Quantcast

Video: Jon Stewart Eviscerates Fox News On Fox News

201106_stweartfox.jpg

Jon Stewart took Thursday night off from The Daily Show for "mental health," conveniently missing covering the resignation of Anthony Weiner, but he made up for his absence yesterday. On Sunday morning Stewart sat down for a discussion of "media bias" and Stewart's role as "a comedian first" on the certainly unbiased Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Fun times!

To get things going, Stewart defended the non-Fox media's biases compared to Fox's clear conservative bent. The Times, for instance, has a bias "towards sensationalism and laziness," he says. "I wouldn't say its towards a liberal agenda. It's light fluff so it's absolutely within the wheelhouse. If your suggestion is that they're restlessly partisan, then why haven't they gone and backed away from Weiner? They jumped into the Weiner pool with such delight and such relish."

And that was just the opening shots. Later on, when Wallace and Stewart debate the level of "political commentary" in a recent Daily Show clip comparing a Sarah Palin video and herpes commercials. "You're insane," Stewart says when Wallace calls the bit clear political commentary. "Here's the difference between you and I. I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, there's no question about that. But the thing that you will never understand...is that Hollywood, yeah, they're liberal, but that's not their primary motivating force. I'm not an activist. I am a comedian. And my comedy is informed by ideology, there is no question. But I am not an ideologue."

When Wallace latched onto Stewart's routine of explaining himself as being only a comedian, Stewart lashed back. "I said I'm a comedian first, I never said I'm only a comedian. Being a comedian is much harder than what you do. Being a comedian I put material though a process, a comedic process."

The whole debate is actually pretty interesting, and really gets going further in when Stewart seems genuinely angry with Wallace over the way Fox handles actual news. "The embarrassment is that I'm given credibility in this world because of the disappointment that the public has in what the news media does," he said. "Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll."

You can watch the whole video here:

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.
By Garth Johnston in on June 20, 2011 8:54 AM

Comments [rss]

  • slowmodem
    Once again conservatives rely on kindergarten ethics. As you may have to tell a 5 year old, just because MSNBC does it - doesn't make it right.
  • My question: why is Jon Stewart sucking Chris Wallace's 2in. red state dick? He's as bad as the rest at FOX and Stewart seems not to want to take him, no pun intended, head-on? One of his more lame interviews- i'm disappointed.
  • Matt Midgette
    is it me or did the interview start off with the Capital in the background and end with storm clouds?
  • Great interview and it's nice to see Jon's real opinion come out a few times. Still - I really don't understand why people confuse political satire with news. To me it's a non-issue. Stewart does political satire - I'm sure he'd agree. Fox does not - they would never claim to (cnn/abc/nytimes etc as well). Both mediums have existed for a long time and they cross paths often but they are just plain different. Think court jester vs town crier. Different purposes, both potentially with bias and it's up to the viewer to interpret it.
  • starrygordon
    But a lot of the 'news' as purveyed by the boss media is a parody of what the news would be if it were actually informative.  So you could see it all as a kind of dumb, ugly satire.
  • SpaceChief
    Um - the author musta missed that Colbert also missed Thursday night - not because of the Weiner deal - no - they were traveling to the west coast for the Daytime Emmy show - they were nominated for the 'Rally 4 Sanity'. It was right there - under the quip you published. You just gave more weight to JS argument about sensationalist media...
  • Peter_Schulte
    In Germany we had a lot of experience with propaganda. With that in mind, and watching FOX News, our impression is: Is it Comedy or just another North Korean Network? And after a few seconds we can answer ourselves: No, it´s not a North Korean Network. Fox News is less trustable.
  • Whenever I'm trying to have an honest discussion with someone, with the hopes of understanding them or their viewpoint more clearly, I ask them questions and then refrain from constantly cutting them off mid-answer with more weasel-worded shit.  Actually listening to someone's answers to your questions can be quite illuminating, kids.

    I hate that smug pundit prick "interview" style so damned much.
  • Wallace is smug and annoying.
  • JS on points 9-1. Next time it might be KO.
  • To all those attempting to explain a joke to the wounded troll who calls himself "Jake Taylor," give it up. He obviously has no sense of humor and needs to nurse some kind of weird persecution complex.
  • The NYT is sooo establishment. Just look at their hatchet job on Julian Assange. They've knowingly employed CIA staff to write for the "national interest" and provide 'real world' cover for the agents.
  • PicoPhreako69
    Not to steal any of Mr. Stewart's thunder, but,..... this wasn't a fair fight to begin with.
    Rock on, John.   \m/   \m/
  • very good interview! smiles all around. agree to disagree. chris wallace rocks!
  • God bless you John Stewart. L'chaim!
  • I wish DISQUS had a "block" feature.

