|
Good thread idea. Due to Tucker Carlson's whole...being Tucker Carlson thing I ended up re-watching Jon Stewert's takedown of him on Crossfire from back in 2004. The crazy thing is, Jon doesn't go far enough in his criticism. He's right that it's all theater and that it's killing America but he should've gone much further. Still, I remember at the time being amazed that he was the only one pointing out that the CNNs of the world had no clothes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE Sadly, it's probably the last time there was honest, legitimate criticism of the media that got through to people and wasn't intended as a trojan horse for something else. edit: and it's appalling the lesson CNN learned from this was "give the Glenn Becks of the world a show because debate is pointless theater" instead of "honestly report on things and don't make bad faith arguments and encourage things like THE SPIN ZONE" It's also still hilarious how angry Carlson gets that Stewert won't be his funny man. Begala at least seems to try and engage honestly-ish with Stewert's criticism (even though he doesn't really understand Stewert's point) while Carlson just acts  and expects a comedian to be asking hard-hitting questions and follow-ups.
axeil fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 20, 2018 |
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That makes much more sense and I wonder why they won't or haven't done such a thing. I could see how it's somewhat difficult to put "Fact-Check Article" next to "Fallacious Op-Ed" but I'd imagine you'd be able to get close the overwhelming majority of the time. What is the point of having an op-ed page if the editors just micromanage it? why not just have another editorial page? The whole point of an op-ed section is supposed to be outside writers with minimal direct involvement from the normal staff, you aren't supposed to read it the same way you read the rest of the paper. It's supposed to be the garbage section for bad opinions most of the time. but it's supposed to be the place that the editors aren't fact checking and are only giving a light touch on picking what is said. In case the editors aren't infallible. Turns out the editors there are pretty good, so in the good newspaper the actual paper has the right facts and the op-ed section is the loons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What is the point of having an op-ed page
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Indeed! I guess, but like, people reading things in the op-ed page then going "did the editors not fact check this!?" are kinda missing the point of what page they are reading. It's like going to the comics page and being mad it's comics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess, but like, people reading things in the op-ed page then going "did the editors not fact check this!?" are kinda missing the point of what page they are reading. It's like going to the comics page and being mad it's comics. Nazi screeds are a little bit different from Cathy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess, but like, people reading things in the op-ed page then going "did the editors not fact check this!?" are kinda missing the point of what page they are reading. It's like going to the comics page and being mad it's comics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Maybe the new york times should make the op-eds even worse to try and get people to absorb enough media literacy to even process that the op-ed section is different from the editorials and that the editorials are different from the news section.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
They're not separate institutions. The idea that it's fine and dandy for a newspaper doing climate change reporting to hire a climate change denier is pretty ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess, but like, people reading things in the op-ed page then going "did the editors not fact check this!?" are kinda missing the point of what page they are reading. It's like going to the comics page and being mad it's comics. You're missing the point. The purpose of the opeds isn't to let just anyone put garbage in the back of the nytimes, it is to have a space for opinions that cannot be backed with facts. Also, the oped writers take most of the blame for the opinions they put out. Like, nytimes would be forced to distort a ton of facts if they wanted to write a story about how climate change isn't real. They open themselves up to liability and public scorn. Instead, they hire bret Stephens, their liability disappears, and he gets most of the blame, and they rake in the hateclick advertising dollars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
axeil posted:Good thread idea. Due to Tucker Carlson's whole...being Tucker Carlson thing I ended up re-watching Jon Stewert's takedown of him on Crossfire from back in 2004. I miss John. Too bad his HBO special was cancelled and he's the victim of his own success. My only issue was any criticism directed at the Daily Show was hit back with "Well, it's just a comedy show!".
