Tuesday, October 19, 2004
The blogs were abuzz yesterday about Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the interview sucked. Some folks claim Jon gave it to Tucker Carlson good. If his best lines were poking fun at Tucker's bow-tie (funny) and calling him a big dick (wha???), Don Rickles has it all over Stewart as an insult comic. Heck, Triumph the Insult Comic Doc has it all over Stewart.
Ignoring the lame humor, the substance fell short as well.
First off, Stewart expects too much from Crossfire. It's not "60 Minutes", after
all. It's a debate show with an audience. So far as I can tell, it's like open mike night for pols and pundits, an opportunity to try one liners and perhaps prove one's chops on the way to the big stage. Nobody watches Crossfire except Stewart, do they?
Second, he expects nothing from his own show, apparently. His excuse is that he's on a Comedy channel following a bunch of puppets. His primary purpose is indeed to be funny, and if his interviews and takes on the news cease to be funny, he's failing. But I saw the Kerry interview Tucker mentioned. Tucker's right -- it wasn't hard hitting. Also, it wasn't funny. Anyway, his plea for leniency should fall on deaf ears given how seriously he seems to take his roll as a media and political critic, as evidenced by his best selling book. Tell me when the guys on the puppet show ever try to write a book called "America".
Third, he decries Crossfire pundits for playing the role politician set for them. What do you suppose politicians think of a show that encourages cynacism and disconnect from the political process? I'm guessing they really appreciate Stewarts efforts.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the interview sucked. Some folks claim Jon gave it to Tucker Carlson good. If his best lines were poking fun at Tucker's bow-tie (funny) and calling him a big dick (wha???), Don Rickles has it all over Stewart as an insult comic. Heck, Triumph the Insult Comic Doc has it all over Stewart.
Ignoring the lame humor, the substance fell short as well.
First off, Stewart expects too much from Crossfire. It's not "60 Minutes", after
all. It's a debate show with an audience. So far as I can tell, it's like open mike night for pols and pundits, an opportunity to try one liners and perhaps prove one's chops on the way to the big stage. Nobody watches Crossfire except Stewart, do they?
Second, he expects nothing from his own show, apparently. His excuse is that he's on a Comedy channel following a bunch of puppets. His primary purpose is indeed to be funny, and if his interviews and takes on the news cease to be funny, he's failing. But I saw the Kerry interview Tucker mentioned. Tucker's right -- it wasn't hard hitting. Also, it wasn't funny. Anyway, his plea for leniency should fall on deaf ears given how seriously he seems to take his roll as a media and political critic, as evidenced by his best selling book. Tell me when the guys on the puppet show ever try to write a book called "America".
Third, he decries Crossfire pundits for playing the role politician set for them. What do you suppose politicians think of a show that encourages cynacism and disconnect from the political process? I'm guessing they really appreciate Stewarts efforts.
I saw sign at a Bush rally: "W Stands for Women"
That's a pleasant thought, but isn't it a bit prone to misinterpretation? Does W also hold the door for women? Does he hold their seats for them at the dinner table?
Silly, I know, but my first impulse upon encountering any one line slogan is to figure out how to misread it. Call it "Leno Headlines" disease.
That's a pleasant thought, but isn't it a bit prone to misinterpretation? Does W also hold the door for women? Does he hold their seats for them at the dinner table?
Silly, I know, but my first impulse upon encountering any one line slogan is to figure out how to misread it. Call it "Leno Headlines" disease.
Monday, October 04, 2004
I heard on the radio driving in to work that if the Space Ship One flight were successful this morning, it would be the first non-governmental rocket to meet the requirements of the X-Prize, which is to ascend to 62 miles and return safely to earth twice within two weeks in a reusable rocket.
I could be wrong, but isn't this in fact the first rocket to meet the requirements, period. Did I miss the two-week turnaround on a Space Shuttle?
Folks, this is private enterprise grinding its knuckles on the nearly hairless spot on the top of government's head, another in a series of "nooggies". Private enterprise does what government can't. When government tries, you get the Space Shuttle, with no marked improvement in thirty years.
I could be wrong, but isn't this in fact the first rocket to meet the requirements, period. Did I miss the two-week turnaround on a Space Shuttle?
