Jon Stewart on Bill O' Reilly

Tonight and tomorrow night Jon Stewart is on the NO SPIN ZONE. I won't miss it. Will be good.

Is that the same show that he was on previously? As I remember he chastised them pretty good when they criticized him by saying something like "well, I have a comedy program, you are supposed to be a NEWS program".

I have never seen it, but I am guessing calling the O'Reilly show "no spin" is about as appropriate as calling it "fair and balanced". Realistically it is probably an opinion show, but I suspect many of the viewers think it is a news show.

aircooled, you're thinking of Crossfire. Which was cancelled shortly after Stewart made them look like fools. Purely coincidental I'm sure.

O'Reilly could be quite interesting. Thanks for the heads up.

Wasn't O'Reilly on Stewart's show about a year ago? Or maybe I'm remembering him on Dave Letterman's show?

Anyway, either one (Stewart or Letterman) REALLY made/makes O'Reilly look like an idiot.

One of the few times I wish I had cable or dish.

Colbert showed up on O'Reilly last year, that might be what you're thinking about.

Stewart's sharp and I don't think O'Reilly's too slow either. If it's a real conversation it could be a good show.

Old Stewart on O'Reilly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pK7sK0i4A

O'Reilley on Stewart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUVuXgy3CVY&feature=related

The Classic - Stewart on Crossfire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

I enjoy when Jon Stewart makes political type people look stupid, pundits included.

Sigh, O'Reilly and the rest of Fox....

integraguy wrote: Anyway, either one (Stewart or Letterman) REALLY made/makes O'Reilly look like an idiot.

don't know about Stewart but it's hard to believe that Letterman can make anyone look like an idiot (just my opinion...)

Both pander to their respective audience demographics.

O'Reilly is a pompous a$$ with no control over his ego. Stewart is a pompous a$$, but keeps a better check on his ego. Neither shows any remorse when skewering their guests.

Stewart is just as guilty of taking quotes and clips out of context as anyone else. The difference is that he gets away with it because he is a marketed as a comedian.

That said, the match-up may actually be worth watching.

Actually, my biggest problem with Stewart (and I'm a big fan) is his audience. I really don't think he intends to lay so heavy on applause lines, but his audience seems to be frothing at the mouth for him to skewer a hostile guest, so they jump at any chance to hoot n holler, even when he's making a weak point. Not only does it make it look like he's pandering, but it cheapens the point he's making as a result. Honestly, when he's doing an 'important' interview - however that's defined - I think it should be done without a live audience. Sometimes it just makes him come across too much like Bill Maher.

I personally regard the Daily Show as highly as On The Media - which WNYC produces, and my local NPR station carries. The most important thing they do is try to make the consuming public aware of the ways they're being manipulated, by whom and why. Not nearly enough people think critically about the sources or the media from which they're fed their news.

If Stewart had a more "serious" platform, I think he'd get a lot of respect as an analytical media/political critic. But I think he's afraid to be lumped into the classification of general punditry. And he's also funny.

I dont know...Stewart has his moments, but to me he always came off childish. Kind of what Alex said, He will make some bad/lame joke, and the fans laugh...

He just seems like the kinda guy that was probably telling poopie jokes till he was 25

BobOfTheFuture wrote: He just seems like the kinda guy that was probably telling poopie jokes till he was 25

This seems accurate.

Honestly, I can't watch any of it. Too much sound and fury, signifying nothing. However, I'll bet both men have fun with the exchange, professionally.

I'm not going to get up on the soapbox, but I do think it's amusing when people will rail against Fox as a whole for partisanship, bias and selective reporting. Not that it isn't. It's funny because they are all like that. CNN, NBC, NY Times, aren't? Please. There isn't a major network/paper out there that can escape that criticism. It's been leaning that way more and more heavily since the last half of the last century. Ironically, the BBC probably does American news better than any of them.

Agreed, Jeepin. Its pretty obvious that FOX gets it from people simply because it doesnt parrot the same crap as the MSM.

If you watch them at all, the are more towards the center (from the right) the the rest. The massive lean on the rest is pretty apparent, and apalling.

No wonder they are all so afraid of the blogs.

Part 2 of the exchange is on tonight (Thurs). I enjoyed Wed night's banter. I don't watch Stewart's show, but I've seen any number of clips so have a decent idea what he's all about. What I took away from the show last night was that Stewart is no dummy, he really does have a head for considering the issues but ultimately his show is more about entertainment than news or promoting any agenda. I came away from the 'interview' respecting Stewart more than I had (and I really had nothing against him).

(yes, what follows is a bit of a contradiction to what I just said...I can't watch every damn show on TV, now can I?)

I'm a regular O'Reilly watcher so nothing new to learn there. I always find the Fox critics amusing because it's mostly from people who never watch any of the programming regularly. I've also learned that, much like politics, trying to change their opinion is a waste of time. I get good hard news from both Fox and CNN, but I think the best op/ed type material (and the most accurate) by far comes from Fox pundits vs the competition, and this is reflected in their ratings.

I have been on a person boycott of Fox News since the New Hampshire primary, but I did Tivo O'Reilly last night.

