Not bad. I read this critique though which makes some really solid points:

quote:

The one place where she nails him, I think, is when he insists that news hosts like her, Olby, O’Reilly, etc, are players on the field whereas he’s just a fan in the stands, cheering or heckling as necessary. That is to say, they’re the media and he’s a media critic, and just as we don’t hold Roger Ebert to the same standards as the films he reviews, we shouldn’t measure Stewart and Maddow by the same yardstick. The problem with that analogy, of course, is that (a) The Daily Show’s criticism is presented in the same format as the material it’s satirizing, and (b) according to some viewers, especially younger ones, it does a better job of delivering the news in a less partisan fashion than the crap on the news nets. Imagine if, instead of writing a column, Roger Ebert reviewed films by directing video commentaries with a $100 million budget and plenty of F/X. That’s more like what “The Daily Show” does. Would it be fair to judge such “commentaries” as films in their own right? Sure. Which is why The Daily Show and its comparatively much more buffoonish quasi-competitors like “Countdown” are increasingly lumped together. Stewart also seems to think he qualifies more as a fan than as a player because, even at his rally, he never took the final step of endorsing any candidates or any parties or even any policies. Really? We all know where he stands, I think, just as we all knew where Olbermann stood before he made that plain by donating to Democrats. Are you on the team if you’re on the field and in uniform but never actually get up to bat? I’d say yes, but YMMV.

I liked that

___________________

insignificant cor member alliance

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Not bad. I read this critique though which makes some really solid points:

Except that it Equates Countdown and the Daily Show, yet doesnt even mention Fox and friends and the O'Reilly factor which are equal in baffonery. Beck? Well hes in a league of his own, that man has long since past the insanity line to the point where he probably doesnt even remember being on the other side of it anymore.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Not bad. I read this critique though which makes some really solid points:

quote:

The one place where she nails him, I think, is when he insists that news hosts like her, Olby, O’Reilly, etc, are players on the field whereas he’s just a fan in the stands, cheering or heckling as necessary. That is to say, they’re the media and he’s a media critic, and just as we don’t hold Roger Ebert to the same standards as the films he reviews, we shouldn’t measure Stewart and Maddow by the same yardstick. The problem with that analogy, of course, is that (a) The Daily Show’s criticism is presented in the same format as the material it’s satirizing, and (b) according to some viewers, especially younger ones, it does a better job of delivering the news in a less partisan fashion than the crap on the news nets. Imagine if, instead of writing a column, Roger Ebert reviewed films by directing video commentaries with a $100 million budget and plenty of F/X. That’s more like what “The Daily Show” does. Would it be fair to judge such “commentaries” as films in their own right? Sure. Which is why The Daily Show and its comparatively much more buffoonish quasi-competitors like “Countdown” are increasingly lumped together. Stewart also seems to think he qualifies more as a fan than as a player because, even at his rally, he never took the final step of endorsing any candidates or any parties or even any policies. Really? We all know where he stands, I think, just as we all knew where Olbermann stood before he made that plain by donating to Democrats. Are you on the team if you’re on the field and in uniform but never actually get up to bat? I’d say yes, but YMMV.

I think what this review fails to realise is that it is the essence of satire that 'criticism is presented in the same format as the material it’s satirizing'. So on one hand it was just a poor analogy by Stewart, on the other hand just stupidity on the reviewers part.

The comments by Stewart on the 'bystander' issue are quite weird, though. He has responsibilty whether he chose to take it or not. It is put upon him by his popularity and influence, even though it's not his goal to be an influential force. He kind of fails to understand this.

edit: I suck at quoting.

Jon Stewart, or at least someone as intelligent and candid as him, should be president.

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Not bad. I read this critique though which makes some really solid points:

This is why I like having Kev around for counter points. I do think Jon slightly shirks responsibility at times in his role.

quote:

Originally posted by stren I liked that

LOL epic bead! well played...

Love the first three posts of this thread.

quote:

Stewart also seems to think he qualifies more as a fan than as a player because, even at his rally, he never took the final step of endorsing any candidates or any parties or even any policies. Really? We all know where he stands, I think, just as we all knew where Olbermann stood before he made that plain by donating to Democrats. Are you on the team if you’re on the field and in uniform but never actually get up to bat? I’d say yes, but YMMV.

forcing oneself to choose between two groups of idiots is not really a choice. like being liberal/left-wing does not mean you automatically choose Democrat -- which the reviewer suggests is inevitable.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Jon Stewart, or at least someone as intelligent and candid as him, should be president.

Well I think that's the point. Stewart is the consummate slacker. He's more than content to sit on the sidelines. Don't get me wrong, I love him and his views and I think he's hilarious. But it's not in his nature to actually do anything. And he proved that by not really doing or saying anything substantive at the rally.

___________________

He is hardly a slacker. He works 12 hours a day at The Daily Show, and initiated as well as carried out the rally. His lack of participation in politics has nothing to do with ambition. He has put it out there countless times (including several in this interview) that he is a comedian, and that is the only thing he sees himself as being good at. I think it would be great if he put himself out there as some sort of advisor, but being an elected official is not in his game plan at all. Not due to slacking, its just not what he thinks he would be good at.

Not saying anything substantial at the rally? Did you hear his speech at the end? He doesn't endorse any party or individuals, but he clearly has a message. In this interview (you should actually watch it, it's at the top of this page ) he says that he felt that after 12 years, he felt he had earned the right to share a bit of who he is. Personally, I don't understand why he can't see that many people want to see more of this, and he has more than earned the right to it.

Last edited by WittyHandle on Nov-15-2010 at 01:57