A common thread in media bias criticism — the fine line between news and entertainment, objectivity vs. subjectivity — reared its head in Chris Wallace’s interview with Jon Stewart over the weekend. Their discussion quickly became testy when the Fox News Sunday host questioned Stewart on his on-going criticism of Fox News. Stewart was sooo not having it:
“Here is the difference between you and I. I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, there's no question about that," Stewart shot back. He also called Wallace “insane” for suggesting he’s trying to make some larger political statement or push an agenda.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow also debated the issue with the Comedy Central host in a lengthy interview. She'll be on the show tonight at 8pm ET to discuss.
Leave a Comment:
My favorite/most irritating part of the interview is when Wallace showed the clip from the Pamela Anderson Roast... what point was he trying to make there exactly? That somehow Comedy Central as a "news organization" is biased in some way? The name of the network is COMEDY Central! I wish Stewart would have defended himself a little more aggressively, because Wallace's points (when he had them) were so weak.
O for 2. So far Mathews and O'Donnell have conveniently left out Stewart's comments that MSNBC is trying to become the liberal activist version of FOX News. Will Maddow or Ed have the balls? I'm guessing slim chance. Rachel is to busy scouring those oh so important Palin e-mails. Yep, according to Rachel, the Weiner scandal was nothing more than the media's "love of gossip", but an email sent to Palin referencing "condoms" was enough to warrant a grinning, blushing, oh you right wingers are such hypocrites comment by her. Last time I checked, Palin isn't a politician anymore and has not announced any intention on running for President. It is MSNBC and other media outlets that keep this idiot in the news. I wonder why the obsession with her then? Perhaps it is because it is beneficial to the liberal propaganda machine (MSNBC) to keep her relevant. After all, she proves that all right wingers are crazy, right? It's because of this nonsense that neither MSNBC or FOX will ever be taken seriously by anyone with objectivity. Thanks for listening (with deaf ears).
MSNBC is attempting to lure a thoughtful and critical audience to a more "liberal" viewpoint, but with self-consciousness and honesty and humility. Look at the character traits of Mr ODonnel and Ms Maddow. They are honest, they admit when they are wrong, and they have a sense of humor that is natural and appropriate.
FOX is a group of profoundly dishonest persons, hiding behind the "fair and balanced" claim. They strike me as inauthentic, distant, and untrustworthy. No, I would not buy a used car from Chris Wallace.
When I was a teacher, I would occasionally meet psychopaths or sociopaths - students or parents - and I am struck by what a good imitation of the sociopath Mr. Wallace, Mr. Beck, and the rest of the propagandists at Fox can perform. The psychopath, the sociopath, and Chris Wallace share one thing in common: They are never going to admit they are wrong - not with any authenticity, not with humility, not with generosity of heart, not with courage.
In response to Taylor + ## above, there is a significant difference between propaganda and bias. Ms. Maddow has her biases, but she is honest. Mr. O'Donnel has his, but he is also an honest man. Chris Wallace strikes me as strictly "tone deaf," when it comes to honesty. That is, he does not recognize it in others because he does not have it in himself.
PPS: THIS IS MY THIRD TRY AT SUBMITTING. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMENTS MAY BE CENSORED/VETTED AND PERHAPS NOT ACCEPTED. THIS IS MY FIRST TRY. PLEASE DISREGARD TWO OF THE THREE (THEY'RE ALL THE SAME).
Hey teach! That's not sociopathy you see in Chris Wallace, that's condescension (kon di SEN shun) toward a curiously bitter Jon Stewart. That's the general attitude we conservatives have toward the arrogance of those who don't understand why we don't apologize for our obviously wrong-headed views and who believe they are on the right side of history (yeh right...See Eugenics and the Racial Animus of Margaret Sanger and the Early Progressives...I made that "book" up but it encapsulates correctly the social views of early 20th century Progressives. Look it up.) We've been fighting you guys since 1854 with the advent of the Republican Party to stem the tide of the racism Democrats always had. No wonder Liberals feel guilty; they've plenty to feel guilty about.
I'm a liberal and I don't have anything to feel guilty about. I believe the guilt is projection on your part, son.
Stewart wasn't bitter; just losing patience with Chris Wallaces' lame attempts at trying to make Stewart into something he is not - a partisan hack. If your take is that he is "bitter", then you may as well call every comedian - starting from the beginning of recorded history - who has made politics the cornerstone of their act, "bitter."
And, as far as conservatives not apologizing for their - and your - wrongheaded views? You missed the point by a mile ... No one is saying you are wrong for believing what you believe - that is the beauty of having beliefs. You are free to believe whatever you want however, having belief backed up by factual evidence is an entirely different animal. That's the point - conservatives spout off their beliefs without the facts to back up said beliefs and don't apologize for spouting misinformation and out-and-out lies.
