Jon Stewart on The Huffington Post

Steve Clemons: Who Is Hot And Who Was Blocked (Or Forgotten) At First White House State Dinner

2009-11-24T20:56:40Z

The White House just released the list of those attending the State Dinner honoring India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Cool list actually. But not just because it's India night -- but because there are a lot of folks that could push other agendas in Obama Land.

Domestic Policy Council chief Melody Barnes, who recently expressed support for "gay marriage" will be there. I admire her and have been irritated by the pressure others in the White House operation have brought on her to retract or reframe her comments.

Gay iconic businessman David Geffen and his excellent partner Jeremy Lingvall will be there and should give Melody Barnes some support -- and to make their case to Michelle and Barack Obama that being absent in today's civil rights movement shouldn't be part of his presidency. Obama and team need to reconnect with the gay community which has a lot of doubt about his support of an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and for an end to other anti-gay discriminatory legislation.

But having Geffen and Lingvall at this dinner is a great move -- and was Rahm Emanuel's doing. I haven't been able to credit Emanuel with much lately -- but he did the right thing tonight.

On another front, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman will be there tonight -- and so too will be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The connection? Cuba.

Both strongly support moving the US-Cuba relationship into new territory and ending the restrictions on travel to Cuba for American citizens. Oddly, American citizens today can travel to North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, virtually anywhere in the world -- but because the Cold War still rages 90 miles off the US border, US citizens can't go to Cuba freely. This is a self-damaging restriction on American rights that should be ended -- and Berman and Bill Richardson are on the case. Look for them whispering in the President's ear.

After all, India joined 186 other nations in voting against us a few weeks go in the United Nations condemning the US embargo of Cuba.

Intelligence adviser to the President John Brennan will be there -- and so too will be his policy and political rival, White House Counsel Gregory Craig. Greg Craig is leaving the White House on January 10, but Obama really should begin talking to Craig right away about a new role. My suggestion is that he replace Israel/Palestine Envoy George Mitchell, who will not be at the dinner tonight.

Greg Craig would be excellent on the defining Middle East challenges facing the US -- and my suggestion is that we encourage Senator Mitchell to try his hand at brokering peace among warring White House factions around Obama and Rahm Emanuel.

On the journalistic front, Tom Friedman of the New York Times will be there -- and so too will Fareed Zakaria whose star continues to climb. Zakaria has largely been quite positive about the presidency of Barack Obama and not taken any substantial jabs at the White House -- but I suspect that after an invite like this one, he'll have to balance out his hyper-access with some substantial critique of the limited results of the Obama team's foreign policy accomplishments.

Some other cool names: Michele Flournoy, Louisian Governor Bobby Jindal, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Hunter Biden, Jim Steinberg, Jack Lew, Under Secretary of State Bill Burns, the Afghanistan War Tax advocate Representative David Obey, OMB chief Peter Orszag, General Colin Powell, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Ben Rhodes (very cool dude), US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Vinod Shah and John Doerr, Amartya Sen, Steven Spielberg, oops -- and I forgot Brian Williams.

But some interesting folks are not there.

If I had any influence over the White House social secretary, I would have invited Steve Coll, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the book that Barack Obama has been carrying around with him for 11 months, Ghost Wars. Coll has been one of the most articulate advocates of an India-Pakistan rapprochement that eventually decreases tensions in Afghanistan and the broader region. Coll and Obama went to Occidental College together -- and he would have been on my list for the evening.

Dennis Ross will be there -- but neither George Mitchell nor Richard Holbrooke, who is reportedly off skiing for the weekend. But it would seem to me that Holbrooke's portfolio is closer to India matters than what Ross is doing with Iran.

Where is Brent Scowcroft? Maybe the former National Security Adviser was busy tonight, but really -- he is a guy Obama turns to behind the scenes and should have been invited.

Zbigniew and Emilie Brzezinski are other obvious DC political personalities who are missing from the roster. Brzezinski's early endorsement of President Obama's campaign was significant -- and it is always good to have Brzezinski and Scowcroft on your side -- but neither will be at Obama's side tonight.

Two guys who should have definitely been there and somehow either kept themselves in the background or weren't invited are former National Security Council chief of staff Mark Lippert and current National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough. These guys for quite a while were the most significant axis of power in the foreign policy arena, and Obama trusts them. McDonough works extremely hard, as recently recounted in David Plouffe's book, The Audacity to Win, so may have been too busy. But come to think of it, David Plouffe is not on the list.

Eric Schmidt of Google would have been on my recommended list -- even though General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is there. I would have not allowed Larry Summers to bring a guest -- and would have asked Paul Volcker to fill that seat.

Where are any of the Republicans for Obama? The three that got that movement going are philanthropist Rita Hauser, former Republican Senator turned independent Lincoln Chafee, and former House of Reps Republican internationalist Jim Leach. Not on the list!

I'd add Susan Eisenhower and General Wesley Clark. Missing in action both -- and they shouldn't be.

I am also surprised not to see Caroline Kennedy -- who may be done with the political scene as far as running for office, but America needs her at State Dinners!

For fun -- I'd include Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and Arianna Huffington, but they are not on the list.

Gary Hart and former Defense Secretary William Cohen should really be there tonight -- both for the leadership they have shown in foreign policy, but also because they both are reservoirs of smart thinking on India.

Where are Chuck Hagel and David Boren -- the incoming co-chairs of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board....and where is R. Nicholas Burns??? When serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nick Burns put the US-India nuclear deal together. He worked with Evan Bayh's father -- the much more progressive than Evan former Senator Birch Bayh, who should have been invited.

I'll stop there....but I could keep going. It's as much fun thinking about who is not there as who is.

Except for David Geffen and Jeremy Lingvall who will be the life of the party, I'm sure.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Jon Stewart: New Yorkers React To "Going Rogue" (VIDEO)

2009-11-19T11:10:12Z

How are New Yorkers reacting to the recent release of Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue"? Last night on "The Daily Show," John Oliver went to New York bookstores to find out, only to find that most fans had dressed up as the villains in the book, and that New York kids would rather jump into a volcano than read "Going Rogue."

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Excitement Over Sarah Palin's Book Release

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Jon Stewart, Lou Dobbs Discuss CNN, Argue Over Health Care Reform (VIDEO)

2009-11-19T10:28:56Z

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart welcomed former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs with a Mariachi band because... why not? Over a long interview, only portions of which aired, Stewart and Dobbs discussed the newsman's decision to quit on the air... or not quit on the air... or come to some sort of mutual understanding tied up in contracts that dissolved the relationship between CNN and the controversial anchor. Dobbs basically offered that CNN "wanted to move in another direction," to which Stewart replied, "I see the direction they're going in, I believe it's called down."

