Les Jones

And that when a partisan comedian is (rightfully) reading the riot act to partisan journalists/pundits, it is well within bounds to criticize him for his own partisanship, regardless of the fact that he's a comedian

That is utter, complete bullshit, and thoroughly misses Jon Stewart's point. True, sometimes he asks substantial, insightful, probing questions. Bully for him. But that's gravy. He's not obligated to ask those questions, and if he does ask them, he's not obligated one whit to be balanced or fair. Begala and Carlson ARE obligated to ask those questions, and while it's fine for them to approach their interviews from a particular viewpoint, they should not act as surrogate attack dogs for a political party. But they totally fail to do that, and they do it deliberately. All we get from them, and from nearly all of the other panel interview shows, is nothing but regurgitations of the daily talking points of the Bush and Kerry campaigns, and meaningless hectoring and badgering.

It's not the slightest bit hypocritical for a partisan comedian to criticize the partisanship of a partisan journalist, because the partisan comedian is a COMEDIAN, while the partisan journalist is a JOURNALIST. Partisanship isn't the issue here, journalistic ethics is. A comedian has no obligation to the public to provide them with useful and reliable information. A journalist does. And that was Stewart's point, and he made it brilliantly (with ample help from Tucker Carlson, of course).

I'll bite. Seeing as how so many people get their opinions on news from comedy shows like TDS and SNL, why shouldn't their political biases be open for discussion?

If someone declares themselves a comedian (whether it's Jon Stewart on the left or Dennis Miller on the right) does that mean they're immune to criticism? If Rush Limbaugh cracks a joke every now and then, is he immunized?

At least on Crossfire (which I don't watch because it's a shoutfest) you've got a left-leaning guy and a right-leaning guy to balance each other out. On TDS you've just got a left-leaning guy. This is better how?

The bias is open for discussion, but I don't think the bias was the point. The point was the lack of substance. As Jon pointed out, his show follows a bunch of puppets making crank phone calls. He isn't there to provide substance. On the other hand, some old fashioned folks still expect a "news" network to address the substance of the issues through the hard work of journalism, regardless of any bias. You can be biased and still have substance. Crossfire has not substance whatsoever. It's just pundits talking to pundits about what pundits said about politicians. If I wanted that kind of masturbatorial crap I'd read a blog.

I admire Stewart, but I think he's tilting at windmills. The news ceased being journalism as we know it long ago. It's all infotainment now. His parody of the cable media is refreshing, but I don't think it will lead to any changes in what the news networks are doing.

Case in point. The Al Franken show is biased but has plenty of substance. Critical questions are asked and opinions are backed up with facts.

Rhandi Rhodes, on the other hand, is similarly biased, but has no substance. Her fact checking is abyssmal and most of the show is about her. That might make for great radio (Rush certainly thinks so), but it certainly doesn't help me get more informed.

I'm not worried about bias. I can sort that out be seeking a second opinion and applying my natural skepticism to anything I'm told. However, it's much harder to overcome fluff. Factoids and factesque information are a real nuisance to someone looking to form an informed opinion. I still read both the NYT and the WSJ nearly everyday to get two perspectives on the same information. I can't find analogous sources on television or radio anymore.

Seeing as how so many people get their opinions on news from comedy shows like TDS and SNL, why shouldn't their political biases be open for discussion?

Hey, I might be interested in hearing that -- in the right hands, that could be legitimate topic of discussion. And since Jon Stewart's schtick is mostly about meta-commentary on media culture, he'd probably find it interesting too.

But come on, Carlson didn't want to have any sort of meaningful discussion. He brought Stewart's "bias" up at the very beginning because he intended to hector him with it. Which is exactly the sort of tactic Stewart was criticizing, and Carlson opened the door wide open for him.

On TDS you've just got a left-leaning guy. This is better how?

Because comedy shows are inherently poor sources of political information. That information wouldn't improve if the show was less biased. It's bad that people form opinions from watching them, but it wouldn't be better if if they were watching "balanced" comedy.

On the other hand, political interview shows have great potential to be good sources of information -- Washington Journal on CSPAN is a fine example. But right now they almost universally suck. And the problem isn't so much that they're not balanced -- that wasn't what Stewart was saying. The problem is that the questions they ask are trivial, unfair, and partisan hackery, and the format of constant interrupting and arguing prevents anything worthwhile from getting through.

Stewart's right that Crossfire is a poor source of news or analysis. Lucky for CNN they've got 23 other hours of programming a day.

Crossfire's there for people who like the shouting. Going on Crossfire and telling them they should be more like This Week with David Brinkly is funny, but it's like going on Crank Yankers and telling them they should be more like Frasier.

You know what I would have liked? If Kerry had been one-tenth as hard on John Kerry as he was on Tucker Carlson. Sweet jebus - John Kerry is pure comedy gold.

Going on Crossfire and telling them they should be more like This Week with David Brinkly is funny,

No. The Sunday yak shows suck too, for more or less the exact same reasons Crossfire sucks (although they're less extreme) -- they're all about campaign provided spin, and constant interrupting. I don't watch many political interview shows (or Jon Stewart, for that matter -- I can't remeber if I've ever actually seen the Daily Show), but as far as I can tell, Russert's show is the only one that approaches being good.

You know what I would have liked? If Kerry had been one-tenth as hard on John Kerry as he was on Tucker Carlson.

That's what all this is about, really. Jon Stewart missing a golden opportunity to destroy Kerry with the irrefutable evidence of the SBVT.

Steve: George Steph.'s show on ABC is actually pretty good. So is Chris Wallace's show on Fox, though it's definitely more of the talking head roundtable format. I generally don't watch watch any of them unless they're talking about a particular topic I'm interested in.

That's what all this is about, really. Jon Stewart missing a golden opportunity to destroy Kerry with the irrefutable evidence of the SBVT.

Well, yeah. That and the fact that no one has asked Kerry many hard questions. If he were to be elected the stuff would come pouring out, and people would wonder why this guy wasn't better vetted by the media.

Did you guys know The Daily Show isn't a news show?

Jon is a comedian. Is it fair to bring up his partisanship? Sure. Should Jon be held to the same standard as two guys who put on the airs of having a political debate show? No. That's that.

Jon won this debate hands down and is a hero in my book to stand up to two people who were quite literally hurting America.