RkFast Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Why not? A guy like Rush is almost precisely Stewart's Right Wing analog. Both shows are mostly about having fun at the expense of politicians. But both shows also have a serious undertone; concern about the state of certain aspects of politics. Nah, not even close. Rush is structured purely as a commentary show and Stewart's as a comedy. There is crossover. Im not denying that. You know what Stewart is? Hes the "Jim Cramer" of politics. Anit that a hoot? So thats why I think hes so FOS when it comes to giving Cramer a hard time. This guy reports the news with one tounge firmly in cheek in a semi-serious manner. Isnt that EXACTLY what Cramer is doing with financial reporting? Two peas of the EXACT same !@#$ing pod. Tell ya what....any rube who gets his "news" and commentary from Stewart needs to join up with the dimwit who gets his financial tips from Cramer and the two of them should go have lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Nah, not even close. Rush is structured purely as a commentary show and Stewart's as a comedy. There is crossover. Im not denying that. You know what Stewart is? Hes the "Jim Cramer" of politics. Anit that a hoot? So thats why I think hes so FOS when it comes to giving Cramer a hard time. This guy reports the news with one tounge firmly in cheek in a semi-serious manner. Isnt that EXACTLY what Cramer is doing with financial reporting? Two peas of the EXACT same !@#$ing pod. Tell ya what....any rube who gets his "news" and commentary from Stewart needs to join up with the dimwit who gets his financial tips from Cramer and the two of them should go have lunch. No, the difference is Rush forgot he is an entertainer. Idiots follow him thinking he is a commentator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 They are not. But in this day and age of cable news, you have the pure news reporting shows, the commentary shows and then sometimes a hybrid. But they USUALLY dont intertwine. BC was stressing the "importance of Comedy Central and IMO raising them to the level of a pure news network. Which IMO, you cant do. Perhaps you need to lean the defenition of shut the !@#$ up. You talk about "pure news reporting." Do you REALLY think that goes on on cable news broadcasts, regardless of the channel? Surely SOME reporters "report." But not the majority of them, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Nah, not even close. Rush is structured purely as a commentary show and Stewart's as a comedy. There is crossover. Im not denying that. You know what Stewart is? Hes the "Jim Cramer" of politics. Anit that a hoot? So thats why I think hes so FOS when it comes to giving Cramer a hard time. This guy reports the news with one tounge firmly in cheek in a semi-serious manner. Isnt that EXACTLY what Cramer is doing with financial reporting? Two peas of the EXACT same !@#$ing pod. Tell ya what....any rube who gets his "news" and commentary from Stewart needs to join up with the dimwit who gets his financial tips from Cramer and the two of them should go have lunch. I'm using this as an example that clearly several posters in this thread are commenting on Stewart and the Daily Show without ever watching the Daily Show. The program is actually a satirical parody of News Stations, not so much the news itself. Certainly, he will often mock news stories and/or figures. But, the foundation of the show is to mock the other News Channel's coverage of the news. And in that regard he mocks them all - CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, you name it. And, yes, he's even mocked Obama and the media's love for Obama. No one is safe nor should they be. I watched that interview, and I must tell you.. that's about as serious and hard hitting as Stewart has ever been. It almost made me uncomfortable. All I can figure is he lost a crap load of money in the market. But, he clearly wasn't targeting Cramer as much as he was CNBC and calling them out for what they are - entertainment, as opposed to what they claim to be - experts. And Chef, I agree with you, people that invest based on what some guy on TV says are idiots. But the reality is.. a lot of people do. They do it because they don't know any better, because the guys on TV profess to be experts with inside knowledge, and because they're idiots. But, it doesn't change the fact that they do it, and these guys on TV know that people do it. So, as Dean's suggesting, shouldn't those TV experts be held to some level of accountability in the advice they spew or at least have the decency to post a disclaimer that says don't take me serious or something. Interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 No, the difference is Rush forgot he is an entertainer. Idiots follow him thinking he is a commentator. Really? Bringing up current events and giving your opinion of them is not being a commentator? Yeah, Stewart does that too, but in the prism of comedy, which Rush does not. Come on, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 You talk about "pure news reporting." Do you REALLY think that goes on on cable news broadcasts, regardless of the channel? Surely SOME reporters "report." But not the majority of them, IMO. I said...."you have the pure news reporting shows, the commentary shows and then sometimes a hybrid." You should really get into the habit of reading the damned post you are responding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Really? Bringing up current events and giving your opinion of them is not being a commentator? Yeah, Stewart does that too, but in the prism of comedy, which Rush does not. Come on, man. I listen to Rush around 20 minutes a day. I give him credit for what he does well, which is distort things. He lies or distorts things so that the statistic doesn't mean what he says it means. He quote articles saying stuff like, "If this is true" and then expounds on the idea assuming it is. The man used to be a pimp for a farm league baseball team for god's sake. You think he would be a little more humble and understanding considering his own issues. He (thanks to the Dems who do tons of stupid stuff) spaces this out with genuine and deserved criticism. His shows should have the tagline someone else suggested "For entertainment purposes only". So if you want to call him a commentator, knock yourself out. I suppose the standards have fallen that low. AD nailed it. Sad commentary that John Stewart is currently one of our best and most hard hitting interviewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Misquoted? No trying to interpret what you said. You wrote: Anyone who thinks CNBC is innocent in the current economic debacle is deranged. Ok so if someone is deranged for thinking they are innocent more than implies you feel they're guilty. Guilty of what? Well I'm not sure but according to your quote they're guilty of something in this current economic debacle. Well let's see what this current economic debacle is. One of many things going on is people have lost money. So in your mind CNBC is guilty of causing people losing money. Now you may say that I'm twisting your words but Dean, I know you well enough to make a safe assumption that that is what you're thinking. That CNBC (and hence Cramer) is guilty of causing people to lose money. Admit it that's what you think and trying to hide from that isn't working. Now listen man, there is nothing wrong with that line of thinking because to an extent they fueled the fire. But the media always has and always will. My contention in the thread and for the fifth time is that if you base your investment decisions on a recommendation from a guy on a television show called MAD Money it is mostly your own fault. Oh and the John Stewart guy? Yes, misquoted and misinterpreted. But, I have to believe you know better than what you pretend to think, here. There are a myriad of factors which contribute to the current economic situation. Decisions made by Clinton (and probably earlier) and Bush, contribute. If I concluded that, does it mean I am blaming Clinton, and/or Bush, for the loss of any individual's money? Of course not, that is absurd. But, to say they aren't to blame, on an individual level, doesn't mean they are faultless in the situation. Hell, in your FIFTH statement of something that has yet to be an issue in our exchange, "is that if you base your investment decisions on a recommendation from a guy on a television show called MAD Money it is mostly your own fault", you have decided to add "mostly". I have always agreed with that statement, and haven't argued against it. I also agree with the "mostly" addition, as it covers all the bases. My argument has been, all along, what you have FINALLY come to understand, when you admit: "they fueled the fire". How you can take a statement like "anyone who thinks CNBC is innocent in the current economic debacle is deranged" and attribute "they are guilty of losing individuals money, and absolving the individual from blame", as my meaning, is bizarre, at a minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts