Jon Stewart is wrong to denounce all of Crossfire.

Tucker Carlson is a dick, but Jon Stewart is wrong to denounce all of Crossfire.
Jon Stewart is correct that Carlson and Novak are despicable.
However, Stewart should not confuse Begala's and Carville's imperfections with the outright evil of Carlson and Novak.
Carlson and Novak pose a threat to America, but on Crossfire there is at least a rational response that offers Americans hope.
Begala and Carville are not perfect, but they are communicating the platform of the Democratic Party - a point of view that is rarely allowed on the news media.
They represent a rare and powerful asset in the struggle to elect leaders who actually represent Americans.
Unlike Carlson and Novak, Begala and Carville are working to establish a government that fights for its citizens instead of taking away their rights.

Frankly, Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire was disappointing.
Jon has the wit and knowledge to make much more compelling arguments and a much more substantive assessment of the sorry state of the news media.
(One good part was when he called Tucker a dick; that was effective, accurate and funny.)
Still, Jon Stewart can do a lot better.

And what I don't understand is why Jon seems to dislike Crossfire more than say ,Fox News. If an attack on journalism was his intent, Begala and Carville are not and probably never will be journalists. They are partisan political consultants. I don't know what Tucker considers himself but he is a quasi journalist at best. Novak is the only accredited journalist that I am aware of on the show.And Novak is slime.I just don't understand his anger at a show that isn't really subject to journalistic standards. He was nicer to Bill O'Riley who is definitely more dangerous than Paul and James. I agree with Jon's position regarding the Media in general .I just think his target is a bit peculiar.

I also agree with Jon's position regarding the Media in general.
I also object to his targeting of Begala and Carville.

For four years the media ran wild, and even the Democrats just sat by and let this administration have everything they wanted. It is about time that someone pointed out they should be discussing the real issues.

The only tough questions that had been asked during the campaign were during the second debate, and it was the PEOPLE of Missouri, the media would never had asked about the Supreme Court, abortion, healthcare, stem cell research, etc.

Jon Stewart was more than justified to put them all over the coals

It was about two months ago when Pelosi, and most of the Democrats in the house voted for House Resolution 757 which was introduced by Henry Hyde, linking 9/11 to Iraq...

Isn't O'Riley loud vulgar and devoid of fact .And doesn't O'Riley purport to be a journalist?

This was outside of his show, and was a much deserved scathing attack against a bias and lazy media

Yes, even the Democrats deserved some scolding for allow the media to get into the state it has become. This did NOT happen overnight

Think about it, why would a Democrat even SIT with novak, a criminal who has outed a CIA agent?

eptomizes all he distains? He didn't even make as much fun of O'riley as he did Kerry. And it is worse that it is his show. He had to have been invited! Sorry . O'riley is a much worsr threat than Crossfire as he presents what he does as journalism and news much like Sinclair.

Democrats have not sat idly by as the media run wild.
DU alone is proof of that.
As much as enjoyed the debate in my hometown, hard questions were put forth long before the second debate.
We all know that the news media, as a whole, are pathetic.
That does not justify the attacking of two of the very few people in the media that have actually done something good (Begala and Carville).
Democrats opposed the misleading language in HR 757.

The show doesn't "debate" as much as it is a sound-bite shouting match. All of the hosts are rude, and butt in, and try to win arguments by seeing who can scream the loudest.

I agree that Novak is the slimiest on ALL cablenews including Fox. Tucker is most arrogant and Begala and Carville aren't far behind.
I get tired of Begala kissing up to George Bush, always has to say he is a "nice guy" when he has the blood of Texas condemned, and tens of thousands of Iraqis and coaltion soldiers on his hands.

I can see why an increasingly violent and ill-mannered America might like Crossfire. We like base, vulgar behavior everywhere from professional sports to the WWE, so why not politics.

What does it say about the state of American so-called "journalism" when I feel I can get a better assessment of what really is happening in the nation and world by watching Stewart's FAKE news than I can get from REAL news sources?

Rudeness may offend you, but having a an impolite liberal speaker is a hell of a lot better than being stuck with the NeoConservative monologues that dominate the news media.