Folks, this is private enterprise grinding its knuckles on the nearly hairless spot on the top of government's head, another in a series of "nooggies". Private enterprise does what government can't. When government tries, you get the Space Shuttle, with no marked improvement in thirty years.
I had a thought regarding Nick Coleman's column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in which he declares his bona fides and questions the benefit to the universe of bloggers. He has a thirty year history in newspapers, see. He's covered city halls and tornados and floods across Minnesota.
That seems a bit provincial (could he maybe add some experience in Wisconsin?), besides being narrow in scope. What does that experience bring to his column? What would it bring to bloggers? Bloggers aren't, after all, criticizing Dan Rather for his biased or incompetent hurricane reporting. They're criticizing his gullability when handed a modern laser-printed document in believing it came from a small National Guard base in Texas. If beat reporting was an advantage, Nick Coleman would have been all over Dan in his next possible column. Did I miss that one?
But I'm off track. Here's my thought: In many ways, writing is like sex. Sure, the professionals have more experience, and experience counts for something. But the amateur, who does it for love, not money, approaches the task in a different way.
Sticking to the blogger half of the analogy: You know their joy comes exclusively from the writing act and from the readership. Knowing they do it strictly for love means you approach them as writers differently. Knowing your importance to their happiness imparts a different pleasure to the reading of what they have written.
What's the advantage to me of professional journalism, especially if I read primarily for pleasure. Especially when, as is the case with most columnists, the professionals aren't doing any more original reporting than a blogger.
Do you want someone who does it for love or for money?
That seems a bit provincial (could he maybe add some experience in Wisconsin?), besides being narrow in scope. What does that experience bring to his column? What would it bring to bloggers? Bloggers aren't, after all, criticizing Dan Rather for his biased or incompetent hurricane reporting. They're criticizing his gullability when handed a modern laser-printed document in believing it came from a small National Guard base in Texas. If beat reporting was an advantage, Nick Coleman would have been all over Dan in his next possible column. Did I miss that one?
But I'm off track. Here's my thought: In many ways, writing is like sex. Sure, the professionals have more experience, and experience counts for something. But the amateur, who does it for love, not money, approaches the task in a different way.
Sticking to the blogger half of the analogy: You know their joy comes exclusively from the writing act and from the readership. Knowing they do it strictly for love means you approach them as writers differently. Knowing your importance to their happiness imparts a different pleasure to the reading of what they have written.
What's the advantage to me of professional journalism, especially if I read primarily for pleasure. Especially when, as is the case with most columnists, the professionals aren't doing any more original reporting than a blogger.
Do you want someone who does it for love or for money?
Friday, October 01, 2004
I wasn't able to watch the debates, but I heard much of it on the radio. I tuned out from sheer boredom at least three times. I was afraid I might miss the great one-liner of the night, but it turns out Bush and Kerry really were as boring and slow-witted as they seemed.
The debaters did do a good job of staying on message and of not slipping up. Bush didn't say anything stupid and Kerry didn't come across as mean or pestering or like a hyper-intelligent nerd boy waiting to rub your nose in your own stupidity, like Gore did in 2000 (all three, in my opinion).
I would give the debate by a long shot to Kerry. I don't know why so few other bloggers are willing to state it so clearly. Kerry sounded better prepared, he had better rebuttals, and he had a strong voice and a strong point of view.
Bush frequently had to gather his thoughts, and those weren't short pauses. He sometimes stumbled over names. If he hadn't seemed so stupid up to that point, his poking Kerry for confusing plutonium and uranium in North Korea would have seemed snide. His other dig, asking whether we really wanted to submit to a global test, would have been the retort of the night, if it hadn't taken fifteen seconds of his thirty second rebuttal to get out.
But finally, I have to give the debate to Bush on substance. Kerry just has some weird foreign policy ideas that don't make me feel safer. He is in favor of multilateral solutions, unless Bush is, as in the North Korea nuclear situation, in which case unilateral negotiations are in order (literally bilateral, since North Korea is involved, but the point is Kerry feels stiff-arming South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia won't result in any bad feelings.) The only folks who hope for one-on-one negotiations between the U.S. and Kim Jong Il are the folks who hope the U.S. will simply buy him off, and they don't want to be involved in splitting the bill.