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I miss John. Yeah, the point of the Daily Show after about 2003 or so wasn't that it was making fun of politics but it was mostly about making fun of media and using public shame/ridicule to try and make them better. Colbert did the same thing with talking head shows, except he was so successful that a lot of people didn't realize it was satire. I have a feeling Stewert would be getting a lot of miles out of the  and both-sides fetishism the NYTimes crowd has these days.That The Daily Show was a comedy show is probably why it was able to be so successful at its criticism. "Only the court jester can criticize the king" and all. It requires a good deal of understanding and introspection to make good satirical comedy. This is why conservative humor always fails, because there's no self-reflection or consistency at all. axeil fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Dec 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yeah, the point of the Daily Show after about 2003 or so wasn't that it was making fun of politics but it was mostly about making fun of media and using public shame/ridicule to try and make them better. Colbert did the same thing with talking head shows, except he was so successful that a lot of people didn't realize it was satire. https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/865055182652100608 http://www.cc.com/video-clips/u9jqcs/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-henry-kissinger-pt--1 yeah, that's a guy who would be in a real fuckin' hurry to mock people rolling over and showing their bellies whenever someone with power so much as glances in their direction
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
axeil posted:I have a feeling Stewert would be getting a lot of miles out of the Decorum and both sidesism give Stewart and Colbert such raging boners that they held an enormous rally to tell us the truth is in the middle. Stewart regularly had Bill loving O’Reilly, post falafel, on his show for some buddy buddy time. What the gently caress parallel dimension are you posting from today?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
selec posted:Decorum and both sidesism give Stewart and Colbert such raging boners that they held an enormous rally to tell us the truth is in the middle. Where was this event?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I would say Stewart's criticism would only go too far for a reason, he was unhappy with the tenor of discussion and its abuses but not with the total destructive outcome that the media had on American politics and society (which honestly he was a part of as well).Tab8715 posted:Where was this event? Washington Mall, 2010. I was there, it sucked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Where was this event? Look at this; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear?wprov=sfti1 Two years into the Obama presidency, after we knew publicly that the GOP had vowed to make him a one-term president and that they were determined to obstruct the Dems in any way possible, these dipshits think maybe we can heal the nation by saying both sides have their crazies. It was loving idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Stewart is like the Founding Father for smug liberal boobs carrying around stickers that say stuff like "Any Reasonable Adult 2020."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
selec posted:Look at this; "Bill Maher posted:On Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill Maher criticized the rally, saying that while Stewart and Colbert meant well, the message of the rally promoted a false equivalency between the left and the right, noting, "the big mistake of modern media has been this notion of balance for balance's sake. That the Left is just as violent and cruel as the Right...there's a difference between a mad man and a madman."[61] Wow. Bill Maher did something right for once.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Helsing it is difficult to underscore how bad a way it is to start off the thread by defending this particular set of sources, on these particular issues. Pointing out that somebody made two seemingly incompatible statements and asking them to clarify what they mean - often by asking them to define the terms they're using - is how you have a debate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Washington Mall, 2010. I was there, it sucked. I was also there. It was cold and not that great but did have some funny moments. Sadly it failed to avert the Tea Party wave, which is why I think they set it up initially before it morphed into both-sidesism. And to be fair, pre-Tea Party in 2010 that didn't seem like that ridiculous a message as the Republicans hadn't weaponized yet.selec posted:Decorum and both sidesism give Stewart and Colbert such raging boners that they held an enormous rally to tell us the truth is in the middle. the one where people make good posts. it's pretty cool, you should try coming to it some time. axeil fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Dec 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
axeil posted:I was also there. It was cold and not that great but did have some funny moments. The Tea Party was already out and about, and almost no one there was from the emerging far-right, and the message was still ridiculous since the temperature had already ramped up in the last year at that point. I think if anything it may have helped start the split in the left, I could tell there was deep disappointment and that may have helped feed into the Occupy movement the next year. (Also the recession was still quite raw during this period.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
axeil posted:I was also there. It was cold and not that great but did have some funny moments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
