Let me just quickly tear this to shreds so that you can try to do better next time, maybe with a little less hipocrysy on your own part and an actually valid point to make as well: 0:52 Stewart is, in fact, a comedian first. As opposed to Fox News pundits who try to sell themselves as a news program until they receive the teeny tiniest amount of judicial pressure and cling to the "we're just satire" excuse like to a security blanket. 0:57 At no point is Stewart referring to "what his duty is", only to the ideological content that he's pushing - about which he has been consistent. No "lie" here. This falls flat. 2:03 You do realize you're equating a single frame you had to freeze to get that facial expression to Tucker's *permanent* look of a puritan farmer learning of crypto currency, right? Right? 3:13 He acknowledged that there is a distinction between a democratic nation harbouring weapons of mass destruction on the one hand and using them on the other. Is he wrong at all? Who cares, he may as well have agreed that Poland started WWII amirite? 4:13 Yeah, that simple statement of fact really doesn't transition well into uproar from the audience, nor with somehow being "such a dick". It's so obvious, you must have noticed that too, right? 4:57 So far the only time your edit actually somewhat fits the point you were going for with this whole thing. Agreed, when it's implied that beginning to interfere with the fabric of other sovereign nations is just some kind of natural political step in the development of any powerful country, then that's really not the time to make a joke that actually validates this idea. 5:28 Yeah see, even you noticed that Stewart thanking H. Clinton for a bill that he himself was pushing for adamantly is just straightforward consistency and principle on his part, so you had to throw in random clips of unrelated topics hoping that would make it look like Stewart was somehow supportive of Clinton's Middle East agenda, otherwise it wouldn't fit the tone of your whole edit. Too hamfisted to even be called a "nice" try. That was just disappointing. Overall, I couldn't think of a better way to sum up your effort with this edit than the awkward cut to black mid-sentence at the end, because you knew that absolutely nothing added up anymore at that point.
Enjoyed reading your post! I think it’s really cool that you took the time to go through the entire video and write out your arguments for each point that you disagreed with, and it’s valuable to hear someone else’s perspective on it. I’d like to respond to each point you made, so forgive me if this post is lengthy. I agree with your first point about the 0:52 time stamp. I think that media outlets (like your example of Fox) that try to sell themselves as a news program, when they exist solely as a propaganda machine for whatever masters they serve, are way worse than what Jon does. Truly, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of this segment and being critical of his interview with Condi and Hillary. Jon’s body of work is quite robust, and this segment along with the interview I’m critiquing in the video that he did in 2022 makes up a very small percentage of his resume, of which I am a great admirer. Having said that, the part I disagree with you on is that I personally don’t think that he’s a comedian first. I think that he’s a political commentator whose comedy is a byproduct of the points he’s making. If you disagree on this, I totally get where you’re coming from…to me it’s just a chicken or the egg argument. The part of this time stamp that I was ribbing him for was that he only ever says he’s a comedian first when someone’s pushing back against him as “a security blanket” (like you used in your Fox example). That’s not to say Jon is Fox or anything, I’m just saying that in my mind, the man stands for so much more than just “comedy.” I wish he would stand up for his work instead of brushing off what he does as “I’m just a comedian,” he’s so much more than that to a lot of people. I agree with your second point about the 0:57 time stamp. I think that he has consistently tried to push an anti-corruption, anti-lack-of-authenticity, and anti-contrivance agenda throughout his entire body of work. Where I think you might be missing the intent of this video is that it is a criticism of the Condi and Hillary interview, and pointing out the hypocrisy of calling out Tucker for pulling punches in his Putin interview, when he himself pulled many punches in his Hillary and Condi interview back in 2022. This video isn’t a critique of Stewart’s entire career, it’s a critique of one very specific example to point out the hypocrisy of this most recent segment. 2:03 Haha your description of Tucker’s face is awesome 😆, you should do political commentary on your youtube channel! I bet you’d be very good at it, I’d definitely watch 😄. I agree, Tucker makes funnier faces than Jon, and more often too. I guess what I was going for here is that Jon is so good at dismantling people with his intellect, and I’d rather see that than hearing him just make fun of people’s faces at a specific freeze frame. Jon’s clever wit has so much more potential than simply: “look at how stupid this face is after I edited it to make it look really stupid.” Maybe I’m just being overly critical here, but idk…I just want him to be the best he can be. 3:13 I had a massive problem with this part of the interview for two reasons. We used weapons of mass destruction on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to end WWII, so already this is clearly inaccurate. What really upset me about this was that this is the second time Jon has bowed down to power and downplayed this part of our nation’s history. In 2009 Jon had the courage to call out our use of the atomic bomb to end World War II. He went as far as to suggest that President Truman was a war criminal for doing so: “I think if you dropped an atomic bomb fifteen miles off shore and said, ‘The next one’s coming and hitting you,’ then I would think it’s okay. To drop it on a city, and kill a hundred thousand people. Yeah, I think that’s criminal.” This was a profound statement and an incredible moment of speaking truth to power...unfortunately he went on to immediately walk back his statement for motivations that I can’t personally speak to. In the 2022 interview, he didn’t just walk back his original sentiments…he pretended that it never happened altogether by agreeing that democratic countries “don’t use weapons of mass destruction.” It was both shocking and very disappointing. 4:13 Seemed kinda dickish to me, but sure I guess I could’ve made the laughter quieter during the editing process? 