Then, praising Dobbs for having "abhorrent and wrong" views that are nevertheless "consistent," Stewart pressed Dobbs on the issues he invoked in his "I'm quitting, in some contractual fashion" speech: "The issue seems to be -- and you allude to it in your resignation speech -- that the winds of change are blowing this country -- people have, apparently, lost their minds. there seems to be a panic that we have lost the fabric of our society and I'm having trouble getting a handle on what has happened that is so drastic that people would think it's tyranny or fascism or Hitler-esque."

Dobbs noted that "what has happened" goes back to previous administrations, and that the Bush administration fostered a great "indifference" to the way policy impacted the lives of Americans. Which strikes me as, uhm... suddenly very generalist! Stewart basically countered by saying that it seems to be the coming of the Obama administration that has set everyone's "hair on fire." Dobbs cited the "Obama health care legislation" as something that's uniquely scaring people about the current administration with the prospect of fundamental change.

Stewart countered by pointing out that there's really no such thing as "Obama health care legislation" ("Obama hasn't really said anything," Stewart said, "to his discredit."), adding, "We're not a fragile country. This idea that somehow getting a health care plan through takes us back to the days pre-revolution is bunk. There's a fear out there that seems irrational." Stewart contended that individuals like David Addington, architect of the unitary executive and the torture policy in the previous administration, represented to him a more frightening agent of change than an administration that seems to, essentially, want to "expand Medicare."

Dobbs allowed that he thought that "part of that fear is simply catching up with the events of some years ago." Stewart observed, "Why do they always catch up to the fears during the Democratic administrations? It feels like all the people that want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans."

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show has made extended versions of the interview available.

PART TWO: Dobbs raises a good point about the lack of priority on ending the unemployment crisis, but insists that the current state of play -- where one party controls the legislature and the White House -- doesn't allow any avenue for the "expression of frustration." Stewart counters by pointing out that elections are the avenue for this expression, and that people are confusing "losing an election" with tyranny.

Dobbs goes on to discuss at length his contention that government is best led from the center, and that the past two administrations are scaring the center. Stewart's contention is that the crazy anger spilling out into the street isn't centrist, noting the lack of angry protesters carrying signs that read "Be reasonable!"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

PART THREE:

In this final part, Dobbs and Stewart wind down their discussion, with Dobbs continuing to press for a return to centrism, and insist that the nation is in a "delicate" state. Stewart won't sign on to the idea that the nation is somehow fragile. "It's trumped-up fear that's being used as a wedge."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Lou Dobbs On "Daily Show": Mariachi Band, CNN's "Flavorless Gruel Of Journalism" (VIDEO)

2009-11-19T09:58:05Z

Lou Dobbs continued his post-CNN media tour Wednesday with a stop at "The Daily Show."

Jon Stewart greeted Dobbs with a Mexican mariachi band — a clear reference to his stance against illegal immigration.

Dobbs took it in stride, laughing and saying the band "could play at any party."

Discussing his departure from CNN, Dobbs repeated the talking point that he and CNN are heading in different directions, citing CNN/US President Jon Klein's decision to practice "middle of the road journalism" instead of Dobbs' "advocacy journalism."

"You sure it wasn't adult contemporary journalism?" Stewart asked. "He really said, 'We're moving towards middle of the road journalism?' A flavorless gruel of journalism?"

Stewart also joked that the direction CNN is going in is "down."

Watch:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Jon Stewart Explains To Conservative Pundits Why He Doesn't Like Sarah Palin (VIDEO)

2009-11-19T08:25:21Z

Jon Stewart gave what seemed like his final word on Sarah Palin last night, explaining to Fox News pundits that he doesn't dislike her because she's from Alaska or because she hunts, but because "when you peel back the pretty, shooty layers of the Palin onion, there's no onion. It's just a conservative boiler plate mad lib: 'Freedom is good and taxes are--ooh I need an adjective--how about, I don't know, silly?' And the worst part it's a mad lib delivered as though it were the hard-earned wisdom of a life well lived," he explained.

Stewart took exception to the accusations that Democrats don't like Palin because she's attractive and religious, but he was particularly angered by the words of Bernie Goldberg who said on Fox that liberals have "Palin Derangement Syndrome" and are driven crazy by her because she has five kids--one with Down syndrome which "liberals certainly don't allow that to happen [to them.]"

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Fox News Runs Old Palin Campaign Footage, Reports It As Book-Signing Crowds [UPDATE]

2009-11-18T17:38:40Z

Last week, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show caught Fox News' Sean Hannity running old footage of September Tea Party crowds in an attempt to make Michele Bachmann's smaller November Tea Party shindig appear to be more well-attended than it was. Is Fox up to the same tricks today? Faiz Shakir at ThinkProgress thinks so, and he pulls a segment that seems to tout the crowds that greeted Sarah Palin on the stump during the 2008 campaign as throngs that are gathering to purchase Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue.

In the clip below, watch as Fox anchor Gregg Jarrett describes "pictures just coming into us" as "huge crowds" that have amassed while Palin is "promoting her new book." The pictures that are supposedly "just coming in" are actually year-old video from the presidential campaign:

[WATCH]

For what it's worth, I think this appears to be little more than a momentary disconnect between newsreader and news producer than a conscious attempt to mislead. I am sure that Fox News is more than aware that crowds are mainly gathering today at a mall in Michigan, where Palin is expected to appear, and not at some rally that Palin presided over today. Of course, the fact that Fox was caught manipulating footage in a misleading manner is only going to spur further suspicions when things like this happen.

MSNBC has also been reporting on Palin's book signing all day today. It's not something that Fox is likely to have missed, and it looks a little something like this:

[WATCH]

UPDATE: Fox has released a statement:

"This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video...There will be an on-air explanation during Happening Now on Thursday."

Mark Silva, writing for the Chicago Tribune's The Swamp blog, reports that "that it's highly like [sic] that serious disciplinary action will be taken for those responsible behind the scenes in the control room. News executives there consider this to have been a sloppy and unnecessary error.'

UPDATE, AGAIN: Fox aired an apology for the video mistake this afternoon:

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

"Tokyo Vice" Author Goes To Japan Seeking Enlightenment, Ends Up Writing About Organized Crime (VIDEO)

2009-11-17T11:10:56Z

Author Jake Adelstein was on Jon Stewart last night talking about his new book, "Tokyo Vice," and the crazier-and-crazier story of how he got mixed up with Japanese crime lords which forced him to write the book in order to protect his own life.

