Sir Stewart Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 as much as I freaking love him and the daily show...you have a solid point. it actually makes me mad sometimes when they do a legitimately solid piece of news/commentary and then two seonds late 'aww shucks, we're JUST a comedy show'. they aren't JUST a comedy show, they don't try to be JUST a comedy show...but won't fess up to either. most likely, to do so would leave them open for the same accountability they pick people apart for lacking. Right - when Stewart said something like "your network needs to be more accountable and I can go back to making fart jokes." As if The Daily Show is strictly lowbrow physical humor. Ridiculous. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Right - when Stewart said something like "your network needs to be more accountable and I can go back to making fart jokes." As if The Daily Show is strictly lowbrow physical humor. Ridiculous. absolutely. again, love the show...but stewart is teetering on hypocripsy relative to journalistic accountability/integrity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Artifice Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 absolutely. again, love the show...but stewart is teetering on hypocripsy relative to journalistic accountability/integrity. But how is he being hypocritical here? I agree with your theory, but what has DS done that is irresponsible? That's always been Stewart's beef. It's the root of why he was pissed on Crossfire. These shows that represent themselves as legitimate news and opinion, but don't want any accountability, are hurting America. Crossfire was promoting partisanship over real issues and political discourse (and they were hardly alone); Cramer is dispensing one size fits all financial advice; the Daily Show is... mocking the news and the newsmakers? Is that really the same? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Haven't seen this yet, but will watch the rerun tonight. Considering the climate of this country, is it any surprise that we would find a scapegoat for our collective frustration? The archetypal parallels are textbook. The role of the jester was an important one in palaces of kings and queens. The jester mocks those in power and their customs and traditions. The result is that the reasoning behind these customs and traditions are examined, and reasons which are out-of-date or never made sense in the first place can be replaced. Further, the role of the Trickster is to be morally ambiguous. Morality is the gauge of a culture and again implies a preconceived way of being. The Fool is beyond this, or rather is not even in the same sphere. And like the Jester, the Trickster plays with the reasonings of others, though for entirely different purposes. Don't expect John Stewart to become 'accountable'. That's not his job. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 M(hris - ever since last night I've been thinking about the court jester and why has there never been a book/movie (that I know of) about a court jester - seems like a wealth of good material. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Don't expect John Stewart to become 'accountable'. That's not his job. ...but if you purposely veer slightly from 'comedy' into legitimate political/finanical commentary, which the show does often (and brillaintly) and, as ludicrous as it may be, your show has become a legitimate source of some news for a particular demographic, why not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 A guy on another board I frequent had this response, which has been a better rebuttal than most of what I've seen here. Not saying I agree with him at all (not that I disagree, I think he just misses the point), but I think it's as good a response as any I've seen:"Wow, calling out a television network. Ballsy and a tremendous public service. Why not go after the actual people doing this if they feel they are doing investigative reporting? Cramer is an easy target and one that seems done out convenience and ultimately does nothing. Cramer is a 'bad guy' apparently, so what? Ultimately frivolous. I love how passionate Stewart is about this and acts like some deliverer of human rights and an epic whistleblower. So Jim Cramer and CNBC are the reason for the rescession? That is what I take away from all this. I also don't get why it is 'evil' to use the stock market for monetary gain. There is a big damn defense between Madoff and someone strategically playing the 'game' of the market.CNBC needs to be a watchdog but Stewart's own show can do whatever the fuck they want and no one needs to hold them to any standard even though they are emerging as a leader for young people's news? The network they are on automatically absolves them of this too? Seems insanely hypocritical. 'Glad' Stewart found an easy sacrificial lamb to get his point and self over." First off this guy obviously does not like Stewart, I think that is fairly obvious from the attacking tone all through the post. And you don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 M(hris - ever since last night I've been thinking about the court jester and why has there never been a book/movie (that I know of) about a court jester - seems like a wealth of good material.The Fool is one of the most powerful and misunderstood archetypes in modern culture. I would say the time is ripe for a reintroduction. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You can say he isn't funny. Just like you can say Cramer didn't push for knowledge from his guests. I never said that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 I never said that. But you can. Go ahead. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I forgot how confusing that one guy's posts can be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 i don't hate Cramer by any means, but i thought the episode was amazing and one of the most enjoyable things i've watched on TV in a LONG long long time. at the end of the day, it was still entertainment too however... let's not forget that. but i def. agreed w/ Jon's main crux that for people like Cramer, investing is a game, much like playing the tables in Vegas, but for a sizable chunk of Americans, investing is just that... INVESTING in your future. sure there's always some risks involved with investing, but Cramer and his types get to just shrug it off whenever something they recommend fails and might cost people a lot of money (again, i agree with folks in this thread who have argued that listening strictly to someone like Cramer on investing is a bit naive, but still, i'm sure it happens, afterall his show does have viewers...). Some people might be able to shrug off losing $10k in stocks, but there are many others like myself, that would take a gigantic hit from something like that and take years to recover. i think the main point was, just fess up and hold yourself accountable when things don't work out the way you predicted (which Cramer seemed to do (much much after the fact, and after being shown these videos in his face). and also that when it's your own money or a firms money, it's not as big of a deal as when it happens to other single individuals money when it's lost. but the interview with him discussing short selling and telling you what you should do, as opposed to what is legal/ethical, really showed that people in his position do ride the line of some shady things from time to time. now i disagree with Jon when he brought up Madoff in comparison, as that's a whole nother ballgame, but it wasn't a bad hypothesis in theory. if you haven't seen the full interview unedited, go to comedycentral.com and watch it. there's about 7 minutes that didn't air and some good stuff on there too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 M(hris - ever since last night I've been thinking about the court jester and why has there never been a book/movie (that I know of) about a court jester - seems like a wealth of good material.First scene from Everything you ever wanted to know about sex* *but were afraid to ask Quote Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 ...but if you purposely veer slightly from 'comedy' into legitimate political/finanical commentary, which the show does often (and brillaintly) and, as ludicrous as it may be, your show has become a legitimate source of some news for a particular demographic, why not?But why would he want to? It is ambiguity (the court jester's outfit, the Joker's make up) that allows satirists to get away with saying the things they do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Fuck both of em. That's what I say! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'll say this didn't compare to when he went on Crossfire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I watched part of this scandalous interview. My first thought was the following, "jesus, that fucker needs to calm down". Then I went back to basketball on the DVR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'll say this didn't compare to when he went on Crossfire. it's close though... but you're right, that one was just amazing I watched part of this scandalous interview. My first thought was the following, "jesus, that fucker needs to calm down". Then I went back to basketball on the DVR. "that fucker" = Cramer? that guy always seems like he's on speed to me Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not trusting Cramer isn't about being cynical or jaded. It's realizing that he has no idea of your financial situation, your financial goals, your risk tolerance, your investment-savvy, etc. But neither does the Wall Street Journal, so is it smart to read WSJ but not to watch Cramer? Plenty of people don't know that one is accurate and one may not be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The left: He destroyed Cramer!The right: He's unnecessarily angry! Sounds about right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The left: He destroyed Cramer!The right: He's unnecessarily angry! Sounds about right. or left? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I forgot how confusing that one guy's posts can be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I've missed playing w/ you Bob squared Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The Fool is one of the most powerful and misunderstood archetypes in modern culture. I would say the time is ripe for a reintroduction. So you're saying there's hope for me yet? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.