i hear what stewart is saying. i agree with what maddow is saying.

[seabeyond]

but i do hear stewart. his big problem is not acknowledging, yet being an apologist for bush, fox and teabaggers. the hyperbole of 24/7 news to continually create battle, anywhere they can find it, is an issue for this nation. there is a hate, an angry, that always seems to hang on, along with the fear of financial ruin. it isn't just with red/blue politics. it is with men/women. and others if i think about it.

he does the same, to keep his show going. but i understand how he validates that in his mind. he was not incoherent like i had read from posts. this is simply an issue where all sides are correct. depending on the angle one is approaching the issue. but doing any one angle, another point of view has to be over looked.

it is an interesting dichotomy that is raised by these two.

[CBGLuthier]

1. Funny you would use the word "incoherent "

Because I have not a clue what you are trying to say.

[seabeyond]

5. ya, some people do. some people dont.

get it. that is cool.

[uncommon]

14. I concur.

It's not the subject matter that is confusing, it is the writing of the OP itself.

[seabeyond]

20. meh...

i understand it, lol.

[LawnLover]

2. I don't think he was being an apologist for Bush at all

and anyone who thinks that wasn't listening to him.

[seabeyond]

7. ah, see, that is kinda what i am talking about.

it takes flexing adn contorting the brain. of course you can get how people who were listening were thinking that. but i also get how he wasnt.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. From what I've seen thus far, I agree...

I only watched the clip labeled "the business of news," where he's talking about the tone and content of 24/7 cable.

I am trying to see this from my daughter's perspective -- a teenage perspective -- as someone who loves Stewart and gets information from his show (right or wrong, that's the truth for most young people these days).

Many on the left are upset with Jon evidently because he said 1) Fox isn't partisan -- it's ideological; and 2) he doesn't feel Bush should be labeled a war criminal, even if it's technically correct.

Both points are very interesting as it pertains to dialogue in this country -- and that was his point: we can't have reasonable dialogue any more.

Honestly, I don't have a clear opinion of Bush as far as his intentions; I'm not sure he was ever clear enough within himself to HAVE clear intentions. I dislike him but I loathe Cheney. Cheney is a different matter. I believe he knew what he was doing every step of the way, and the "good" of the American people was not part of it; the good of Halliburton and Blackwater and his own ego (place in history) and bank account were what drove him. Bush allowed it; for that I hold him responsible as a human being, beyond the presidential responsibilities.

As for Fox not being partisan, I also get Jon's point. In other words, people don't have to actually BE republican to be part of their network. Our problem with Fox isn't whether they are conservative or Republican; it's that they seek to blatantly lie, or on their good days merely misinform, whereas other networks are negligent in doing their job by not exposing more truths...flat-out lying isn't their M.O. as it is at Fox.

And partisanship DOES become an issue when they become an arm of the Republican Party by giving so much air time to likely Republican candidates.

Another thing I thought of as I pondered this whole mess lately is whether the country as a whole REALLY has moved so much further right (I mean, Reagan would be a liberal to many of today's conservatives; Jesus would be crucified all over again as a pinko commie), or does Fox and Limbaugh just give a very loud bullhorn to a minority of the country?

Is the rest of the country truly more moderate, as Jon believes? I don't know what to think any more.

The left has moved more center, and the right much further right. WTH IS the middle any more?

My personal experience is that there are indeed many on the far, far right -- I'm surrounded by Beck and Limbaugh fans. 'Nuf said about that. But, my personal perspective of the American populace is definitely skewed because of that.

This is a very interesting discussion, and Jon's rally triggered it -- along with the Olbermann suspension.

Bottom line I do feel 24/7 news has been MUCH more of a detriment to this country in a variety of ways, and there is a place for NEWS -- especially news investigating the corruption in the SYSTEMS in this country, not just democrat versus republican news -- and someone needs to fill that void, somehow, with integrity and not just a ratings/$$ approach.

I think Current TV is trying to go in the direction of citizen provided and inspired news stories?

[seabeyond]

8. I'm surrounded by Beck and Limbaugh fans.... me, too.

i like your whole post

[COLGATE4]

11. Partisan - ideological = tomato - tomatoe

[seabeyond]

12. right. nt

[emulatorloo]

15. Given how many 2012 Republican hopefuls have shows on Fox, it is hard to imagine Fox as "non-partisa

non-partisan."

