Got some time to kill on a Saturday afternoon? Check out Rachel Maddow’s unedited interview with Jon Stewart after his rally, in which they discuss his role, her role, FOX, MSNBC, false equivalencies, whether George Bush is as bad as FDR (or Pol Pot), and more.
Anthony Hecht is The Stranger's Chief Technology Officer. He owns no monkeys. More by Anthony Hecht
Here’s what I got out of it. The Fox/MSNBC continuum is based on this false reality that the people of the United States fall somewhere on a line between (or past) Republican and Democrat. In real reality, what we all care about a whole lot more than that is good government vs bad government – which members of congress are sincerely looking out for the interests of the American people and which are just trying to get reelected. Cable news networks have a significant amount of bias not so much in what they cover but in what they choose not to cover and in how they frame the issues they talk about.
I actually think the Stranger news section does an excellent job of avoiding this. The majority of stories there (and basically 100% of the good stories) are about how state and city policies are being implemented and what the consequences of those policies are, rather than who implemented them and what it means for someone’s reelection chances. The articles clearly have a liberal slant, but they criticize liberal policies as often as conservative ones, if the policies are bad for the underprivileged of Seattle.
And Obama makes it on the ‘Worst Persons in the World’ segment from time to time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29…
The false continuum is entirely the creation of corporate interests. More or less, it’s .01% of the population that owns Fox News, and the government, and most of the wealth VS. a few progressives that refuse to get hoodwinked.
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and Right of Reply, beef them up, and extend them to all news media (not just broadcasting). Then we might get some diversity and balance in our news instead of fake partisan Punch and Judy covering up a rather uniformly pro-corporate, pro-wealthy message. (I would love to have seen ABC televise a timely Physicians for a National Health Program response to their Health Care Special, featuring Obama and his Aetna CEO pal Ron Williams. The only place you saw PNHP was on Democracy Now — on public access cable here in Seattle — and on the Bill Moyers Journal. Not quite the same level of exposure.)
Fish Wrench Asteroid, if the Stranger had fans and favorites, I’d F&F you for your two previous posts.
As for the interview, maybe it was the stomach flu talking, but I thought Jon Stewart was trying to fart higher than his asshole. The purpose of the sanity/fear event was to spoof and delegitimize Glenn Beck’s self-promotional rally. There was no need for Jon to come up with a ponderous back-rationale and try to pass himself off as a neutral political observer, floating impartially above the fray. He may be a great political satirist, but he waffled and evaded whenever Rachel tried to get him to clearly state his position. He should stick to what he’s good at and steer clear of pontificating — or at least avoid “serious” interviews when he’s got the stomach flu.
I’ve written and rewritten and deleted so many different thoughts about this that I’ll just stop trying and say:
Overall, I came away enjoying this interview, though I do have to echo what some have said about Stewart’s somewhat sanctimonious tone. Maddow seemed to be pursuing his approval at some points though, so she only allowed him to do it more.
I like coming here to read the comments on SLOG, to help me get more perspectives on things. If only our political discourse was so thoughtful and reasoned as this interview (and most of the responses here).
I really like the whole crew of commentators at MSNBC, with the notable exception of Morning Joe and the airhead with him. They suffer from FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome), as do all the Fucks Gnus staff and viewers.
I’m waiting for the (next?) book from each of the MSNBC people. Until then, I’ll watch them and wish they would start saying this:
=====================
One percent of the people in this country control fifty percent of its wealth.
Repeat: 1% of the people in the U.S. control 50% of the wealth in this country.
This same 1% received 24% of pre-tax income in 2007, but received only 9% in 1976.
From 2002 to 2007, their income increased 10% per year.
The super-rich are definitely in need of more tax breaks financed by the rest of us, right?
My question is how long are this nation’s gullible voters going to continue to bury their heads in the sand, allowing oligarchs and plutocrats to rub their noses in the fact that they are utterly, completely powerless?
Elections used to offer something of a remedy for plutocracy and oligarchy — not any more.
Elections in this country were turned into Silent Auctions when the U.S. supreme court declared that corporations are people, and are entitled to the same free-speech protections as human beings.
If this is so, under the equal protections clause of the U.S. constitution, we should be able to drag corporations into court and find them guilty of murder, rape, wanton destruction and a laundry list of other offenses. “… nor deny to any ‘person’ within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (my single quotes: ‘person’)
So let’s get the ball rolling. BP goes to jail for 50 years. Halliburton ditto. Every other corporation, and its officers, goes to jail for decades. Companies that connived on worthless CDS and CDOs are put to death by hanging, as are all banks (if they refuse to loan to worthwhile applicants).
While corporations are in “jail,” their assets and all revenue they generate goes into IRS and Federal Reserve coffers. Upon their release, they will be subject to donating public service in perpetuity.
If you’re a right winger determined to flame me, don’t clutter up valuable real estate with your bollocks. With a modicum of research you’ll find me. Be sure to read the Privacy Agreement — it means what it says!
=====================
Big thumbs-up to Knat. Good comment! Thank you.
I think Maddow got way too defensive causing her to miss Stewart’s point. The Daily show doesn’t spend nearly as much time criticizing the left as she made it seem. And when they do it’s funny as hell.
Clearly he criticizes them far less than conservatives (& deservedly so!). But just because he does, doesn’t mean that he disagrees with their message either. I think he sees how their actions are perceived by others and how some of the wacky things liberals do can really isolate people who might otherwise agree with their arguments. MSNBC is not always fair in their criticism (which in no way equates to the bias of FOX) causing them to lose persuasiveness as they preach to the choir.
I agree with Maddow that she & Oberman have found the courage to admit they are liberal and to report from their bias. That is terrific, more people should admit from where they come from – not to play into the tribalistic red vs blue reporting – but rather to avoid manipulating audiences via the myth of objective journalism. Stewart is also right that production motives are economic.
I respect Stewart as much if not more for this interview. I respect Maddow the same but I think she conducted a weak interview given her proficient capabilities. Again, I think she got too defensive at times making her interview with John Stewart more about herself and at times lashing out at him a little as thought he really were trying to validate the middle of the road argument. She clearly can’t break from the red vs blue worldview.
Ah Rachael… the ginger root of interviewers. Late to the party, I know, but that was the best hour of internet viewing I’ve had in a long time. I don’t have cable, so I don’t watch these two much, but that was nice. If Maddow ever wants to have a kid ‘Crosby Style’… well, imagine what that kid would be like.
Jon gave Rachel some food for thought. The point isn’t that Fox and MSNBC are moral or decibel equivalents. The point is that the emotional-intellectual process of moral reasoning is usually the same within both left and right US paradigms. All of us conceive and articulate the views that we agree with to a different set of standards than those we disagree with. The exercise is to de-legitimize rather than debate.
Fox and Glenn don’t create confusion as much as they reveal the parochial and under-educated reasoning that exists. If the US is to find its way to effective and progressive policies the population must go through a learning experience. The dramatic journalisms are part of this. The unspoken message from Jon is that to the degree the left media stops de-legitimizing and starts debating – it gains leverage over its adversary and reverses the arms race to compete with the right on the basis of ideas