November 05, 2004

• Saw this last night, and it made me laugh so hard. I hope Jon Stewart stakes a flag and takes a stand in the culture war between faith-based and reality-based, red states and blue states, Right and Left. No more kissing right-wing ass when they come on his show.
• "If you want to have gay sex, or visit a library, it's probably your last night to do those things." Wonderful.
• I expect a shift in media access in Bush's second term: the left, as it solidifies, will no longer be welcome in the corporate media; the right will no longer bother with Jon Stewart. Shows such as Crossfire and Hannity&Colmes, with a "strong" right-wing and a "pathetically weak" left-wing talking head, are the future of television "news". The fraction of Americans that gets all their information from TV will continue to be confused about basic "facts". It is about time the left started thinking of the media as the propaganda arm of the state.
• time the left started thinking of the media as the propaganda arm of the state Started?... ;-)
• Perhaps I meant "finished their disillusionment with the media".
• I expect a shift in media access in Bush's second term Especially after Dan Rather is sent to Guantanamo.
• It is about time the left started thinking of the media as the propaganda arm of the state. The media is out to make money before it does propaganda. It just turned out that infotainment propaganda has been more profitable than actual news, of late. When the left wraps its head around that idea the way the Right has, they might be able to manipulate people to vote for them in greater numbers.
• I would like to believe you, Alex, but I remind you of the example of Sinclair. They were close to airing a partisan hatchet-job despite the fact that it was risky and unprofitable; indeed, they took a solid hit to their stock price. Yes, they did end up relenting, but we would be kidding ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that they probably backed down voluntarily. If, as it now appears, the Republican strategy hadn't already moved from sliming Kerry's Vietnam service—which was probably milked to the bone by that point—to getting the bigot vote out, I am sure Sinclair would have gone with their initial plan.
• might as well stick this here - www.sorryeverybody.com
• But what you miss fuyugare is that Sinclair profits from a Bush re-election due to the way their business model is set up and the propensity of Republican FCC regulators to loosen the media ownership rules. So in that case, the Sinclair partisan hacthet-job was, at least in the mind of the CEO, good for their profitability. It backfired, of course, but on paper it's precicely what would benefit Sinclair at the time.
• Thank you, Alex....
• Sinclair might profit now, but when it was trying that stunt it wasn't quite so clear that Bush was going to win. The media is owned by corporations that act in self-interest; that much I have no problems with. As these media corporations are no longer afraid of losing viewers—their largest viewership is Fox afterall—their self-interest happens to be promoting a right-wing agenda. Thus during the Clinton administration they trumped up every scandal they could find, and during the Bush administration they hushed up every scandal they could find. People say that the media loves a scandal, but the truth is that the media loves scandals that help their self-interest. So I think Alex is half right. Yes the media is in the business of making money, but in the present world the only way to make money is to side with their right-wing viewers. I don't see how the left can possibly crack this shell.
• but when it was trying that stunt it wasn't quite so clear that Bush was going to win. Which is exactly why I'm saying that it was market driven.
• Cool link, flashboy! (...kinda how I feel. I *tried*)
• People say that the media loves a scandal, but the truth is that the media loves scandals that help their self-interest. Not just scandal: the media loves anything -- anything -- that improves ratings. I recall CNN's bloodlust during the first Gulf War, and the opening "embedded" rounds of the second GW. Most people would believe CNN not to be biased (to have a centrist political stance, for the most part) but clearly there was a "get behind the war" attitude in both instances that helped them get press access from the Pentagon.
• Perhaps I meant "finished their disillusionment with the media". *ding!* Tell him what he's won, Johnny!
• No more kissing right-wing ass when they come on his show. Alas, seem like 'tis not to be. Last night Stewart and William Kristol were chuckling together like they dine together regularly at the country club.
• You know, Jon Stewart is almost enough to make me wish I still owned a TV. I'd never seen his show before seeing these clips, though I've heard about him plenty. Good funny stuff. The 'two birds' line cracked me up every time I showed the clip to friends.
• Kristol vs. Colbert
• Colbert is amasing when it comes to interviews. He's totally off the cuff and he keeps the conversations relevant and funny no matter who he's talking to. Most of John Stewart's interviews just sound like really boring conversations at a hollywood parties. Colbert really one of the most daring comic forces on TV right now. Sometimes I think he slips a little too far into character, though. He seemed unitentionally caustic when he interviewed Ralph Nader.
• Taint.
• The Daily Show’s New Correspondent
• "exploding shards of a better tomorrow" Good stuff. If only they'd stuck the dismount . .
• The silence on the 9/11 comparison was telling. Because it was offensive, yes, but also pointed out the offensiveness of the "birth pangs" comment. The best satire should be both funny and painful.
• Jon Stewart, Enemy of Democracy?