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Jake Adelstein

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Jon Stewart Discusses Lou Dobbs's Decision To 'Go Palin'

2009-11-13T12:43:07Z

At some point in the future, Jon Stewart may again have to endure the hour-long waterboarding of the soul that is the Sean Hannity show. But he'll never have to watch Lou Dobbs on CNN again, so upside! Thursday night, the Daily Show host brought his audience up to speed on Dobbs's decision to depart, saying, "Nothing says honest and straightforward better than a surprise announcement that you're quitting for reasons you can't explain to do something you can't discuss."

So true! The only thing that differentiates Dobbs's "I quit" announcement from Sarah Palin's was that there were no woodland creatures squawking in the background. At least none that you could hear. Stewart would go on to make this obvious link.

Dobbs, of course, has some vague plans to wander the earth, kickin' mad science and "contributing positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day."

Stewart responded: "So, in order to contribute positively to a better understanding of the issues of our day, you must leave your nightly television show, devoted to understanding the issues of our day. I actually agree with you on that one."

[WATCH]

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Lou Dobbs Goes Rogue

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Stewart Responds To Hannity's Apology: Nothing's Worth Sitting Through His Show (VIDEO)

2009-11-13T09:42:23Z

Earlier this week, Jon Stewart did a segment on Sean Hannity's health care protest coverage in which he revealed that the Fox host had used footage of a different, larger event to make gathering look more impressive. The "Daily Show" went on to mock Fox by adding more video to Hannity's story, this time from Woodstock and the movie "300."

The next night, Hannity apologized saying Stewart was right. Stewart watched the show in anticipation of this moment, but after tons of tears and teddy-bear hangings, he revealed that "nothing's worth sitting through this."

Stewart went on to praise Ramin Hedayati, the young producer who caught the Hannity flub. (Full disclosure I know Mr. Hedayati personally.) "He" came came out on stage to take a bow and despite having graduated college in 2002, Ramin looks surprisingly old and begged Stewart to kill him so he could stop watching Sean Hannity's show.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Chez Pazienza: Sean Hannity's Act of Neo-Contrition

2009-11-12T12:49:29Z

So last night, Fox News host Sean Hannity did something many will call shocking, some will call phony and insincere, and I'll call, at the very least, uncharacteristic of his network and those it speaks for: he apologized.

At the end of his show, which as usual featured an hour of unrestrained Obama-bashing and GOP cheerleading, Hannity copped to something he in many ways had no choice but to cop to -- at least if he wanted FNC to be able to maintain the illusion that it's a legitimate news network. He admitted that Jon Stewart was right when, two nights ago, the host of The Daily Show pointed out that Hannity and Company had run video of a September Tea Bagger rally on Capitol Hill during a story about last week's Tea Bagger rally. The difference? Maybe 40 or 50 thousand people. Stewart's point was that it looked as if Hannity had used the old footage of the much bigger crowd to try to hype the numbers at the more recent protest; what made The Daily Show staff apparently think that Hannity's deception was deliberate -- aside from the fact that it would take a 6-year-old with Down Syndrome to mix up file footage with brand new video -- were the startlingly obvious differences in the images themselves: leaves still on the trees in the September clip, people in late-summer short sleeves versus mid-fall coats and scarves, etc.

Regardless, Hannity now says he's sorry:

"Although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, he was right. Now on his program last night, he mentioned that we had played some inccorect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican health care rally on Capitol Hill. He was correct, we screwed up. we aired some video of a rally in September along with a video from the actual event. It was an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. So, Mr. Stewart, you were right. We apologize. But by the way, we wanna thank you and all your writers for watching."

You've almost gotta admire Hannity for managing to come off as both contrite and a smarmy little prick to the end. More on that in a minute, though.

If you're asking yourself right now whether Sean Hannity really is sorry that his show ran a bad piece of video -- one that regardless of intent would've mislead the viewer into thinking that last week's Frootloopalooza was on the scale of September's -- you're obviously not familiar with the Fox News Channel or right-wing punditry in general these days. True, Hannity made the somewhat surprising and magnanimous gesture of admitting to an error and crediting the right's mortal enemies at The Daily Show for busting him on it. Contrast that with Rush Limbaugh's response a few weeks ago when confronted with the news that he'd just spent an entire radio show angrily railing against Barack Obama for writing a college thesis decrying the Constitution, when in reality the paper in question had never even existed -- the article he got the story from was nothing more than satire. Limbaugh didn't give a crap that he'd just made what any well-adjusted person would consider a monumental ass out of himself; "I don't care if these quotes are made up, I know Obama thinks it," was his jaw-droppingly defiant response. So yeah, the fact that simply admitting you fucked up is such a big deal isn't so much a nod to, say, Fox News's reputation for honesty and respectability as it is proof of how far we've lowered the bar when it comes to what we expect from the right's obstinate mouthpieces.

Once again, Hannity pretty much had to man up because he may not have a responsibility to the truth but, unlike Limbaugh, he has a responsibility to the illusion. He couldn't not concede that the video his show aired was essentially a lie because no matter how much we all know that it's bullshit, Fox still goes to great lengths to bill itself as an unbiased news network. There are some things that are beyond the pale, even for a nominal news outlet that slants drastically in one direction: You can't run one piece of video and say it's something else.

Did Sean Hannity's show really make an "inadvertent mistake?" Probably not. Like I said, something like that is a very hard mistake to make. Is Hannity really sorry for the screw-up? No, of course not; he's sorry he got caught, and his less-than-humble admission that he'd been busted -- right down to getting in that last little barb in his retraction, the one that's the trademark faux-genteel "fuck you" of all official Fox responses to critics -- is the tip of the cards that lets Fox acolytes know that while he's conceding this battle to the enemy, it's being done with a wink and crossed-fingers.

Because in the end, Fox News still wins the war.

Hannity: Jon Stewart Was Right About Protest Footage (VIDEO)

2009-11-12T01:03:49Z

Fox News' Sean Hannity responded to Jon Stewart Wednesday evening after the Daily Show host called out the network for using old footage from a larger September 12, 2009 "Tea Party' protest to illustrate a much smaller health care rally on Capitol Hill last week.

Speaking directly to the camera, Hannity said that it pained him to admit it, but Stewart was correct.

"And although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, he was right. Now on his program last night, he mentioned that we had played some inccorect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican health care rally on Capitol Hill. He was correct, we screwed up. we aired some video of a rally in september along with a video from the actual event. It was an inadverdent mistake, but a mistake none the less. So, Mr. Stewart, you were right. We apologize. But by the way, we wanna thank you and all your writers for watching."

