Fremde Frau

I admit that I watched Jon's speech nearly 4 years after it happened, so I didn't see it in context, but I really appreciated the point he was making. At the same time, I agree with Maher that one side is fact-based and the other side thrives on willful ignorance, but I didn't get the sense that Jon was arguing for equivalency in that aspect. He points out rightwing lies all the time on his show. It seemed like he was speaking about tone, whereas Maher (and others) responded as though he were speaking about content. As a student of language listening to Jon's speech, I kept thinking of prosody and a Benjamin Bailey study of how the demeanor that accompanies a message may be taken as the message itself. Not that Jon was getting very anthropological about it, but I was kind of geeking out about that, in addition to appreciating the sentiment behind his speech. (Disclaimer: I grew up in Japan where the delivery of news was pretty dry, so American news was a huge culture shock for me. I don't know what Japanese news up to now, though. It may have become Americanized.) That would be fantastic! Isn't Stephen Catholic? And Maher is dogmatically atheist? While I appreciate the points that atheists bring up (and agree with many of them; I was raised in a Christian home, but I'm agnostic), I've always found it too simplistic and dismissive to paint all religious people as ignorant or delusional. It seems like it should go without saying that there are a multitude of interpretations of faith. There are many religious people, like Stephen, who are as excited about science as scientists are and who are able to critically analyze their own religion and its effect on society. So it pains me whenever Maher or someone will express a blanket disdain for religious people, however much I agree with the point they're making on something like the separation of church and state.

Thank you, trow! I had no idea there was a bit of personal history there. That puts Jon's disappointment and disgust in a whole new light. I've been slowly working my way around the archived videos on the website, but it's a lot to take in. I wish I knew where to find something like "best of" list for interviews, sketches, field pieces, etc. I've been searching for keywords and then clicking on tags that interest me. So far, the only videos I've seen that I know for sure were big moments back in their day have been the Jim Cramer interview and the 9/11 First Responders episode at the end of 2010. (Wow.)

Thank you, ruby24! I have read about the Rally and watched Jon's speech from it and Maher's response, but I'm not a regular viewer of Real Time, so I didn't know if that was an isolated event that had since been set aside or if it was a constant tension between them. I wasn't watching any of these shows in 2010, so it's hard to go back now and understand what Jon intended or what people were seeing and expecting from the rally. Just from a belated, outsider perspective, it seems like there were two conversations happening and that the point as Jon saw it and criticisms of the point as others saw it weren't connecting on the same ground. And I am always curious why Jon is criticized but Stephen is not. Wasn't it a joint rally (Sanity/Fear)? Is it because Stephen didn't give that final speech, or did he denounce the rally afterward? Or is it about a style in their shows or interviews? (I'm especially curious because there was this piece in The Guardian recently, praising John Oliver's show specifically for being more activist in contrast to Jon and Stephen's rally.)

That first segment was fantastic. I love when Jon gets into his history professor mode. It's incredible how freely representatives and pundits are allowed to lie on air and otherwise distort the truth without being called on it. I suppose it doesn't help that the journalists supposedly there to check their facts often choose to be complicit because the extreme rhetoric and name-calling make for better television or some nonsense. Also, regarding McCain's remarks, how is it not a new style of imperialism to engage in wars of choice and to have a military presence across the world? Perhaps this is the legacy of having grown up in Hiroshima, Japan, but I'm not a believer in American exceptionalism. In any case, I'm so grateful that McCain wasn't elected president. What a mess that would have been, and with Palin as VP! I didn't get the sense from Schultz that employees were dependent on Starbucks for their education, but that they had the choice to opt in. I suppose anyone who didn't like the courses or degrees that Starbucks arranged with ASU would not opt in and, instead, attend elsewhere? If the employees who opted in were paying out of their paycheck for corporate-mandated coursework, then I'd think that would raise some red flags, but I don't see anything particularly nefarious about an employer covering tuition for courses as an investment in their employees, with the vision of that business model being perhaps to build a more educated, effective workforce that will remain with the corporation until retirement. Some people who want a steady job (with the possibility for climbing the ladder) might welcome the choice. If that's the case, it's not altruistic, however Schultz might want to portray it, but it would make sense as a business model for an employer willing (and big enough) to risk paying for education in the hopes that employees will stay with them. The company for whom I used to work covered some training and seminars, etc., for that purpose, but there was no issue of debt if you decided to quit. Of course, those were very specifically related to positions within the company, so I imagine there are some different issues at play here.

