|
|
70Chip 03-13-2009, 05:05 PM I asked a cop once why he was giving me a speeding ticket seeing how there were people on the road going faster. You know what he said? I can't catch all the fish in the sea, I caught a fish and you're that fish son.
Stewie is fine, $14 million a year for doing basic cable isn't really that bad.
If the cop had said, "Because you have anti-Obama bumper sticker", it would be a truer analogy.
The Goat 03-13-2009, 08:10 PM Intentionally or unintentionally?
Priceless, just priceless.
Dennis Miller is the only intentional one I could muster... there's about a thousand of the other kind.
That Guy 03-13-2009, 09:02 PM it really wasn't stewart vs cramer though.
cramer was open to trying new things on his show, but stewart was mainly bashing the cozy coverage CNBC had of all those overleveraged companies' CEOs and then having rick turn around and say the blame lies entirely with the people who couldn't afford the houses (as if the banks that thought financing that venture weren't in any way at fault for part of the mess).
CNBC is an ENTERTAINMENT channel. CNN did real news 24/7, and you know what happened? the ratings started to tank against the entertainment/biased news channels (fox news etc), so the "old" news-core CNN died, and now, outside of the BBC, the news channels are all competing for ad dollars just like MTV or ABC etc.
if CNBC did what stewart suggested, they'd tank their ratings and lose their ad revenue. sad but true, they make money off ads, not news, so the whole reporting real news thing isn't as important as getting people to tune in by whatever means necessary.
it was kind of a faulty/unfair argument in that it's not based in reality. CNBC is NOT the SEC.
That Guy 03-13-2009, 09:04 PM that said, it was worth bringing to everyone's attention, but i doubt it changes much.
saden1 03-13-2009, 09:59 PM I'm just pointing out that Stewart never had a problem with CNBC until someone said something mean about his messiah.
And if David Letterman doesn't retire soon, Stewie is going to start looking like Prince Charles. He'll be 80 years old before he gets that show.
If you're going to insult the man's integrity at least have the decency to conduct due diligence and insure that you're not liable.
1. Stewie's Jan 2002 interview with Ron Insana (part 1 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=113878&title=Ron-Insana---Pt-1) and part 2 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114364&title=Ron-Insana---Pt-2)).
2. Stewie's March 2004 segment on Martha Steward securities fraud reporting (act 1 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=108185&title=Jack-Ass-Reporting) and act 2 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=107943&title=Illegally-Blonde)).
GMScud 03-13-2009, 10:01 PM it really wasn't stewart vs cramer though.
cramer was open to trying new things on his show, but stewart was mainly bashing the cozy coverage CNBC had of all those overleveraged companies' CEOs and then having rick turn around and say the blame lies entirely with the people who couldn't afford the houses (as if the banks that thought financing that venture weren't in any way at fault for part of the mess).
CNBC is an ENTERTAINMENT channel. CNN did real news 24/7, and you know what happened? the ratings started to tank against the entertainment/biased news channels (fox news etc), so the "old" news-core CNN died, and now, outside of the BBC, the news channels are all competing for ad dollars just like MTV or ABC etc.
if CNBC did what stewart suggested, they'd tank their ratings and lose their ad revenue. sad but true, they make money off ads, not news, so the whole reporting real news thing isn't as important as getting people to tune in by whatever means necessary.
it was kind of a faulty/unfair argument in that it's not based in reality. CNBC is NOT the SEC.
Yeah I agree with this for the most part. In a way Stewart was sort of shooting the messenger.
70Chip 03-13-2009, 11:11 PM If you're going to insult the man's integrity at least have the decency to conduct due diligence and insure that you're not liable.
1. Stewie's Jan 2002 interview with Ron Insana (part 1 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=113878&title=Ron-Insana---Pt-1) and part 2 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114364&title=Ron-Insana---Pt-2)).
2. Stewie's March 2004 segment on Martha Steward securities fraud reporting (act 1 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=108185&title=Jack-Ass-Reporting) and act 2 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=107943&title=Illegally-Blonde)).
If Santelli and Cramer had been saying nice things about Obama, the Stewie rant would never have happened and you know it. Stewart knows what he's doing. He's pushing his cause forward. He'll kneecap anybody that gets out of line in the great tradition of the Leftist Trade Unions. If you don't go along, you'll get your tires slashed.
Just don't point this out to him, because then he'll turn into Freddie Roman: "I'm just a comedian. Take my wife, please". It's guerilla tactics. He's read his Mao.
hooskins 03-14-2009, 12:28 AM It's not guerrilla tactics 70. There is nothing deceiving about what Jon does. He makes it clear, upfront and obvious. He knows its a cheap show, that takes cheap shots at people when things go wrong.
That is the show's role and it never went out of the way to say it is a legit news source. CNBC, however, portrays its coverage as accurate, especially Cramer's show, and people take it seriously. To me that is bad and clearly a violation of ethics.
The Goat 03-14-2009, 12:42 AM If Santelli and Cramer had been saying nice things about Obama, the Stewie rant would never have happened and you know it. Stewart knows what he's doing. He's pushing his cause forward. He'll kneecap anybody that gets out of line in the great tradition of the Leftist Trade Unions. If you don't go along, you'll get your tires slashed.
Just don't point this out to him, because then he'll turn into Freddie Roman: "I'm just a comedian. Take my wife, please". It's guerilla tactics. He's read his Mao.
R u serious?
That Guy 03-14-2009, 02:12 AM If Santelli and Cramer had been saying nice things about Obama, the Stewie rant would never have happened and you know it. Stewart knows what he's doing. He's pushing his cause forward. He'll kneecap anybody that gets out of line in the great tradition of the Leftist Trade Unions. If you don't go along, you'll get your tires slashed.
Just don't point this out to him, because then he'll turn into Freddie Roman: "I'm just a comedian. Take my wife, please". It's guerilla tactics. He's read his Mao.
what?
cramer voted for obama and complimented him in the interview... this post seems a bit too paranoid for me :/.
|