Of course the right thing to do would be to apologize for the lie/incorrect information, then put forth the facts, but that appears to be beyond most conservative's grasp. It is much easier to just spew what one "thinks" the facts are than doing actual research and spew cold, hard facts.
Oh, yeah?
You say conservative sociopathy, I say liberal guilt, Oh let's call the whole thing off....
I can only conclude guilt 'cuz its chief symptom seems to be this insufferable political-correctness you guys carry under the banner of Compassion for the poor and downtrodden, taking great care never to insult or demean them, when earlier in the last century Progressives advocated sterilizing (or euthanizing!)* them under the very different banner of Eugenics, and trumpeted that message thru to the early 40s when they ran up against Hitler and his Jewish problem and y'all said, collectively "...UH ohh..." then put the brakes on the magnificence of your nascent, perfect society but fast (though the word didn't get around to Sweden till 1975 when they stopped supporting sterilization). The thing is, this over-compensation of political-correctness can be dangerous itself and, if we're not vigilant, ultimately lead to a sterilization-of-sorts of the mind and the washed-clean Brave New World of Huxley (it's not so far-fetched; Google "@!$%# of the Narcissus", an 1897 novella by Joseph Conrad, and see what some libraries are doing now).
Now, I'm not saying that all liberals have this guilt--which is only my estimation of why liberals behave (not what they believe, which is simply their vision of things) as they do--somehow encoded on the template of their subconscious. I'm sure your compassion is sincere, as is mine. When I was a kid I asked me mum "Why are we Democrats?" My mother said "Because we're poor, Denny, and Democrats stick up for the poor. The Republicans are for the rich." I came to look on the faces of Republicans running for office with fear, picturing them with horns, and my distaste for them stayed thru my long-haired days as a hippie in the 60s. But I grew out of it and eventually saw things as they really were. With my natural compassion for the dispossessed--both animal and man--intact. I believe liberals, generally, simply haven't grown past where I was as a kid.
Anyway, I'm glad you finally got your post thru on the 3rd attempt. I'm giving up after "the Moderators" disallowed my response to the Stewart interview--was it something I said?--and not going for a second try. Maybe they didn't like my unfavorable comparison of MSNBC to Fox...or when I said "...spinmaster O'Donnell and sweet spinster Rachel...". I dunno, go figure.
*George Bernard Shaw, among others, matter-of-factly suggested a lethal chamber to "do away with them once and for all". Y'know, the feeble-minded, dark-skinned, terminally-ill, criminal "dregs of society" who will never be productive and make a suitable contribution to the state.
*Margaret Sanger, exalted founder of the Birth Control League (forerunner to Planned Parenthood), once reportedly considered abortion murder and pretty much started the ball rolling on the sterilization issue, instead.
*Oliver Wendall Holmes, Supreme Court Chief Justice and Progressive hero, ruled for Bell in Buck v. Bell, where Bell sought to sterilize "feeble-minded" Ms. Buck, with Holmes famously saying "Three generations of imbeciles are enough!" Ms. Buck was later found to have a normal I.Q.
Jon Stewart nails Fox News for what it is...a tool used by tools to deliberately skew news to fit a particular ideology. Fox News doesn't do "news". Stewart, through comedy, does a better job of covering socio-political stories.
Do you really need the vulgar humor to make your point that FOX news is extremely biased? How disappointing. Your show is usually on a higher level.
Hi, I like what Jon had to say until he apoligized, anyway are you or Jon Stewart going to report on the Senator that was arrested Saturday. His name is John McGee from Idaho.
John Stewart for the WIN!!! Notice how wallace ONLY asked stewart questions relating to republicans? Questions like "when was the last time you voted for a republican?" Notice how he never showed any clips of Stewart bashing President Obama or COngressman Weiner. He never asked about that. His only concern was about Stewarts remarks about palin and other conservatives. I LOVE how wallace admitted that fox news was a conservative netwark when he said that they were the opposite of the "liberal media"
Talk about the futility of arguing with an idiot, Stewart is so much sharper, more informed, reasoned, and rational than Wallace...who just happens to be the least obnoxious of the Fox propaganda team.
From the San Francisco Examiner:
the University of Maryland’s June 2010 report Politifact writes:
Fox actually scored better than its two direct cable-news rivals — MSNBC, which is a liberal counterpoint to Fox, and CNN, which is considered more middle-of-the-road. Also scoring lower than Fox were local television news, the evening network news shows and the network morning shows.
And for the third time, particular Fox shows scored well. Hannity ranked fifth (just ahead of MSNBC’s liberal shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and O’Reilly ranked ninth. For the first time, Pew included Glenn Beck in its rankings, and the Fox host finished 12th — slightly ahead of Stewart’s own Daily Show.
Stewart’s viewers are less informed than Glenn Beck’s!?!? Ouch
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: #ixzz1PvPfuGx5