I was disapointed (although not surprised) that part two is on tonight. Splitting it up into two nights is a slick play for ratings, try to get Daily Show fans to watch Fox two days in a row. Cheesy. Does Bill O normally have multi-day guests or is this a special case?

Not a bad exchange on either side, but I don't really think I learned anything about either man, nor did I find it all that entertaining, but I'll set the Tivo and watch tonight - then go back to my Fox News boycott.

Video #1 of last night's:
The first 10 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWb-Ygu1VcA
and the rest of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmbvZeqScO0

Not a bad interview for either man. I agree, Stewart is no dummy, and he knows when to make a joke rather than to make a counter argument. He knows that Fox is no different than CNN or whatever when it comes down to news/opinion ratio, and it doesn't matter. He clearly held his own, though, which I thought was odd, because some of his ideas were riddled with holes.

/Politics The big surprise I saw is that Stewart claimed that Obama didn't abuse the executive branch power enough to force stuff down congress' collective throats. I find this incredible, because Obama (and myself, oddly enough) widely criticized Bush for abusing executive powers. He made way too many things happen, and signed way too many executive orders. Then Obama gets elected and signs more. I don't see Obama as backing down from the trend set by FDR as to executive appointees with unlimited power and zero transparency. The Czar appointments basically ceased or trickled down to nothing, and went back up under Clinton, but Bush made it a frickin career and Obama already has him beat. Stuff like this makes me question Stewart's honesty, because I can't see that stuff and say that Obama isn't using the full power of the executive branch. /Politics

O'Reilly isn't a dummy either, and used his stage presence a few times to shut Stewart down. This is my major problem with him, and he probably wound up for Stewart, and actually did this more for him than other guests.

In reply to tuna55:

I think Stewart used the wrong phraseology when stating the President didn't use executive power enough. Instead, he should have said that Obama has failed to take a leadership role and deferred to the special interest whims of the House and Senate.

Furthering the debacle is the President making innumerable public pleas to forward the cause of health-care reform when the bill is incomplete and there are no answers to the questions posed by a skeptical audience.

I agree that Stewart more than "held his own" but didn't always make the best argument to support his position. And, of course, O'Reilly had to use his trade-mark bullying tactics to emphasize some of his points.

To TJ:

It's not uncommon for any network (including Fox) to split interview segments over a couple of days.

It was cute. Pompous smartass who's not listening, just waiting for his turn to talk vs. pompous smartass who's not listening, just waiting for his turn to talk. Stewart's jab on Cheney was pretty funny, O'reilly's comments about Stewart pulling the whole "Oh, I'm just a comedian" thing when it's convenient was spot on.

What was berkeleying pathetic is the fact that FOX News/O'Reilly know that a bunch of people who normally don't watch the show will be watching, and what do they do? Play the berkeleying retarded (I'm told it's socially acceptable to say that now) "Body Language" segment and talk about the goddamned oscars. Wow.

Regarding the 'not abusing his power enough" thing, I read that as a joke. He was smirking while he said it, and it's similar to a lot of the sarcastic ass E36 M3 he said in that Crossfire "interview." I think it was intended more as a jab at Bush than Obama.

oldsaw wrote: .....And, of course, O'Reilly had to use his trade-mark bullying tactics to emphasize some of his points...

This is the primary problem I have with all of these "opinion" shows. Many times they really make no attempt to intelligently discuss a point, it is simply shout what amounts to "I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG!!!", and of course the guy running the show shouts the loudest and the last and shuts everyone else down.

It is actually very similar to a small segment they used to do on the Daily Show with Steven Colbert and Steve Carrel (you might recognize the names) called Steven (vs) Steven (or something like that). The two sat face to face and screamed "YES!!!!" and "NO!!!!" at each other for a few minutes and that was it.

poopshovel wrote: It was cute. Pompous smartass who's not listening, just waiting for his turn to talk vs. pompous smartass who's not listening, just waiting for his turn to talk. Stewart's jab on Cheney was pretty funny, O'reilly's comments about Stewart pulling the whole "Oh, I'm just a comedian" thing when it's convenient was spot on. What was berkeleying pathetic is the fact that FOX News/O'Reilly know that a bunch of people who normally don't watch the show will be watching, and what do they do? Play the berkeleying retarded (I'm told it's socially acceptable to say that now) "Body Language" segment and talk about the goddamned oscars. Wow. Regarding the 'not abusing his power enough" thing, I read that as a joke. He was smirking while he said it, and it's similar to a lot of the sarcastic ass E36 M3 he said in that Crossfire "interview." I think it was intended more as a jab at Bush than Obama.

Maybe you are right - I did not pick up on the sarcasm. I will watch again, I dvr-ed it

poopshovel wrote: Regarding the 'not abusing his power enough" thing, I read that as a joke. He was smirking while he said it, and it's similar to a lot of the sarcastic ass E36 M3 he said in that Crossfire "interview." I think it was intended more as a jab at Bush than Obama.

I'd tend to agree with you except for Stewart's reference to "legislative gruel" when talking about the health-care reform bills.

BTW, Obama has already issued thirty nine Executive Orders within his first year as President - on par with the two hundred and eighty four signed by Bush over two terms.

Maybe that smirk was a jab at the "new boss" behaving exactly the same as the "old boss".