Out of Focus

CARLSON UP, GIULIANI DOWN

A couple weeks ago I was pissed as hell at Tucker Carlson. I mentioned how I had always retained a bit of respect for Carlson, even though I disagreed with him on most issues, but had lost much of it because of his inability to even listen to John Stewart's criticisms of the news media, especially shows like Carlson's Crossfire. Carlson went on to demean his viewing audience by calling people who complain to him in person as drunkards at airports.

But today on The Chris Matthews Show I was reminded why Carlson is not a completely robotic conservative presence like, say, his Crossfire alter-ego Robert Novak. Carlson spoke without spin. Not only did he say he fears that Kerry is likely to pull-out a win, but he also doesn't seem to believe the Republican spin that the Osama bin Laden tape will remind people of how protected Bush made us supposedly feel immediately after 9/11. He takes what I can only call a common-sense approach to the broadcast of the tape: if it has any affect at all (which he doubts) it will make people think, Oh, we thought he might be dead, but he's still alive, looking a bit healthier than last time, so why hasn't our President caught him yet?

Meanwhile on Meet the Press today, Rudy Giuliani showed up to spout more invective at John Kerry, and watching him do so was painful. Aside from the common knowledge that Giuliani disagrees with Bush on almost everything not involved with Iraq or tax cuts, his double-talk is agonizing. After making an obvious gaffe on the Today show the other morning effectively placing blame on the troops for not searching the Al Quaqa site well-enough to find the now-missing explosives, today he tried to say that he was simply trying to explain what Kerry was doing -- blaming the troops. Of course, it made absolutely no sense. And Giuliani, the more he campaigns, has been afflicted by a nervous tick. It's that thing where people chuckle while making their argument, effectively trying to show an audience, I can't believe I'm even having to say this because look at how obvious and laughable it is! Yet that's never the case, and maybe it's actually a result of the speaker not believing enough in his/her own bullshit. Russert rightly challenged Giuliani on the fact that he, like Bush and Cheney, did not serve in Vietnam, so how does he feel justified calling a decorated vet "anti-military." Again, Giuliani just turned around and said that Kerry criticizes the troops, as he did when he returned from Vietnam, which of course is a great distortion of the truth: that Kerry criticized and fought against the war itself, criticizing the policies that created an environment for certain things to happen. He criticized himself and some of his own actions, and by his side stood thousands-and-thousands of other Vietnam war vets.

I used to respect Giuliani, and his mayorship of New York did a lot of good (and some bad) for the city. Why is a man who seems to be able to stand so strongly by his convictions throughout the rest of his career feeling so comfortable blatantly spinning and even lying in support of this President? Even more so than another highly respected and honest Republican John McCain? (SNL's "Fun with Real Audio" animated sketch showing McCain having to repeatedly leave a campaign speech to throw things and flog himself inside his trailer because he had such a hard time swallowing his words of support for Bush was hysterical.)

I think the motivations behind both Carlson and Giuliani are interesting. In Carlson's case, I think he actually believes that his job as an analyst is more important than his job as a spinmeister. Most of the time, you see that, even on Crossfire. He will say what he thinks, even if it's not the party-line. He got riled by Stewart not because his political arguments were being questioned but his very credibility and the legitimacy of his entire profession was being criticized. Moreover, it was being denigrated by someone who he didn't consider worthy of doing so; a guy who is "just" a comedian. In certain ways, it was personal attack against his professional future, and when attacked in that arena, he becomes even more partisan than he ever could be political. Like any wounded person, he will defend his side ferociously without regard to the truth of the situation.

One can look at Giuliani (and McCain, actually) in the exact same way. Giuliani has always been ambitious, and whether Bush wins or lose, his future is tied Republican party support. If Bush wins, chances are the administration will try to bring him in to some sort of cabinet position, maybe even replacing Ridge at Homeland Security or Ashcroft as AG, and then in 2012, he's a potential frontrunner for the presidential nomination. If Bush loses, Giuliani's presidential aspirations come to the forefront four years sooner. If he doesn't publicly and aggressively support this President, neither of those options are possible because Republicans won't follow him. So even if it conflicts with his personal ideology, his political, and therefore personal, future are tied to his visible support of this president.