    Except for a handful of loud, squeeky wheels, I thoroughly enjoy Gothamist comment threads.
  • of course you do: unintelligent people choose CENSORSHIP.

    every time.
  • JRod5417
    Anytime a "legitimate" news person calls out a comedian for displaying liberal bias, the comedian wins the argument by default. 'Nuff said.
  • Not if the comedian argues like a political pundit, showing that he think he's more than a comedian.
  • TheOtherBob
    "If."
  • longacre
    Jon Stewart would have run out of material 9 years ago if not for Fox News.
  • But he doesn't just mock FOX.

    Every single news outlet is corrupt / incompetent.
    Every single politician is corrupt / incompetent.
  • billy789
    Democracy Now.
  • edgie168
    What the fuck is some hick from Shit Dakota commenting on Gothamist? That's the real pressing question here.
  • Yeah!  You stupid S*** Dakota f***ng mutha f***a.  Yeah!  Only us people from wherever the f*** we're from deserve to speak, because we're so f***ing intelligent with what we say.
  • edgie168
    Is that what your education system teaches over there? Utilizing asterisks in lieu of letters?
  • I bet you woke up this morning and said, "Hmmm...I think I'm going to sling insults at people on some blog today.  That'll make me feel like a real man (or woman -- who knows?)."
  • YOU, right wing nutjob Chad Lamb (who STILL thinks Saddam's billions paid for the Iraq War --- not our taxdollars --- cuz that's what FOX and the right wing told him!) MENTIONED "PAROLE OFFICER" as a childish insult above.

    GO LOOK.
  • edgie168
    YOU GOT ME THERE, DETECTIVE.

    EVERYBODY: STAND BACK! BATMAN'S ON THE CASE.

    NANANANANANANANANANANA BATMAAAAN NANANANANANANANANANANA
  • Says the man who comes out throwing insults instead of arguing anything pertaining to the article above.
  • Chad, why did you bring up parole officers?

    See? Typical two-faced right winger.

    Now, YOUR argument is bogus from the get-go: we LIBERALS say the "left wing" press is almost as corrupt as the right wing press. You don't disprove us by citing "left wing" corporate corruption.
  • edgie168
    GOTHAMIST IS CLEARLY THE BASTION OF INTELLIGENT INTERNET DEBATES OH WHAT HAVE WE DONE HERE
  • Why don't you go check in with your parole officer, edgie168, and then come back and "discuss" some more?
  • hotstepper
    on what basis would you bring up a parole officer? is this the intelligence you're speaking about?
  • You're defending the guy who uses profanity in his comment?  That's intelligent to you? 
  • hotstepper
    not much going on in SD today, huh? you're weak ass defense of the Tea Party and Fox News isn't going to make a dent, pal. their agenda is well known to anyone who's primary source of information isn't a TV.

    is trolling in the liberal trenches really the best way you could find to spend your day?
  • edgie168
    Replace "parole officer" with "my mom" and there you go!
  • Oh no, you didn't!  A "mom" joke, because you're so original.  Clearly neither you nor hotstepper have anything substantive to add to the conversation, so you go back to old school bullying.  Read a book sometime and come back when you can speak "big kid" words.
  • edgie168
    OHNOES U R SOOOO MUCH SMARTER THAN MEEH WIF UR FUNEE RETORTS LOL
  • kevd
    Yeah,  Go back to Pierre-ist ya jerks!
  • Jon didn't take a mental health day, he was hosting Bob Woodruff's Stand up for Heroes event in DC that night. It was a benefit for wounded soldiers.
  • jambolino
    if you tune in to fox news or cnn or msnbc or jon stewart to get your news stories... you know what you are getting in to... grandstanding OpEd pieces.


    reuters or AP news. hard news is news .. soft news is almost always garbage... and im not absolving the journalists AP or Reuters use.. just saying that it focuses more on the story than their opinions of the story.
  • Um, even ex-CIA have admitted they have agents all over AP and REUTERS. Both of these "news outlets" are political machines whose main intent is to manipulate public opinion.