5:28 I think you may have missed the point of what I was trying to say with this part, and that’s on me…this was definitely the most challenging part of creating the narrative structure of the satire, and the fact that you misinterpreted it means that I could’ve done a better job of getting my point across. So in this part of the editing, I’m saying that Jon is indirectly supporting the U.S. imperialist agenda (that caused the aftermath of the very bill he was pushing for) by conducting this interview in the way in which he did…indirectly supporting it, not directly supporting it. To my eyes (and this may or may not be true), it appears he’s having this very disingenuous interview with softball questions and very little pushback as sort of an under the table agreement in exchange for Hillary’s support of Jon’s admirable and humanitarian advocacy for the first responders on 9/11. If this was in fact the case (which again, we can’t say for sure…it just appears that way to me), then this is a tactical error in my opinion. There’s no mistaking that the attacks on 9/11 were unforgivable act, but it can be argued that these attacks were retaliation for troubling aspects of our foreign policy including: -our military presence in the middle east -our sanctions against Iraq that caused severe malnutrition and death among innocent Iraqi civilians -our support for authoritarian regimes in the middle east just to secure our own interests in terms of access to oil even though these regimes repeatedly suppress political dissent and violate human rights -and using the mujahideen to fight a proxy war with the soviet union using Afghanistan as the battleground. Making a deal with a politician who not only unapologetically supports the kind of foreign policy that potentially caused the events leading to the health issues of many brave men and women who were the first responders during the attack, but a politician that has actively engaged in this kind of foreign policy herself by supporting the invasion of Iraq and aiding in turning Libya into a failed state, just to name a few examples, does not seem to me to be a valid solution, nor does it address the real issue behind all of this which is our foreign policy and the military industrial complex. Hopefully that clears up what I meant with this sequence. Again, I just want to thank you for sharing your perspective. I appreciated hearing your side, and I hope that after rationalizing my position, you can begin to understand where I’m coming from as well. Good vibes friend :)
@@originalpunkSxEAssuming your reading speed is equivalent to the average adult non-fiction reading speed of 238 wpm, the comment would have actually only saved you 5:43 of your life because you would have spent approximately 1:45 reading the comment attempting to summarize the video. Then again since the comment was fiction, you might be right if the average adult fiction reading speed is considerably higher 😂
And yet. I´m not loosing lunch whilst watching Stewart. Sometimes I really tried to endure Carlson for a few minutes, but he makes me sick to my stomach - every time.
Oh … I thought this was an actual bit Stewart was doing, but was like “he’s not really calling himself out on anything. I don’t get what the angle is.” Now i get it - some hack was putting clips over the actual ones
Wow nice job trying and failing to compare Jon Stewart to someone like Tucker Carlson. Jon is a comedian first and he doesn't back away from that. Meanwhile Tucker pretends to be a so called journalist, and it was only because of a court Fox had to admit he's not a journalist. It's pretty sad how you take clips of him out of context.
@@DeuteromisWow you watched the clips, that’s so great! Now all you need to do next is craft an argument for why you think they were taken out of context, and you’ll be well on your way to having your very own grown up discussion 😊
@@TitanicSub It's not hard at all kid to show you took them out of context. You're literally trying to paint Jon Stewart as the same as Tucker Carlson when anyone with actual intelligence knows they aren't. Several people already pointed it out, but well you gotta double down on your stupidity. You gotta spin this narrative somehow. 🤡
Ha. Jon Stewart isn't a journalist. He's a comedian. Tucker Carlson ...he's a so called journalist. So tucks isn't a journalist either....not just like...but like Jon Stewart. So....giving the same treatment to 2 non journalists. What's the problem then?
Nicely done, you’re nearly halfway there! Now all you need to do next is rationalize your opinion, and you’ll have taken your first step into having your very own grown up conversation with someone you disagree with 😊. See?It’s not so scary! Baby steps people 👏😄
Tucker tried and failed to give Putin Satisfaction live on TV, a lot like Trump in Helsinki when he disappeared for several hours with Putin. Stewart makes fun of everyone but mainly hypocrites so if you can't take it don't be one.
@@Deuteromis I notice no reply to your question, guess @Titanicsub doesn't want to show his hand of either pushing a narrative I can only speculate is, One of gaining likes/clicks/comments, Two dividing people by trying to crap on Jon or the show or Three, trying to paint that the world would be greener if the US just sat back in North America and let dictators take over the world. His narrative clearly isn't Jon and the Daily Show crew are trying to ruin or control the world as the clickbait tile and video got me here. You can tell by reading his replies and sad part is he couldn't even take the effort to produce his own clip, just edit the work the Daily Show Crew did and change the PIP part.
First and foremost, I have my own reservations about Jon Stewart's work, but labeling him a propagandist is simply an easy out. Criticizing him as unfunny or scrutinizing his approach for not encouraging deeper thought has its merits for those in disagreement. However, to brand him a propagandist? That's an oversimplification. Surely, we can aim for a more nuanced critique.
I feel you, that's fair my dude and I can see why a lot of people have that same misinterpretation of the intent. The vibe I was going for wasn't to say "hey everyone Jon Stewart is a propagandist," it was more along the line of "hey everyone, Jon just did a segment about someone else's propaganda...remember that one time when he was pushing propaganda himself, so this segment's a little hypocritical no?" Wasn't trying to smear the dude or push Putin propaganda or whatever it is people are accusing me of lol...it was just spreading a message of people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and saying cheers, here's hoping Jon gets back to speaking truth to power like he did in his prime.
Pointing out that Jon pulled his punches in the 2022 interview with Rice and Clinton just like Tucker did in the Putin interview, so he’s criticizing Tucker for doing things that he himself recently did.
@@TitanicSub It's not anywhere close to the same, in degree or scope or scale, or voltage or amperage, or sweetness or saltiness, is the primary problem with the video. One of the many things that makes your point so hard to understand for most, like the commenter above.
Totally agree with you that the people calling it horse$#!t aren't bright enough to look at a thumbnail and title and realize it's not actually an episode of the daily show lol
I always thought of him as a political commentator first, and that his comedy was just a byproduct of when he makes good points. Your opinion is valid though, why do you feel that he is a comedian first rather than a political commentator first?