"What does it say about the state of American so-called "journalism" when I feel I can get a better assessment of what really is happening in the nation and world by watching Stewart's FAKE news than I can get from REAL news sources?"

America's news media are indeed pathetic and the Daily Show is great, but my point is that Begala and Carville (while imperfect) are not hurting America, but rather working to improve the media - and the country.

:dem:

was clearly talking from his heart as well as using his head. He also used the shock effect because they were not expecting it.

I can't see how he can be criticized for dissenting when that's exactly what the media, in general, needs. I though of Jon as OUR voice being spoken for a change.

Somebody has to break through the wall of media as it demonstrates itself as less credulous than it pretends to be. Corporate owned media is certainly hurting America as it serves its masters. It is a threat to Democracy in that respect.

Jon Stewart became a heroic icon on that day. We need champions for our cause. There are far too few. Criticism of his effort sounds rather conservative and apologetic. That's not something we need from a political point of view right now.

Unfortunately, Jon spent a lot of time on Crossfire criticizing the way Begala and Carville dissent.
He should have focused on the biggest problem of the media - that it presents news only in way that benefits corporate interests while often ignoring reality.
Instead, Jon denounced Crossfire for tearing America apart through their shouting.
In the past, Jon Stewart has effectively demonstrated the absurdity of corporate media, but he took a step backwards by demeaning Begala and Carville.
We do need champions for our cause.
We DON'T need people attacking them for shouting back at Republicans.

My criticism is not conservative and I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by implying that it is.

was not intended at all but you are free to interpret it as one if you like.

I was using "conservative" in the "unimaginatively conventional" sense, not in the poticial definition of the word. My mistake for not pointing that out or being more precise. Sorry.

nt

Carville and Begala may be good, right (left) thinking folk but the format of the show does nothing to shed insight on the political process. Jon was funny and he was right and bless him for it.

Jon did get some things, but not everything, right.

For some of us, the format of the show does shed light on the political process.

I didn't see it as it happened since I quit watching Crossfire when they went to the WWF shout down format. Oh, for the days of Michael Kinsley, Bill Press and even Pat Buchanan when it was about the debate and not about the drama.

And if I must call a spade a spade, CNN has evolved into a worthless piece of Faux wannabe crap. The network is irrelevant and they know it. That's why they put Stewart in the hot seat on Crossfire. It's sad when a comedy show has more credibility than the once most trusted name in news.

And the really telling part is that if they wanted to be trusted again they could do it themselves without Jon Stewart's guest appearance. They could start doing some real work and question and discuss issues that really affect all Americans rather than the endless, superficial Scot Peterson, Mary Cheney and White House/GOP unexamined spin-points.

CNN is the cadaver network for news.

Jon Stewart was right. CNN makes us (or at least me, too) sad. And I guess we can all agree that’s not funny.

However, Begala and Carville are much better than the network as a whole.
They may be dramatic, but that does not make their political opinions irrelevant.

Jon Rocks Fucking right he does.!

intelligent moments for intelligent viewers.

Jon Stewart does rock.
In fact, I started this thread because I think a lot of Jon and I was frustrated by his appearance.

With that said, I would have gone easier on Begala and Carville. However, Jon was right: by being on an entertainment show that moves the political discourse backward, they are contributing to the problem.

They aren't moving the political discourse backward.

Stewart nailed them all.

Stewart fucked up.

They are both political hacks. There is probably a better term out there. Party Partisans? Propagandists?

Anyway, these people do not attempt to analyze issues but only to frame them in a way that makes their party look better.

It's not Rush Limbaugh's conservatism I am leery of but his partisan Republican heart that is the true source of his conviction.

Jon Stewart was crude but 100% correct.


www.freesqueeze.com/jonstewart.htm

are political hacks as well? I am a proud political hack then because I would have to reply in much the same way as Carville and Begala to the partisan attacks of the other side. What is wrong with the Dem ocratic Party has NOT been that we shout. It has been that we DON"t shout enough. I love Jon Stewart but it almost sounded like he was advocating the nicey nice of Tom Daschle which got us nowhere! It is not that the Democrats have been too partisan, it is that we have not been partisan enough!
I agree with what Jon said about media journalism, but in my opinion Croffire is not about journalism and never has been .It is about rambunctious political discourse. It certainly isn'r meant to be polite debate. Or a scholarly news show, Jon is contradicting himself when he claims that no one should expect real news from the Daily Show yet he expects it from Crossfire which is dedicated to partisan opinion. I think that is what disturbs Jon. He has made a plea to end devisiveness. He thinks it is tearing this country apart. But it is not Crossfire destroying this country. It is George Bush and the Media and lunatics who support him.