    If this were 1939, you'd all mock me as a "conspiracist" for saying the Nazis want to kill off all jews.
  • jambolino
    um, i clearly said that even AP and Reuters have their own issues...

    but fox, cnn, and stewart give their opinions on stories that AP and Reuters usually break. so, which is worse. reading news that might be BS. or getting someones opinion on news that might be BS.
  • I think debating stories that BEGAN as lies is a dangerous path.

    it gives gravitas to the ORIGINAL lies, which propagates them further.
  • jambolino
    id still rather get my news from reuters or AP and draw my own conclusions on why and how they break stories... than tuning in to the Daily Show or Fox News or Cnn, etc to see whats happening around the world... to each their own.
  • pazzo83
    JS used rubric correctly.
  • virgilstarkwell
    good thing you're choosing not to go into a million examples, as your first example isn't making much sense. you wrote:

    On Saturday’s Good Morning America, reporter Mike Von Fremd downplayed the violence of protesters against Arizona’s new immigration law. He spun, “Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested.”

    ok, so let's break this down: you believe that saying that 'riot police were called in' and reporting that, although 'most were peaceful... a handful threw bottles and were arrested' is somehow downplaying the violence. besides from your desire to make this true, how is it so? show me where he says 'riot police were called in to serve cookies and hot chocolate'.

    i didn't watch the news this weekend so please enlighten me - describe the acts of violence that went unreported by abc.

    also, with regard to this nugget of brilliance:

    Yet, ABC derided March’s Tea Party rallies as “very ugly,” despite the fact that there were no arrests.

    does there need to be arrests for something to be 'very ugly'? again, i have no idea what happened at this rally but if, for example, they were all standing around shouting 'obama is a n****r', i would classify that as ugly... wouldn't you?
  • I can give you more examples, if you'd like.  :)
  • TheOtherBob
    Sure you could -- since you're just parroting Glenn Beck.  (Seriously...Googled it, it was just about the first hit.  Come on, man.  If that's where you get your facts...you haven't gotten any.)
  • you can't reason with right wing kooks.

    these people LITERALLY say they LITERALLY believe in a virgin birth!

    right wingers hit 100% of definitions of mentally insane.
  • Okay, let's break this down.  This is how sneaky the media can be.  They start out with truth:  "Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital."  Of course, they have to say this because it's a big point to the story that they have to report.  Then they throw in their quick subtle opinion, "Most were peaceful."  Maybe that's true, but why did that have to be mentioned unless the media was wanting to emphasize that most of those protesting against the law are "peaceful."  Sure, you say, it needs to be made a point that most were peaceful, but I'll touch on that later.  Next they say, "A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested."  Again they have to report the truth that there was violence and police arrested the offenders.  But notice again "a handful"--they have to throw in that quick jab that it was only a few.  Don't judge the rest by the "microscopically, teeny-tiny" few.

    In contrast, they reported on the Tea Party rally as "very ugly," NEVER MENTIONING ONCE that "most were peaceful."  In fact, World News host David Muir spun it this way, "Protesters against the [health care] plan gathered on the streets of the capital where late today we learned words shouted turned very ugly, reports of racial and homophobic slurs, one protester actually spitting on a Congressman."

    You can say that the Tea Party rally was worse than the immigration protest rally, but if you look at the media's own footage of both events, it is dramatically clear how much more hostile the latter was than the former.  Of course, it's all in how the news story is spun.
  • TheOtherBob
    How many threw bottles and were arrested?  Four.  

    I've always thought a "handful of people" was less than five.  So is calling this a "handful" a liberal plot?  Or is four less than five?  Oh, we could parse the meaning of the word "handful" -- maybe you want to argue that it's as many people as would fit in your hand (zero).  But I think it's a stretch to see "bias" in considering "four" a "handful."

    And, of course, it's four out of 2,000 people.  So you're proposing that by concentrating on 4 out of 2,000 people, we would be AVOIDING bias?  You've got it exactly backwards -- a report that focused on only the 4 idiots and ignored the other 1,996 people would be biased, not the other way around.

    This was, if anything, a story biased slightly towards the sensationalist -- and yet, in your mind, is biased the other way.  That's why I say that this is the sort of thinking that can only come out of a victim mentality -- only a victim could see bias against him in a story biased for him.

    In fact, think about this for a second.  Why DID the media think it was important to note that the immigrant activists were peaceful?  Well, you know, those Latinos...

    And why wasn't it worth pointing out that the Tea Party protests were peaceful?  Because...come on, we've seen those guys.  They ain't gonna do much damage in that lawn chair.  Of course it was "peaceful" -- they may talk a lot of ugly nonsense, but violent revolution takes more than a racist sign and a cooler full of Sprite, and we all know they don't have it in them.
  • virgilstarkwell
    "and yet tell me why the proponents of gay marriage and gay rights, legalized marijuana, and illegal immigrant rights, to name just a few of the leading issues, get such coverage and sympathy. "

    they get coverage because, as jon says, they're sensational and they sell. but please describe this 'sympathy' they get....
  • I knew someone would argue that it's because they're sensational issues.  If it was just sensationalism, then the media would cover both sides of that issue equally, BUT THEY DO NOT.  I won't go into a million examples but here's one: 

    On Saturday’s Good Morning America, reporter Mike Von Fremd downplayed the violence of protesters against Arizona’s new immigration law. He spun, “Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested.” Yet, ABC derided March’s Tea Party rallies as “very ugly,” despite the fact that there were no arrests.