@@TitanicSub He is a comedian first because that's how he got his start... doing comedy gigs and eventually landing bit roles in comedy movies. He was literally a comedian first. Also, he has stated numerous times that The Daily Show is and always was satire. It's on COMEDY CENTRAL. The reason many people confuse his show with actual political commentary is because, while it is a comedy, many of the points the show makes are valid. Many of the issues the show tackles are important. In some ways, his comedy show actually does a better job of presenting these topics to the American people than actual "news" programs.
@@originalpunkSxE Yeah man that’s fair, I like your arguments. So then just to build on your answer and so that I can better understand your point of view, do you think he deserves more leniency in moments when he adopts a journalistic approach based on your perspective that his main role is comedic satire rather than traditional journalism?
Nah just still a little salty about the Condi and Hillary interview XD, he was such a savage when it came to speaking truth to power so I'm pulling for him to turn it back around.
I like jon Stewart. Know there are issues with JS...but I'm not positive. His apple show was half good half crap. Him talking to the camera like daily show, was fine. Some of his one on ones were fine. The other stuff...talking to younger co workers.....no. I have a hard time connecting the hypocrisy....so thank you for pointing this out. As a fan of JS, I can still appreciate something like this done. Well done. Kudos!
If you compare two fractions, the denominators have to be equal. I think that is neither the case for the comparison of Rice/Clinton Putin, nor for the comparison of StewartCarlson, and thus for the comparison of the two interviews. So this video is completely pointless. If you could do a vice versa mash-up, that would become pretty obvious. (Sorry, I am not a native speaker, but I hope my point gets across) ps. and stopping a video to a stupid face expression is simply bad style. by that, you could catch a stupid face of every person on the planet. (not as mindblowingly stupid as Tuckers permanent "completely expressionless expression", but anyway...)
I didn't mind this video by Titanic Sub. And I'm a fan of Jon Stewart. I would tune in to The Daily Show regularly and have enjoyed Stewart's opinions on a variety of issues. But I do feel like there is some truth in what Titanic is trying to convey here. I remember the softball Obama interviews on The Daily Show. And Stewart's The Daily Show isn't necessarily there to confront his guests including politicians. However, Stewart does have a tremendous platform from which to work from and should reconsider what he thinks his job is when it comes to politcal discourse. The Obama interviews came just before the presendential election where Obama did win the vote and then another interview ocurred before his subsequent re-election. As a senator, Obama was critical of practices such as warrantless wiretaps. But as president he carried out a far more extensive assault on civil liberties than predecessor, George W. Bush. He used the Espionage Act eight times to charge patriots such as Edward Snowden who exposed crimes of the state. And he lied often, to defend the right of the security and surveillance apparatus to spy on Americans without judicial warrants. While Stewart approaches political discourse and satire seemingly from the middle, he has shown at times to lean centre left seen in interviews with Obama, Kerry, H. Clinton, and Rice. I don't see this as a comparison of Stewart to Carlson though. Titanic is just using the segment from The Daily Show where Stewart dissects Carlson's softball interview with Putin. Titanic effectively pits Stewart against himself in an edited video revealing his own hypocrisy. Additionally, I think Stewart could benefit from an examination of what he's said in the public sphere.
Appreciate you @ADSalo! I’m glad you got what I was trying to say…I was starting to think I edited in a way that was too confusing for people to understand lol. I also like your point about Jon reconsidering what he thinks his job is. I fully support his right to identify using whatever occupational pronouns he wants, but when he’s dipping his toe into a more journalistic endeavor (like the Rice and Clinton interview), he should be open to the same level of scrutiny as other practicing journalists. When it’s clear he’s doing a comedic bit, then by all means hold him to a lesser standard because it’s obviously part of a comedic bit he’s doing. That’s just my take on it, but don’t hold me to this opinion though because I’m just a comedian 😆
@@TitanicSub Here's the thing: Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. Stewart can accuse him of being a bad journalist, but the minute you have a show during the primetime block on Fox News you become a political commentator or an editorialist. Jon isn't a journalist, but he absolutely is a satirist and political commentator. As for your video: Whether you are right or wrong your point came across fairly direct IMO. Frankly you were pretty nice about Libya. There are articles pointing to slave trade happening over there in the aftermath of the fallen regime. Nobody is talking about this and it's without question one of the worst things to happen in this millennium and century.
"According to the propaganda model... if the system functions well, [the mass media] ought to have a liberal bias, or at least appear to. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound thought even more effectively. In other words, if the press is indeed adversarial and liberal and all these bad things, then how can I go beyond it?"-Noam Chomsky This video reminded me of Noam. If Jon is so liberal and adversarial, how can I go beyond him?
Love this, manufacturing consent is fascinating. It’s a bummer that the binding of thought actually works so well. I really enjoy discovering new perspectives from other people, and it’s really frustrating to experience how well the media has been able to limit the scope of debate in mainstream discourse.
I’m glad this video exists. I was thinking the same thing as I was listening to Stewart. Not that I agree/disagree everything he (or Tucker) says, but this particular segment reeked of smug hypocrisy.
Exactly! Pointing out a little hypocrisy from Jon doesn't mean you approve of Putin...I don't get why so many people are overreacting to some video on a tiny youtube channel. You gotta be willing to call out stuff on your own side every once in a while lol wtf
No, it's meant for the "I'm a comedian first" line. When he says he's a comedian first, it's strategically disingenuous; he's a political satirist and comedy is a bi-product of the points he makes. That's just one small part that introduces the rest of the video though.