"He'll say anything to win" has become a laughable and hypocritical argument by the Bush campaign against Kerry, as if the same wasn't true on both sides. But it's "obvious" that "say anything" doesn't just need to pertain to the larger political campaigns. Ultimately, everybody does it. And on this day, my respect for Tucker Carlson has grown while Rudy Giuliani has (at least for the time being) lost any chance of ever getting my vote.

WE DO PLAN ON POSTING WITH MORE CONSISTENCY IN THE NEAR FUTURE

Oy, I just used that "royal we," and I know I am nowhere near the blogger to pull that off. It must take a lot out of the ones who do it well, even brilliantly, since it seems to sometimes kill them off. Nevertheless ...

I know there are at least two of you who count on content, some sort of rage or vitriol, and the past couple weeks, I've been lacking. Sure, Wednesday may bring a spurt of energy, but it's that daily flow that really means so much. My excuse this time is that my good friend and I are doing another round of interviews for Gothamist. They'll run the week of 11/8, and once again, I think we've got a really interesting and diverse lineup. And most importantly, I hope we (see, this time I'm actually talking about me and someone else!) haven't scared any of our interview subjects away with our large number of questions. It's just that we're nosy interested, you know?

So with the work for that plus my aforementioned pre-election malaise, it's been hard to churn out even my regular uninteresting drivel. I promise there will be more next week; maybe even this weekend. Or ... next week. For example, John Wells and The West Wing? You've got some fucking explaining to do! After I mention that the premiere indicated a turn for the better, you give me that piece of crap episode last week? And you show such disregard and lack of respect to one of your main and most consistently interesting characters to treat him that way? Well fuck you! I wish I could wipe that entire hour from my memory. The show gets one more chance only because I know these first two episodes were really wrap-up for last season and the real storylines for this season come next week. But you're sure making it a hell of a lot easier for me to find Wednesdays at 9 less competitive than I originally thought, even with Jack & Bobby taking up residence.

Yeah, I guess that wasn't so hard.

FOUR DAYS UNTIL THE BIG ONE: HERE'S SOME HOMEWORK

I mentioned this the other day, but I'm tired. Tired of the whole damn thing. I can't wait for Tuesday to get here. I'll go to my little elementary school polling place, walk right by the bake sale the parents always seem to hold on election day, try to remember my precinct number, wait forever while someone tries to find my name in that log book, and then pull the necessary levers. Then I'll probably pay absolutely no attention to work since I'll be focusing my ears on NPR and maybe even some Air America before planting myself on my couch later that evening to watch the cable "news" channels and the Daily Show Election Special.

Even thinking about the stress of that day makes me feel better because at some point, it's going to be over. Whatever the reality of Wednesday 11/3 -- there's a declared, and more importantly, agreed upon winner? Or we find ourselves headed towards multiple litigations and a repeat of the drawn-out situation of 2000? -- it will actually be a new reality. Whether or not the answers have completely arrived, we'll be asking different questions because there won't be any more reports of "October Surprises" or various polling. Obviously, I hope to go to sleep sometime in the wee morning hours of 11/3 knowing that John Kerry is our President-elect, but either way, the agony of the lead-up to this election will be over.

So if you're experiencing a similar malaise as I -- the desire to not hear or think about one more talking point or piece of spin, while at the same time finding yourself completely unable to stop looking for some new piece of information -- you're wondering how to get through the next four days, right?

Some time ago, indieWire posted a story about a new web site called Films to See Before You Vote. The name of the site makes its content pretty self-explanatory. The site offers links to trailers for many of the films and also has some nationwide screening information. It discusses new films currently in release as well as classics ranging from The Best Years of Our Lives, Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove to Bulworth, Three Kings and Wag the Dog. It wouldn't hurt to rewatch most of the films they have listed, particularly before the election. (And at this point, I'm going to throw in another plug for Network: I remain terrified of how every year our mass media seems to become more and more similar to the satirical reality Paddy Chayefsky created in that film. Jon Stewart's comments on Crossfire remains further proof of this to my mind.)

One film also listed on the site is Peter Davis's Academy Award winning Hearts and Minds, a Vietnam War doc from 1974 that discusses a subject which, like Errol Morris's The Fog of War, is unfortunately as relevant today as it was 30 years ago. The good news is, Hearts and Minds is currently playing at Film Forum, and runs through next Thursday. Along with catching Soldiers Pay on IFC and Bush's Brain on Sundance Monday night, there are some choices of what I guess I would call "still related distractions" to get through the next couple days. Here's hoping we all make it.

IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE "I-FEEL-LIKE-I'M-FIXIN'-TO-DIE-RAG," BUT THIS ISN'T THE '60S EITHER

In case there's anyone out there who still hasn't seen the new video for Eminem's song "Mosh," you should definitely check it out. Even leaving aside the quality of the song, this is an absolutely remarkable video. Yes, it is in many ways a campaign commercial, but more importantly it's a get-out-the-vote commercial. While it will be completely dated in about a week, it still is a fantastic example of the true capabilities of the music video as more than simply a commercial for a song or a chance to see your favorite artist walk around an empty loft while singing. The artistry of the video is of the highest quality.

HAPPY 100TH BIRTHDAY MTA!!

Did Willard Scott send his Smuckers birthday greetings to the NYC Subway? I wasn't watching Today this morning, but he should have. The subways turned 100, and I'm sure it likes strawberry jelly as much as the next elderly person.

As someone who lived in Los Angeles for eight years, four of them (gasp) without a car, I am all too aware of how nice it is to have a good public transportation system. LA's own MTA may have improved over the past decade, what with the addition of some subway systems and expansion of the bus system, but you still wouldn't want to live there without a car. My "favorite" LA public transportation horror story dates back to 1992. I was writing for the UCLA Daily Bruin and had to go to a screening at Columbia Pictures, now Sony, on their Culver City lot. Usually I was able to convince some friend with a car to go with me, but this night I had to go alone. I lived right in Westwood, about two blocks from campus, and the Culver City studio was basically directly south. Without even having to get on a freeway, driving shouldn't take you more than 15 minutes, and if you hit the right lights, 10. In fact, I'm blanking on how I got there, but I remember having to take the bus home at about 10:30 or 11 PM. I had to either wait for a bus or walk down to Sepulveda (a mile? maybe slightly less), then take another bus that would drop me on Wilshire and Gayley. Then I had to walk the rest of the way (another mile probably) to my apartment. The whole thing took over an hour-and-half.

Needless to say, whenever I get really frustrated at the NYC subway, I think back to the few times I couldn't escape taking the LA buses. Yeah, they sometimes take forever and if you're going to far west Chelsea or the far Upper East Side (why would you?), they're not exactly convenient. And I definitely get annoyed when traveling home to the Upper West Side very late at night from the EV or LES because that can actually take forever sometimes too, but on a daily basis (unless it does something weird like, I don't know, rain), the MTA takes care of my needs.

Gothamist has a great overview of the birthday with tons of interesting links, especially the great site nycsubway.org which has basically everything you could want to know about the system. And you should already be reading Thighs Wide Shut on a daily basis, but if you're not, definitely go today to check-out the Thigh Master's excellent tribute "Cellie-Bratin' The Subway's Cent-Tennyul." He and I obviously share an appreciation for, and occasional recurring nightmares from, Walter Hill's classic The Warriors!

1906 IRT map courtesy of nycsubway.org

THERE GOES THAT THEORY (FOR ONE NIGHT ONLY!)

Back at the beginning of September, I wrote a post about IFC and Sundance Channel, praising them for cultivating their individual, and differing, personalities while both servicing the indie film audience. My premise was that while both channels showed any number of independent cinema both foreign and domestic, Sundance has become more real-world driven with a large focus on documentary and political programming while IFC has gone for more entertainment driven programming.

Well, ultimately I stand by that, but on Erev Election Night, i.e., next Monday, IFC is doing its own little political documentary block, and it's one that I will definitely be checking out. Although the shorter of their two featured films of the evening, the highlight has to be the television premiere of David O. Russell's Soldiers Pay, a 35-minute documentary that was supposed to be on the DVD re-release of the director's brilliant Three Kings, but Warner Home Video believed deemed too controversial. It will air three times at 9:35 PM, midnight and 2:15 AM.