WATCH:

Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage To Make GOP Protest Appear Bigger (VIDEO)

2009-11-11T07:04:35Z

The tea party protests continued last week, as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann held an anti-health-care-reform rally on the steps of the Capitol. While she estimated that 20,000-45,000 people attended the event, the Washington Post reported it was actually more like 10,000.

Still, that is a sizable number of Americans exercising their right to free speech and assembly, and that warrants news coverage. But Sean Hannity and his team did more than cover the event. They not only inflated the number in attendance with their words, but actually used footage from a heavily-attended protest this summer to make this health care rally appear more popular. Hannity even pointed out that this was a huge crowd for a Thursday, when the protest footage they used was from a Saturday.

Jon Stewart and his team caught this discrepancy and ran with it, pointing out neither the color of the leaves nor sky in the tacked-on video matched that of the actual footage. They went on to mock Fox by adding more video to the interview, this time from Woodstock and the movie "300."

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Jon Stewart Mocks Use Of Leis, Babies, And The Holocaust To Argue Against Health Care Reform (VIDEO)

2009-11-10T07:51:55Z

The House passed the health care bill 220 to 215 this weekend, but opponents did not sit quietly by and watch in the days and hours leading up to the vote. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann lead a rally against the bill at which a protester waved a giant sign comparing the slaughter of millions of Jews in the Holocaust to the president's attempt to bring health coverage to the uninsured. Stewart re-enacted this man's trip to Kinkos to create the sign:

"Hey, how's it going? I got this photo here of a German death camp. How big can you make it? I'm going to this rally on health care and I really want to equate the health care reform bill to the Holocaust. You see they're the same as Nazis, because the health care reform bill is Socialism and the Nazis were the National Socialist Party. You know the same way I'm a Communist cause I'm a Republican and there's the People's Republic of China."

But the use of props didn't end outside the House. No, the venerable Ms. Bachmann used a Hawaiian lei, made by god, to argue that this bill kills freedom, while Representative John Shadegg used a baby to argue that this bill kills freedom.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Glenn Beck Gives "Amazing" Marxists His Appendix

2009-11-06T14:35:15Z

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart laid out his take on the terrifying Glenn Beck Appendectomy Conspiracy, RAISING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS over how maybe it was all "a plot by Hitler to steal Glenn Beck from all of us internal organ by internal organ by internal organ and then reprogram him to use as a weapon." But maybe Stewart was only scratching the surface of this conspiracy! Let's all RAISE SOME QUESTIONS over whether or not actual Marxists were, in fact, rooting around inside Glenn Beck's body and mind.

Yesterday morning, Glenn Beck communicated with the world, in his patented Pidgin Twitter, saying:

Nvr a gdnight sleep in the hospital but always easier w/family, prayers and AMAZING drs/nurses. They didn't even cut off my feet!!

Amazing nurses, eh? Amazingly anti-American, maybe! Alexander Zaitchik is RAISING SUSPICIONS:

The quality of care he is receiving should not have come as a surprise. When Beck complained of acute abdominal pain during his radio program on Wednesday, he was rushed to a nearby hospital. The security-conscious Beck has not disclosed the name of the facility, but it's a safe bet that it is staffed by proud members of a storied union: New York's Local 1199, aka United Healthcare Workers East, which belongs to the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU has organized all of Manhattan's major hospitals, including every facility to which Beck could have conceivably been sent.

It probably has not occurred to Beck to link his kind, efficient nurses to something as dastardly as the SEIU. As recently as Wednesday, he was busy smearing the union with his usual verbal feces. For the past several months, on radio and television, Beck has cast the SEIU, the country's largest union, as a Toxic Avenger-looking bogeyman in his conspiratorial fantasyland. In the progressive plot of Beck's imagination, the "radical, Marxist" SEIU is conspiring with ACORN "thugs" to destroy the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and turn this country into North Korea--or worse.

Now, I don't know if the "amazing nurses" that tended to Glenn Beck were SEIU members or not. But the following infotaining factoid simply can not be ignored! No one has been inside the Obama White House more than SEIU prexy Andy Stern. Now, Andy Stern has, through Marxist nurse proxies, gained access inside Glenn Beck's body! WHAT DOES ACORN WANT WITH GLENN BECK'S PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS?

Later that same morning, Beck tweeted: "I just realized my tonsils are missing. Man, I wish I were as rich as M. Moore i could've had some of that sweet Castro Care he loves." But, Glenn Beck is as rich as Michael Moore! Or at least he was, before he received sweet Castro Care, from Maoist nurses that he now refers to as -- AND I QUOTE -- "AMAZING."

All right, here's the kicker. Do you know the name of the planet on which all of this occurred? Give up? IT WAS EARTH!!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Jon Stewart Does Glenn Beck: Touts Conspiracy Theories, Cries (VIDEO)

2009-11-06T07:39:31Z

We knew Jon Stewart was a talented comedian, but until last night we didn't know he had missed his true calling: Being Glenn Beck. Yes, the "Daily Show" host spent an entire segment acting like, talking like, crying like, dancing like, and gesticulating like Glenn Beck. He was inspired by the fact that Beck recently had his appendix removed to create the 11/3 project--taking America back to a time before Beck lost his vestigial organ.

"Apparently the medicine that was good enough for our founding fathers is now considered politically or medically incorrect," Stewart said employing both air quotes and crazy voice registers that left the viewer wondering who and what he was quoting. "I'm not saying this is a plot by Hitler to steal Glenn Beck from all of us internal organ by internal organ by internal organ and then reprogram him to use as a weapon. But isn't it fascinating that I'm the only one with the courage to ask these questions?" He proceeded to jump up from his seat and run over to a chalk board that had the human anatomy scrawled on it alongside Che, acorns and the Russian flag. It only got better from there.

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The 11/3 Project

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Andrew Winston: Jon Stewart's Oddly Uneducated Views on Climate Change

2009-11-05T12:51:52Z

It's been a strange week or so for Jon Stewart (who I should admit up front I admire and think of as one of our finest investigative journalists).

First, Stewart interviewed Steven Levitt, co-author of SuperFreakonomics, the book that takes all the old climate skeptic arguments and trots them out like they're new and shiny. (Really, the book is disastrous on the science front ... but it's actually even worse as an economic argument since they completely ignore all the massive benefits of decoupling our economy from carbon and fossil fuels -- security, health, savings, etc).

He gives Levitt an unreal pass and laments "how angry people are" and the "secular religion" of climate change. Question: Why is acceptance of vast scientific agreement of a large-scale problem -- and searching for solutions in the most economic way -- portrayed as some emotional reaction?