The editing is good and I like that you seem to take the time to respond respectfully and thoughtfully to most comments. I expected to watch this video and be rolling my eyes the whole time or turning it off less than half way thru. I didn’t and I see some of the points you were trying make….almost. I’m glad I read your replies before I made my comment. Here’s why I don’t think this video really hits the mark. Forget apples and oranges your comparing apples to red dye number 5. You can make valid criticisms of Jon Stewart but side by siding them with anything Tucker Carlson does or says makes them lose credibility. “ here’s why Jon Stewart is a hypocrite and a dick” and the follow up to that is showing things that are mildly relatable to Tucker doesn’t work. This guys a dick because he does a few of the same things, kinda, that one of the biggest dicks in the world does all the time isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is. Anyways that’s my two cents.
Yeah man totally agree, you don’t need to explain yourself with super lengthy comments if the video’s points and intentions were clear enough for people to understand it lol so there’s definitely room for improvement on my part. Appreciate you giving it a chance and dropping a comment my dude!
Excellent. Compelling perspective. I've been a Jon Stewart fan for years, but I've recently realized how he benefits from participating in the media soap opera that he criticizes. Long ago, he commented on Colbert's fake run for office saying that Colbert got "too close" to the mania of political campaigning. Unfortunately, I think Jon might have gotten too close to the media mania. And this seems to have created some blind spots. I'd hoped you'd conclude your analogy by showing how getting wrapped up in the politico-media soap opera was the "price of freedom"---that is, the price of commercially successful satire.
are you kidding man? media literacy in america must have always been shit if you just realized that.. heres the thing, most of the people that feel like you do stopped maturing sometime 10 years ago which is why you think stewart has changed. and he has, because the he and the world arent waiting for people to catch up.
Lol yeah it's about 50/50 in terms of the ratio. I thought it might be funny but if some people don't think so, that's cool. Appreciate you giving the video a chance mate!
@@oldcaptaintwotimes True he’s not analogous to Tucker most of the time, but in this segment I felt like he was criticizing Tucker for doing a lot of the same things he did in his interview with Condi and Hillary.
Clever but the problem is there is no moral equivalency between Tucker's interview with a brutal dictator (Putin) and Jon's interview with two former secretaries of state, despite their own flaws and U.S. foreign policy flaws. Clearly you have a MAGA bias and hate Jon Stewart 🤣🤣
You're really comparing Jon Stewart interviewing 2 former secretary of states to Tucker interviewing a brutal dictator lol. I'd say you're insane since there is no major equivalency between the two. And to try to to do so shows an inherent bias or maybe you hate Jon Stewart 😆😆 I'd say both
@@MrEmilioVargas Personally, I think that pointing out some of the comparisons between the two interviews and the hypocrisy of the segment makes me the opposite of insane and biased. I think that a biased person would be unwilling to criticize something or someone they like.
this is pretty dope. jon stewart also has been putting out the most insidious shitnow that's styles as criticism of i-country, but is actually full of its lies that are snuck in under the cover of performative hostility. it's so blatant that I actuall suspect thst jon stewart has been brought back now because trevor noah probably wouldn't pr°°°itute himself deeply enough on that specific topic.
Nah, could care less tbh. Curious about why you think the clips were taken out of context though. I felt like these clips from the Rice-Clinton interview were fairly put in context, and rightly criticized. Open to hearing your side if you disagree though 👍
@@tjsho417 I felt like the interview was a journalistic endeavor, but you’re free to provide reasoning behind why you feel the interview was a comedic bit that Jon was doing.
@@tjsho417 I'm still not quite seeing how the clips are taken out of context. Just to get on the same page as one another, it feels like rather than arguing that the clips were taken out of context, you're arguing that it is unfair to criticize Jon's interview from 2022 because Jon is a comedian and not a professional journalist. Am I understanding your position correctly?
Let me just quickly tear this to shreds so that you can try to do better next time, maybe with a little less hipocrysy on your own part and an actually valid point to make as well:
0:52 Stewart is, in fact, a comedian first. As opposed to Fox News pundits who try to sell themselves as a news program until they receive the teeny tiniest amount of judicial pressure and cling to the "we're just satire" excuse like to a security blanket.
0:57 At no point is Stewart referring to "what his duty is", only to the ideological content that he's pushing - about which he has been consistent. No "lie" here. This falls flat.
2:03 You do realize you're equating a single frame you had to freeze to get that facial expression to Tucker's *permanent* look of a puritan farmer learning of crypto currency, right? Right?
3:13 He acknowledged that there is a distinction between a democratic nation harbouring weapons of mass destruction on the one hand and using them on the other. Is he wrong at all? Who cares, he may as well have agreed that Poland started WWII amirite?
4:13 Yeah, that simple statement of fact really doesn't transition well into uproar from the audience, nor with somehow being "such a dick". It's so obvious, you must have noticed that too, right?
4:57 So far the only time your edit actually somewhat fits the point you were going for with this whole thing. Agreed, when it's implied that beginning to interfere with the fabric of other sovereign nations is just some kind of natural political step in the development of any powerful country, then that's really not the time to make a joke that actually validates this idea.
5:28 Yeah see, even you noticed that Stewart thanking H. Clinton for a bill that he himself was pushing for adamantly is just straightforward consistency and principle on his part, so you had to throw in random clips of unrelated topics hoping that would make it look like Stewart was somehow supportive of Clinton's Middle East agenda, otherwise it wouldn't fit the tone of your whole edit. Too hamfisted to even be called a "nice" try. That was just disappointing.
Overall, I couldn't think of a better way to sum up your effort with this edit than the awkward cut to black mid-sentence at the end, because you knew that absolutely nothing added up anymore at that point.
Thank you for saving me from wasting 7:28 of my life.
Enjoyed reading your post! I think it’s really cool that you took the time to go through the entire video and write out your arguments for each point that you disagreed with, and it’s valuable to hear someone else’s perspective on it. I’d like to respond to each point you made, so forgive me if this post is lengthy.