axeil posted:the one where people make good posts. it's pretty cool, you should try coming to it some time. I thought it was informative. I wasn't aware of John's Rally but I don't see the harm in inviting O'Riley on the show. Hell, I'm surprised Bill didn't give himself a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I thought it was informative. I wasn't aware of John's Rally but I don't see the harm in inviting O'Riley on the show. Hell, I'm surprised Bill didn't give himself a heart attack. Giving a person the opportunity to speak in their own voice, even in a comedy show, normalises them as someone whose opinions are at least worth debating. This is dangerous when the opinions are those of a far right demagogue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
I think a big part of stuff like positive sentiment towards Stewart (and other liberal figures in media/culture) is that people have trouble comprehending the fact that "the extent to which you lay sweet owns on Republicans" isn't actually very connected to how left-wing/progressive you are. There's often an understandable assumption that since the Republicans are really bad and right-wing, that if someone is really angry at them it must be because they're left-wing. But it turns out that it's entirely possible for someone to attack and make fun of Republicans while not actually supporting any sort of significant positive change themselves (or supporting other bad things). More broadly, I think that people see the rhetoric coming from Republicans and the rhetoric coming from Democrats, and it is just obvious that the Republicans are the Bad Guys, and if someone is attacking the bad guys you just assume it must be because they're the Good Guys (and despite the language I'm using, I can actually sympathize pretty strongly with why someone would feel this way). Democrats will also often condemn or support the right things with their rhetoric, or otherwise make value statements that most left-leaning people would agree with. Like, Republicans will openly say "the poor deserve to be poor," while the Democrats say "income inequality is bad," and the difference in rhetoric is very obvious (with Democrats rarely saying obviously-bad things) and people understandably get confused when the radical left treats both parties negatively. It's only when you look at the specific things the politicians actually do and support, and the actual net impact those things directly have on people, that the picture becomes clearer. But it's hard for people to get past that knee-jerk feeling that there's obviously a huge, fundamental divide between US political factions, with the Democrats fundamentally being Good (if imperfect) and the Republicans fundamentally being Bad. And it doesn't help that there's a ton of media/cultural messaging that preemptively discredits/delegitimizes the left's messages (see: the uncannily frequently "SO YOU'RE SAYING BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME" reaction to any attack against the Democratic side). People are told from the beginning "the radical left is wild and crazy and thinks Both Sides Are The Same," so they're already primed to reject anything outside of their comfort zone. Fortunately (well, arguably), this is largely changing as more younger people end up living in a status quo that is fundamentally unacceptable and hopeless regardless of which political party controls government. I think the "irritated towards the radical left" liberal response is actually exaggerated on a website like SA, because exceptionally privileged millennials (who more strongly trust institutions, since they've always served them well) are highly over-represented on this website, but most other left-leaning young people seem to be either ignorant/ambivalent or supportive towards the radical left (and they certainly don't have a strong partisan allegiance to either mainstream political party). Ardennes posted:I think if anything it may have helped start the split in the left, I could tell there was deep disappointment and that may have helped feed into the Occupy movement the next year. (Also the recession was still quite raw during this period.) Yeah, it's hard to pinpoint when my politics became more left-wing, but I remember thinking the Rally to Restore Sanity was ridiculous at the time. By the time Occupy rolled around, I had definitely already made the transition (this is also when I became extremely disenchanted with NPR, due to their coverage of it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think a big part of stuff like positive sentiment towards Stewart (and other liberal figures in media/culture) is that people have trouble comprehending the fact that "the extent to which you lay sweet owns on Republicans" isn't actually very connected to how left-wing/progressive you are. There's often an understandable assumption that since the Republicans are really bad and right-wing, that if someone is really angry at them it must be because they're left-wing. But it turns out that it's entirely possible for someone to attack and make fun of Republicans while not actually supporting any sort of significant positive change themselves (or supporting other bad things). You really can't mention this without mentioning that the output of sick burns on the demoncrats doesn't actually make someone more leftist. Where there is obviously people that have unremarkable opinions that don't fall particularly outside what is the regular old democratic platform but have convinced themselves and others that they are extreme leftist because they replace talking about anything progressive with just an endless cycle of canned slams on "their enemy" at all times in every conversation, as much as there is conservatives that think they are liberal because they slam republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Ornedan posted:Giving a person the opportunity to speak in their own voice, even in a comedy show, normalises them as someone whose opinions are at least worth debating. This is dangerous when the opinions are those of a far right demagogue. I guarantee you, Bill O'Riley was anything but normalized during his time on the Daily Show. Other folks, maybe. I'm still bitter John didn't ask his interviewees hard hitting questions but according to him it was a comedy show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
