Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes

"The Daily Show": Week of 4/27/15

trow125

Recommended Posts

trow125

trow125

4/27: Elizabeth Olsen (actress – promoting movie “Avengers: Age of Ultron”)
4/28: George Stephanopoulos (Anchor, “Good Morning America” & “This Week”)
4/29: Judith Miller (author – promoting book “The Story: A Reporter's Journey”)
4/30: Kristen Wiig (actress – promoting movie “Welcome to Me”)

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

All the talk about the WHPC dinner and not one mention about Luther helping out the president, Jon? Well if you are going to shame CNN for showcasing the dinner and not the riots in nearby Baltimore, then maybe it's best not to show how awesome it was. But couldn't you have least used it in the MoZ?

 

Elizabeth Olsen was great in the interview. It sucks that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch will be in Avengers: Age of Ultron with zero recognition of their dad, Magneto. I wish Marvel didn't sell out the rights of some of their characters to other movie studios.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Wax Lion

Wax Lion

I'm more perplexed by how the Scarlet Witch's powers were described. Mind control and telekinesis... Joss Whedon turned her into Phoenix? I guess that's in improvement on how some comic writers would go "Eh, it's improbable that Ultron would suddenly malfunction. Wanda walks in and Ultron collapses. The end." but I still prefer the probability manipulation.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
bmoore4026

bmoore4026

Joss Whedon remembered that Scarlet Witch is supposed to be Eastern European!  Pretty good job on Elizabeth Olsen's part with the accent, I thought.

 

Scarlet Witch's powers were always hard to define in the comics (and I'll hate Brian Michael Bendis for what he did to her 'til my dying day), so mind powers seems good enough.

 

But the night belonged to Jessica Williams.  That outfit, that hairdo, that voice - perfection!  Why can't she host The Daily Show!?

  • Love 3
Link to comment
VCRTracking

VCRTracking

(edited)

Then her answer would be she studied her older sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley.

 

I'm on board for her to be in more Avengers movies because I genuinely want to see the relationship between Scarlet Witch and the Vision to be developed.

 

Jessica as Effie Trinket was gold.

Edited by VCRTracking
  • Love 1
Link to comment
biakbiak

biakbiak

(edited)

Pretty certain that was the joke!

Jessica is awesome and I hope she stays on with the regime change.

Then her answer would be she studied her older sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley.

Pretty certain that was the joke!

Jessica is awesome and I hope she stays on with the regime change.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

(edited)

You're a stupid, stupid man Wolf Blitzer! The media's not going to address the root causes of what happened in Baltimore, nor are they going to show the peaceful protesters, because they like to showcase all the looting and violence going on because that's what gets people attention and their eyeballs glued to their widescreens.

 

Edited to add: You're a stupid, stupid man Wolf Blitzer!

Edited by Victor the Crab
  • Love 8
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

GS came off as really vacuous to me. I didn't think he had much of a response to Jon asking him why they covered the WHCD for 5 hours while Baltimore was rioting. "We have a lot of time to fill?" Ok. I guess that's why I'm not watching cable news programs then.

 

I thought for the most part TDS was cherry picking stupid stuff from CNN, but WB is either delusional or ignorant. I don't know which is worse. Way to really cover the story. 

Link to comment
ABay

ABay

(edited)

Blitzer, you have brought shame upon your family, the town of Kenmore, and all of western New York. The ghost of Tim Russert should visit you and force you to spend time with the ghosts of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Ben Bradlee. And not wait for Christmas to do it.

Edited by ABay
  • Love 2
Link to comment
iMonrey

iMonrey

I'm not especially inclined to go watch the full interview with George Stephanopoulos but the choppy editing made it seem really pared down. It drives me nuts when Jon is just about to make an important point and gets side-tracked by a joke tangent. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Hanahope

Hanahope

I asked the same question on Bill Maher's forum.  What is the difference between the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from rich and/or foreign sources and Republican presidential candidates from accepting campaign contributions from super rich sources (Koch, Ailes) who have personal and also have foreign interests? 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
attica

attica

As a person who works in non-profit, it seems to me a pretty big difference. Campaign contributions aren't tax deductible*, and their use is to get some candidate elected. Whereas donations to CGI  are deductible as charitable gifts, and the money is funneled into into specific projects all over the world, e.g digging fresh water wells, building health clinics, intellectual disability intervention,. Presumably, CGI donors are motivated to give by wanting to see those projects to fruition, rather than just creating some vague access quid pro quo with Bill.  