And why is someone who's normally so critical of vested interests and hidden agendas so unaware of where these really dangerous ideas -- that climate change isn't so bad and is easily fixable -- are coming from (and who's paying for them)?. Stewart comments that Levitt is not denying the science -- but if Stewart had read the criticisms of blogger Joe Romm, the Economist, the Union of Concerned Scientists, (or even my post), he would've understood that the scientists Levitt cites are completely disavowing his interpretation and that their arguments are completely unsupported by facts. Levitt and Dubner are absolutely denying the dominant scientific perspective, and even weirder for an economist, ignoring the economics.

So, last night Stewart interviewed Al Gore and it was a really strange interview. He kept pushing Gore on why there isn't a simple, single solution to the problem. Where's the cheaper alternative and the hover cars, he asked. As if we power our lives currently with only one solution. Of course the solutions to the entire power supply for our economy and lives will be somewhat complicated to change. Gore was trying to say that we do have all the technologies, but we just need the political will to enact them (perhaps oversimplifying the issues, but directionally correct). But Stewart kept acting put out that it won't be as simple as switching from buggies to cars, as he says -- which, by the way, wasn't so simple either. Steward always half jokes, but he's usually far more educated about what he's commenting on.

It's worrisome when someone usually so careful to do his research seems to know so little about a large, important topic that is reshaping global economies and our lives. It just highlights what a large communication challenge we face.

Jon Stewart Revels In Inane Election Coverage (VIDEO)

2009-11-04T08:59:57Z

The 2009 elections that have been dominating cable news coverage of late consisted of two gubernatorial races and two congressional seats. Of course, every race is important and deserves coverage but the hyperbole which reporters, anchors and pundits have employed claiming these races are referendums on the president and his policies, and predictors of the 2008, 2010 and 2012 elections caused Jon Stewart to take exception.

He focused specifically on New York's 23rd District race in which Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava was undermined by her own party mostly because she supports gay marriage, abortion rights and has a close relationships with leading labor officials. Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, Fred Thompson, Steve Forbes, and more decided to support third party candidate Doug Hoffman who is much more conservative. The media took this race and ran with it, asking over and over again if this race will define the GOP for years and years to come, prompting Stewart to ask, "Might the media, with really very few other elections to cover, be stuffing one hundred thousand pounds of their bullshit into District 23's five-pound bag?"

He went on to skewer CNN for its inane panels, and convene his own group of pundits to speculate about what he might ask them tomorrow.

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Indecision 2009 - Reindecision 2008 And Beyond

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Maegan Carberry: How Jon Stewart Killed Barackstar

2009-11-04T02:11:41Z

Apparently, losses yesterday in New Jersey and Virginia mean that the Progressive Majority James Carville predicted -- built a year ago on the backs of Obama's zealous Facebooking young voters -- has nose dived one year after the country's historic election. For those who don't put much weight, however, on the traditional rules of the game: It's clear that as a country we've returned to the pre-2008 narrative, despite compelling examples from countless young activists that grassroots-netroots organizing persists.

What has changed is the communications model that surrounds our efforts. If rogue viral video bloggers and Iowa-embedded tweeters led the news cycle in 2008, the MSM is back in 2009. The Obama administration, despite its hipster Flickr feed and weekly YouTube address, has presented a television-driven strategy, ceding a great deal of its street cred with the president's digital Millennial generation base.

Who fills this gap? Beyond apathetic conjecture, it's been up to Jon Stewart and FunnyOrDie.com to keep the kids engaged. Real journalists and concerned academics often scoff at this 'infotainment' model, but story telling of this nature tends to resonate.

On Sunday I gathered together a few of my colleagues who work in the infotainment space to discuss the role their craft has played and will continue to play in the growing momentum of the generation's political coming-of-age. Check out the panel discussion, which took place at Living Liberally's The Tank, featuring Baratunde Thurston (The Onion, Jack & Jill Politics), Katie Halper (Huffington Post), Matt Hooper ("Life is Cause"), Michael Skolnik (GlobalGrind.com) and moderated by Ari Melber (The Nation).

INFOTAINMENT POLITICS IN THE MILLENNIAL GENERATION from Matt Hooper on Vimeo.

Obviously it would be crass for the White House to operate on the same level as College Humor. However, it would be exciting to see the ground-breaking Obama new media team make an effort to push the boundaries in this realm of their strategy.

Of course, the onus is also on members of the generation to embrace our entrepreneurial spirit and initiate from within the types of communications that will further our issues. We can't expect hand-holding from our fearless leaders, especially when we are often the experts in these emerging mediums.

Greg Mitchell: Obama Won Last Year Only Because Stephen Colbert Dropped Out!

2009-11-03T15:41:08Z

Yes, Barack Obama ended up beating John McCain rather easily one year ago, but Stephen Colbert didn't stay in the race for the White House or Obama could have really been in trouble (for a minute or two, anyway). So on this anniversary day, allow me to recall Colbert's tentative entry into the 2008 race and what might-have-been.

Remember, Obama did not start surging until Colbert suddenly pulled out of the race for the White House -- or was booted out. And recall that Colbert ended up pulling out of the primaries despite topping Bill Richardson and closing in on Joe Biden in one national poll. Maybe if he'd stay in it would be Vice President Colbert today.

He had kicked it off during an appearance on Larry King's show in October 2007 to promote his new book, I Am America (And So Can You). The Comedy Central star was accused by the host of using the book as a platform to run for president. Colbert happily confirmed this, saying that he would likely seek the nomination from both parties. When King said this was a "cop out," Colbert said that it actually demonstrated true "courage" because "I could lose twice."

Likely he would launch his grassroots crusade in his native state, South Carolina, as a "favorite son." Colbert refused to knock any of his competitors, but did allow that Fred Thompson's campaign slogan should be, "Do Not Disturb." He pointed out that Mike Huckabee had already offered him the veep spot if the former Arkansas governor got the GOP nomination.

Soon, a major South Carolina public TV station offered Colbert airtime to officially announce his candidacy. The Colbert bump kept growing when, on October 14, Maureen Dowd turned over her New York Times column to him for the day. Colbert revealed, "While my hat is not presently in the ring, I should also point out that it is not on my head. So where's that hat?"

Keeping nothing under his missing hat, he went on to describe his platform. On gender: "The sooner we accept the basic differences between men and women, the sooner we can stop arguing about it and start having sex." On race: "While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad." On the elderly: "They look like lizards."

And finally: "I don't intend to tease you for weeks the way Newt Gingrich did, saying that if his supporters raised $30 million, he would run for president. I would run for $15 million. Cash. Nevertheless, I am not ready to announce yet -- even though it's clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative."

