chaosmachine Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 behold the power of Comedy Central... Street.com CEO quits after Cramer’s TV flameout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 i got a lot of shit before for saying that jon stewart backs down when it really matters and i stand by that here. great interview, sure, and it's fun to watch and it's satisfying, in a way, but as awepittance said earlier, why does stewart always act like a pussy around the people who really, truly have an effect on the political and economic stage? he always hides behind this whole "well, this is a comedy show, it isn't real" argument, but it's bullshit, at this point. why say that when people obviously take interviews like these seriously, when even stewart is being completely serious and straightforward in his attack? it's ridiculous to just turn around and say "it isn't a serious news program" whenever someone calls him on the fact that he won't take down the people who really matter. anyway, he's just as partisan and over the top as bill o'reilly or any of the fox news cheerleaders, it's just that jon stewart is actually funny and occasionally quite ruthless. i'm always surprised how much pull he seems to have with college age kids, and on some level it's great that he's gotten people interested in politics, but in other ways i really wish he'd start focusing his anger on targets that matter instead of ripping apart a person who was a parody to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 i got a lot of shit before for saying that jon stewart backs down when it really matters and i stand by that here. great interview, sure, and it's fun to watch and it's satisfying, in a way, but as awepittance said earlier, why does stewart always act like a pussy around the people who really, truly have an effect on the political and economic stage? he always hides behind this whole "well, this is a comedy show, it isn't real" argument, but it's bullshit, at this point. why say that when people obviously take interviews like these seriously, when even stewart is being completely serious and straightforward in his attack? it's ridiculous to just turn around and say "it isn't a serious news program" whenever someone calls him on the fact that he won't take down the people who really matter. anyway, he's just as partisan and over the top as bill o'reilly or any of the fox news cheerleaders, it's just that jon stewart is actually funny and occasionally quite ruthless. i'm always surprised how much pull he seems to have with college age kids, and on some level it's great that he's gotten people interested in politics, but in other ways i really wish he'd start focusing his anger on targets that matter instead of ripping apart a person who was a parody to begin with. color him father amen brother watching him awkwardly squirm while kid gloving Tony Blair was almost an impossible watch for me. I have to take seriously long breaks from the Daily Show after watching him pussy out like that, its just really embarrassing. John Stewart could be making the history books by asking Blair 'so why did you blatantly lie about the reasons of for the iraq war and let our president totally fuck you in the ass'. It's kind of gay for me to say Stewart could go down in history but look what David Frost accomplished by being one of the only people or reporters to confront Nixon on watergate Instead he's at most going to be in the sound byte news cycle or the next few months, just like when he went on Crossfire and called Tucker Carlson a dick. it was hilarious and needed to be done, but so many opportunities wasted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 i think he really has the potential to make a difference precisely because he is, ultimately, doing a comedy show, and he's always going to be a satirist first. so he can always hide behind that when people underestimate how far he's willing to push them in an interview. but he never does this, unfortunately, except when he's calling out hacks like carlson or cramer. it's a shame, although i love watching these interviews anyway. but what i wouldn't give to see him go at it with a major figurehead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 i think he really has the potential to make a difference precisely because he is, ultimately, doing a comedy show, and he's always going to be a satirist first. so he can always hide behind that when people underestimate how far he's willing to push them in an interview. but he never does this, unfortunately, except when he's calling out hacks like carlson or cramer. it's a shame, although i love watching these interviews anyway. but what i wouldn't give to see him go at it with a major figurehead... did you see the one with Dick Cheney's wife? where there were running jokes through out the show about how big of a wimp Stewar was going ot be while interviewing her. this is the only time i've seen the daily show make light of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest all_purpose_sandpaper Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Watching jim squirm is entertaining yes, but people get too much joy out of it. Jim has nothing to do with it. He gives financial advice. It could be bad, it could be good. And its retarded for Jon to say "you try to make finance entertaining but its not a game." No, it IS a game. Investing in the stock market IS a fucking game. IS it? It is not. It's not an analogy for anything, The show was a celebration and an exorcism, timed accordingly with a Buffett call-in interview and the Madoff verdict. I'm not going to call you an idiot or retarded, but I question your ability to disseminate media or finance! An exorcism against Jim Cramer? ok Against reckless advice. Cramer did produce the content of his show, and if there were no recent legal question about his advice, the disclaimer would have never appeared, nor would have Cramer on the Daily Show. Media has lately, in an organized effort, taken on a responsibility in concert with our government in regard to wise investment. The appearance of Cramer was an example of this. I do care about Ignorant Grampa Applebottom if he lost his money the Cramer way, he might be my neighbor. I wouldn't want you are anyone else to get stabbed in a parking lot either, or for that matter, advice from a quack doctor. Because he did produce potentially litigious content (or has!) he does, in my opinion, deserve a public flogging, just as a quack doctor deserves to lose any ability to practice. Cramer sure has fun! Look how much fun he had! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 i think he really has the potential to make a difference precisely because he is, ultimately, doing a comedy show, and he's always going to be a satirist first. so he can always hide behind that when people underestimate how far he's willing to push them in an interview. but he never does this, unfortunately, except when he's calling out hacks like carlson or cramer. it's a shame, although i love watching these interviews anyway. but what i wouldn't give to see him go at it with a major figurehead... did you see the one with Dick Cheney's wife? where there were running jokes through out the show about how big of a wimp Stewar was going ot be while interviewing her. this is the only time i've seen the daily show make light of this i didn't, unfortunately. i rarely watch the show anymore because i got bored of his style of humor, which is basically show a clip of a politician and then stare at the camera and repeat what the politician said in a weird voice. get a laugh, repeat. i think they started playing to an audience that wasn't looking for a challenge and that's when the show went downhill. but i've noticed that when stewart gets mad, he gets pretty ruthless, so maybe the writing will start to pick up now that it's out in the open how lost this country is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Watching jim squirm is entertaining yes, but people get too much joy out of it. Jim has nothing to do with it. He gives financial advice. It could be bad, it could be good. And its retarded for Jon to say "you try to make finance entertaining but its not a game." No, it IS a game. Investing in the stock market IS a fucking game. IS it? It is not. It's not an analogy for anything, The show was a celebration and an exorcism, timed accordingly with a Buffett call-in interview and the Madoff verdict. I'm not going to call you an idiot or retarded, but I question your ability to disseminate media or finance! An exorcism against Jim Cramer? ok Against reckless advice. Cramer did produce the content of his show, and if there were no recent legal question about his advice, the disclaimer would have never appeared, nor would have Cramer on the Daily Show. Media has lately, in an organized effort, taken on a responsibility in concert with our government in regard to wise investment. The appearance of Cramer was an example of this. I do care about Ignorant Grampa Applebottom if he lost his money the Cramer way, he might be my neighbor. I wouldn't want you are anyone else to get stabbed in a parking lot either, or for that matter, advice from a quack doctor. Because he did produce potentially litigious content (or has!) he does, in my opinion, deserve a public flogging, just as a quack doctor deserves to lose any ability to practice. Cramer sure has fun! Look how much fun he had! Why does the media have any kind of obligation to provide viewers with helpful advice? The show is entertainment. the only job the media has is to provide you with entertainment, which is how they make money. So what jon stewart did was tell jim he was being naughty. No, jim was doing his job. Thats how jim gets paid! And jon, obnoxious as ever, uses his program to shit on someone else's. Do you know how Jon gets paid? To eviscerate other people. Im glad you have a big heart though. You know I could use some more money in my checking account.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EDGEY Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 i got a lot of shit before for saying that jon stewart backs down when it really matters and i stand by that here. great interview, sure, and it's fun to watch and it's satisfying, in a way, but as awepittance said earlier, why does stewart always act like a pussy around the people who really, truly have an effect on the political and economic stage? he always hides behind this whole "well, this is a comedy show, it isn't real" argument, but it's bullshit, at this point. why say that when people obviously take interviews like these seriously, when even stewart is being completely serious and straightforward in his attack? it's ridiculous to just turn around and say "it isn't a serious news program" whenever someone calls him on the fact that he won't take down the people who really matter. anyway, he's just as partisan and over the top as bill o'reilly or any of the fox news cheerleaders, it's just that jon stewart is actually funny and occasionally quite ruthless. i'm always surprised how much pull he seems to have with college age kids, and on some level it's great that he's gotten people interested in politics, but in other ways i really wish he'd start focusing his anger on targets that matter instead of ripping apart a person who was a parody to begin with. I think his interview went a little beyond putting cramer to task... I think his intent was to draw attention to cnbc's role in the past concerning their manipulation (and cramers personal manipulation) of the market, using cramer as 'the face' of cnbc. His target was media, not cramer... cramer is just the personification of his attack. if thats making any sense at all... meh, whatever, it was entertaining television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 he can fucking do whatever the fuck he fucking wants to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 he can fucking do whatever the fuck he fucking wants to. we have absolutely no right to be critical of John Stewart, im very very sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 sorry, i just find your criticism a bit silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 sad that john stewart never had the balls to act this with any of the other dicks he's interviewed (colon powell, bill kristol, dana perino, tony snow, ari fliescher, tony blair, etc) he sure acted like a huge ass kissing pussy during those interviews, oh well The problem is, if you play hard with them... none will come on your show. but the people i listed never came again, so i guess its the same logic of why reporters never ask the president hard questions, they want access. So John Stewart has essentially the same mentality as a centrist american beltway reorter is what you are saying he's just more clever. edit: i watch the daily show almost every day, and i do like John stewart when he is at his most confrontational like in this cramer interview, its just if you've been a watcher of his for the last 8 years he wasted SO MANY opportunities to give law breaking word leaders a new asshole tearing. I'll take what i can get, and this interview is refreshing. i think kramer is an easy target. world leaders are usually sharp (bush not so). look at frost/nixon - nixon was a tough interview as he knows his stuff. blair could answer anything stewart threw at him. anything. hes a politician not some knobby sleeverolling tv presenter. i agree he should ask some tough questions but they aren't going to agree with him as much as kramer did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 i think kramer is an easy target. world leaders are usually sharp (bush not so). look at frost/nixon - nixon was a tough interview as he knows his stuff. blair could answer anything stewart threw at him. anything. hes a politician not some knobby sleeverolling tv presenter. i agree he should ask some tough questions but they aren't going to agree with him as much as kramer did Exactly. Also, World leaders and prominent political and military figures have a lot more connections to things than someone like Cramer who is essentially a patsy for the financial market at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest telikan Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Is Awepittance putting the 'h' in his name out of disdain? Is it for 'heeb'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.