But you might as well pick a 2-hour 15-minute block to watch IFC on Monday, because leading-in to the Russell film at 8 PM, 10:15 PM, and 12:35 AM is the phenomenal Chris Hegedus and D.A. Pennebaker documentary The War Room which gives you an inside view of the 1992 Clinton campaign.

IFC isn't exactly shaking-off the programming focus I've detected, however. This weekend, they'll delight/scare (take your pick) with some classics from Italian horror film legends Dario Argento and Mario Bava including what they call the network premiere of the former's fantastic Suspiria. You can see the whole schedule here.

Just so you don't think I'm playing favorites, Mondays are usually DocDay on Sundance Channel anyway, and they have some pretty great politically motivated documentaries that day too, most notably at 10:10 PM Bush's Brain all about the president's #1 political advisor, Karl Rove. I haven't seen it yet, having missed it at both this year's Tribeca Film Festival, a special screening at the Walter Reade and a short theatrical run.

And yesterday I mentioned that last night was the premiere of the final episode of Tanner on Tanner, right? Well while it would have been very easy for me to check the schedule ahead of time to say, "Hey, they're showing all four episode on Sun 10/31 from 5-7 PM," I didn't and just guessed it was happening. But yeah … Sundance will be showing all four Tanner on Tanner episodes on Sunday from 5-7 PM. Considering that they're just a bit boring compared to the original Tanner '88 series, and not really all that scary, I find Halloween an interesting scheduling choice.

"I'M AN OBSESSIONAL CHARACTER TO BEGIN WITH ..." -- ME TOO, ERROL. MAYBE NOT QUITE LIKE YOU, BUT ME TOO!

I'm a huge fan of Errol Morris, and his last film The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara was in my opinion the third best film of 2003 while in other ways being by far the most important. Well today, Ben Chappel posted a long discussion with Morris over at Gothamist which is a must-read. At one point, near the end, Morris says something that particularly struck me: " Someone asked me if I was in a state of depression or despair, and I said, 'absolutely not,' but it is a state of extreme enervation. Of just feeling depleted by it all." Maybe that's the same thing I've been feeling – "depleted." It's been going on for weeks, and I find myself so obsessively watching and reading the news and the various political blogs out there (especially the ones listed on the right). It's like a bad crack addiction that you know is bad for you, but you have to keep going back for more. If you've never seen The Fog of War, seriously go rent it now. In many ways, I think it's a far more important and relevant film to this election than Fahrenheit 9/11. As I commented when I first saw the Morris film, there is an eerie resemblance between McNamara during his time as Secretary of Defense helping to create the Vietnam War and Donald Rumsfeld now, or at least 18 months ago when the Bush Campaign didn't try to keep a lid on him. The things they each said and the tone with which they said them was nearly identical. Scarier, they physically look similar. In his Gothamist chat, Morris mentions that he now thinks McNamara was more like Colin Powell than Rumsfeld. He doesn't go into detail, but I'm guessing that's due to McNamara's attempts to actually caution Lyndon Johnson against escalating the conflict and becoming a dissenting voice. It's an interesting perspective. Either way, though, whether or not people want to argue over the similarities between the Vietnam War and the current one in Iraq (and plenty of people will adamantly argue there are no similarities whatsoever), day-by-day we now see that many of the mistakes made 40 years ago in Southeast Asia are identical to those we're making now in Iraq. If only Bush had had the sense of LBJ and not run for his party's nomination; but unlike the democrats in the '60s who were ready to throw the President out, the republicans of '04 have such blinding loyalty that we are really doomed to have not learned from the past. Meanwhile, in case you were unaware, Morris produced a bunch of Republican switch ads, i.e., voters for Bush in 2000 who are voting for Kerry this year, in collaboration with MoveOn.org. The ads are just like the Apple switch ads he made a few years ago: average people simply talking in front of a blank white background for 30 seconds. They're also quite brilliant and emotionally compelling. You can see all of them online here at errolmorris.com. I know MoveOn paid to run a few of the ads a couple months ago, but apparently they were never utilized as part of a larger campaign, and that's really a shame. In these last days of overly manipulative wolves, eagles and ostriches coupled with spin from both sides and flat out lies from one, having some real American voters just talking about their own opinions and experiences might be refreshing. Go watch them yourself, and if by chance you have any pull with some left-leaning 527 in a swing state, maybe these ads could be of some last minute help so that the "depleted" feeling I, and I'm sure many others, share with Morris does not, in fact, transform into one of "depression or despair." Six days left ….

