This year’s version of Jon Stewart’s intelligent, robust examination of clichéd, reactive, shallow, artificially partisan media and, to a certain extent, a dollop of intellectual humiliation for its players (Think Crossfire’s Tucker Carlson in particular) occurred on Sunday.
Heralded with headlines like “Jon Stewart Eviscerates Fox News On Fox News“, “Stewart in the Lion’s Den” or “Jon Stewart LIVE On Fox News, Tells Host ‘You’re Insane’” Stewart’s interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace is fascinating — at least it is for those (like me) who consider matters like media bias and sensationalism and the very real ideological ‘game’ Fox News plays real issues …
Jon Stewart lifts the intellectual discussion on Fox News and calls them out for their relentless partisan ideological agenda and dishonesty (click to watch video)
Stewart is so much more than ‘a comedian’ … bravo.
Video (courtesy of Fox News) below the fold.
Stewart responds to his interview …
The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
I agree with the Fox News guy, and thought that he won the debate.
There is and always will be different perspectives (or “sides” if you prefer) to news commentaries. Even if you just spout so-called “facts” on the news, there is judgements to be made about which “facts” should get priority in publication.
I used to read the New York Times. It is indeed relentlessly liberal. The BBC for example is also relentlessly liberal.
If all the news channels took the same editorial stance as Fox News, there would be a big problem. They aren’t. They don’t. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth.
Overall, I think last election Mr Obama had a very easy ride from the US media – most appeared to support him. McCain never had a chance. Overall, I would agree with Fox News that the US media has a bias towards the liberal agenda, and Fox News provides a counterweight to this.
I suspect Obama has disappointed a lot of voters in the US since his election, who were expecting great change, and haven’t seen much.
If the Republicans can find a half decent candidate to stand next time, Mr Obama might lose? Alas, so far, the Republican candidates seem hopeless.
Rgds,
*p*
What do you ‘agree’ with? Wallace’s assertion that the ‘other side’ run a protracted restlessly partisan, ideological campaign to promote ‘liberal values’ and that Fox News’s definition of ‘balanced’ is actually be a balance against an alleged Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?
Or if by ‘won the debate’ do you mean he kept his cool while Stewart clearly lost his in exasperation at times?
Like you, I used to regularly read The Guardian (the airmail edition on thin paper) and I still do. I like Alan Rusbridger’s (@arusbridger) work. Like you, I recognised the paper came from a particular point of view. I might not have called it ‘bias’ but more ‘sympathetic’. But I don’t think they were deceitful or misleading in the way the ‘cartoonish’ Fox News is. Cartoonish is too light-hearted a description for what I see as the deliberate campaigns of misinformation and defamatory activities they engage in against the Right’s perceived enemies.
Did you see Van Jones is finally threatening to sue Fox News over their prolonged campaign of dishonest statements (lies) and abuse about him? Here’s his 20 June 2011 lawyer’s letter to Fox News … I’d be interested in your response to its claims.
Mine is: Those deliberately lying scoundrels at Fox News are so caught up in their BS worldview they think they’re bullet-proof …
http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2011/06/58341858-Fox-Letter.pdf
– P
Regarding the Guardian, I regularly read the doyen of the far left, Polly Toynbee. She is pretty relentlessly partisan. I suspect it is both her job and her passion to rail against the UK Coalition government. Fair enough.
Uk Papers have broadly the following editorial line:
Far Right – Telegraph
Centre Right – Times
Centre – Independent / FT
Centre Left – BBC
Far Left – Guardian
By the way, the Independent is so neutral, it is a complete bore.
I think Mr Wallace pretty much conceded that Fox News was relentlessly partisan and ideological. There was no pretense of neutrality.
I haven’t actually watched Fox News for a couple of years. If they are really involved in “misinformation and defamatory activities” I obviously don’t support this and think that they should be punished for this activity where proved.
If, however, they are simply relentlessly pushing an editorial line, I don’t have a problem with this. There are a huge number of alternative news sources in these internet days. Changing channels is rather easy.
Where I thought Mr Stewart lost the debate is his claim that there is one side to news or one set of news. I see a multiplicity of perspectives.
Fox News may choose to present a fairly distasteful or even poisonous editorial line, in cartoonish fashion. In a democracy, I prefer this to the alternative of not being allowed to do so (with the caveats above regarding the unacceptability of defamation or untruthfulness applying).