You took the text right out of my keyboard, Hanahope. They seem to have a bit of an antagonistic relationship (at least, Maher seems a bit antagonistic towards Jon). I'm glad that there will be three women, although I wish they weren't all actresses.

Part of my problem with the segment was that the fake ad trivialized the issue as more of a thing lazy white people should feel guilty about, rather than being a perspective that is coming from Native American voices. There are far more systemic, devastating problems, like poverty and restoration of land, that should be addressed over and over in mainstream media until the general public wakes up to it and people with the power to make foundational changes are pressured to do so. The Washington team name, in the broader context, is a small transgression and an easy fix that white people can feel good about supporting without thinking too deeply about the rest. But that said, there is a lot of support for the name change among Native American people, too, and the ad itself was a labor of love and pride. (I remember when Suey Park was promoting #CancelColbert, there was some pushback that she had taken the focus off of the original issue.) I do think it is astonishing (for lack of a better word) how normalized it is that our society doesn't consider it on the same level as other ethnic or racial slurs, which would have no ground to stand on as a team name or mascot.

Thank you, M. Darcy! I'll have to check their website to see if I can find some. The interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates was fun. Coates seemed to enjoy it quite a bit, and I thought Stephen used his character well in bringing up typical arguments so that Coates could explain how inadequate they are. I just wish the interview had been longer!

The Washington piece didn't really work for me, with the fake ad at the end. The original ad is so very powerful, and reusing the same music for a weaker, disjointed point felt like a bit of a missed mark. I enjoyed the extended Hawking interview; that was my favorite part of the episode this week. Hawking seemed to be enjoying it, and they had a nice dynamic between them. Speaking of that, for me the interviews reveal most clearly how the show is still trying to find its direction, not just in the sense of how they are balancing serious reporting with comedy but also John's comfort level as an interviewer. In one interview, he was mostly serious with sporadic humor (the Simon Ostrovsky interview), and then in another, he was mostly humorous with few serious questions (the Hawking interview). His relaxed, informative interview with Fareed was similar in tone to when he was guest-hosting for Jon, while his satirical interview with Keith Alexander was just like a TDS field piece that mocks its target. I think it's natural to have more of a friendly, relaxed vibe with some people and to be more serious, investigative with others (the same happens with Jon's interviews on TDS, eg. interviewing Denis Leary vs. interviewing Anita Hill), but the Alexander interview is an uncomfortable fit, being much more of an outright skewering. John seems to enjoy most the more journalistic interviews (Fareed and Ostrovsky); he's very skilled at it, and I personally love those interviews the best. But I think he might need to carefully consider what that might mean when it comes to interviewees for whom he doesn't feel any respect or affection. One aspect of both Stephen and Jon as interviewers is that they treat interviewees the same regardless of politics, ideology, scandals, crimes, etc: "Stephen" fences with them all (and wins), and Jon is always the polite host. That's a huge part of why I love both of those shows. TDS is well-served by having two distinct styles of interview: you can expect to get skewered in a field piece, and you can expect to be treated with respect when Jon interviews you in person. They're all comedians and aren't obliged to be consistent as interviewers, but it crossed my mind during the Hawking interview that it may become tricky for John if there is any sense of selection in how interviewees are treated, particularly if the show takes on the more journalistic, less comedic direction that it seems to be currently playing with.

Yeah, I agree. That might be where the panel comes in, with younger comic voices balancing him out.

Oh, I didn't realize they had a culture blog side of NPR. I remember reading some recaps of Miss Alli's back on TWoP. I'll have to check it out more often. Thank you, stacey!