Two nights later, after nearly a solid week of dropping hints, Colbert did find, and throw, his hat in the ring. On his own show, The Colbert Report, with balloons falling, he screamed, 'Yes, I'm doing it!" Then he welcomed CBS political analyst Jeff Greenfield to analyze his impact on the race "in the past three minutes."

Greenfield said it was "astounding."

Colbert took out one of the "Colbert/Stewart 2008" bumper stickers that have circulated for awhile and cut out the Stewart part, saying that he might replace Jon Stewart as a possible vice president with someone named "Huckabee" or even "Putin." To finance his campaign, he threatened to sell advertising patches on his suit, like a NASCAR driver.

Questions quickly rose about his ballot status in South Carolina but the situation there appeared murky. Stewart signed a contract extension for his Daily Show, explaining, "I love doing this show... I look forward to using this extension to having great fun at President Colbert's expense."

Stephen, in fact, was already threatening to overtake the lesser-rans on the Democratic side. The Public Opinion Strategies national poll in mid-October found him drawing 2.3 percent in the Democratic race. This put him ahead of Richardson (2.1 percent) and Dennis Kucininch (2.1). He trailed Biden by just a tad (the future Veep polled 2.7 percent).

A week later a Rasmussen poll showed that his surge was continuing. In a projected three-way context against frontrunner Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani he was pulling 13% of the vote (28% of the 18-to-29 demo). At E&P we predicted: "If he keeps gaining over 10% a week, Colbert should be leading the field before November is out."

Meanwhile, a Facebook group titled "1,000,000 Strong For Stephen T. Colbert" had attracted more than 880,000 members in just over a week -- making it the most popular political group on Facebook by far. And that was before he, improbably, appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert on October 21. From the transcript:

RUSSERT: You've thought this through.

COLBERT: That's a generous estimation. Thank you.

RUSSERT: The press reaction to your announcement has been mixed. Here's one headline.

COLBERT: OK.

RUSSERT: This was on Thursday. "Electile Dysfunction: Colbert Running For President."

COLBERT: That's good work. That's good work.

RUSSERT: Are they, are they questioning, shall we say, your stamina?

COLBERT: I don't know. I think a lot of people are asking whether -- they say is this, is this real, you know? And to which I would say to everybody, this is not a dream, OK? You're not going to wake up from this, OK? I'm, I'm, I'm far realer than Sam Brownback, let me put it that way.

RUSSERT: Would you consider Senator Larry Craig as your running mate?

COLBERT: I would.

RUSSERT: Have you had conversations with him?

COLBERT: Define conversation.

RUSSERT: Have you spoken to him?

COLBERT: No, no.

RUSSERT: Have you met with him? Have you been in the same room together?

COLBERT: Sorry, my lawyer's telling me to say no more.

Colbert visited Columbia, S.C. and received the key to the city from the mayor on "Stephen Colbert Day." The local newspaper, The State, published a side-by-side comparison of its two native son candidates, Colbert and John Edwards. The latter's hair was described as "naturally fluffy" while Colbert's was "very stiff." Colbert, perhaps angered by that, was quoted saying of his opponent: "John Edwards left South Carolina when he was 1-year-old. He had his chance. Saying his parents moved him -- that's the easy answer."

But just as momentum was building uncontrollably in early November, the state's Democratic party ruled that he was not "viable" enough to be awarded a spot on the ballot. Colbert was reduced to citing -- and showing on the screen -- an article in E&P to prove that he was, indeed, not merely a joke candidate for president. The audience roared its approval of E&P as potential kingmaker.

Too bad, he said, he wouldn't get a chance to run, waving a thick file of papers -- he had an exit strategy for Iraq all mapped out.

Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His book, Why Obama Won, was the first look at the entire 2008 campaign from a progressive perspective.

Daily Show Beat Meet The Press To The Punch On Jon Krakauer

2009-11-03T13:11:57Z

Here's an excellent observation from Mediaite's Rachel Sklar, who reminds us that while the "big news to come out of Meet The Press this week has been author Jon Krakauer's assertion that General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was implicated in the cover-up about the death of Pat Tillman," that big news had already been more or less broken by Jon Stewart and The Daily Show:

Krakauer was on [The Daily Show] over a month ago. It's surprising that this one flew under the radar, given how many sharp-eyed journalists, bloggers and media-watchers tune into the Daily Show, and regularly report on the news it makes. But it can and does happen, and happened here. What this says about Krakauer, McChrystal and his book is no different than what was picked up from Meet The Press. But what this says about so-called 'fake' news is, keep your eye on it. People with important things to say make a point of trying to say them on the Daily Show. So don't fall asleep before the interview.

All of that is absolutely right, and it's worth pointing out that Stewart conducted his interview with a greater awareness of where the "news" is in an interview with Jon Krakauer. That meant that Daily Show viewers got an interview that began with the Pat Tillman story and went on for six probing minutes. Meanwhile, at Meet The Press, Krakauer sat on the set like window dressing, and the subject of Pat Tillman wasn't broached until the show's final sequence of questions. Why have him on then?

GREGORY: Jon Krakauer, I want to get to a key element of your book, "Where Men Win Glory," about Pat Tillman and how it relates to this current conversation about Afghanistan. Because it does involve General Stanley McChrystal, who was obviously critical on the stage now and was critical in the Tillman story of well. As a reminder, if you look at pictures of Pat Tillman, the NFL star with the Arizona Cardinals, decides to enlist in the Army, serves in the Rangers after 9/11. This was certainly a big story when he enlisted. And at the time, General McChrystal was actually head of Special Operations command. So Pat Tillman was killed in a friendly fire incident and ultimately won the Silver Star, and that's what you focus on in the book and in a subsequent piece that you wrote for The Daily Beast. And here's what you wrote: "An October 5 Newsweek article [said, about General McChrystal] that `he has great political skills; he couldn't have risen to his current position without them. But he definitely does not see himself as the sort of military man who would compromise his principles to do the politically convenient thing.' In the week after Tillman was killed, however, this is precisely what McChrystal appears to have done when he administered a fraudulent medical" -- excuse me -- "a fraudulent medal recommendation" -- we're talking about the Silver Star -- "and submitted it to the secretary of the Army, thereby concealing the cause of Tillman's death." Briefly explain what happened.

MR. KRAKAUER: The--after Tillman died, the most important thing to know is that within--instantly, within 24 hours certainly, everybody on the ground, everyone intimately involved knew it was friendly fire. There's never any doubt it was friendly fire. McChrystal was told within 24 hours it was friendly fire. Also, immediately they started this paperwork to give Tillman a Silver Star. And the Silver Star ended up being at the center of the cover-up. So McChrystal -- Tillman faced this devastating fire from his own guys, and he tried to protect a young private by exposing himself to this, this fire. That's why he was killed and the private wasn't. Without friendly fire there's no valor, there's no Silver Star. There was no enemy fire, yet McChrystal authored, he closely supervised over a number of days this fraudulent medal recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.