I agree with your first point about the 0:52 time stamp. I think that media outlets (like your example of Fox) that try to sell themselves as a news program, when they exist solely as a propaganda machine for whatever masters they serve, are way worse than what Jon does. Truly, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of this segment and being critical of his interview with Condi and Hillary. Jon’s body of work is quite robust, and this segment along with the interview I’m critiquing in the video that he did in 2022 makes up a very small percentage of his resume, of which I am a great admirer. Having said that, the part I disagree with you on is that I personally don’t think that he’s a comedian first. I think that he’s a political commentator whose comedy is a byproduct of the points he’s making. If you disagree on this, I totally get where you’re coming from…to me it’s just a chicken or the egg argument. The part of this time stamp that I was ribbing him for was that he only ever says he’s a comedian first when someone’s pushing back against him as “a security blanket” (like you used in your Fox example). That’s not to say Jon is Fox or anything, I’m just saying that in my mind, the man stands for so much more than just “comedy.” I wish he would stand up for his work instead of brushing off what he does as “I’m just a comedian,” he’s so much more than that to a lot of people.
I agree with your second point about the 0:57 time stamp. I think that he has consistently tried to push an anti-corruption, anti-lack-of-authenticity, and anti-contrivance agenda throughout his entire body of work. Where I think you might be missing the intent of this video is that it is a criticism of the Condi and Hillary interview, and pointing out the hypocrisy of calling out Tucker for pulling punches in his Putin interview, when he himself pulled many punches in his Hillary and Condi interview back in 2022. This video isn’t a critique of Stewart’s entire career, it’s a critique of one very specific example to point out the hypocrisy of this most recent segment.
2:03 Haha your description of Tucker’s face is awesome 😆, you should do political commentary on your youtube channel! I bet you’d be very good at it, I’d definitely watch 😄. I agree, Tucker makes funnier faces than Jon, and more often too. I guess what I was going for here is that Jon is so good at dismantling people with his intellect, and I’d rather see that than hearing him just make fun of people’s faces at a specific freeze frame. Jon’s clever wit has so much more potential than simply: “look at how stupid this face is after I edited it to make it look really stupid.” Maybe I’m just being overly critical here, but idk…I just want him to be the best he can be.
3:13 I had a massive problem with this part of the interview for two reasons. We used weapons of mass destruction on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to end WWII, so already this is clearly inaccurate. What really upset me about this was that this is the second time Jon has bowed down to power and downplayed this part of our nation’s history. In 2009 Jon had the courage to call out our use of the atomic bomb to end World War II. He went as far as to suggest that President Truman was a war criminal for doing so: “I think if you dropped an atomic bomb fifteen miles off shore and said, ‘The next one’s coming and hitting you,’ then I would think it’s okay. To drop it on a city, and kill a hundred thousand people. Yeah, I think that’s criminal.” This was a profound statement and an incredible moment of speaking truth to power...unfortunately he went on to immediately walk back his statement for motivations that I can’t personally speak to. In the 2022 interview, he didn’t just walk back his original sentiments…he pretended that it never happened altogether by agreeing that democratic countries “don’t use weapons of mass destruction.” It was both shocking and very disappointing.
4:13 Seemed kinda dickish to me, but sure I guess I could’ve made the laughter quieter during the editing process?
5:28 I think you may have missed the point of what I was trying to say with this part, and that’s on me…this was definitely the most challenging part of creating the narrative structure of the satire, and the fact that you misinterpreted it means that I could’ve done a better job of getting my point across. So in this part of the editing, I’m saying that Jon is indirectly supporting the U.S. imperialist agenda (that caused the aftermath of the very bill he was pushing for) by conducting this interview in the way in which he did…indirectly supporting it, not directly supporting it. To my eyes (and this may or may not be true), it appears he’s having this very disingenuous interview with softball questions and very little pushback as sort of an under the table agreement in exchange for Hillary’s support of Jon’s admirable and humanitarian advocacy for the first responders on 9/11. If this was in fact the case (which again, we can’t say for sure…it just appears that way to me), then this is a tactical error in my opinion. There’s no mistaking that the attacks on 9/11 were unforgivable act, but it can be argued that these attacks were retaliation for troubling aspects of our foreign policy including:
-our military presence in the middle east
-our sanctions against Iraq that caused severe malnutrition and death among innocent Iraqi civilians
-our support for authoritarian regimes in the middle east just to secure our own interests in terms of access to oil even though these regimes repeatedly suppress political dissent and violate human rights
-and using the mujahideen to fight a proxy war with the soviet union using Afghanistan as the battleground.
Making a deal with a politician who not only unapologetically supports the kind of foreign policy that potentially caused the events leading to the health issues of many brave men and women who were the first responders during the attack, but a politician that has actively engaged in this kind of foreign policy herself by supporting the invasion of Iraq and aiding in turning Libya into a failed state, just to name a few examples, does not seem to me to be a valid solution, nor does it address the real issue behind all of this which is our foreign policy and the military industrial complex. Hopefully that clears up what I meant with this sequence.
Again, I just want to thank you for sharing your perspective. I appreciated hearing your side, and I hope that after rationalizing my position, you can begin to understand where I’m coming from as well. Good vibes friend :)
@@originalpunkSxEAssuming your reading speed is equivalent to the average adult non-fiction reading speed of 238 wpm, the comment would have actually only saved you 5:43 of your life because you would have spent approximately 1:45 reading the comment attempting to summarize the video. Then again since the comment was fiction, you might be right if the average adult fiction reading speed is considerably higher 😂
I subbed based on your comment work alone lol@@TitanicSub
@@vdub2014 😆 welcome aboard my dude! 🛥️⚓️
No matter how hard they try nobody will ever match Carlson’s epic ‘dumb’ face.
Haha yeah that’s fair 😂
True that
Every day there's inherently a "dumbest video I'll see on UA-cam today." It's still morning and you win. Well done.
