 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Stewart never shied away from hitting Dems when they were being stupid. Obama, even, was hit regularly over the last couple of years.

    Nothing like what Republicans got, but, then again, the Republicans kind of asked for it. I mean, Palin? Really?

  • 2. Vinny  |  November 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    In one of Pat Buchanan’s rants, he asked how the “mainstream media” would have reacted if SNL had made fun of Michelle Obama’s “pride” comments week after week. Aside from the fact that she was a candidate’s wife rather than a candidate, what Pat failed to note was that Michelle was smart enough to back off those comments as soon as she saw how they were being intepreted. Palin just kept repeating the stuff that made her look bad like Alaska’s proximity to Russia constituting foreign policy experience.

  • 3. Dave  |  November 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Folkbum, Stewart has shied away from hitting Dems when they were being stupid. His jokes, though extremely witty, were far less critical of the Dems then they were of the Reps. His jokes about the Dems were more about the quirks of the politicians than their policies, choices, etc. That being said I still think Stewart’s show is ridiculously funny and I will grant you that McCain and the Republican leadership need a good razzing over the Palin pick.

    Eliot, Stewart will continue to kick the Republicans “while they are down” because his show is supported and watched by a predominantly liberal, democratic audience. Why chance losing viewership?

  • 4. wimpy  |  November 9th, 2008 at 7:26 am

    This argument is coming up everywhere (especially in the MSM, which shows how lazy they are)–it’s as if conservatives couldn’t survive this last election without believing some “prominent” liberal is going to lose.
    Yes, Jon Stewart will most likely continue to kick Republicans when they are down. Because the Republicans will no doubt continue to behave stupidly. He will also continue to have Rebublican guests on his show in large number and will continue to treat them as deferentially as he always has. Because regardless of what the conservatives refuse to believe, Stewart does, in fact, treat the two sides equally. He was merciless on Hillary Clinton during the early part of the campaign, and did you watch him during the Democratic convention? Or see his film on the “biography” of Obama? He was also very tough on Nancy Pelosi during her recent appearance. I daresay the reason you think he’s tougher on Repubs is because they were the ones setting policy the last eight years, So they deserved the scrutiny.
    And as for your notion that a predominently liberal audience watches him, I can tell you that more of my friends who watch him are Republicans than Democrats. Thinking Republicans, that is.

  • 5. Vinny  |  November 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    It is possible that Stewart’s greater emphasis on Republican foibles shows a bias towards the Democrats. It is also possible that the Washington Post’s negative story count demonstrates a bias towards the democrats.

    However, you cannot infer bias solely from the quantity of criticism. If you could, you would have to conclude that historians are biased against James Buchanan and in favor of Abraham Lincoln because a there are more negative evaluations of the former’s presidency than the latter’s. To take it to an even greater level of absurdity, you would have to conclude that historians are biased against Stalin and Hitler as opposed to Churchill and Roosevelt.

    I certainly would not argue for the complete absence of bias in the media, but the American people decided to go with the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 after many years of preferring the Republicans. One must at least consider the possibility that there might be some objective basis for being more critical of the Republicans.

  • 6. elliot  |  November 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    I’m sorry, but the press was scathing in it’s criticism of Bush leading up to the 2004 elections. The fact that “the American people decided to go with” Bush in 2004 was despite the media bias. It didn’t disprove the fact that there was bias.

    Who wins has nothing to do with the bias.

    In fact, I’d like you to find a single year when the press was biased in favor of the Republicans.

    They HATED Reagan, despite his overwhelming victories (I know, I was one of the press at the time).

    I can admit that Fox and the Wall Street Journal are biased towards the Right. The difference is I can also see that the N.Y. Times, NPR, MSNBC and the big three are biased for the Left.

    Do each of those outlets differ in degree? Yes. But they are all biased towards their various constituency. The problem is the Left has been hearing their own bias reflected back at them from the mainstream media so long that they are blind to it.

    And in response to Wimpy’s statement, “I daresay the reason you think he’s tougher on Repubs is because they were the ones setting policy the last eight years, So they deserved the scrutiny.”

    That’s exactly my point. I want to see him be just as hard now that the Democrats will be setting the policy. I will bet you $100 that he will not be.

  • 7. elliot  |  November 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    I apologize if that last comment sounded surly. I try not to sound annoyed or peevish in my comments, but I’m having an angry day. Must be the weather?

  • 8. folkbum  |  November 9th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    In fact, I’d like you to find a single year when the press was biased in favor of the Republicans.
    1993-2000. With particular emphasis on that liberal bastion The New York Times and the years 1998 and 1999.

  • 9. Vinny  |  November 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    From September 2001 through March 2003, the media was completely in the bag for the Bush administration. The New York Times dutifully reported every scrap of intelligence leaked by the administration and Rice and Cheney would then go out and tout the New York Times story as independent confirmation of the administration’s claims. Stories that supported the case for the Iraq War were front page news while stories that challenged it were buried in the back.

    Political leanings do not necessarily prove bad journalism. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page may be “in the bag” for Bush, but its news reporting is very reliable. The Economist is an excellent source of information regardless of its conservative political leanings. Many of the newspapers that conservatives bash do very good reporting. On the other hand, everything on cable news whether it is Fox or MSNBC must be taken with a grain of salt if not a boulder.