GREGORY: And that's the important piece of it. And, and he actually testified earlier this year before the Senate, and this is what he said about it.

(Videotape, June 2, 2009)

LT. GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Now, what happens, in retrospect, is--and I would do this differently if I had the chance again--in retrospect they look contradictory, because we sent a Silver Star that was not well-written. And although I went through the process, I will tell you now I didn't review the citation well enough to capture--or I didn't catch that if you read it you could imply that it was not friendly fire.

GREGORY: Even those who were critical of him and the Army say they don't think he willfully deceived anyone.

MR. KRAKAUER: That's correct. He, he just said now he didn't read this hugely important document about the most famous soldier in the military. He didn't read it carefully enough to notice that it talked about enemy fire instead of friendly fire? That's preposterous. That, that's not believable.

GREGORY: All right, part of this debate. Thank you all very much.

All part of the debate! But not a part deemed important enough to televise.

Krakauer did get to respond to other matters on Meet The Press and, in one instance uttered a line that was pure Beltway anathema when he suggested that the answer to the War in Afghanistan wasn't an immediate, Kagan-style troop surge:

GREGORY: And, Jon, the fear that you hear among critics of the president, or even if they're not critics, they're just skeptical of the policy, is that he'll ultimately choose a half measure, which they believe would be deadly in the circumstance.

MR. KRAKAUER: I don't, I don't agree with that. I mean, there's a, there's a huge range of options between pulling out and bringing in 40,000 or 85,000 troops. I mean, 40,000 isn't going to be enough to make much of a difference. Most--I think most people would agree to that. There's a whole, there's a whole range, and, and so I think you have to be careful of that black or white, either/or, all or nothing thing.

RELATED:
Tillman-McChrystal Controversy? Jon Stewart Had It First [Mediaite]

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Jon Krakauer

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Mary Ellen Harte and John Harte: Addressing Global Warming: Can We Adapt? Should We Try?

2009-11-02T20:50:57Z

How to confront future rising sea levels, droughts, intense heat waves, and other catastrophes stemming from continued global warming? There are really just three options on our menu. We can: 1) try to reduce future fossil fuel use to prevent catastrophic warming; 2) allow the planet's climate to worsen and suffer the consequences; 3) we can try to adapt to the consequences of global warming. In short, we can try to mitigate, we can simply suffer, and we can try to adapt.

For many problems society faces, all three options make sense. As we write, the San Francisco Bay Bridge is shut down because of structural damage. In response, construction work (mitigation) is underway to repair the damage, commuters are jammed up (suffering) on alternative bridges, and extra service (adaptation) has been provided on mass transit. Is global warming like bridge failure? Can a combination of mitigation, suffering, and adaptation get us through the crisis? We'll focus here on adaptation.

Adaptation is certainly being taken seriously. At the recent legislators' forum in Copenhagen, domestic political representatives from the 16 largest economies agreed on a slate of changes to limit greenhouse gas emissions. They also agreed, however, that $100 billion would be needed yearly to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

Confidence in adaptation exposes a fallacy of how people perceive global warming and its consequences. If only global warming were just a bridge failure, a single typhoon, an earthquake, or some other temporary, locally contained condition. With enough stored water and food, one may be able to adapt to the chaos that ensues in the aftermath of a major storm or earthquake. And when stored supplies run out, surely aid will come from elsewhere.

But global warming is a truly historic development. Unlike an earthquake, it is localized neither in space nor in time, for all practical purposes. Humanity has started a planetary process of worldwide change, of ongoing, accelerating and often unpredictable climate change. Unpredictability will impede adaptation.

Examining proposed adaptations shows how futile adaptation can be to a changing climate. For example, agriculturalists argue that we must and can come up with drought resistant crops. But there is a limit to just how drought resistant our food crops can become to the ever more severe and pervasive droughts and floods predicted to result from climate change. We will need to design ever more resistant food crops to both droughts and floods -- is that really possible? How about salt resistance as irrigation waters become more saline from rising sea levels? Simultaneously, can we continue increasing production to feed ever increasing numbers of humans?

In another example, many coral biologists predict the extinction of coral reefs, a major human food source in some tropical areas, by mid-century due to climate change. This is leading some researchers to develop plans for cryogenically preserving coral polyps, which can then be replanted, presumably when the oceans become more livable. But ecologists recognize that coral ecosystems are intricate webs of life. Simply replanting coral will not revive a reef, any more than a few stored pigment samples from a deteriorating Mona Lisa will allow one to recreate it, once a suitable canvas becomes available.

How shall we adapt to the predicted rise in sea levels from global warming? The prospects for coastal residents and coastal infrastructure worldwide are grim. Adaptation would be to move to higher ground or to build sea walls. The cost of doing either worldwide is unthinkable, and the practicality of the latter is questionable. Do we build walls to protect us against 2-foot or 10-foot higher seas? Although the former is more likely, both rises could possibly occur in this century if global warming continues unchecked. Imagine the economic cost of walling off the Atlantic seaboard to protect us from 10-foot higher waters! Imagine the loss of coastal ecosystems that would result!

Adaptation is a convenient and comfortable belief. Soothing the consciences of the highest emitters, it is also a temporary "feel-good" band aid for the world's poor, who will be affected the most by this ongoing change. The danger of believing in adaptation, however, is tri-fold: 1) it lures people into a false sense of complacency, weakening the urgency needed to solve climate change quickly enough so as to forestall an avalanche of catastrophic climatic effects; 2) it fosters a false sense of what climate change is and how it can be solved; 3) it can divert needed time and money from mitigating climate change. As it is, this danger is increasing. According to a recent PEW poll, within the past six months the percentage of US citizens who think there is solid evidence that the earth is warming because of human activity has declined from 47% to 36%.

Some forms of adaptation are also humane goals that we should be striving for anyway: we should continue to protect people from tropical diseases, and help increase sanitation in developing nations. We should learn to grow crops with less water, and grow food nearer to consumers. But adaptation should not become a slippery slope that increasingly diverts resources from mitigating climate change. A city would do well, for example, to use funds to transfer to renewable clean energy, rather than build an ultimately ineffective sea wall.

Nature cannot be negotiated, and the developing scale and breadth of climate change will not yield to adaptation. Nor is nature affected by polls. The only thing that will make a physical planetary difference and truly prevent the suffering that will accompany global warming is decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, and this is where most of our efforts and resources must be focused.