And yet. I´m not loosing lunch whilst watching Stewart. Sometimes I really tried to endure Carlson for a few minutes, but he makes me sick to my stomach - every time.
cry harder assplug
*losing
Oh … I thought this was an actual bit Stewart was doing, but was like “he’s not really calling himself out on anything. I don’t get what the angle is.” Now i get it - some hack was putting clips over the actual ones
Appreciate the attempt at an insult, but maybe leave out the part where you weren’t able to tell if it was a real clip or not 🤣
@@TitanicSubOh he couldn't, but anyone who has seen the full context of the clips you taken can. 🤡
It is an excerpt of the original clip from The Daily Show that aired 1-2 months ago.
Journalist should be held to a higher standard compared to comedians..
That's the thing though Tucker isn't a journalist.
@@Deuteromis exactly
Wow nice job trying and failing to compare Jon Stewart to someone like Tucker Carlson. Jon is a comedian first and he doesn't back away from that. Meanwhile Tucker pretends to be a so called journalist, and it was only because of a court Fox had to admit he's not a journalist. It's pretty sad how you take clips of him out of context.
I disagree that these clips were taken out of context. What makes you feel that they were?
@@TitanicSub Cause I have seen the full clips you hack. 🙄
@@DeuteromisWow you watched the clips, that’s so great! Now all you need to do next is craft an argument for why you think they were taken out of context, and you’ll be well on your way to having your very own grown up discussion 😊
@@TitanicSub It's not hard at all kid to show you took them out of context. You're literally trying to paint Jon Stewart as the same as Tucker Carlson when anyone with actual intelligence knows they aren't. Several people already pointed it out, but well you gotta double down on your stupidity. You gotta spin this narrative somehow. 🤡
Ha. Jon Stewart isn't a journalist. He's a comedian.
Tucker Carlson ...he's a so called journalist.
So tucks isn't a journalist either....not just like...but like Jon Stewart.
So....giving the same treatment to 2 non journalists. What's the problem then?
Don't think so but nice twist of the facts.
Which ones?
@TitanicSub all of them
Nicely done, you’re nearly halfway there! Now all you need to do next is rationalize your opinion, and you’ll have taken your first step into having your very own grown up conversation with someone you disagree with 😊. See?It’s not so scary! Baby steps people 👏😄
@@TitanicSub who wants to have a conversation with a dishones liar like you?
Tucker tried and failed to give Putin Satisfaction live on TV, a lot like Trump in Helsinki when he disappeared for several hours with Putin.
Stewart makes fun of everyone but mainly hypocrites so if you can't take it don't be one.
well that was shit
this is so far off the mark.
this is false ... that wasnt the clip from the original
that's...kinda the point though?
@@TheJoeschmoe777No kid sense the person who made this is literally distorting the truth to spin a dumb narrative that Jon is equal to Tucker. 🙄
That’s not what the video is attempting to do at all.
@@TitanicSub What exactly is this video trying to do?
@@Deuteromis
I notice no reply to your question, guess @Titanicsub doesn't want to show his hand of either pushing a narrative I can only speculate is, One of gaining likes/clicks/comments, Two dividing people by trying to crap on Jon or the show or Three, trying to paint that the world would be greener if the US just sat back in North America and let dictators take over the world.
His narrative clearly isn't Jon and the Daily Show crew are trying to ruin or control the world as the clickbait tile and video got me here. You can tell by reading his replies and sad part is he couldn't even take the effort to produce his own clip, just edit the work the Daily Show Crew did and change the PIP part.
Nope...
Reality did it better. #Vote4JoeCool
First and foremost, I have my own reservations about Jon Stewart's work, but labeling him a propagandist is simply an easy out. Criticizing him as unfunny or scrutinizing his approach for not encouraging deeper thought has its merits for those in disagreement. However, to brand him a propagandist? That's an oversimplification. Surely, we can aim for a more nuanced critique.
I feel you, that's fair my dude and I can see why a lot of people have that same misinterpretation of the intent. The vibe I was going for wasn't to say "hey everyone Jon Stewart is a propagandist," it was more along the line of "hey everyone, Jon just did a segment about someone else's propaganda...remember that one time when he was pushing propaganda himself, so this segment's a little hypocritical no?" Wasn't trying to smear the dude or push Putin propaganda or whatever it is people are accusing me of lol...it was just spreading a message of people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and saying cheers, here's hoping Jon gets back to speaking truth to power like he did in his prime.
He’s a satirical comedian. Not a hard concept and he’s been constant for decades.
Exactly what is your point? Seriously.
Pointing out that Jon pulled his punches in the 2022 interview with Rice and Clinton just like Tucker did in the Putin interview, so he’s criticizing Tucker for doing things that he himself recently did.
@@TitanicSub It's not anywhere close to the same, in degree or scope or scale, or voltage or amperage, or sweetness or saltiness, is the primary problem with the video. One of the many things that makes your point so hard to understand for most, like the commenter above.
so glade to see him back!
Same, I missed Daily Show. It'd be awesome to see Colbert go back to doing the Colbert Report to but that'll never happen :/
Love Jon 🙏🏽
Avoiding the truth
40 subs makes perfect sense. People think it’s a clip, then realize it’s horse$#!t
Totally agree with you that the people calling it horse$#!t aren't bright enough to look at a thumbnail and title and realize it's not actually an episode of the daily show lol
See, even if you completely disagree with the message that this seemingly tries to make, it's still kinda hilarious!
Well made
Thanks man! Appreciate you 🙏
This has to be satire surely
You're the zen man
She's hilarious but you make it funny
Its still funny
Priceless. Bravo! 😂
😂😅
He is a comedian first! You guys are sharp as a bowling bowl.
I always thought of him as a political commentator first, and that his comedy was just a byproduct of when he makes good points. Your opinion is valid though, why do you feel that he is a comedian first rather than a political commentator first?
I used to think he was one or the other, then I came to learn he is always a ___ first.