axeil posted:Good thread idea. Due to Tucker Carlson's whole...being Tucker Carlson thing I ended up re-watching Jon Stewert's takedown of him on Crossfire from back in 2004. Speaking of Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald is really digging into his support of him, and dragging the Intercept with him: https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1075845025466966018
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, it's hard to pinpoint when my politics became more left-wing, but I remember thinking the Rally to Restore Sanity was ridiculous at the time. By the time Occupy rolled around, I had definitely already made the transition (this is also when I became extremely disenchanted with NPR, due to their coverage of it). I think for many people it was a pretty gradual process, I think I was already pretty jaded by the health care debate at that point, but I cared enough to physically show up there (and then be bitterly disappointed despite my relatively low expectations). It was also right in the smack of "recovery summer" (remember that?) which was one of the more ill thought out political campaigns. The way things are going it will be dusted off for 2022.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Speaking of Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald is really digging into his support of him, and dragging the Intercept with him: Greenwald you fuckin' idiot. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Speaking of Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald is really digging into his support of him, and dragging the Intercept with him: Do I need to listen to the interview? I’m not following...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Do I need to listen to the interview? I’m not following... Glenn Greenwald is going to bat for Tucker Carlson's "free speech" because people are trying to boycott companies that place ads on Carlson's show. Carlson is a white nationalist. Greenwald just constantly memes himself on issues related to freedom of speech and it's hilarious but also sad because he should know better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Do I need to listen to the interview? I’m not following... Glenn Greenwald keeps going on Tucker Carlson's show and it's really bad but people like to defend him for it because Glenn hates Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Greenwald is trying to push the limit on how many neonazi friends you can have before people stop calling you a "leftist" because you don't like democrats. Johnson had to go back 15 years to find a bad Daily Show clip. You have to go back maybe two months to see Johnson vocally defend China, a country with literal concentration camps, from criticism by Western media.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
I cannot stress how loving stupid this angle is by someone supporting and defending BDS. It's intellectual malpractice to own the libs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:You have to go back maybe two months to see Johnson vocally defend China, a country with literal concentration camps, from criticism by Western media. Johnson is bad, but that doesn't may Stewart any less (or more) bad. Tu quoque arguments like this don't help. Edit: After looking through Johnson's Twitter timeline, his ratio of good to bad takes is better than I'd expected. I guess the awful takes I'd seen getting retweeted were somewhat unrepresentative. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:Greenwald is trying to push the limit on how many neonazi friends you can have before people stop calling you a "leftist" because you don't like democrats. he could have played any of the clips where Stewart had on one of the many republican ghouls to go 'aw gee do you REALLY think we need to glass Iran? You do? Aw shucks that's mean' but I'm sure that also did nothing to normalize white supremacy and such... John Stewart would have sucked McCain's dick live on air if it meant another interview but yea something something...China? That...sure countered that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Glenn Greenwald keeps going on Tucker Carlson's show and it's really bad but people like to defend him for it because Glenn hates Democrats. the problem with Glenn Greenwald is that he is very class conscious, but for the coastal media class that he has been ejected from. despite living in self-imposed exile in brazil with a socialist husband, he still defends the likes of bari weiss and tucker carlson because he hasn't internalized that he isn't one of them anymore. this is why he insists on treating tucker carlson like a collegue, not a fascist. it is also why he defended (ostensible) leftist eve payser and her article with right wing columnist and isreali apartheid defender bari weiss in which they talked about how much they had in common. the media tends to close ranks around their own whenever they get criticized, a reflex that glenn greenwald still retains. if one of bolsonaro's hit squads executes him tomorrow, he won't be lauded as a fallen hero of journalism like kashoggi was. instead, the elite media class will dance on his grave for reporting honestly on the crimes of the us military complex that they are complicit in. glenn greenwald seems incapable of realizing this. personally, i like that glenn greenwald manages to piss off liberals, conservatives, socialists and fascists with his opeds (but usually not all at once). this project is great too: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/988187200490823680 GoluboiOgon fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Glenn Greenwald is simultaneously an incredibly talented journalist and writer, and a great philanthropist who hooks up homeless people with puppies, and yet also a big old fuckin' idiot, and I know why he is both of these things and yet it is also baffling to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Greemwald demonstrates how you can be right sometimes, and a fart-huffing moron other times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:27
|
|