ACTUALLY FAIR AND BALANCED

Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan has become one of my favorite daily reads. I disagree with him on many issues, but he never seems to be towing the party line. Maybe that's just because he finds himself in a gray area that extends over the right and left: internationally hawkish and fiscally conservative yet socially liberal.

Sullivan has been writing for weeks about how disappointed he is in President Bush, a man he endorsed in 2000 and still believes has done many positive things. He also has written that he was having a terrible time pulling the trigger and deciding that he could vote for Kerry no matter how much the current administration frustrated him. Well, he finally made his choice, and on his blog he provides a link to "The endorsement I never thought I'd write." And here it is, from The New Republic Online. It's well worth the read and probably more balanced than any other endorsement I've read of either candidate anywhere.

MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANY: IT'S CALLED A FUNK

Or something like that. I think that's what I may be in. All funked up. Is it the weather? Is it a dearth of anything interesting actually going on? Certainly the blogosophere doesn't need me to comment on Ashlee Simpson, although I do take offense to the Pepcid-AC excuse. Acid Reflux is a very serious disease that if it gets really bad can lead to the erosion of your esophagus and potentially throat cancer. And if it's that bad that it makes your throat sore, you're usually not singing "live" the next night and doing "Today exclusive" interviews two days later.

I don't know. Maybe it's this utter panic I feel creeping in regarding what happens a week from today. The politics of fear have worked on me, folks. I am absolutely terrified of four more years with Dubya and this administration. Seriously scared. I wasn't before his election in 2000. I didn't want it, but I didn't think the world would end. Now, I'm not so sure. They've made so many mistakes and errors in judgment, and new fuck-ups are revealed daily. And none of the news now regarding polling or trends or anything makes any sense or really indicates that it's going to go one way or another. But is that because of spin? Media bias (which has shockingly become more and more conservative even while conservatives keep spouting "the liberal media." Kids, "the liberal media" no longer exists.)? I don't know, but I just want it to be over, and I pray for the right outcome.

Whatever it is, I haven't been able to post because I haven't been able to write. And now I just have these random minideas (I love creating words) bouncing around my brain. Such as:

• Speaking of the election, tonight is the finale of Sundance Channel's four-episodes Tanner on Tanner. If you haven't been watching, don't bother to do so now, although I'm sure Sundance will replay the entire 2 hours at some point. This brief series hasn't been nearly as compelling as the original Tanner '88. Hopefully, Sundance will continue to show those episodes, but Criterion just released the entire series on DVD, and the two discs are definitely worth the rental. Tanner on Tanner tries to lampoon the current popularity of documentary filmmaking, particularly political docs. The problem is that the episodes seem to focus more on the characters, especially the somewhat annoying Alex Tanner. What made Tanner '88 so interesting wasn't specifically the characters as much as the supposed inside-look at the process and experience of running for president. But Tanner on Tanner has become too much about the troubles Alex has making her documentary and not enough about her doc's actual subject, looking back on the effort of a failed campaign and what it does to the candidates. That would, in fact, have been a great series, but the idea is barely touched upon. Instead, we've gotten clever fact-meets-fiction meta-moments such as Alex Kerry and Alex Tanner both trying to interview Ron Reagan Jr for their respective documentaries, but ultimately, where Tanner '88 felt like substantial satire, Tanner on Tanner has been mostly fluff.

• Tomorrow or Thursday I plan to revisit some of this season's new shows and explain a few upgrades and downgrades, but I am happy to see that schedule-changes are already underway, even before Fox really throws its schedule into the mix. Hawaii has mercifully been cancelled and LAX has moved into its Wednesday night slot. At least half of that is good news.

  But even better news, CBS's Clubhouse – of which I'm a dwindling fan – is moving from its overly competitive Tuesday 9 PM slot to Saturdays at 8. Saturdays might actually be an appropriate night for this slightly-too-family-friendly show, but it's also probably an indication that it won't survive the season. The good news, though, is that Saturdays at 8 was supposed to be the time slot for TV's far-and-away best reality show, The Amazing Race 6, which will now move into Clubhouse's own home on Tuesdays starting with a 2 hour premiere in a few weeks.