@@TitanicSub He is a comedian first because that's how he got his start... doing comedy gigs and eventually landing bit roles in comedy movies. He was literally a comedian first.
Also, he has stated numerous times that The Daily Show is and always was satire. It's on COMEDY CENTRAL. The reason many people confuse his show with actual political commentary is because, while it is a comedy, many of the points the show makes are valid. Many of the issues the show tackles are important. In some ways, his comedy show actually does a better job of presenting these topics to the American people than actual "news" programs.
@@TitanicSub What should have tipped you off about him being a comedian first, was probably the fact that he's on a channel called comedy central.
@@originalpunkSxE Yeah man that’s fair, I like your arguments. So then just to build on your answer and so that I can better understand your point of view, do you think he deserves more leniency in moments when he adopts a journalistic approach based on your perspective that his main role is comedic satire rather than traditional journalism?
This is not a hope video
Someone's feeling butthurt
Nah just still a little salty about the Condi and Hillary interview XD, he was such a savage when it came to speaking truth to power so I'm pulling for him to turn it back around.
@@TitanicSub haha ait fair enough
This is too good, needs way more views
🤷 cool story, bro
Jon Stewart is a very important person and should really be the one running for president this year instead of the two mummies.
The two mummies 🤣 well said
You nailed it..
I like jon Stewart. Know there are issues with JS...but I'm not positive.
His apple show was half good half crap. Him talking to the camera like daily show, was fine. Some of his one on ones were fine.
The other stuff...talking to younger co workers.....no.
I have a hard time connecting the hypocrisy....so thank you for pointing this out.
As a fan of JS, I can still appreciate something like this done. Well done. Kudos!
This is why I hate two party politics. Both sides do the same shit but everyone acts like theirs is better than the other.
Totally agree, without a strong third party (or even more) it’s just a spectator sport filled with partisan hackery.
Because both sides don't "do the same shit".
So the third or the fourth can lose and be eaten alive? Its a dog eat dog world, unless a new giant dog creates a new party.
Well done.
If you compare two fractions, the denominators have to be equal.
I think that is neither the case for the comparison of Rice/Clinton Putin, nor for the comparison of StewartCarlson, and thus for the comparison of the two interviews.
So this video is completely pointless.
If you could do a vice versa mash-up, that would become pretty obvious.
(Sorry, I am not a native speaker, but I hope my point gets across)
ps. and stopping a video to a stupid face expression is simply bad style. by that, you could catch a stupid face of every person on the planet. (not as mindblowingly stupid as Tuckers permanent "completely expressionless expression", but anyway...)
Fuck
Propaganda - Proclaimed Truth without proof
Nicely done!
I didn't mind this video by Titanic Sub. And I'm a fan of Jon Stewart. I would tune in to The Daily Show regularly and have enjoyed Stewart's opinions on a variety of issues. But I do feel like there is some truth in what Titanic is trying to convey here. I remember the softball Obama interviews on The Daily Show. And Stewart's The Daily Show isn't necessarily there to confront his guests including politicians. However, Stewart does have a tremendous platform from which to work from and should reconsider what he thinks his job is when it comes to politcal discourse. The Obama interviews came just before the presendential election where Obama did win the vote and then another interview ocurred before his subsequent re-election. As a senator, Obama was critical of practices such as warrantless wiretaps. But as president he carried out a far more extensive assault on civil liberties than predecessor, George W. Bush. He used the Espionage Act eight times to charge patriots such as Edward Snowden who exposed crimes of the state. And he lied often, to defend the right of the security and surveillance apparatus to spy on Americans without judicial warrants. While Stewart approaches political discourse and satire seemingly from the middle, he has shown at times to lean centre left seen in interviews with Obama, Kerry, H. Clinton, and Rice. I don't see this as a comparison of Stewart to Carlson though. Titanic is just using the segment from The Daily Show where Stewart dissects Carlson's softball interview with Putin. Titanic effectively pits Stewart against himself in an edited video revealing his own hypocrisy. Additionally, I think Stewart could benefit from an examination of what he's said in the public sphere.
Appreciate you @ADSalo! I’m glad you got what I was trying to say…I was starting to think I edited in a way that was too confusing for people to understand lol. I also like your point about Jon reconsidering what he thinks his job is. I fully support his right to identify using whatever occupational pronouns he wants, but when he’s dipping his toe into a more journalistic endeavor (like the Rice and Clinton interview), he should be open to the same level of scrutiny as other practicing journalists. When it’s clear he’s doing a comedic bit, then by all means hold him to a lesser standard because it’s obviously part of a comedic bit he’s doing. That’s just my take on it, but don’t hold me to this opinion though because I’m just a comedian 😆
@@TitanicSub Here's the thing: Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. Stewart can accuse him of being a bad journalist, but the minute you have a show during the primetime block on Fox News you become a political commentator or an editorialist. Jon isn't a journalist, but he absolutely is a satirist and political commentator.
As for your video: Whether you are right or wrong your point came across fairly direct IMO. Frankly you were pretty nice about Libya. There are articles pointing to slave trade happening over there in the aftermath of the fallen regime. Nobody is talking about this and it's without question one of the worst things to happen in this millennium and century.
Stewart definitely is full of BS. The girls in the Sears catalog were hot!
suk
"According to the propaganda model... if the system functions well, [the mass media] ought to have a liberal bias, or at least appear to. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound thought even more effectively. In other words, if the press is indeed adversarial and liberal and all these bad things, then how can I go beyond it?"-Noam Chomsky
This video reminded me of Noam. If Jon is so liberal and adversarial, how can I go beyond him?
Love this, manufacturing consent is fascinating. It’s a bummer that the binding of thought actually works so well. I really enjoy discovering new perspectives from other people, and it’s really frustrating to experience how well the media has been able to limit the scope of debate in mainstream discourse.