 

The goal of the money is totally different; it's likely the goals of the donors are as well. 

 

*yeah, no idea how it works, tax-wise, for foreigners. Still. 

  • Love 4
Link to comment
Hanahope

Hanahope

Presumably, CGI donors are motivated to give by wanting to see those projects to fruition, rather than just creating some vague access quid pro quo with Bill.

 

So again, another "lets find a scandal we can hang on Hillary" thing.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

Basically. They have to campaign against perceived scandals and wrong doing rather than issues and policies, so they're going to dredge up ass much as they can. Clinton is arguably more hawkish than Obama, so that kind of takes the wind out of the sails of that issue.

Link to comment
attica

attica

(edited)

And, right on schedule, closer inspection of the Clinton allegations turn up, yes, you got it, factual errors. But let's bet on that not getting a full-throated airing on the tv machine.

 

In other news, my high school closed down more than once for Riot Days. (Always in October, weirdly enough.) The official line was they resulted from 'drug deals gone bad', but race relations in my school were always tense. This was a very long time ago.

Edited by attica
Link to comment
jaytee1812

jaytee1812

I remember during the 1996 election Jon had a show in the UK called "Where's Elvis This Week?" Anyway he did this great stand up bit one week listing all the scandals the press were linking to Bill Clinton, and then ended with "... And he's still kicking Dole's ass by twenty points in the polls."

Feels like this campaign could be similar.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
ruby24

ruby24

I remember during the 1996 election Jon had a show in the UK called "Where's Elvis This Week?" Anyway he did this great stand up bit one week listing all the scandals the press were linking to Bill Clinton, and then ended with "... And he's still kicking Dole's ass by twenty points in the polls."

Feels like this campaign could be similar.

Hopefully. I worry a little about Hillary's likability and charisma (or lack thereof) being an issue in ways that it wasn't for Bill and Obama, but I'm thinking the idea of the first woman president, and basic trust in the Clinton brand will be enough to overcome that (especially against a Republican candidate, who let's face it, no matter who it is, won't exactly be lighting people up either).

  • Love 3
Link to comment
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

(edited)
The goal of the money is totally different; it's likely the goals of the donors are as well.

 

I don't disagree, but either way the money is buying access. I have a hard time believing that the biggest donors to the foundation aren't thinking of how handy it is to be able to call the Clintons directly and shoot the breeze. Especially with Hillary running for president.

Edited by dubbel zout
Link to comment
shok

shok

I asked the same question on Bill Maher's forum.  What is the difference between the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from rich and/or foreign sources and Republican presidential candidates from accepting campaign contributions from super rich sources (Koch, Ailes) who have personal and also have foreign interests? 

 

As per their mantra, IOKIYAR.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Wax Lion

Wax Lion

I asked the same question on Bill Maher's forum.  What is the difference between the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from rich and/or foreign sources and Republican presidential candidates from accepting campaign contributions from super rich sources (Koch, Ailes) who have personal and also have foreign interests? 

 

There are a few differences like the Clinton Foundation has a mission that doesn't involve getting a Clinton elected, as attica explains well. I believe the Foundation also discloses its donors and there's a type of SuperPAC that lets donors be anonymous (Democrats tried to close that loophole but couldn't get past Republicans). If in 2012 you heard talking points that Democrats were getting more big donations from the mega rich, that was because conservatives have moved on to using the anonymous kind of SuperPAC and that talking point was disingenuously comparing something Democrats were still using to something Republicans were using a bigger version.

 

But in some ways I don't feel like there's a big difference except that the media finds it scandalous when Clinton gets big money but has a default "Oh, well, what can you do" when the money is going to Republicans.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

Feels like this campaign could be similar.

 

The only thing is that they're going try to get people to vote for the republican candidate simply as an anti-clinton vote. They're going to drag everything up since 1992, and while I don't think there's anything wrong with having the email server because other have too, the response just wasn't good. I think Clinton's coming from a 'I'm screwed either way no matter what I say," which I also think is true, but she's coming off with a lack of empathy. I'm sure it's frustrating, and her team probably knows all of that. Which might be the point of the campaign, since she doesn't have to worry about a challenger in the primary. 

Link to comment
SpiritSong

SpiritSong

If Jon feels not going after Donald Rumsfeld when he interviewed him was a big regret, he can make it up by taking on Judith Miller next Wednesday.

If you saw the interview tonight, you got your wish. He really went after her in a way he usually doesn't with his guests. One of his best interviews ever.

I know he's a comedian, not a journalist, but that interview really made me want to see him hosting Meet the Press, if he would take down those talking (dick)heads the way he did Miller tonight.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
calliope1975

calliope1975

If you saw the interview tonight, you got your wish. He really went after her in a way he usually doesn't with his guests. One of his best interviews ever.

I know he's a comedian, not a journalist, but that interview really made me want to see him hosting Meet the Press, if he would take down those talking (dick)heads the way he did Miller tonight.

 

It was masterful. I was so proud of him and so sad that he's leaving so soon. 

  • Love 4
Link to comment
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

Yeah, Jon really went after Judith Miller on the show tonight. Problem was, Jon seemed to have been talking to a brick wall. Miller deflected a lot of what Jon was saying by using her talking points about Saddam Hussein trying to build nuclear weapons, and making the Clintons the villains in all this and not Bush, Cheney, and all of their cronies and confidants that got the U.S. into this disastrous war in the first place. In the end, Jon looked like he wanted to cry and commit suicide while the fucking sociopathic Miller looked pleased with herself.

 

I know he's a comedian, not a journalist, but that interview really made me want to see him hosting Meet the Press, if he would take down those talking (dick)heads the way he did Miller tonight.

 

He'll never be a host of a show like Meet the Press because of what you just said. They prefer slobbering lapdogs like David Gregory or Chuck Todd, lest they risk hurting the delicate fee fees of the guest they're interviewing like Lindsey Graham or John McCain.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
brgjoe

brgjoe

Both the night before, and the interview with Judith Miller, are the main reason(s) why I will miss Jon when he leaves.  Nobody else takes on the MSM like he does.  Some of these segments SHOULD be handled by the media themselves, but they often fall short of doing critiques like this.  And it would be nice if someone else would take over some of these political talk shows (i.e. Meet The Press) and grill not only politicians, but ask the hard questions of media members as well. 

 

But that likely won't happen.  And will miss Jon when he stops doing this.

As for the Supreme Court on gay marriage...I can't believe the Justices would ask such STUPID questions.  Ok, I guess I can when they are Alito and Roberts.  When Roberts said something along the lines of, "Gee, if gay marriage is legal, then nobody will talk about it anymore..."  So, freakin' what?  I think people getting equal rights is a little bit more important than whether or not people will continue to talk about the topic any longer.  By his logic, "Sorry, I can't give women the right to vote, since we won't be able to talk about it anymore."  Or "Nope, can't give black people the same rights as white people, since we won't be able to discuss the nuanced legalities of it any longer.."

 

Shut up.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
Wax Lion

Wax Lion

I know he's a comedian, not a journalist, but that interview really made me want to see him hosting Meet the Press, if he would take down those talking (dick)heads the way he did Miller tonight.

 

He'll never be a host of a show like Meet the Press because of what you just said. They prefer slobbering lapdogs like David Gregory or Chuck Todd, lest they risk hurting the delicate fee fees of the guest they're interviewing like Lindsey Graham or John McCain.

 

Rachel Maddow will never host Meet the Press, too for that reason. All those Sunday network shows think that if they don't have John McCain on every week, viewers will stop watching. Republicans will refuse to appear on shows where they expect a tough interview (heck look at all the whining that still happens about Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul, where she did nothing but ask him to clarify something he said) so those shows will only hire a host that Republicans will agree to talk with.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
peeayebee

peeayebee

Maybe I'm the lone dissenter, but I didn't like the "interview." My big issue is that Jon interrupts all the time. I'm not saying that Miller didn't deserve tough questions, but Jon could have done the same interview without her sitting there. I found it as bad as an interview O'Reilly would do with a liberal.

 

I enjoyed the Supreme Court story more. I'd hoped that Jon would quote Ginsberg more, who made great comments about the history of marriage being about women having no power, but I guess Jon's little joke about men owning the vagina was supposed to cover that. Here's what Ginsberg said:

[same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

(edited)

Leave it to the Notorious RBG to cut right to the chase. Since when is marriage solely about procreation? Of course it creates a framework, but procreation is not the be-all and end-all. And Alito (I think that's who it was) gassing on about what marriage has been for millennia. Puh-leeze. As Jon so correctly put it, it was the handing off of vagina property. 

I also don't understand why so many antis are concerned that if gay marriage is legal, churches will be forced to perform them. Uh, no. A Catholic priest is not required to marry my heathen Protestant ass, so he certainly won't be required to marry two gays. Separation of church and state, people. That's one reason it exists. It's not just to keep the creche out of City Hall. GAH. The willful ignorance is so exasperating.

 

I too wish Jon had given Miller more space to reply, but overall I thought the interview was amazing. She lost me immediately when she said, "That kind of reporting is hard." Well, yeah. It should be, lady. You're not writing about bake-sale profits.

 

I don't think Jon has ever been so depressed at the end of an interview. 

 

I'm not a giant Kristin Wiig fan, but she'll be a nice palate cleanser after the previous two guests.

Edited by dubbel zout
  • Love 9
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

(edited)

I didn't think JS interrupted that much. I think he was heading off Miller on falling back on her talking points. The bottom line is that the journalists didn't do their due diligence, and, as he said, it's an institutional failure. If you're at the point where you're saying "they didn't include my named source with dissenting information for space," then you're doing it wrong. 

 

I think the arguments are just a last gasp and they're throwing everything out there. Clearly, marriage is always evolving with society, as it should. 

 

And you know what? So what if two couples want to get married?

Edited by ganesh
  • Love 3
Link to comment
attica

attica

Many things enraged me about Miller's appearance here:

  • The demeanor of unflappability, which I'd admire elsewhere but here suggests no inner conflict whatsoever. She's confident her shit will be stink-free.
  • Her constant, never-ending deflections. It was my editors' choice! It was that I couldn't reach my source! It was other people's bad intel! And this was my favorite: There wasn't room!
  • Her position that as a reporter, she's not an actor, she's a vessel through which others communicate their actions. This at once true and bullshit. True in that she doggedly stenographed for Cheney et al; bullshit in that she mainstreamed their bullshit -- and it was her pleasure and enrichment (career-wise, socially, financially) to do so.
  • Her wanting to share her shame with the Dems her reporting (and not just the Chalabi intel) snowed. You don't get to foist blame on others for believing what your reporting (and the NYT's imprimatur) has introduced/endorsed. 

 

She'll undoubtedly go blissfully into her future, untroubled by what she's done. We'd be smart to take a better lesson from her.

 

I appreciated Jon's patient, almost plodding approach to the interview. To my eye, his interruptions seemed mostly to short-circuit some inane talking point she was trying to spin, so they didn't bother me in this context. Plus, he seemed extremely well prepared for it, and the dodges she'd try. Well done!

  • Love 10
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

That interview wasn't as good. Maher isn't that great of an interviewer, and I'm doubtful he read the book, which I don't expect. Maher had similar points as JS, but didn't communicate them as clearly. 

 

JS clearly did read the book and had specific examples and arguments prepared. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

And this was my favorite: There wasn't room!

I LOVED the audience groan after she said that. The only thing more perfect would have been them bursting out laughing.

 

She'll undoubtedly go blissfully into her future, untroubled by what she's done.

She already has. She's a commentator on Fox.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

Her constant, never-ending deflections. It was my editors' choice! It was that I couldn't reach my source! It was other people's bad intel! And this was my favourite: There wasn't room!

 

That was the jaw dropping moment for me. That a highly important piece of the story was left out because the editor couldn't find space in the New York Fucking Times to print it. Total! Bull! Fucking! Shit!!! Yet Miller stood by that reasoning and basically said to Jon and the audience in her own way to deal with it.

 

Anybody noticed that she's now a contributor to Fox News? Would anybody be surprised if they helped prep her for this?

  • Love 2
Link to comment
teddysmom

teddysmom

That interview wasn't as good. Maher isn't that great of an interviewer, and I'm doubtful he read the book, which I don't expect. Maher had similar points as JS, but didn't communicate them as clearly.

JS clearly did read the book and had specific examples and arguments prepared.

 

I agree. My point was that Jon probably researched other interviews she had done so he knew what her talking points would be.  Plus you'd want to watch them a few times to get inured to them so your head wouldn't explode when the lies and bullshit start coming out. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...