3 ms·

Go to youtube and look up the Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer interview (this happened after the 2008 financial crisis). Then look up Jon Stewart on Crossfire. I c

Go to youtube and look up the Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer interview (this happened after the 2008 financial crisis). Then look up Jon Stewart on Crossfire. I can't find a version of that interview that isn't edited, you really should watch the entire thing as it went out over the air. But here's one that shows the important parts (imo). Note the timestamp is 57 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkqzRs95Sc&t=57s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkqzRs95Sc&t=57s Jon Stewart was publicly saying what everyone wanted to say. The only person he could get ahold of was Jim Cramer, but you can FEEL the anger. That anger wasn't just Jon, it was your average Americans. --- Jon Stewart was consistently getting named in polls as the most TRUSTWORTHY news source, and a lot of it was for this. As a comedian he was pointing out the ridiculousness of the politics, and he wasn't doing it because it was a republican in office. Because Jon Stewart was saying what most people WANTED to say. I can't find the skit, but during the Iraq war the US lost _PALLETS_ of money. Think about that. PALLETS OF MONEY. Jon Stewart did a skit where he made fun of it because how ridiculous is that? You send literal pallets of money and don't put enough security on it to prevent it from disappearing? --- There's this idea of court jester's as being the only people who could safely say certain things. I'm no historian so I can't speak to that historical accuracy, but that's how I view Jon Stewart. People are aware that he's a comedian, and they're aware that he's highlighting very specific things. But given the news media then (and today), there's a reason he was considered by many people to be the most trustworthy news source. When Jon made those statements about only being an entertainer, he was defending himself from attacks by the media, not by your every day American people. That statement in particular, put in context, was him showing how ridiculous it was for these organizations to be attacking him.

jrochkind1 4y ago
If people consider you the most trustworthy news source, you have a responsibility to live up to that trust, which saying "I'm only an entertainer" is abdicating, he was saying "I'm only an entertainer, why are you trying to hold me to the standards of news media?" Well, because millions consider you a trustworthy news source, that's why. > There's this idea of court jester's as being the only people who could safely say certain things. I'm no historian so I can't speak to that historical accuracy, but that's how I view Jon Stewart. I believe that's exactly how Rogan's audience views him too. I am not a fan of Rogan. But this seems pretty similar. The difference is just that you disagree with Rogan's fans and agree with Stewarts, ok... The difference is just that you personally think Stewart is generally more trustworthy than Rogan? If so (and I generally agree), why didn't Stewart accept that responsibility instead of trying to abdicate it with "I'm only an entertainer, you can't hold me to the standards of news media". Don't both Stewart and Rogan have the responsibility to in fact be held to the standards of news media, when millions consider them trustworthy as news media? I think both of them are irresponsible and acting in an untrustworthy manner if they say "I'm only an entertainer, I shouldn't be held to the standards of a news source", while being considered a trustworthy news source by many. How do we know if someone is trustworthy as a news source? By evaluating them as a news source, not letting them get out of it with "I'm just an entertainer, you can't hold me to that standard".
- monocasa 4y ago
  It's been common for millenia that a court jester is the one that tells the most truths. That doesn't abdicate the press of their responsibility, but is instead a sign that we've reverted back to feudal power structures.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  One wonders if the you believe the negative of this holds. If everyone believes you're an adulterer you have a responsibility to cheat on your spouse? --- In addition, this is why cherry picking is frowned upon. Jon Stewart was responding to the ridiculousness of CNN, Fox, et al, running hit pieces on him, and they started running hit pieces on him because they were showing up in polls as less trustworthy than Jon Stewart. What you're basically claiming here is that because he's more trustworthy than CNN, Fox, et al, he has a responsibility to trustworthiness. AT THE TIME this was happening, the general sentiment was the opposite. That the trustworthiness of CNN, Fox, et al was SO BAD, that even a comedian, whose job it is to take things out of context and stretch the truth for a laugh, was more trustworthy than CNN, Fox, et al. This was all going on during the second Iraq war, where Bush and Cheney was giving speeches about mission accomplished atop aircraft carriers with the banner "Mission Accomplished" while we were still sending more troops. It was clearly a political maneuver and Jon Stewart was making fun of it whilst CNN, et al, were mostly not calling them out. But people aren't _stupid_, they knew it was ingenuine. That Jon Stewart, a fricking comedian, was the only public forum really highlighting how disingenuous it was is WHY he was getting voted as more trustworthy in polls. Jon Stewart was pointing this out. And you know what? The people were fucking right. When the 911 responders were getting dicked who was it that fought for them? It sure as shit wasn't CNN, Fox, et al. --- Without that context, what you're doing here is cherry picking, and I suspect it's because the current "social politics" surrounding joe rogan are causing younger people to let it bleed over onto Jon Stewart.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    I'm 46. And a leftist. fwiw, btw. No, becuase someone thinks you've done something bad doesn't mean you have the have the responsibility to do something bad. I think Joe Rogan encourages people to build a worldview off of things he says, encourages people to treat him as reliable news, and profits from them doing so, both monetarily and by influence over what people think. He has a huge amount of influence over what people think, based on people believing that he's a straight shooter. Then when called on whether he's doing so responsibly, whether he really is straight-shooting, he says "I'm just an entertainer, it's not a relevant question". I think it's irresponsible and manipulative. I don't see how that has anything to do with thinking someone is obligated to kill if people believe they are a murderer, that's a ridiculous and silly analogy that just doesn't work. I think Jon Stewart did/does the same thing as Joe Rogan. He has a huge amount of influence over what people think, based on people believing that he's a straight shooter, and he likes, encourages, and profits from this trust and this influence -- it is intentional. Then when called on whether he's doing so responsibly, he says "I'm just an entertainer, you can't expect that of me or hold me accountable for it, it's not what entertainers do". I think it's irresponsible and manipulative. Can you be specific about how you think the cases differ?