I love the panel idea, even if it's not a huge innovation. There seems to be a limitless potential for panelists and guests. Here is an opinion piece on Larry's show and an interview with NPR, which includes this bit below: For reference, here are some links about the cancellation of Hall's show: Deadline, TV Guide, TechnologyTell (including a comment about TMR), and one hopeful write-up including a couple of Hall's tweets.

I finally caught up on the last two episodes of TDS. That was sure a lot of air time Thursday for Jason Jones. He's fantastic, but I'm really missing Larry Wilmore. He's probably busy between wrapping up his obligations for Black-ish and getting ready for The Minority Report, but I wish he'd drop by for a chat with Jon. The Iraq segment was too depressing to make me laugh, and the news just keeps getting worse, now with the mass executions... I don't know how TDS will be able to turn that into comedy, if they cover it further. I guess they somehow managed to do it before, during the Bush years which I missed. Jon is at his best when he's mad-as-hell about something, but I haven't been watching him long enough to read if he's feeling mad as hell or if his soul is feeling thoroughly crushed by everything. In other news: I was reading articles on the NPR website and stumbled across this short piece on Christopher Walken's interview with Jon. Apparently, he told Jon that same anecdote about dancing cops back in 2007 (from around the 2:10 mark). That's interesting, I suppose (and I loved watching another interview with Jon and Walken), but I'm mostly wondering why NPR would consider that worth commenting on.

I'm hoping for a bit of Southern Belle, too, for Lindsey Graham.

Oh, I can't wait for that one, either. Does Stephen ever do extended interviews, like Jon? I hope he plays this interview relatively straight.

Speaking of news outlets again, I feel proud to have made a breakthrough with my ultra conservative father, who just started watching Al Jazeera America after I introduced him to it. He still reads Townhall and Drudge and I bet he visits foxnews.com, but at least he no longer turns his TV to Fox and leaves it there for hours on end. Baby steps.

How corrupt and petty is the NCAA? To borrow from a recent TDS heading, can they go bye now? I had no idea their rules were so absurd as to punish service men and women for some pick-up game of football. I remember watching The Net when it came out, but the thing that makes me laugh alone in my house is the original Star Trek. Through the years, I have gone from laughing at them for wrongly predicting future technology to laughing at myself when I realized how closely our cutting edge technology mirrors theirs. The interview was heartbreaking, again. I'd like to think that something like a national service, not just military but in other areas like healthcare, would help to unify the country, but obstructionism and politics would never allow it to happen. Doocy responds to Jon with some more of that impenetrable Fox logic:

One thing that strikes me about the latest episode on FIFA is how much of it was straight reporting; it was punctuated by jokes, but he seemed primarily intent on informing his audience. That would be an interesting direction for them to go, if LWT were to straddle the news/entertainment line more directly than TDS or TCR, offering these kinds of humorous mini-documentaries, as it were, on various international topics.

I'm just grateful that parts of this show are on YouTube. If not for that, I'd be without Oliver. They haven't hit every segment out of the park, but their high points are really fucking high, and they are only going to get better. And I just love John's energy and his dimples and his general sense of joy at doing what he does. I respect that there are very good reasons why Jon has a heavier, more cynical presence in his monologues and that a whole new world of expression will open up to Stephen once he leaves his character behind, but please, TV gods, never take John's joyfulness away from me. He is a true delight.

