Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

I so needed to hear that. I so needed to believe that sanity has not escaped this planet entirely.

I fear that no matter what happens the American public is going to lose this election. No matter who wins.

I just need to believe that there is any reason that we aren't getting exactly what we deserve.

That was a great appearance, and makes me happy that Kilborn resigned, opening a slot for Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. It was refreshing to see Stewart just open up completely on someone else's show, speaking his true thoughts on his own terms. The gravity of his words had an interesting effect on both the studio audience and the Crossfire hosts. And it was great to watch Stewart's allergic reaction to Carlson and his bowtie, notably when he called him a dick at the end.

I don't want to disrespect anyone here, but assigning words like "gravity" to a comedian is absurd. Television is a virtually useless medium for understanding political discourse for a host of reasons, including its focus on sensational images and harsh soundbites.

Political issues are complex and require sober reflection and some historical understanding; a picture and a witty come-back are not sound bases for evaluating the issues of the day.

Unfortunately, it also lends itself to self-congratulatory, circular nonsense to the point where the talking heads don't have any frame of reference outside of their very specific domain. Witness Dan Rather for the proof of that.

What Gen meant to say was, John Stewart doesn't like Bush - hooray. Which is nonsense. I certainly don't take comfort when celebrities somehow support my views, that's for sure - it usually makes me reevaluate my position to ensure that it's sounds, and then I attribute the coincidence to luck.

cdg

Chris, I will disagree with your characterization of my commentary. Stewart doesn't like Bush, true, but that was not the point of his stance on Crossfire.

Stewart was begging, pleading with the two on Crossfire for them to use their bully pulpit (Crossfire) in a productive manner. For real debate, not the ineffective and inconsequential yelling-at-each-other that is the reality of Crossfire.

Oh I hear you, and I agree that improving the discussion has merit - sort of. However, I was making the meta-point that even the best political television is useless.

In an ever more complex society, the citizenry is obligated in a functioning democratic society to do more than watch TV. An hour spent with Livy is better spent, in nearly all situations, than an hour with Crossfire. An hour reading Churchill is better spent yet. And two hours reading Albert Hourani, given today's issues, is even better.

TV is bad for discourse and, as an information source, bad for the populace. It is good entertainment, though.

cdg

wow.

" Television is a virtually useless medium for understanding political discourse"

this is ivory tower pablum. television is where virutally all political discourse happens today. outside of making a semantic point involving some relative judgement of whose discourse counts as "genuine" discourse, nobody cares.

jon stewart has an audience. so does tucker carlson. they affect outcomes. stewart is clearly asking the crossfire guys to take some responsibility. he is diving into the very nature of hacks 'n politicos. if this is not discourse then what is? why should we read livy?

the point i think stewart is making (or maybe just me) is that discussion and rhetoric seem mutually inclusive in today's politics.