There was a lot of serious hair splitting going on. I like Stewart, I enjoyed the interview. But I think Stewart has boxed himself in with his persona - the guy in the stands making fun of everything.

[seabeyond]

18. agree here, too. nt

[kentuck]

4. I like both of them but...

Jon seemed to be saying that torture was evil but the people that did it were not evil. Just because we are Americans means our President could never be evil, no matter what he did. He is still trying to convince everyone, including himself, of an equivalency that does not exist.

[seabeyond]

9. i listened to that. he ... tried, and he may be right. but irrelevant. it broke u.s. law

we dont always have to know ultimately, intent or motive or feeling. sometimes, it is a simple, wrong.

[emulatorloo]

17. To me this comes out of the persona he has contructed for himself - hip cynicism

nothing really matters, the guy in the stands heckling everybody. I think he has boxed himself in. But he is what he is.

[seabeyond]

19. ya. then i watched his show last night, sick, talking about bush and enjoyed and felt sorry

for him being so sick.

enjoyed the show.

felt sorry for him being sick

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. And i think he didn't know how much he'd boxed himself in until

250,000 people showed up at his rally when he'd thought maybe 50K would show up. He suddenly understood that a voice can have some natural authority and he said "Whoa, THAT'S not what I'm all about! These people are actually LISTENING to me!" Because of his propensity for pricking RW authoritarian bubbles, he found himself being a voice for the left, when he doesn't want to be any such voice. He feels himself completely unqualified, as well, which would to his mind make him a left equivalent to Glen Beck. I can't blame him for being scared at that thought.

So now he's trying to stuff that plastic poncho back into the 2x2 inch packet it came in, and it's not working.

[DURHAM D]

6. Jon would be a good Rabbi. nt

[seabeyond]

10. he was trying so hard to be understood and heard. i dont agree with the

bad jon, bad.

[KharmaTrain]

13. People Hear What They Want To Hear...

...and diregard the rest. Paul Simon had it nailed 40 plus years ago. Jon speaks to and, by proxy, for many people in this country who are turned off by the constant sniping and ugly tone of today's political discourse. This isn't about whose factual and who lies but the overall shrill sounds that eminate from the teevee and radio and how it's many times painful to endure. Keep in mind that on its best nights, the three cable channels draw about 4 million people...a fraction compared to the major networks or more popular channels like ESPN or MTV. My son, who is 23 is very attuned to many issues but has no interest in politics like I do. While he's learned his politics well (insert dad's gloating here) he doesn't like to watch any of it other than TDS. In the last election, we saw 18-30 year old voters dropping off significantly over both 2008 and 2006...and surely hurt the Democrats. There must be a reason...an apathy could surely be one.

I felt sorry for Jon in some points of that interview...he was in strange territory. He's not a journalist or even a news reporter...and most definitely not a political figure. He's a comedian who makes his living picking up on the ironies of both the political system and the corporate media. He's also assisted by some very talented writers who give him an edge we didn't see in his interview with Rachel.

For all the pleasantries, unfortunately Rachel and Jon spent most the time talking past each other.

[seabeyond]

16. exatly. and he was sick. i felt so sorry for him. i dont watch news either

except videos from video forum.

i agree with you

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. As Jon said, we need to work on our definitions.

He thinks 'war criminal' and thinks Pol Pot.

Sorry, Jon. Pol Pot was not a war criminal. He was a criminally brutal dictator responsible for the deaths of 2 million of his countrymen. While that makes him a monumentally bad guy, it does not make him a "war criminal" - there was no war.

Klaus Barbi was responsible for approximately 1300 deaths. Compared to Pol Pot, he was Sunday In The Park With George. But he WAS a war criminal. He used the position he had over a subject foreign populace, leading to the deaths of 1300 French Jews.

Dubya is a war criminal. He picked a fight with a country that did not attack us, and is responsible for the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people

War crimes have specific definitions - they are violations of the international standards for treatment of enemy soldier or occupied populations during war time, or the waging of an illegal, aggressive war.

There's your definitions, Jon.