    It's hard to see the bias sometimes, especially when you're a liberal, because it can be subtle and deceptive.  It's like being a smoker and not being able to tell that your clothes smell like smoke.  Some non-smoker comes in and says, "Wow, where's that smoke coming from?"  Some in the media help out, though, and are blunt.  When asked about whether the NY Times was a liberal newspaper, Daniel Okrent, its public editor, commented, “Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
  • TheOtherBob
    There were no arrests, but the Tea Party rallies were "very ugly."  Think of every name in the book...you heard it out there.  It was all totally legal -- it's perfectly legal to say things that are well beyond even the coarsest boundaries of politics.  But it was very ugly.

    It's funny what you say about bias, because I sort of think that when you imagine yourself a victim, of any stripe -- and "conservatives" do imagine themselves victims A LOT -- it's remarkably easy to see bias wherever you look, whether it's there or not.  

    Lost your job?  Fuckin' liberal boss.  See something on the news that contradicts your beliefs?  Fuckin' liberal media.  Your dog pooped on the rug?  Fuckin' liberal dog.  It's all bias -- it has to be.  But, no, it's not.  You just should have let him out sooner.
  • Steve Sabol
    "Very ugly" was actually meant to describe the physical appearance of the demonstrators. That's not bias, that's "eyes".

    That's also comedy, not commentary.
  • Ha!  :)
  • Thank you for including the segment between Wallace and Stewart in its entirety, something I couldn't find on other sites.  I don't agree with the article's take on the video.  I think the segment reveals Stewart's slightly misguided beliefs.  He believes all he does is comedy, when in reality, even if he isn't intending to do it purposely (which I'm not sure about), his political commentary has a much deeper impact on the national conversation than humor.  I know he's an intelligent man and must recognize that.  He denies that he is anything like Fox News in his commentary, but I would find it hard to swallow if he said he attacked liberal players and the liberal agenda as often and with as much ferocity as he does to the conservative side.  Also, he seems slightly oblivious to liberal bias in the mainstream media, relabeling it as mere "sensationalism and laziness."  He admits that most of the mainstream media is liberal but quaintly dismisses the impact their personal biases might have on their reporting.  In fact, Wallace could have spent hours showing Stewart clips of liberal framing and inadequate context to non-sensational news events (read Bernie Goldberg's great insider testimony of this in his book "Bias:  A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News").  Stewart believes the mainstream media is not activist, and yet tell me why the proponents of gay marriage and gay rights, legalized marijuana, and illegal immigrant rights, to name just a few of the leading issues, get such coverage and sympathy.  Either Stewart is in serious denial or he is covering up what liberals are doing.
  • TheOtherBob
    Respectfully, you didn't understand anything he said -- you should go back and watch it again.
  • TRUTH IS ACTIVIST.

    If media tells the truth (and they usually don't), they MUST be activist.

    Just like how the right wing is mostly uneducated, as are religious nuts.
  • zombiebob
    Stewart must be super-human, because he keeps his cool while talking to a sneaky little weasle
  • Wow, tell us how you really feel about Chris Wallace.
  • Jon is doing exactly what he criticizes Fox for doing. But somehow because he mixes in some jokes, his own biases are sanctified and made invisible.
  • So you agree that Fox News is equal to a comedy program?
  • I put Jon in the same league as Bech and Rush.  They market hate and ignorance and mis-information.
  • TheOtherBob
    You know who else liked false equivalences?  Hitler.

    (Sorry, I just had to -- it was too easy.)
  • Did not take long to get to Goodwin's law did it?

    (Sorry, I had to -- It was too easy)
  • TheOtherBob
    You know who else liked *Godwin's* law?

    Yeah.  Hitler.
  • You keep going for Godwin's law.

    Anyone that does not put Stewart in the same line of Rush (who also has claimed to be comedy many times) and Beck is a blind follower.  I have too many friends that take what Stewart says as gospel and not comedy.
  • TheOtherBob
    You don't even realize when someone is making fun of you, do you?
  • xXxMExXx
    At least Jon admitted that he is a comic and not a news source. He is like a political Howard Stern; yet I hear fools talk about his show like it's a legitimate source to shape political opinions from.
  • ktinnyc
    Yes, John Stewart is honest enought to state he is a not news source. Too bad Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck do not have the decency to do the same.
  • WetButt
    I find Stewart funny but I agree with the opinion that he likes to get political when it suits him but then retreats behind his "we're just a comedy show!" bit
  • TheOtherBob
    As he politely explained, he's never claimed to be "just a comedy show."  There's politics involved -- it's a political comedy show.  And there's nothing wrong with pointing out the ridiculousness in media and politics through comedy.

    But it IS a comedy show.  And yet, lots of critics like to say things like "he doesn't present the whole picture!!!" or "he didn't devote enough time to _____" or "he didn't take this issue seriously enough."  Well no shit, Sherlock -- the "whole picture" isn't funny, he devotes time to jokes that actually work, and if he started taking stuff seriously he'd have totally missed the goddamned point.

    There are fair criticisms of his show as well, sure -- and to those I've been impressed by Stewart's willingness to address the arguments directly.  But a lot of criticism basically wants to intentionally misunderstand the show -- to ignore the fact that it's comedy in order to make some sort of ideological point.  And the proper response to that is "it's comedy, you jackass."

    For example, in the clip Wallace tried to pretend that Stewart had compared Palin to herpes.  But anyone with a sense of humor got that Palin's campaign had made a really silly commercial, and got made fun of for it.  Wallace, who was born without any humor, saw that and said "why is this news man making fun of a commercial?  It must be a partisan attack!"  And the answer is "it's comedy, you humorless twit."

    It's not "just" comedy.  But it is comedy.
  • No. Even THE ONION can just make absurd jokes and be more politically cogent than the Times or Fox, because those outlets are not in the business of getting to the heart of the matter, or mocking stupidity.
  • sketto
    In the internet age where we have easy access to media from around the world, those who claim "liberal bias" are more accurately claiming "I have no understanding of how to gain information other than turning on my TV."

    If the bulk of the news you get is excessively liberal or conservative, it's because you want it that way.
  • Harlem Rat
    I think maybe it's once they do find the internet and alternate sources, they're appalled by what they find on television (after reaffirming their own political beliefs on the web) that they lash out at their old habits as bad and evil. They're just coming full circle, holding lion cubs in the sunset, music fading in the background. They've found...the internet!
  • No.  The point is that mocking someone who happens to be black is NOT THE SAME as mocking some one BECAUSE he is black.  Did I simplify it enough for you?
  • hotstepper
    bring the noise Jon!
  • randomtransplant
    Encore! Encore!
  • randomtransplant
    They've been calling stewart a punk kid since he was a punk kid. I think he has a point - his popularity over the years is more an indictment on foxes/NYT's failures than it is a sign of his personal success.
  • Sad to hear about how John Stewart's eyes "glazing over" when he hears about gay marriage & DADT.  A perfect portrait of how privilege works.
  • He likely glazes over it because it doesn't differentiate any of the candidates.
  • Rocknrope
    How do you mean?  What I understood from his comment was that these are issues that should not even be given clout, and that the GOP does not have a differing opinion on those two subjects, they're just used to get the base to tear up the furniture.
  • Fair enough!  I heard it more as "these guys aren't talking about jobs & war, I care about jobs & war, the rest of the stuff is peanuts."  I like your way better.
  • hotstepper
    i took it to mean that he glazes over because of the republican canned responses to those issues.
  • seattlesnow
    A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier... This is true on all fronts
  • So what does that make Fox News? Wait...what does that make Gothamist?!?!
  • whitecastlerock
    comedic process-now that's a funny one
  • Arguing politics is like videotaping yourself masturbating into a mirror.
  • Anthony Weiner, get off Gothamist!
  • jibbly
    Anthony Weiner, get off on Gothamist!

    Fixed that for you.
  • TheOtherBob
    Beats twitter.
  • virgilstarkwell
    no, acting like your above arguing politics is like videotaping yourself masturbating into a mirror.
  • Arguing about arguing politics is blowing my mind...
  • virgilstarkwell
    you're mind gets blown easily. and, if you think this is arguing, you've never been to a seder at my house.
  • Reading comments in which people are trying to sound smart, but don't know the difference between "your" and "you're," is mind-blowing.
  • virgilstarkwell
    a thousand pardons for my typo. sometimes my head moves faster than my fingers. (do i get extra credit for not writing 'then my fingers'?)
  • and didn't we all agree that attacking typos ends all debate?

    that was so 2002!
blog comments powered by Disqus
Home

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com

about

staff / advertising / contact / newsmap

newsmap

newsmap