Rgds,
*p*
Yes, I agree about Wallace’s concession. But I don’t think he made his case that Fox News was merely ‘balancing’ the ‘other side’.
In Fox’s case, it goes far beyond an editorial line.
The reason I referred you to the Van Jones letter is that it contains prima facie evidence of lies and deliberate repeated distortions of the truth by Fox ‘personalities’ … almost a tag-team, bullies-emboldened-by-watching-other-bullies-get-away-with-it kind of ‘mob’ victimisation approach to this one man’s reputation — the facts didn’t seem to matter for their narrative.
I hope I can say this without appearing evasive or double-minded, but regarding The Guardian, I think it’s OK to have a sprinkling of hard-out partisans like Tyonbee writing … well, what you see is what you get.
Readers, like yourself, will soon work out her monochromatic nature … and vote with their eyes — either avoid her or (as I suspect in your case) read her to snort derisively … that’s different to a whole publication being so aggressively slanted or one-eyed that everything reported is distorted … which I don’t think is the case — neither of The Guardian, nor the NY Times, which was the construction Wallace was attempting to suggest …
Your ‘multiplicity of perspectives is what I also see — even WITHIN the same organ. Remember William Safire in the NY Times — what was he? A token right winger? …No, far far more. Joe Klein in TIME?… etc
When you get a chance, please read Van Jones’s lawyers’ cease-and-desist letter and, as favour to me, let me know what it makes you think.
– P
Peter,
I had never heard of Van Jones before, so I read your PDF and wikipedia with interest.
Apparently Van Jones used to be involved with STORM (from wiki):
“Formed by young activists in September 1994, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) was a left wing revolutionary cadre-based organization based in the Bay Area of the United States.”
This would imply that Van Jones was once a Communist / Revolutionary / Marxist. To say he was an “unrepentent communist” appears to be untrue, as he later explicitly rejected these views.
The “violent” / “spent time in jail” claims appear to be completely false (insofar as the jail time was a false arrest and imprisonment).
As for Van Jones’ name appearing on the 2004 petition from 911Truth.org, the wacko 911 conspiracists are not standing behind their claim that Van Jones actually signed their document. “In 2009 when first questioned about it, Jones did not deny signing it, but said that he hadn’t fully reviewed the statement before he signed”. In the absence of further evidence, I would accept this…
Van Jones is obviously not a cop killer, although he has supported someone who allegedly killed a cop. The racist allegation does not seem to be proved at all. It was perhaps poor judgement to attend a rally the day after 911 which was of the nature described. This was not a criminal offence, but was a pretty stupid thing to do. Americans are understandably touchy about 911. So be it.
I am not a lawyer, so don’t know whether all these inaccuracies constitute defamation. My feeling is that it should.
Politics is indeed a dirty business. The left calls the right fascists / racists / sexists et al. The right calls the left communist / revolutionaries etc.
For an example, see Farage exchanges in the European Parliament (he is routinely called a fascist by the socialist wing there). Another UKIP member quipped “Ein reich. Ein volk. Ein Fuhrer” during a German socialist MEP’s speech, and got thrown out of the chamber.
It sounds like some of the Fox commentators (this guy Mr Beck in particular) need to tone it down.
Rgds,
*p*
Thanks for your comments. It looks like a protracted campaign of deceit by Fox News to me, and aimed at smearing ‘Liberals’ and particularly President Obama.
Overnight, Jon Stewart took the time to repeat Fox News’s fact-checking history … quite a hoot … worth a watch:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements?xrs=share_copy
In my view, Fox News having a different editorial stance to other news networks is fine.
I have no problem with a Fox News anti Liberal or anti Obama campaign, so long as they are truthful. Most of the media is pro Obama anyway.
Telling out and out lies is, however, unacceptable.
Rgds,
*p*
Sure, that’s a standard we could apply to any news media organisation … the trouble is, Fox News isn’t really a news media organisation by any conventional standard. Yes, it’s a business, but I think it’s fair to say the agenda they drive isn’t about ‘educating, informing and entertainment’.
As the Van Jones letter reveals, Fox News’s foot soldiers are not above dispersing lies and untrue slander … and perhaps they’re told to by their bosses? ….
http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201103290006
This interview is worth a quick read:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11171/1154662-129.stm