I can't disagree that this program makes little pretension of journalistic standards. My comment is more about the state of the talking head industry on the whole.

But yes, I think political discourse is most valuable when partisan politics are left behind. It's one thing to be a loyal Democrat and still another to put every issue you discuss through the filter of Democratic talking points.

An example of this mindset is when Republican partisans suddenly warm up to deficit spending when it's their guy maxing out the national credit card. Pushing this debt off on our children is against every fiber of a true conservative but they bite their lip because to them it is more important to avoid criticizing a Republican President than staying true to your core principles.

I think Crossfire would be better if a Conservative faced off with a Liberal instead of a Republican and a Democrat. If I want to know the GOP talking points, I can read the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News.

Please take no offense.

As a liberal independent, I love you loyal Democrats.

See you at the polls.

It is nice to have purely ideological discussions, but we need partisan activities to win elections.
Begala and Carville are providing an important service.
While GOP talking points are all over the news media, the same can not be said for Democratic positions.
It is the Democratic platform presentation that makes Crossfire valuable.

Begala and Carville do frame issues in a way that advances their positions.
There is nothing wrong with that.
They do also analyze issues.
The fact that they effectively communicate their positions does not diminish their convictions.

I only bring him up as an example of a person who is totally beholden to a political party.

It seems to me that, years ago, the only people that went around mouthing their party's talking points were paid political operatives. Now we have a new more divisive culture where millions of normal citizens base their opinions on the latest press release from their chosen political party.

We have confused the terms liberal with Democrat and conservative with Republican for so long that to many there is no difference. And there is a substantial difference.

I was pointing out the difference between operatives of different parties.

There is nothing wrong with liberals at the grassroots or other levels being partisan Democrats.

I think Jon knew that if he had been their "monkey", it would have been a non-event.

Jon needed to shake up the trees. Those "talking heads" shows are stale, predictable and myopic. Plus, it you downloaded the video, you realize there are only 12 minutes of interview. That means the real show is padded with 18 minutes of fluff and commercials.

Hats off to Jon. As for Carville disagreeing, he probably had to choose whether he wanted to keep the gig or not. The rest of them get stick it.

Begala and Carville are not stale, predictable and myopic.

My opinion anyway...actually I avoid CrossEyedFire like the plague.

He doesn't let Novak walk all over him, but he could be better.

the war. What a perfect left for CNN.

Yes, they make mistakes (even severe ones - like ever believing supporters of Bush).
Yet, Begala and Carville are fighting hard against Bush and are a force for good.

It was worth the media attention it got. He could have been better but he totally shook things up. He called a spade a spade.

He can do better.

What JC's message was that the media has mostly become a pile of hack and so we're only getting two views on a story at the most. There are thousands of ways to look at any particular story. Did anyone think that maybe the two 'main' views in the american media could BOTH be wrong some times?

The Democratic view of the world is not wrong.
The Democratic view isn't a 'main' view in the American media.
The Democrats on Crossfire are adding to the number of views available to television viewers.

It was actually on location in Davenport the day before the caucus last January. Here's a photo. I took video, but that's for later.

Novak was there talking about how Kerry was going to lose. Begala was all about Dean winning but then losing to Bush in the fall. They both were sucking up to Chimpy and saying he would not lose the election. They both sounded like goddamn Repuglicans to me. And the segment was 12 minutes out of a 30 minute program.

The funny part was that there were protestors chanting that Novak was a treasonous punk for outing a CIA agent.

Why didn't CNN cover that? Why did Begala even share the stage with the little rat?

Fuck CrossEyedFire. Jon was spot on.

Begala will be a key part of the Kerry victory.
Begala is not anticipating a Bush win and Begala will, in fact, help ensure that Bush loses.

Jon was off.