jrochkind1 4y ago

If people consider you the most trustworthy news source, you have a responsibility to live up to that trust, which saying "I'm only an entertainer" is abdicating, he was saying "I'm only an entertainer, why are you trying to hold me to the standards of news media?" Well, because millions consider you a trustworthy news source, that's why. > There's this idea of court jester's as being the only people who could safely say certain things. I'm no historian so I can't speak to that historical accuracy, but that's how I view Jon Stewart. I believe that's exactly how Rogan's audience views him too. I am not a fan of Rogan. But this seems pretty similar. The difference is just that you disagree with Rogan's fans and agree with Stewarts, ok... The difference is just that you personally think Stewart is generally more trustworthy than Rogan? If so (and I generally agree), why didn't Stewart accept that responsibility instead of trying to abdicate it with "I'm only an entertainer, you can't hold me to the standards of news media". Don't both Stewart and Rogan have the responsibility to in fact be held to the standards of news media, when millions consider them trustworthy as news media? I think both of them are irresponsible and acting in an untrustworthy manner if they say "I'm only an entertainer, I shouldn't be held to the standards of a news source", while being considered a trustworthy news source by many. How do we know if someone is trustworthy as a news source? By evaluating them as a news source, not letting them get out of it with "I'm just an entertainer, you can't hold me to that standard".

monocasa 4y ago
It's been common for millenia that a court jester is the one that tells the most truths. That doesn't abdicate the press of their responsibility, but is instead a sign that we've reverted back to feudal power structures.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
One wonders if the you believe the negative of this holds. If everyone believes you're an adulterer you have a responsibility to cheat on your spouse? --- In addition, this is why cherry picking is frowned upon. Jon Stewart was responding to the ridiculousness of CNN, Fox, et al, running hit pieces on him, and they started running hit pieces on him because they were showing up in polls as less trustworthy than Jon Stewart. What you're basically claiming here is that because he's more trustworthy than CNN, Fox, et al, he has a responsibility to trustworthiness. AT THE TIME this was happening, the general sentiment was the opposite. That the trustworthiness of CNN, Fox, et al was SO BAD, that even a comedian, whose job it is to take things out of context and stretch the truth for a laugh, was more trustworthy than CNN, Fox, et al. This was all going on during the second Iraq war, where Bush and Cheney was giving speeches about mission accomplished atop aircraft carriers with the banner "Mission Accomplished" while we were still sending more troops. It was clearly a political maneuver and Jon Stewart was making fun of it whilst CNN, et al, were mostly not calling them out. But people aren't _stupid_, they knew it was ingenuine. That Jon Stewart, a fricking comedian, was the only public forum really highlighting how disingenuous it was is WHY he was getting voted as more trustworthy in polls. Jon Stewart was pointing this out. And you know what? The people were fucking right. When the 911 responders were getting dicked who was it that fought for them? It sure as shit wasn't CNN, Fox, et al. --- Without that context, what you're doing here is cherry picking, and I suspect it's because the current "social politics" surrounding joe rogan are causing younger people to let it bleed over onto Jon Stewart.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  I'm 46. And a leftist. fwiw, btw. No, becuase someone thinks you've done something bad doesn't mean you have the have the responsibility to do something bad. I think Joe Rogan encourages people to build a worldview off of things he says, encourages people to treat him as reliable news, and profits from them doing so, both monetarily and by influence over what people think. He has a huge amount of influence over what people think, based on people believing that he's a straight shooter. Then when called on whether he's doing so responsibly, whether he really is straight-shooting, he says "I'm just an entertainer, it's not a relevant question". I think it's irresponsible and manipulative. I don't see how that has anything to do with thinking someone is obligated to kill if people believe they are a murderer, that's a ridiculous and silly analogy that just doesn't work. I think Jon Stewart did/does the same thing as Joe Rogan. He has a huge amount of influence over what people think, based on people believing that he's a straight shooter, and he likes, encourages, and profits from this trust and this influence -- it is intentional. Then when called on whether he's doing so responsibly, he says "I'm just an entertainer, you can't expect that of me or hold me accountable for it, it's not what entertainers do". I think it's irresponsible and manipulative. Can you be specific about how you think the cases differ?