I’m glad this video exists. I was thinking the same thing as I was listening to Stewart. Not that I agree/disagree everything he (or Tucker) says, but this particular segment reeked of smug hypocrisy.
Exactly! Pointing out a little hypocrisy from Jon doesn't mean you approve of Putin...I don't get why so many people are overreacting to some video on a tiny youtube channel. You gotta be willing to call out stuff on your own side every once in a while lol wtf
@@TitanicSubbecause they aren't on one side or another for the sake of any principle beyond convenience.
So ur calling him out for being a comedian while he claims to be a comedian?
That’s your big takeaway from the video?
No, it's meant for the "I'm a comedian first" line. When he says he's a comedian first, it's strategically disingenuous; he's a political satirist and comedy is a bi-product of the points he makes. That's just one small part that introduces the rest of the video though.
😂😂😂
Fake news
Well, congrats on simply trolling us with an utterly lame video with pointless comparisons that in no way support your premise...
Interesting perspective, tell me more. Which parts do you feel don't support the underlying premise of the video and why?
More show's on Gazah needed
The editing is good and I like that you seem to take the time to respond respectfully and thoughtfully to most comments.
I expected to watch this video and be rolling my eyes the whole time or turning it off less than half way thru. I didn’t and I see some of the points you were trying make….almost.
I’m glad I read your replies before I made my comment.
Here’s why I don’t think this video really hits the mark. Forget apples and oranges your comparing apples to red dye number 5. You can make valid criticisms of Jon Stewart but side by siding them with anything Tucker Carlson does or says makes them lose credibility. “ here’s why Jon Stewart is a hypocrite and a dick” and the follow up to that is showing things that are mildly relatable to Tucker doesn’t work. This guys a dick because he does a few of the same things, kinda, that one of the biggest dicks in the world does all the time isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is. Anyways that’s my two cents.
Yeah man totally agree, you don’t need to explain yourself with super lengthy comments if the video’s points and intentions were clear enough for people to understand it lol so there’s definitely room for improvement on my part. Appreciate you giving it a chance and dropping a comment my dude!
Excellent. Compelling perspective. I've been a Jon Stewart fan for years, but I've recently realized how he benefits from participating in the media soap opera that he criticizes. Long ago, he commented on Colbert's fake run for office saying that Colbert got "too close" to the mania of political campaigning. Unfortunately, I think Jon might have gotten too close to the media mania. And this seems to have created some blind spots. I'd hoped you'd conclude your analogy by showing how getting wrapped up in the politico-media soap opera was the "price of freedom"---that is, the price of commercially successful satire.
are you kidding man? media literacy in america must have always been shit if you just realized that..
heres the thing, most of the people that feel like you do stopped maturing sometime 10 years ago which is why you think stewart has changed. and he has, because the he and the world arent waiting for people to catch up.
@@willae1 it sounds like you know a lot of things.
First
Lame attempt. Boooo!
Lol yeah it's about 50/50 in terms of the ratio. I thought it might be funny but if some people don't think so, that's cool. Appreciate you giving the video a chance mate!
yeah, he is so bad recently.
This is brilliant!
This makes no sense
What part?
@@TitanicSub Jon Stewart is not even remotely analogous to tucker Carlson part.
@@oldcaptaintwotimes True he’s not analogous to Tucker most of the time, but in this segment I felt like he was criticizing Tucker for doing a lot of the same things he did in his interview with Condi and Hillary.
Clever but the problem is there is no moral equivalency between Tucker's interview with a brutal dictator (Putin) and Jon's interview with two former secretaries of state, despite their own flaws and U.S. foreign policy flaws. Clearly you have a MAGA bias and hate Jon Stewart 🤣🤣
those former secretaries of state are far more pernicious and evil than the Russian "dictator"
lol how does pointing out the hypocrisy of the segment in a clever and funny way mean that I have a MAGA bias and hate Jon Stewart?
You're really comparing Jon Stewart interviewing 2 former secretary of states to Tucker interviewing a brutal dictator lol. I'd say you're insane since there is no major equivalency between the two. And to try to to do so shows an inherent bias or maybe you hate Jon Stewart 😆😆 I'd say both
@@MrEmilioVargas Personally, I think that pointing out some of the comparisons between the two interviews and the hypocrisy of the segment makes me the opposite of insane and biased. I think that a biased person would be unwilling to criticize something or someone they like.
I have no problems with legitimate criticisms of Jon Stewart, just not hyperbolic or false equivalency ones
this is stupid john stewart is great
this is pretty dope. jon stewart also has been putting out the most insidious shitnow that's styles as criticism of i-country, but is actually full of its lies that are snuck in under the cover of performative hostility. it's so blatant that I actuall suspect thst jon stewart has been brought back now because trevor noah probably wouldn't pr°°°itute himself deeply enough on that specific topic.
Only good thing in this tripe was the Isobel Yeung clip. Love that girl
Uh, no. Just no. Your clips are a mishmash of bits you took out of context. You’re clearly triggered that Jon ripped apart Tucker Carlson.
Nah, could care less tbh. Curious about why you think the clips were taken out of context though. I felt like these clips from the Rice-Clinton interview were fairly put in context, and rightly criticized. Open to hearing your side if you disagree though 👍
@@TitanicSub for starters he’s a comedian, not a journalist. So no, the Rice Clinton interview isn’t in context.
@@tjsho417 I felt like the interview was a journalistic endeavor, but you’re free to provide reasoning behind why you feel the interview was a comedic bit that Jon was doing.
@@TitanicSubbecause he’s not a journalist
@@tjsho417 I'm still not quite seeing how the clips are taken out of context. Just to get on the same page as one another, it feels like rather than arguing that the clips were taken out of context, you're arguing that it is unfair to criticize Jon's interview from 2022 because Jon is a comedian and not a professional journalist. Am I understanding your position correctly?