I wonder who did the beard/Duck Dynasty joke first. TDS did it last Tuesday, I think, but I can't recall when TCR did it. (It probably originated from someone on Twitter or Tumblr.) EDIT: Speaking of how welcome Jon's "obsession" is, here is a report (released today, ref. page 36) which finds that The Daily Show is more trusted by liberals, moderates, and independents than MSNBC to deliver accurate information, and is only slightly edged out by MSNBC with viewers who identify as Democrats. Meanwhile, not only do 53% of Republicans and 48% of conservatives trust Fox, but 26% of independents and 15% of moderates also trust them. That's downright horrifying. I completely disagree with the author of this write-up, that MSNBC is the one with the problem. That Fox is so uniformly trusted is the problem, not that MSNBC is doing it wrong. I'm quite happy, as a liberal, to say that I get my news from a variety of sources and would never trust a single source to deliver it all to me. As far as Jon goes, is he really so influential that O'Reilly is accurate in labeling him the frontman of the "liberal media"? I've read old articles and such, but the show is still a new thing to me, so that concept is hard to wrap my head around, even though I love Jon and the show and continue to be impressed by them. His extended political and other "serious" interviews, in particular, have been a huge part of why I have fallen in love with this show. It feels inaccurate to even call them "interviews" (or debates). They seem like conversations to me, with Jon unapologetically bringing in his own opinions and wanting to understand the other person's point of view, which happens nowhere else on American television in quite the same way. Maybe Charlie Rose? I know some on the left would prefer him to be more hardball, and some on the right feel he's too biased towards liberals/Democrats, etc., but, for me, these conversations hit just the right note of being respectful of the guest and of the audience's intelligence while treating various issues thoughtfully if not always comprehensively or with a sense of resolution.

Thank you, dubbel zout. Somehow, I'd missed her as one of the Fox contributors. I wish I could rewind my brain and keep missing her. heebiejeebie, I agree with what you're saying. I think Howard's overall point was concerning the layers of legislation which restrict people who might otherwise want to effect change, like the president, not necessarily the motives of lobbyists and congressional lifers who are content with the way things are. Jon brought up the point that some of it (legislation) seems purposeful to benefit large corporate interests, etc., but Howard seemed to be pointing out that these layers, whether well-intentioned or ill-intentioned, all add up to an overly convoluted system that makes an internal, fundamental change difficult, if not impossible. (I'm not well read in this area, though, so I may be misinterpreting his point.) It definitely doesn't help that governance in this country seems to be mostly about re-election and the prosperity of the political party, and that means feeding lobbyists and corporate interests over that of voters and the country's health at large.

I enjoyed the first two segments more than I thought I would. Jessica and Jason are always fantastic, and Jon's monologue was on point. I'm honestly a little tired of the Bergdahl brouhaha, although I realize that the right is still carrying that political football with all of its accompanying "impeach Obama!" crap in the hopes of a touchdown. And it is still very real for Bergdahl, his family, and his unit, whatever his reasons and feelings at the time may have been. Jiminy, as long as people believe what comes out of Fox, I welcome Jon's obsession. Tragically, Fox is not yesterday's news but an undead force that continues to draw energy from those who consume it, its bloggish and radio siblings, and its hate-chain mail on social media. Even more tragically, this undead machine helps to elect extremists into office. Please don't stop, Jon. Philip K. Howard looks like Jimmy Stewart's humorless brother. The extended interview was interesting, if thoroughly depressing. I loved Howard's point about Washington attempting to govern today, and this line: "Even Mussolini made the trains run on time. ... Terrible people will try to do something to please the people. These guys [politicians in the U.S.] have given up." The idea of governance being restricted under an ever-increasing pile of laws that, however well-intentioned, do nothing to make government more efficient or more representative sounds pretty accurate. How will anyone ever be able to slog through it all and effect actual, internal change, given that "decades of accretion" have built these traditions of governance and administration that serve no consistent purpose? I have to say, his "simple law" solution doesn't really seem all that different or helpful. How would these committees, in turn, not get bogged down? It just seems to add another well-intentioned layer of entrenched law. Jon's interlude about the music was such a dad/professor moment. Howard didn't seem to know where this joke was going, and Jon played it so deadpan that I thought he was leading to a joke, too. I guess someone in the audience had left their phone on. Oops! (Good grief, who is Judge Jeanine on Fox? She comes across as the new Glenn Beck. Have they given up even pretending to be legitimate?)

Yeah, I appreciate that Jon is embracing the gray. It suits him, too.

Looking at them side-by-side, it's hard to believe they're the same age (Cruise being a few months older).

I can't edit my post above, so I am adding this here. The 2015 Awards Race: Best Picture contenders The film itself and Gael Garcia Bernal seem to be getting good buzz. Bernal also had an interview not far back that included some questions about Rosewater.

I wonder if cats know that they own the Internet.