As Fox News, the Obama administration and Jon Stewart participate in distracting media wars, the real news is that we continue to burn fossil fuels, and our planet continues to undergo important and ominous climate change.

Valerie Jarrett Bungles Fox News Bias Question

2009-10-30T16:09:53Z

One of the things that's getting little discussion from Jon Stewart's penetrating take-down of Fox News yesterday night, is the way in which White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, when asked to compare Fox News to MSNBC, basically fumbled the exchange.

Interviewer: Do you think FOX News is biased?

Valerie Jarrett: Well of course they're biased, of course they are...

Interviewer: Do you also think MSNBC is biased?

Jarrett: Well, you know what, this is, this is the thing, I don't want, actually, I don't want to just generalize all FOX is biased, or another station is biased...

But that's silly! Valerie Jarrett definitely wants to generalize about the biases of Fox. And why not? As Stewart points out, "Just say of course MSNBC is biased, but they agree with us! So we're not fighting with them!"

Of course, that's a bit of an oversimplification. Joe Scarborough is a former GOP Congressman-turned-MSNBC host who frequently objects to the Obama administration. Dylan Ratigan, formerly of CNBC, frequently objects to the Obama administration and Democrats for their failures to ameliorate the ills of the financial markets. Ed Schultz is a liberal firebrand who frequently calls out the Obama administration for abandoning the Democratic party base. Rachel Maddow is a beloved figure in liberal circles, yet here she is, criticizing the Obama administration on detainee policy. Here she is again, criticizing the Obama administration on how they handled the financial crisis.

All of which demonstrates a distinction between MSNBC and Fox that Mickey Kaus got exactly right when this "war on Fox" first bloomed (emphasis from the original):

I guess there are two distinct axes on which you can judge press organizations--actually, there are many more than two (see below), but two are important here: 1) Neutrality--Are they attempting to be "objective," trying to serve the "public interest" in some balanced way, or are they ideologically (or otherwise) driven in a way that inevitably colors their coverage--what topics they pick, what 'experts' they rely on, etc. 2) Independence--Whether they are biased or generally neutral, can somebody--a political party, a Mafia family, a government-- tell them what to do?

I think it's pretty clear MSNBC and the NYT and Breitbart.tv are not neutral. They all have an agenda and they pursue it. But they are independent. The Obama White House can't tell Bill Keller what to do. They can't tell Keith Olbermann what to do. (They can suck up to him, and it will probably work, but that's a different issue.) Breitbart is for sure independent--I can't see anyone telling him what to do.

I think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn't bother me) but it's also not independent (which does). This isn't because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch--moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It's because it's run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently--the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said "We don't want so much coverage of X" it's extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox. A ... suggestive example of Fox's loyalty is the debate on immigration, in which Ailes' network initially seemed to try valiantly--against the beliefs of most of its audience--to push the Bush White House line in favor of "comprehensive" legalization (while brushing aside its viewers' views).

Now, I have to imagine that Kaus views Stewart's segment from last night as a rather elegant demonstration of his point -- party hack talking points are absorbed by Fox and opined upon. Those opinions become reported news. The reported news is re-advanced by the opinion meisters as confirmation of the validity of their opinions. The reheated opinions attract more newsy attention. Then they throw a Tea Party, and voila, the talking point is out in the world, from the GOP's brain to the lips of protesters, laundered and amplified by Fox's Party-cle accelerator. Now, if they wanted to, MSNBC could make a series of editorial decisions and build a set of mechanisms to mimic this sort of thing, but as it stands right now, nothing of this kind is happening there.

Going forward, whenever Valerie Jarrett is asked what makes Fox different from MSNBC, she can simply say, "What Jon Stewart said." Stewart has basically done her a solid (in a strictly non-neutral but independent way) by pointing out what he pointed out. (And The Daily Show again demonstrates their dizzying capacity to produce razor-sharp, well-researched critiques. REAL TALK: their capability in this regard far exceeds the White House's own.) But let's face it, Jarrett should have had a clear and concise answer at the ready. How could the question, comparing Fox to MSNBC not have been anticipated from Jump Street? All of this basically reiterates to me that the White House decided to do battle with Fox without much of an idea about what they were going to do once they let slip the dogs of war.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Jon Stewart Takes On War Between Obama White House & Fox News (VIDEO)

2009-10-30T09:55:03Z

Jon Stewart devoted half his show last night to the Fox News/Obama "war" sparked either by White House Communication Director Anita Dunn or the cable network's constant attacks on the president, depending on how you see it. The former accused Fox of acting on behalf of the Republican party, the latter accused the president of being Stalin. Apples and oranges.

Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente struck back at the White House after Dunn's remark saying, "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming. It seems self-serving on their part." (Full disclosure: I worked for Clemente at ABC News.) Fox went on to define its news hours as 9am-4pm & 6-8pm, parameters which exclude Cavuto, O'Reilly, Fox & Friends crew, Glenn Beck, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity from the news category and leave a bunch of people you've never heard of.

Stewart not only skewered Fox for this defense and editorializing during their designated news hours, but also took on the Obama administration for saying they are speaking "truth to power" by fighting with Fox. Stewart pointed out that they are in fact the power: "It's your job to f*ck up power, it's Fox's job to f*ck up truth."

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

For Fox Sake!

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Jon Stewart Takes On Media, Lieberman Over Public Option (VIDEO)

2009-10-29T08:44:24Z

After much debate and speculation, after every cable news network declared it dead one point or another, Senator Harry Reid announced that a public option would be included in the Senate health care reform bill, allowing millions of Americans to purchase government-run insurance.

Despite the fact that support for a public option is at an all time high with nearly half of the country in favor of it, cable news reporters and politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to say that the Senate has caved to the "left wing" by including the public option. Joe Lieberman is so disgusted by the idea that he said he will join the Republicans if they filibuster the bill, denying the Dems the 60-vote super majority needed to quash a filibuster.

Jon Stewart took on both the media and Senator Lieberman last night saying, "You know what's worse than being sick and not having health insurance? Having to sit through the Lieberman filibuster that kept it from you."

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Public Option Limited

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

'Daily Show' Investigates Bush's Motivational Speaking Career (VIDEO)

2009-10-28T08:44:44Z

Do you need some motivation to get your career on track? George W. Bush can help! He can tell you all the ways he worked his way up from nothing to attend the finest universities and go on to become commander-in-chief. Oh, that's not true you say? He grew up in a powerful and connected family with deep pockets? Well, might as well go see him speak anyway as it will only cost you $19, and that's for your entire office.

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

George W. Bush Hits the Lecture Circuit

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!