Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/40140781#40140781" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26...40140781</a> What's that? You like Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart? Now they're together at last! Seriously, it's a treat to watch two intelligent, thoughtful commentators discuss, and even politely disagree about the influence of the left vs. the influence of the right. Go forth and enjoy.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones O'Reilly is always condescending to Stewart when he's on. Maddow is a much better interviewer.
Originally Posted By Mr X Stewart totally gets the best of that blowhard in any of those situations... This was more of an adult conversation, I haven't watched all of it yet but I'm enjoying it so far. The left wingers are apoplectic because Stewart "sold them out", by the way. I'm beginning to realize the true measure of greatness is just how much you can piss off the extremists.
Originally Posted By Donny It was funny to watch Stewart describe what Maddow does on a daily basis and for her to say not me but is is her.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, in some instances it isn't her, and she said so, and some of those times Stewart admitted she was right. Other times they politely disagreed. In the end they each gave each other (and us) much to think about. Amazing what two intelligent people can do when they don't yell at each other.
Originally Posted By DAR Kumbaya my lord kumbaya. <<Stewart totally gets the best of that blowhard in any of those situations...>> Recently I've seen O'Reilly do The Daily Show and Real Time. And while I know Stewart and Maher think O'Reilly's full of crap and vice versa. I think they like each other. At least that's what I gauged from the interviews.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I think they like each other*** Yes, because you always insult people you like, and treat them like crap.
Originally Posted By Mr X The whole teabag phenomenon, I think, Stewart is claiming MSNBC should've taken more seriously. I disagree There have been PLENTY of times in history when large groups (heck, even near 50 percent of the population or worse) have been on the wrong end of justice, not to mention rationality. WHY should the teabag thing have been taken seriously by MSNBC? Were they being rational to begin with? "We want to lower taxes!" (taxed enough already!)? Well, tax rates are historically low to begin with so they have no point to make, frankly. Was there any other point (other than I hate Obama and I hate Democrats and I'm angry so my Bush vote didn't matter, see!)? I think this is the issue at hand. YES, they took an election this time...bigtime...but was their cause a rational or reasonable one? DID they deserve to be taken seriously? I say no. And that's where I think Jon Stewart DID very much drop the ball in his interview (I wish Rachel had picked up on it much more, but it was rather out of the blue so I don't blame her for missing it).
Originally Posted By Donny Mr.X I think Stewart was focusing on the negative nickname "tea bagger" was funny for one day not for as long as MSNBC has taken it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>WHY should the teabag thing have been taken seriously by MSNBC?<< Because like it or not, it's a sizeable chunk of the electorate. I wish they'd have tea partiers on the air a lot more and ask them the hard questions. As we've seen, the wheels start to come off the more they are allowed to rant and I think it matters that there is little substance behind the simplistic rhetoric.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Because like it or not, it's a sizeable chunk of the electorate*** That in and of itself makes them neither right, nor sane. A sizable chunk of the electorate railed against allowing negros into white schools. Were they to be taken seriously, too? ***I wish they'd have tea partiers on the air a lot more and ask them the hard questions. As we've seen, the wheels start to come off the more they are allowed to rant and I think it matters that there is little substance behind the simplistic rhetoric*** That's a fair point, and yet they managed to side step that by avoiding "the media" in favor of frequent stopovers at FOX "news"...an interesting development to say the least, as well as a disturbing one. If citizens running for high office have the ability to avoid the media, it harms us all. ***Mr.X I think Stewart was focusing on the negative nickname "tea bagger" was funny for one day not for as long as MSNBC has taken it*** I don't recall seeing that in the interview. Did you even watch it? In any case, "teabagger" is the name YOU selected. It's only in hindsight that you guys realized what a stupid thing you'd called yourselves. Why complain about people repeating the name YOU chose for yourselves?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<If citizens running for high office have the ability to avoid the media, it harms us all.>> Totally agree, but sadly, this seems to be the main strategy these days. I just don't get why "we the people" seem ok with this? Wouldn't you want to at least hear your candidates positions on some of the major issues happening in this country? Especially when they might, oh I don't know, actually be responsible for fixing these problems?! I mean, it's insane that people aren't DEMANDING that these candidates be interviewed more, or, God forbid, actually partake in some debates with their opponent! Instead we hear cries of "the media is not fair" or "they're picking on our guy", or whatever! Ever since Sarah Palin made herself look like an idiot in that one interview she did, candidates seem to think their best course of action is to just hide, and let their commercials speak for them.
Originally Posted By DAR <<and let their commercials speak for them.>> I'll say it again, if you vote based on what you see in a commercial, or a bumpersticker then you shouldn't be voting.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan A sizable chunk of the electorate railed against allowing negros into white schools. Were they to be taken seriously, too?<< Yes. Because they weren't fooling around with the racist policies and the lynchings and stuff. By "taken seriously" I don't mean "support and encourage." I think some of the most damning evidence that what those people were doing was news footage. It was images of people being knocked down with firehouses and attack dogs and armed guards having to escort little black kids to school that slowly started to move the needle. I don't like to equate the tea party with racists of the 50s (even though there certainly have been some racist signage and the whole Obama is a Muslim thing is pure racism) but I do think the every man for himself economic policies the tea partiers say they favor would be disasterous and dangerous to this country's health. I'm just saying, MSNBC should be smart and do a little less talking ABOUT the tea partiers and a little more talking TO them. Put them on the air, ask them hard questions. That's what journalists are supposed to do. More and more MSNBC wants to be the anti-Fox. One way to do that is stack up the hours with liberal commentators and hope that for every conservative viewer there's a liberal one. The better way is to actually do real, honest journalism. More "Meet the Press" and less "Crossfire."
Originally Posted By ecdc Maybe we're splitting semantic hairs, but yes they did. Because of their influence, however, not the justness of their cause. The difference is the media and people like Walter Cronkite used to report the facts, even if it wasn't "fair" to whiny people averse to truth and rationality. Now that's not the case. Now they report that the Obama administration says they cut taxes but tea baggers say no he didn't they've gone up and well shucks, who's to know the truth anymore? The right has succeeded in painting accuracy as having a liberal bias, and the media has cowered beautifully.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Now they report that the Obama administration says they cut taxes but tea baggers say no he didn't they've gone up and well shucks, who's to know the truth anymore?<< Exactly. And that's what's so damn frustrating. Not everything is an opinion. Not everything is subjective nor subject to an equal 50/50 balance in order to be true. >>the media has cowered beautifully<< Indeed.
Originally Posted By ecdc Sorry, 15 was also answering X's question about whether racists in the 50s should've been taken seriously.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Ever since Sarah Palin made herself look like an idiot in that one interview she did, candidates seem to think their best course of action is to just hide, and let their commercials speak for them.<< Sadly, it sometimes works. I love how questions like "What newspapers do you read?" is now defined as a "gotcha" question. Anything that doesn't fall neatly in line with the talking points is a gotcha.
Originally Posted By DAR <<<Marks ecdc as a NO as a viewer of Sarah Palin's Alaska aka the most expensive political ad ever.