  The WB is swapping some shows too, sending The Mountain to Sundays at 9 PM in exchange for Jack & Bobby moving to Wednesdays at 9 PM. This is kind of a curious move, actually. Jack & Bobby is by far the better show, especially considering that The Mountain never should have moved beyond its crapterrible pilot. But Sundays at 9 and Wednesday at 9 are probably the two most competitive time slots of the entire week, especially with the (much-deserved) blockbuster success of ABC's Desperate Housewives on Sundays and the (dare-I-say-it-after-only-one-episode?) possible resurgence of The West Wing on Wednesdays. I'm not sure about what sense it makes for either show. Jack & Bobby wasn't finding an audience on Sundays, but the only advantage for Wednesdays is that Smallville might be a more compatible lead-in than Charmed. Still, it now will have to face The Bachelor, The King of Queens, The West Wing and Kevin Hill not to mention something Nanny 911 or Bernie Mac (if the show goes back into production post Mac-"exhaustion"). While Desperate Housewives is the biggest new non-reality hit network TV has seen since CSI (and even that show took some time to grow), the CBS Sunday Movie, Law & Order: Criminal Intent and Fox's upcoming My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss can't be as scary as that Wednesday lineup, and on Sundays, The WB doesn't even have to worry about competing with UPN which doesn't program the evening. Still, I'm guessing (hoping) that The WB believes that Smallville's overall audience (which is much larger than Charmed's) will help make-up for that 1/2 a rating point which seemed to separate The Mountain and Jack & Bobby each week with more people finding the latter show, and the former just fending for itself.

• In what can only be described as joyous quick-overnight rating news, last night's premiere of The Swan on Fox utterly tanked coming in fifth in its first hour beating only UPN's sitcoms. A few more people turned in during its second hour, but I'm sure the numbers are still way below Fox's expectations. Maybe that's because the show is awful.

• Proof that Mischa Barton desperately wants to be Tori Spelling: she's making a concerted effort to appear in indie films such as The OH in Ohio. She'll star opposite Parker Posey, which obviously is a major element of achieving true indie-film cred, just like Tori did The House of Yes. This means implants must be next. She's 18 now, so it's easily doable!

• In what could be good news for the potential film production of Rent, the producers are apparently now thinking of going after much of the original Broadway cast to reprise their roles for the film. This would include Taye Diggs, Jesse Martin, Adam Pascal, Anthony Rapp and Idina Menzel. I'm not sure why they wouldn't also want Daphne Rubin-Vega or Wilson Heredia who as Mimi and Angel, respectively, were the two highlights of the original production, along with Menzel's Maureen. And if they want to stick a brand name in it like Justin Timberlake (who was previously rumored), I'm not sure why they wouldn't want him for Roger, the role originated by the I-can-sing-much-better-than-I-can-act Pascal. But whatever; it's all a sign for hope. I'm sure Revolution Studios is encouraged by the fact that Diggs, Martin and even Menzel have become more household names since their Rent debuts, with Diggs and Martin toplining TV series (Kevin Hill and Law & Order, respectively) and Menzel winning a Tony for her ongoing excellent star-turn in Wicked. While this casting won't solve what I called the "Fifth Sign of the Apocalypse," namely the fact that Chris Columbus will destroy direct the production, it certainly would help instill some of the stage show's spirit into the film.

• I don't know about you, but I don't think it's right for Sarah Michelle Gellar to benefit from Ben Affleck's failures. Sure Surviving Christmas probably sucks and shouldn't have been released a week before Halloween, and I was also a huge fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but Scooby Doo and its sequel were enough to push me off the Gellar bandwagon, and we don't really need another Neve Campbell or even Jennifer Love Hewitt. Just because everyone wants to punish Ben with a $4-Million opening, does that mean The Grudge deserves to make ten-times that much? I think not.

• Oh yeah, and just in case you're more confident about a Kerry win and think I have no reason to worry, if I were an undecided voting in Iowa, this sure as hell wouldn't make me go Democratic.

And finally, last Friday's post was, in fact, my last word (at least for the time being ... yeah, always hedging) on the whole Jon Stewart/Crossfire incident. Sunday's 60 Minutes didn't really illuminate anything. Steve Kroft was a good sport, even though he didn't really challenge Stewart at all, although that may be simply because there's no rational argument against what Stewart was saying.