Kerry's solution to possible nuclear weapons programs in Iran is to give nuclear fuel to them and see what they do with it. His plan goes like this: first we give them fresh nuclear fuel for their power plants, so they don't have to build fuel enrichment plants, which could also be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Then when the fuel is spent, we collect the depleted fuel and measure it. If none is missing, we give them more fuel. If, on the other hand, some is missing, well see, then we know they have a nuclear weapons program. He didn't elucidate what step three was. What do we do after we find they have used the fuel we gave them to, perhaps, build a nuclear bomb?
His plan for Iraq is to replace our troops with foreign troops. Luckily, unlike Bush, Kerry is in tight with the foreign leaders. He'll go to each one, starting with Jacque Chirac, and say, "Here now, we find Iraq is a bit of a quagmire. I'm thinking it would be good for the U.S. if we could pull some of our troops out. How many french soldiers can I count on from you, old pal?" Does anyone not see how there is going to be a big favor involved, if he's able to sucker any country into participating in the troop draw down?
Despite all the above opinion, I can't see that the polls will move much based on this debate. Kerry appeared smart and competent, but not presidential. Plus he got to criticize four years of Bush, and offered few solid ideas for how he would run things differently, aside from having more summits. Bush looked tired, but while he wasn't quick, he seemed to have facts at his disposal.
The town hall meeting may have more opportunities for explosive newsmaking, but as I understand it, the questions and questioners are meant to be bland with a light salting of partisanship. More likely, if the elections results are to change, it will be events outside the studio that will precipitate it.
The debaters did do a good job of staying on message and of not slipping up. Bush didn't say anything stupid and Kerry didn't come across as mean or pestering or like a hyper-intelligent nerd boy waiting to rub your nose in your own stupidity, like Gore did in 2000 (all three, in my opinion).
I would give the debate by a long shot to Kerry. I don't know why so few other bloggers are willing to state it so clearly. Kerry sounded better prepared, he had better rebuttals, and he had a strong voice and a strong point of view.
Bush frequently had to gather his thoughts, and those weren't short pauses. He sometimes stumbled over names. If he hadn't seemed so stupid up to that point, his poking Kerry for confusing plutonium and uranium in North Korea would have seemed snide. His other dig, asking whether we really wanted to submit to a global test, would have been the retort of the night, if it hadn't taken fifteen seconds of his thirty second rebuttal to get out.
But finally, I have to give the debate to Bush on substance. Kerry just has some weird foreign policy ideas that don't make me feel safer. He is in favor of multilateral solutions, unless Bush is, as in the North Korea nuclear situation, in which case unilateral negotiations are in order (literally bilateral, since North Korea is involved, but the point is Kerry feels stiff-arming South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia won't result in any bad feelings.) The only folks who hope for one-on-one negotiations between the U.S. and Kim Jong Il are the folks who hope the U.S. will simply buy him off, and they don't want to be involved in splitting the bill.
Kerry's solution to possible nuclear weapons programs in Iran is to give nuclear fuel to them and see what they do with it. His plan goes like this: first we give them fresh nuclear fuel for their power plants, so they don't have to build fuel enrichment plants, which could also be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Then when the fuel is spent, we collect the depleted fuel and measure it. If none is missing, we give them more fuel. If, on the other hand, some is missing, well see, then we know they have a nuclear weapons program. He didn't elucidate what step three was. What do we do after we find they have used the fuel we gave them to, perhaps, build a nuclear bomb?
His plan for Iraq is to replace our troops with foreign troops. Luckily, unlike Bush, Kerry is in tight with the foreign leaders. He'll go to each one, starting with Jacque Chirac, and say, "Here now, we find Iraq is a bit of a quagmire. I'm thinking it would be good for the U.S. if we could pull some of our troops out. How many french soldiers can I count on from you, old pal?" Does anyone not see how there is going to be a big favor involved, if he's able to sucker any country into participating in the troop draw down?
Despite all the above opinion, I can't see that the polls will move much based on this debate. Kerry appeared smart and competent, but not presidential. Plus he got to criticize four years of Bush, and offered few solid ideas for how he would run things differently, aside from having more summits. Bush looked tired, but while he wasn't quick, he seemed to have facts at his disposal.
The town hall meeting may have more opportunities for explosive newsmaking, but as I understand it, the questions and questioners are meant to be bland with a light salting of partisanship. More likely, if the elections results are to change, it will be events outside the studio that will precipitate it.
