That clip should be studied as a textbook case of pilpul.
Stewart went on Carlson's show to debate but every time Stewart was nailed on his own bullshit he would hide behind 'It's a comedy show.' or 'I follow foul mouthed puppets, you can't take me seriously.' That's how it works.
The entire show was a news show disguised as comedy to avoid being held responsible for the content. Look at the shows it spawned for confirmation because in typical fashion they just pushed the envelope a little further and made their intentions a little clearer. Cobert, Samantha Bee, John Oliver all cover news but do it 'funny' to make the propaganda easier to disguise.
It's very effective. It creates a second layer of resistance to contradictory evidence. Firstly, people don't like being shown they were wrong, which is the first layer. The second layer is that they got the opinion from someone that they like that has a history of making them laugh, fond memories and the like, and they don't want that person to be wrong either.
Luckily, as far as I've seen, Jon Stewart was the last one to do it well. Everyone else's minds are too fucking warped by the bullshit to land a joke anymore.
That debate with Tucker was gruesome. He made Tucker look like an idiot. He is also superior to Bilk O'Reilly. However there was one profound ting at the tail end Bill said that was amazing.
That's what I thought when I first watched it back when it happened.
Then I rewatched it a few years ago and thought, "wow, Jon Stewart is a fucking idiot." Might have just been that I was an idiot the first time I saw it.
I disagree that Stewart was wrong what he said. CNN was and is harmful, is part of politicians' strategies, is full of partisan hacks, and fail miserably at their role in the public discourse. That was as true then as it is now.
The issue is Stewart was and is the master of telling half-truths. His show while not necessarily part of a politicians' strategy was part of a larger social strategy intended to redefine what sort of politicians would be electable in the future and the sorts of policies they'd be able to support.
He'd get someone on with "bad" views and ridicule them to put the association in peoples' minds that those views are ridiculous because the people with those views are ridiculous. Or he'd get people on with "good" views and make them seem personable and relatable and put the association in peoples' minds that those views are reasonable. By doing this he could shape the political discourse while claiming he's above petty politics: he's just illustrating the absurdity as he wants people to see it.
He even gives the game away during the interview: "the only way it'd be harder [to make fun of a Kerry Administration] is if his administration was less absurd than this one, so in that case if it's less absurd than yeah it'd be harder". The implication being that if he doesn't report on something it's because it isn't "absurd". Which is just as dishonest a way of framing an argument as anything he criticizes politicians and CNN for and is something that CNN does too, but he doesn't mention that.
You know, when Colbert started reaching for the break, I had a sudden recollection of the Fox show where Stewart took apart Tucker Carlson.
That clip should be studied as a textbook case of pilpul.
Stewart went on Carlson's show to debate but every time Stewart was nailed on his own bullshit he would hide behind 'It's a comedy show.' or 'I follow foul mouthed puppets, you can't take me seriously.' That's how it works.
The entire show was a news show disguised as comedy to avoid being held responsible for the content. Look at the shows it spawned for confirmation because in typical fashion they just pushed the envelope a little further and made their intentions a little clearer. Cobert, Samantha Bee, John Oliver all cover news but do it 'funny' to make the propaganda easier to disguise.
Yeah, they started doing that a long time ago - using comedy to groom people to their ideology, that is.
See: Norman Lear.
And I bet there's examples that go all the way back to the ancient Greeks, if one looked at things closely enough.
It's very effective. It creates a second layer of resistance to contradictory evidence. Firstly, people don't like being shown they were wrong, which is the first layer. The second layer is that they got the opinion from someone that they like that has a history of making them laugh, fond memories and the like, and they don't want that person to be wrong either.
Luckily, as far as I've seen, Jon Stewart was the last one to do it well. Everyone else's minds are too fucking warped by the bullshit to land a joke anymore.
That debate with Tucker was gruesome. He made Tucker look like an idiot. He is also superior to Bilk O'Reilly. However there was one profound ting at the tail end Bill said that was amazing.
That's what I thought when I first watched it back when it happened.
Then I rewatched it a few years ago and thought, "wow, Jon Stewart is a fucking idiot." Might have just been that I was an idiot the first time I saw it.
I disagree that Stewart was wrong what he said. CNN was and is harmful, is part of politicians' strategies, is full of partisan hacks, and fail miserably at their role in the public discourse. That was as true then as it is now.
The issue is Stewart was and is the master of telling half-truths. His show while not necessarily part of a politicians' strategy was part of a larger social strategy intended to redefine what sort of politicians would be electable in the future and the sorts of policies they'd be able to support.
He'd get someone on with "bad" views and ridicule them to put the association in peoples' minds that those views are ridiculous because the people with those views are ridiculous. Or he'd get people on with "good" views and make them seem personable and relatable and put the association in peoples' minds that those views are reasonable. By doing this he could shape the political discourse while claiming he's above petty politics: he's just illustrating the absurdity as he wants people to see it.
He even gives the game away during the interview: "the only way it'd be harder [to make fun of a Kerry Administration] is if his administration was less absurd than this one, so in that case if it's less absurd than yeah it'd be harder". The implication being that if he doesn't report on something it's because it isn't "absurd". Which is just as dishonest a way of framing an argument as anything he criticizes politicians and CNN for and is something that CNN does too, but he doesn't mention that.
Who is?
What did Bill say?