Jon Stewart on Crossfire

> Then it's a great time to be a LLM security researcher then. This reminded me of Jon Stewart’s Crossfire interview where they asked him “which candidate do you supposed would provide you better material if he won?” because he has “a stake in it that way, not just as citizen but as a professional comic”. Stewart answered he held the citizen part to be much more important. ▶ this video I mean, yes, it’s “probably a great time to be an LLM security researcher” from a business standpoint, but it would be preferable if that didn’t have to be a thing.

> Then it shifted in the last ten or fifteen years. When social media started having friends of friends, the tribalism kicked in. It was explained very well in a talk between Maria Ressa and Jon Stewart. Also by Jon Stewart on Crossfire in 2004: ▶ this video The critique about what passes for debate is as apt today as it was then.

It's always good to follow this up with John Stewart's appearance, the one that got the show canceled: ▶ this video

I have never seen something like his appearance on Crossfire on TV. ▶ this video And here is him speaking to Congress over their shameful handling of benefits for 9/11 responders. Nuff said? link

This sounds like you’re referring to his appearance on CNN’s Crossfire in the mid 2000’s; here’s a link for context: ▶ this video

Pretty sure the GP is referring to the famous Crossfire takedown: ▶ this video There's a play by play of it on Crossfire's Wikipedia page also: link

Jon Stewart also famously went on Crossfire back in 2004 and delivered a viral takedown to Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala[0]. It doesn’t seem like he had much of a long term impact there either. [0]: ▶ this video

Or they run for president. link Or they continue becoming even more Tucker Carlson than they already were. (side note, supposedly Stewart was super super hungry in this) ▶ this video

He's wrong. Contempt will always beat love. Humour will always beat logical soundness. Pithy arguments will always beat correct but intricate arguments. I dont have any hard proof of course, but this is how it is. No one cares if you're right if the opponent can be witty. As proof Ill try to leave you with 2 videos, hopefully they are bipartisan enough: 1. link 2. ▶ this video

the two outlets are absolutely equal when it comes to making half of the americans view the other half as raging lunatics. it is basically this ▶ this video

You speak of HN as if HN was a single individual with a unified mind. My opinions are reasonably consistent. However if you try to draw a consistent picture out of a mix of what I say and what others say, you will fail horribly. Sure, I'm happy to point you to ▶ this video or link to give other viewpoints on how laying everything out as a debate between two sides poisons our society. But I wouldn't expect most of HN to be on board with the strength of my views. I also don't agree with your characterization of the "HN community". This site usually doesn't report on the coverage of the right wing press. When it does, most commentators seem to lean towards the outlook described in link . Admittedly with outspoken exceptions. As for me personally, I am a libertarian atheist whose explicit goal is to be right..eventually. In that end I care deeply that my impressions reflect reality, particularly for people that I disagree with. I am painfully aware that natural cognitive biases will lead it to be comfortable for me to accept an echo chamber. I care about the misrepresentation not because I respect Christianity - I don't - but because I care that my thinking correctly represents Christians.

I don't think it's a bad thing (: I'm sorry you felt my comment was of hatred towards Americans, it was not. It's mostly to provide the perspective of someone who is not from the US and who as such isn't as scared of the Trump election, and thus thinks this whole situation is about more than good and democracy vs evil and Russian tyrants. Let me address some points: 1. Never did I mention Facebook shouldn't rid its platform of bad users-- I'm glad they are (and if this hadn't happened they probably wouldn't have, again, cause it takes time and money). 2. Never did I say Americans were dumb or insult them in any other way that should make someone believe I hate them. Saying a people is scared shouldn't be taken as an insult, many peoples and individuals are scared of different things. 3. I didn't expect this to be read as a research paper haha. I'll add more references next time. In regards to the one you pointed out (wether the Russian meddling had high impact), I'd suggest these other articles by The Verge [1] and the New York Times [2] to form an opinion. I'd also suggest watching Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN Crossfire [3]: he was talking about the loss of civilized discourse and transformation of American Politics into a divisive "me vs. you" game back in 2004, before social media was widespread. [1]: link [2]: link [3]: ▶ this video

Agree, you are kind of watching from the outside inside. I end up mostly focusing on center stories. But being on the site, it really hits you just how bad the media has become. No one, it seems, listed to John Stewart when he appeared on Crossfire. Instead, the morphed the whole network into Crossfire. [1] [1] ▶ this video

I think a lot of it has to do with CNN and cable news presenting politics as sport. Jon Stewart's take down of Crossfire is still relevant and if anything, CNN doubled down on what Jon was criticizing: ▶ this video

The lineage for Colbert and Oliver is a direct line back to Stewart. They can effect change today because Jon jumped in the pit with the Spinzone (or whatever that show was called) and beat the pundits at their own game. The big take away from The Daily Show should be Stewart declaring he was just an entertainer because the talking heads on the "real" news shows couldn't. Characters, tropes, archetypes, cliches, people with a job to deliver an audience for advertisers using a dynamic personality. The same job description for talent hired at Comedy Central as Cable News Network. EDIT: Took me a bit of googling to remember but the show was called Crossfire. Specific clip: ( ▶ this video )

This is exactly what I thought about John Stewart during his epic debate with Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. It's so very worth watching again even if you've seen it multiple times. It really reminds people that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert really are only "characters" on their show. ▶ this video Bill Maher is another brilliant, politically insightful comedian.

I'm one of those morons who enjoys The Daily Show's intelligent satire. Stewart is razor sharp and you do not want to get into a battle of words with him. [1] [1] ▶ this video

After reading this, I don't think you understand what the Daily Show is. This is probably the best discussion about what the show is all about (note: crossfire was canceled almost immediately after this). ▶ this video

In TFA, Brian Williams mentions Stewart's takedown of Cramer in an interview in which 'the odds were stacked against Jim Cramer'. This brought to mind a brilliant attack on the now defunct political show "Crossfire", in which Liberals battled Conservatives. In a nutshell, Stewart was brought on as a guest after attacking Crossfire on The Daily Show. Although Stewart is the guest on the show, he takes the offensive and puts the Crossfire hosts at an instant disadvantage. Here's the link: ▶ this video

I'm a bit disappointed that anyone who has seen a few of The Daily Show's interviews is at all surprised by any of this. They quite clearly do it for laughs. It's not supposed to be journalism. As Jon Stewart famously put it: ▶ this video