MY LAST WORD ON STEWART? THAT DEPENDS ON SUNDAY'S 60 MINUTES

I apologize for my absence most of this week. A combination of a nasty head cold and a brief utter lack of motivation and inspiration – damn you wicked –ations – helped produce a basically empty week. I know I've become even more of a Daily Show/Jon Stewart fan site recently, but dammit if the man isn't carrying the banner for those of us who actually pay attention to the news media and refuse to call it liberal or conservative because ultimately it is really neither; instead it has simply become increasingly sucky.

Well, I don't know if this will be my absolutely final post on the Stewart/Crossfire storm, but I've been debating this week whether to bring it up again due to some other commentaries I've read online. Today I realized I had to, though, when I opened Variety and learned that none other than the estimable 60 Minutes has decided that Stewart's comments and confrontation with Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala a week ago today was important enough to receive a segment on this Sunday's edition of the show. (UPDATE: This is what happens when you skim a story. As you can see, the Stewart segment had already been planned, but Steve Kroft went back to talk to Stewart again after the Crossfire appearance.)

In the story, Carlson continues to lower himself in my estimation by being completely oblivious to the fact that Stewart had him, his show and the entire news media dead-to-rights. "I think he's a lot less interesting as a media critic than he is as a comedian. He's a good comedian. He didn't tell me anything I haven't heard from drunk viewers in airport bars a hundred times." As I've mentioned before, I actually used to respect Carlson even if I disagreed with him, but comments such as this, which demean both Stewart and the general viewing public, prove that the conservative bow-tied one has simply become another cog in the mainstream media machinery which must defend itself at all costs rather than provide its intended service as a source of information to the masses. Maybe that's why Crossfire's viewership has been on a downward slope for a while. Back when it was good – that would be about a decade ago, before any of the current hosts were participants – the show was a lynchpin of CNN's schedule, anchoring the pre-primetime lineup at 7:30 PM with latenight repeats as well. Now it's relegated to the late-afternoon slot of 4:30 PM when no serious working adult is home to watch-it. By the way, that's 1:30 PM on the West Coast, and CNN doesn't have separate feeds, nor does the show repeat at all. How can Carlson argue that a show which used to take place with nothing more than a desk, an empty black background and its participants is not simple political theater now that it takes place in front of a loud studio audience and has literally adding bells and whistles to the discussion. CNN's decision to jazz up the show has only served to diminish its value.

But I don't need to go on again about the demise of Crossfire since the show does a good job on its own of proving its worthlessness. I'm actually fascinated by the uproar created by Stewart, particularly in that more people seem to be talking about his decision to speak-out on the show and whether or not he has the right rather than arguing the points he was making. It seems that few people disagree that much with Stewart's argument; they just believe he's not the best messenger.

I thought Dana Stevens' reaction on her "Surfergirl" blog was interesting and valid, except why is it "Stewart's job to make us laugh, not to lecture us"? What makes Stewart's commentary on the current state of the news media any less valuable than a supposed "professional" media critic. The thought that it's not is simply absurd and without any merit. If I somehow had the opportunity to be the sole guest on an episode of Crossfire, I'd say the same damn things, and you know what? Maybe my opinion should count more than some columnist because I'm the actual audience for the people I'm criticizing. What really qualifies "media critics" other than the amount of time they pay attention to the media? The only people who will become defensive and argue that I'm incorrect are, in fact, those who call themselves "media critics" and receive a paycheck for being such. However, I consider myself a "media critic" and actually a better one than many of those deemed "professional."

Stevens linked to a fantastic post by Jim Treacher containing many points with which I agreed. But Treacher seemed to be annoyed by what he called Stewart's "Clown nose off, clown nose on" representations as a "pundit and comedian." He seems to think it's OK for Stewart to be both, "just maybe not in the same breath." He was annoyed by Stewart's repeated utilization of "we're a comedy show" in response to Carlson's defensive questioning of why he lobbed softball's at John Kerry when he had him on The Daily Show.

Treacher's post has apparently yielded nearly 200 comments, one of which is mine. Here's what I wrote on his blog: