So it is safe to assume that you don't care for any political pundits, correct? That's fair.
So it is safe to assume that you don't care for any political pundits, correct? That's fair.
Add Michael Che to that list.
He was a Daily Show correspondent for maybe three months before landing the Weekend Update spot on SNL.
Thoughts:
Not funny. Who cares. Over-hyped. Good riddance. Front page story on nytimes? Pathetic. Our media blows and is biased.
You mad, bro?
No. I actually enjoy many of his critiques of the media. The press is to critique our government leaders. But apart from Stewart, few critique the press. He serves as a valuable check. It's just that Stewart himself has no one to critique him which misleadingly makes him look like a faultless media darling whose opinions are always correct. And the 20 somethings who don't know how to think critically eat it all up, hook, line, and sinker. They're too naive to think critically about what Stewart says. And they think by laughing with and agreeing with Stewart that they too are higher minded and thinking critically, when actually they just checked their critical thinking skills at the door and just lap up everything Stewart says.
Stewart's lack of critique of Brian Williams was really lame. If it was a CNN or Fox anchor who had fabricated stories like BW had done, Stewart would've been ruthless on them and mocked them for days on end. Instead, Stewart found a way to acknowledge his friend BW's shortcomings but shifting the focus to something else. Stewart is just a corporate sellout who didn't want to offend his friend BW who is a media power player even in his disgraced state.
DrSpin wrote:
It will be a crappy election cycle without him.
Vote Stewart/Colbert in 2016!
Guppy wrote:
I feel like the end of the Stewart/Colbert duo is actually a pretty significant event of my lifetime.
Ladies and Gentilhombres- the millenials!
yawn wrote:
Stewart's lack of critique of Brian Williams was really lame. If it was a CNN or Fox anchor who had fabricated stories like BW had done, Stewart would've been ruthless on them and mocked them for days on end. Instead, Stewart found a way to acknowledge his friend BW's shortcomings but shifting the focus to something else. Stewart is just a corporate sellout who didn't want to offend his friend BW who is a media power player even in his disgraced state.
Bullshit. Stewart spent the entire first segment of his Feb 9 show skewering Williams.
yawn wrote:
… And the 20 somethings who don't know how to think critically eat it all up, ..
You're implying the 40 somethings do think critically? Or the 60 somethings? That's a dangerously stupid insinuation.
I really don't understand your criticsm of Stewart on Williams. His show has spent years revealing how bankrupt and lame msm news is. So when Williams does something that is wrong, yet relatively minor and tame, Stewart is supposed to do more than just make fun of him? For one thing its absurd that this notion that Williams lied on his own and none of his superiors at NBC news were in on it.
Secondly, getting these kind of facts wrong are not nearly the biggest problem with mainstream news. The huge problem is what the NY Times did with Dick Cheney before the Iraq War. They use Cheney as an unnamed source that Saddam was trying to build WMDs. Than Cheney goes on Meet the Press citing a NY times article that Saddam is trying to build WMDs. The NY Times remains silent and goes along with it. Its not really a failure of fact. Everybody is just citing a source. But they are willfully getting the whole story wrong. With Williams everybody is freaking out for a failure of fact that otherwise was reporting the story right. The Iraqis were shooting down American helicopters.