  • 10. elliot  |  November 9th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

    I never thought we should have invaded Iraq (feel free to use the search box to check up on me), but I’m also not a fan of rewriting history.

    Was the press too credulous about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I would say so.

    However, even if they would have dug more deeply, they probably would have been convinced (as were the Democrats in Congress and the authorities in Britain and France) that Saddam did still have the weapons. Every major intelligence agency in the West believed Iraq had them. It was bad intelligence assets not compliant news anchors that paved the way for the invasion.

  • 11. Vinny  |  November 9th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Elliot,

    I think the operative word there is “still.” Most people thought that Saddam had weapons left from the Iran-Iraq war, but there was considerable disagreement in the international intelligence communiity about whether he was actively pursuing WMD in 2003. I think that both the story about the aluminum tubes and the story about buying yellowcake in Africa could have been debunked if the press had worked a little harder.

    Even now, I still run across claims that we found Saddam’s WMD. However, what we found were some of the ones that everyone figured that he still had leftover from the 1980’s. We haven’t found the ones that the Bush administration claimed he was pursuing in 2003.

  • 12. folkbum  |  November 10th, 2008 at 6:37 am

    Every major intelligence agency in the West believed Iraq had them.
    Well, no. Our own state department, for one, was convinced otherwise. The UN weapons inspectors, working from maps we gave them, said otherwise, too. In fact, by the time “Shock and Awe” was launched, there was little reason for anyone looking at the current information–as opposed to that gathered in the 1990s–to believe Saddam was an immediate or short-term threat.

  • 13. elliot  |  November 10th, 2008 at 7:59 am

    I’ve never seen anything about our State Department concluding there were no WMDs before the war. Could you link to something? (I’m not saying you aren’t telling the truth, just legitimately curious.)

    The press did report the UN Inspectors misgivings (although they never said there were no weapons and they did say that Saddam was making things difficult.)

    And you dodged my point there, Jay.

    Neither of those organizations are “intelligence agencies.” ;)

  • 14. John  |  November 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E7DE1E3FF935A35750C0A9629C8B63

    March 6, 2004 NEW YORK TIMES article which quotes several US government officials:

    “In the two years before the war in Iraq, American intelligence agencies reviewed but ultimately dismissed reports from Iraqi scientists, defectors and other informants who said Saddam Hussein’s government did not possess illicit weapons, according to government officials.

    The reports, which ran contrary to the conclusions of the intelligence agencies and the Bush administration, were not acknowledged publicly by top government officials before the invasion last March. In public statements, the agencies and the administration cited only reports from informants who supported the view that Iraq possessed so-called weapons of mass destruction, which the administration cited as a main justification for going to war.”

    ….

    “Other government officials said they knew of several occasions from 2001 to 2003 when Iraqi scientists, defectors and others had told American intelligence officers, their foreign partners or other intelligence agents that Iraq did not possess illicit weapons.

    The officials said they believed that intelligence agencies had dismissed the reports because they did not conform to a view, held widely within the administration and among intelligence analysts, that Iraq was hiding an illicit arsenal. ”

    Summary: Good riddance to the current pack of war criminals, and let’s assume they are preparing “self-pardons” as we speak. Imagine the courtroom scene when we chart the specific backgrounds of “intellegence agents” who claimed there were WMD vs. the Iraqi defectors and scientists who explained that there were none.

    Bush and Cheney surely have bad dreams about PowerPoint.

  • 15. elliot  |  November 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove, John.

    Sure there were dissenting opinions. There always are, but the money line here is “the conclusions of the intelligence agencies”.

    Every major intelligence agency concluded that WMDs still existed.

    Which is not a huge surprise considering that Saddam, himself, wanted the world to believe he still had WMDs.

  • 16. elliot  |  November 10th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

    And, just to reiterate, I have no interest in defending Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

    I have been steadfast in my opinion that we needed to “win” it once we were in it, but that’s a separate issue.

  • 17. John  |  November 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    I think the reason there is considerable passion on this subject is because it illustrates just how an administration can tailor “intelligence” to serve its own ends – – and in this case, the results are disastrous, to say the least.

    “Every major intelligence agency concluded that WMDs still existed”? I think NOT. If anything, they expressed the opinion that they were very strongly encouraged to express, or based on the faulty information that was cherry-picked for their use. ROTTEN cherries.

    Example: Even the German handlers who provided the informant known as “Curveball” knew he was unreliable at best, but the administration LIKED his information and ran with it. Next thing you know, this crackpot liar’s “information” is quoted in a State of the Union address and Powell’s address to the United Nations.

    And, the fact that Saddam found it useful to boast and make his own people as well as his neighbors believe he had extraordinary means of attack and reprisal at his disposal does not excuse our lapses in intelligence gathering. “Well, he was trying to FOOL us” is a thin excuse. That’s right up there with “We better not enrage him, because the fact that he can shoot a shotgun with one arm clearly shows us that he is a strong man not to be trifled with.”

  • 18. Vinny  |  November 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Every major intelligence agency concluded that WMDs still existed.

    I have to agree with Elliot and disagree with John, but reiterate the distinction between “still existed” and “were being actively pursued.” The administration did not sell the war on the fear that WMD from the 1980’s still existed in some unknown quantity, which is what most intelligence agencies believed. It sold the war on the fear that Iraq was actively pursuing WMD, which was not widely accepted.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta