Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CNN Cancels Crossfire

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the jon-stewart-victorious dept.

Television 182

blonde rser writes "Three months after Jon Stewart appeared on (and lambasted) CNN's Crossfire the Globe and Mail reports that CNN is dumping Tucker Carlson. It appears that Crossfire is being canceled and Carlson's contract is not being renewed. As to whether Stewart's opinion had any affect on the decision there is this quote from Jonathan Klein, CEO of CNN's US network: 'I guess I come down more firmly in the Jon Stewart camp.'"

cancel ×

182 comments

How did Carlson land that job anyways? (4, Insightful)

HolyCoitus (658601) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274026)

I don't know a single person that likes him, regardless of their political interests. If he were on Slashdot, he'd have been modded -1 flamebait immediately and never thought of again.

I'm curious though. What's his background that earned him the spot on a show like Crossfire? He had to have done something that made him in the spotlight in some way before that I would assume?

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (5, Insightful)

xanderwilson (662093) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274056)

In today's world of pundits, you don't need to have a background in hard news research and fact-checking. You just have to have an opinion and, preferably, a marketable personality. I'd like to see more seasoned journalists do news analysis, rather than people on all sides with their minds decided before they collect the facts to back their opinions up.

Alex.

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (2, Interesting)

HolyCoitus (658601) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274095)

I agree with you completely. I take it a step in a different direction though, and would prefer a lot of people with questionable credentials coming to a conclusion on an issue. Something such as Slashdot mainly.

Takes your mind down more interesting paths and forces you to question things.

Was Carlson's personality something taht anyone could market though? Was he presented as an asshole to make it so that people from "the left" would watch to hope he gets his ass handed to him?

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (2, Insightful)

Qwaniton (166432) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274190)

Was Carlson's personality something taht anyone could market though? Was he presented as an asshole to make it so that people from "the left" would watch to hope he gets his ass handed to him?

I wouldn't be surprised. Crossfire is not a political analysis or debate show. It's a performance show. It's entertainment. Civil, objective and rational debate is not the point of Crossfire.

Civil debate is great and all, but it's not entertainment. It's not exciting. It doesn't reach out to you, Joe Viewer, and grab you. It doesn't have you on the edge of your seat. It simply doesn't make Great Television.

People watch Crossfire for the personalities and the performance. It's as much as a performing art as anything else. It's essentially the performance art of rhetoric. And it's quite entertaining.

That's why I listen to Rush Limbaugh, after all. I may disagree with half the things he says, but I'm still a dittohead. He's one hell of a broadcaster.

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (1)

Clock Nova (549733) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278447)

If the entertainment factor is all you're after, ditch Rush and try Mike Malloy - he's much more entertaining. Come to think of it, so is Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, Chuck D., etc.

Make no mistake.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11274315)

If you read the article, it's really more about what CNN sees, quite sensibly, as the change in the wind, and the necessary end of Crossfire than what they think about Carlson. As unbelievable as it is, he wants, or even expects, a primetime 9pm slot for his own one hour show. CNN even investigated moving him in as an anchore by having him sub for Aaron Brown. MSNBC looks like they're going to give it too him. (Honestly they're starved for content.) They're looking at him to replace Debra Norville, who once asked a woman mauled by a mountain lion if it hurt when the animal bit into her. (Which is about the most awesome question, and reaction to a question, I've seen on TV.)

CNN's parting with Carlson isn't as much about how John Stewart became a folk hero by crushing him and that corpse that O.D.'d on botox. It's about CNN not wanting to give him a promotion at this time. They still acknowledge him as a significant "talent", whatever that means in his genre.

I liked what was said on what direction they thought CNN should go it. It was something to the effect of, "When the President sits down with his advisors, do you think they just all start yelling? Shouldn't we consider affording our audiance a similar level of respect?" Personally, they should just buy and play episodes of Frontline, those guys know exactly what the hell they're doing.

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (1)

Alomex (148003) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274731)

You just have to have an opinion

I think calling Anne Coulter's mentally derranged mussings an "opinion" is too much of a compliment. After all this is the woman who compared The New York Times to the 9/11 terrorists.

All you need is a marketable personality and the willingness to engage in a shoold-yard-like shouting match.

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278340)

It might be worthwhile to note the Wonkette [wonkette.com] summarized the story as:

CNN said to be canning the show, replacing it with monkeys throwing their own shit at each other.

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (1)

nura78 (757740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11280822)

CNN said to be canning the show, replacing it with monkeys throwing their own shit at each other. I think FOX News has a show for that: Hannity and Colmes.

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (1)

ProTag (847090) | more than 9 years ago | (#11280107)

There is no "news" media anymore. It is all just entertainment...the difference between "news" shows and say the "west wing" is the same difference between an "mtv" vidoe and one of those "top 100" videos of all time" shows.

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274298)

While I didn't agree with his opinions, he was, at one point, considered a journalist with some integrity. He did a fairly "warts and all" portrait of GWB some time before the 2000 election, which infuriated many Bush supporters for reporting on a joke Bush made about a woman on death row [google.com] .

On a show like Crossfire, where the show encouraged partisanship to the point of absurdity on both sides, he really wasn't the right person. It's not a show for serious journalists, and Carlson, I felt, wanted at some point to be taken seriously as a journalist, not just a pundit. In that respect, it was sadly appropriate that he, rather than his collegues, ended up trying to defend the show against Stewart.

Because his daddy is a big shot (1)

Blacklantern (658383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11275160)

Tucker already has a new job! [alternet.org] "After all, Richard Carlson used to head the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which partially funds PBS, and also contributes to the production of -- you guessed it -- "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered! Before that, Richard headed the United States Information Agency, which presumably explains the propaganda gene so prevalent in much of young Tuck's prior shouting . . .er, "reporting.""

Bowtie (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11277051)

I'm curious though. What's his background that earned him the spot on a show like Crossfire? He had to have done something that made him in the spotlight in some way before that I would assume?

Because he wears a bow tie? Let's not pretend that CNN is somehow objective in the arena of politics - this is the network that initially reported the Sandy Berger story leaving out the bit about him stuffing the papers in his pants and socks.

Tucker Carlson is the caricature of an American conservative and that suited CNN just well. They like having a "dope" in that chair just fine.

That's not to say he doesn't hold his positions honestly and dearly, but he represents one view held by a very narrow crosssection of Americans. If you're arguing for the "other side" it's a nice position to argue against and it's useful to pretend that Carlson's positions represent 52% of the citizenry.

While Stewart was largely grandstanding he has a good point - Crossfire is about people representing a narrow crossection of Democrats trading jabs with people representing a narrow crosssection of Republicans. It's political theatre, not serious policy debate.

Now the question is will it be replaced with meaningful policy debate and analysis or more Ricky-Lake-style news? And if John Stewart winds up with the spot there's gonna be hell to pay.

Re:Bowtie (2, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278523)

In more ways than one- if Stewart ends up there- who is of an equal stature for Comedy Central to replace their fake news anchor with? Maybe Mo Rocha (sp? Don't remember his last name) or Candice Bergman, but there isn't anybody I can think of that would do as good of a job as Stewart has done with the fake news.

Re:Bowtie (2, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278915)

but there isn't anybody I can think of that would do as good of a job as Stewart has done with the fake news.

I hear Dan Rather is available as of this spring.

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

Re:Bowtie (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279005)

Too unbelieveable :-) At least Stewart is more believeable- and he even ADMITS that his news stories are fake (though it took me quite a while to realize what the studio audience of The Daily Show already knew: Whenever somebody is "live on location" it means that they are on the other side of the stage standing in front of a great big TV set showing the "location".)

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11277128)

If he were on Slashdot, he'd have been modded -1 flamebait immediately and never thought of again.

Yeah, because nobody can survive the absolute crushing humilation of being modded -1 on slashdot.

Re:How did Carlson land that job anyways? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11279256)

He had to have done something that made him in the spotlight in some way before that I would assume?

Maybe he gives a really hot lap dance followed by an unforgettable BJ?

quote (2, Funny)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274027)

Jonathan Klein, CEO of CNN's US network: 'I guess I come down more firmly in the Jon Stewart camp.'

Later in the day Klein was herd coughing in the following way "*cou*cock*gh*munch*" as he walked past Carlson.

Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (2, Interesting)

genrader (563784) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274040)

I'm a conservative and I absolutely hate that guy. He tries to defend Bush when there is no reason to defend him. I'm a conservative and Bush is an insane president with a socialist agenda. I suppose they only got Carlson on there to make conservatives look retarded.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

lowmagnet (646428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274053)

Are you a conservative? I didn't get that.

Teasing aside, Carlson had come down in the pro-Kerry camp before the election, for what it's worth. Then again, so did a lot of socially liberal fiscal conservatives. YMMV.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Qwaniton (166432) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274132)

He's a conservative of the free-market/paleoconservative/libertarian persuasion, as far as I can tell.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

lowmagnet (646428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11280751)

I mainly wrote that because he started two sentences with "I'm a conservative"e

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274155)

I always figured people like Carlson came down in the pro-Kerry camp because Kerry, out of the other contenders for the Democratic nomination, was sure to alienate middle America (and thus not be able to win).

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11274060)

*cough, cough*

I'm a socialist and let me tell you that you have no clue what socialist actually is.

OTOH, you had me laughing quite a bit, thank you for that.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274086)

You see since he is a conservative "socialist" and "communist" terms that mean "bad".

The poster is a conservative, and so is Bush. Easier to hate something you don't understand as opposed to yourself I guess.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11275919)

Actually there is some debate over whether Bush actually is a conservative. He is a neoconservative definitly, but paleoconservatives are quite fond of calling the neoconservatives (and Bush) anything but conservative.

As a socialist myself (and maybe a communist, I don't know, it is a point of debate) I found it to be a quite mind boggling experience to be listening to an interview with Pat Buchanon talking about Bush and his book "Where the right went wrong" and finding myself agreeing with him! I mean, to agree with Pat Buchanon almost had me questioning my political identity... until the talk turned away from Bush and back on to his pet "close the boarders" rhetoric.

-Steve

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278790)

I'm more of a distributist than a socialist- but I find Pat Buchanon extremely scary. Here's a guy widely known as a fascist- and I even agree with him on his close the borders rhetoric (as a distributist with socialist tendencies, it just makes the resource distribution problems have a lot fewer variables if you limit outside interferance in your economy).

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1, Flamebait)

genrader (563784) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274263)

Bush is far from conservative. He isn't technically socialist in the sense of 99.5% of socialists, but that's because he is a retard.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11274464)

Does the term national socialist ring a bell? Think about it, Bush wants you to submit to the state, Hitler wanted you to submit to the state, Stalin wanted you to submit to the state. They are all socialists.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11274706)

You might want to inform yourself of what the terms "socialist" and "faschist" mean... you might be surprised to see that what you really mean is faschism (corporate faschism).

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11274969)

I tried to inform myself, but for some strange reason I can't find "faschism" in the dictionary.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11275058)

Yes, exactly. Let me spell it out for you: Fascism is just another form of socialism.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11275859)

And lettuce is just another form of banana.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11276057)

Actually he is right, Fascism is a form of socialism. I would call it the "dark underelly of socialism" but, I am also not a national socialist. Socialism at its heart has some pretty general consepts of "social contract" and society being people comming together and working together and all that.

One extreme of this is National Socialism, another extreme is Libertarian Socialism (which may or may not be another word for anarchism depending on who you are talking to), and there are a few others in other dimensions. (Communism being generally considered one of the extremes)

That is to say just because you are a socialist, doesn't mean that you agree with all other socialists. I have debated with a national socialist, they are definitly socialist. They have a strong belief in cultural identity and that different cultural identities can't form a single society. I think they are wrong. However that is (at least one of) their um "kinks".

-Steve

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11277476)

Fascism is not a form of socialism. But, I am laughing quite a bit, so I guess I have to thank you for that comment.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11277677)

Ok fine... I have said it is, you have said it isn't. Would you care to attempt a statement on what you see the tennents of fascism to be vs socialism and why fascism is not a form of socialism?

Or should we stick to blanket statments on the obvious truth of the matter?

-Steve

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (-1, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278101)

Actually, a better suggestion is to get an education. You obviously need it, and it would help you to understand the distinction between the two. Even Wikipedia could help you out.

Or, you can stick to your ignorance, and we can get into a nice little fight in which I repeatedly stick my penis into your mouth and ejaculate. That would be a great deal of fun.

So what do you say? Still ready to fight with me, or will you at least crack a book open? I promise it won't be a fair fight, and your mother's reputation will probably improve, but only because I won't argue that she slept with Hitler.

Let's get ready to rumble!

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279600)

Well if you want a fight, maybe you can just come over here and we cna roll up our sleeves and have it out. I was attempting to approach the discussion open to being educated on the tennents of national socialism and fascism. I even went to the OED and looked up fascism according to their definition to see if it might help.

However this seems to have just gotten me accused of wanting a fight. Whatever.

This is actually a question that I have tried to resolve before and have met little success. I suppose I should just go off and find some original writtings of Moussolini and/or Hitler since all anyone is interested in doing is tossing around platitudes and blanket statements to leave no room for debate.

Guess thats what I should expect from /.

-Steve

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279788)

Ahahaha. Got you.

Actually, Wikipedia is really pretty good for the basic definitions. They at least do a good job of explaining why socialism is really the OPPOSITE of fascism.

It's also useful for understanding other things. We all know that Hitler hated the Russians for a lot of things, but especially since they were Communist. And the Russians never like Hitler either. They were natural enemies, and understanding what fascism and socialism are will go a long ways to explain why they hated each other.

In a very small nutshell, the important distinction between the two is that fascism enforces strict hierarchy of socio/economic structure, and socialism emphasizes class struggle. Other distinctions are that socialism is predicated upon a completely democratic society, and fascism is built upon a totalitarian/authoritarian system composed of the ruling class (corporate class) integrated into government. The Soviets weren't really socialist because they weren't an actual democracy.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1, Insightful)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274075)

socialist agenda? wtf have you been watching? Bush is the wet dream of hardcore capitalists.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Qwaniton (166432) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274113)

You're either too far left to realize or too ignorant to understand that Bush is in no way a "hardcore capitalist". Bush has multiplied the size of the federal government, cheered on NAFTA and GATT and all those other "free trade" treaties which bring on yet more regulatory nonsense, redistributes wealth...the list goes on and on.

Damn I'm burned out. I need sleep.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274219)

"free trade" treaties? Last time I checked these tree trade treaties allow the outsourcing to whichever country has the lowest standard of living and lack of employeement laws. The wealth gets redistributed - right back to those who have it.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

arkanes (521690) | more than 9 years ago | (#11277293)

I'd say that Bush absolutely is a hardcore capitalist. What he's not is a hardcore free-marketer, because he's really fond of corporate pork. It's capitalism as defined by "protect big business", basically a re-branded version of Reagans trickle-down economics.

Note where the increases the federal government actually are - it's not like he's pumping a ton of extra money into the FCC or the federal reserve or authoring bills for greated market regulation.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Qwaniton (166432) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279220)

Well, if capitalism means "protect big business by pumping public funds into giant government-protected businesses", then I'm 100% against it.

Bush is not anywhere close to a laissez-faire type, but he sure does dig the corporate welfare garbage.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11274230)

He's a capitalist in *exactly* the same way the Nazi's were. IE complete socialists. Economic advantages for my friends, and the disenfranchised can suck it, because the party tells you what the real truth is.

Which makes sense, since he made his money off of the government either directly or indirectly. He ran investments, which were underwritten by the government, of his father's friends into the ground turning millions into nothing. And then he extorted the taxpayers for a new baseball stadium, and then took a share of the profits when the team was sold. He's a giant welfare case.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11277446)

You obviously don't get the distinction between socialism and fascism.

Socialism is government ownership and control of corporations.

Fascism is a mutual cooperation between government and corporations, to gain favors for business, and for government to gain powerful and moneyed allies.

There's obviously a lot more to both of these, but this distinction that I outlined is what you are missing. It's not a little thing.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279303)

Bush is the wet dream of hardcore capitalists.

Hardly, he is the wet dream of hardcore big business.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Qwaniton (166432) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274144)

Indeed. Crossfire's purpose is to tow the party line for the Republicrats. It's thinly-veiled propaganda. (Is propaganda the word I'm looking here? I can't think of a better word, but "propaganda" has strong connotations of the "progressive"/Indymedia/hippie term for "opinions we don't like".)

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (2, Informative)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274236)

Okay, you have no clue what you're talking about. Bush is about as close to the opposite of a socialist that you can get. Reducing taxes and privitizing social security alone would disprove what you said, but his pro-capitalism tax/corporate agenda go even further. His backing of Medicare is about the only thing socialistic about him.

I mean, really, look at Canada or some European countries for much closer examples of socialism. We're nowhere close and getting further away.

--trb

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

hph (32331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274454)

He's running a record deficit. And the average citizen have to pay that in the end, because afterall there is noone else that can pay it. Say hello to inflation and bad times.

When the government spends money, that is socialism.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11275196)

So, not all socialism is bad. Clever -- I like it.

Cheers,
-l

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 9 years ago | (#11275776)

You seem to imply that running a deficit means that he is socialist. That doesn't make any sense at all. Canada is running a budget surplus, and has been for years.

Government spending money is not socialism, that's what governments do. Otherwise, they wouldn't be of any use at all. Bush, however, is not spending it on social policies, he's burning it in the name of national defense, something that, no matter anyone's opinion, governments SHOULD spend money on. Just... not that much, and not so wastefully.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11277089)

Nope. The Bush deficits of 3-4% of the GDP are in no way a record compared to the 30+% deficits that we had in the 1940's.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11277409)

Clearly you don't know what socialism is.

Re:Thank God they're getting rid of Tucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11279706)

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You're like Bush bullshitting his way through life.

I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (4, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274066)

If the CEO of CNN really thought what he said he thought, CNN USA would look very different. I first thought their terrible and deliberately distorted news coverage had to do with their incompetence (or lack of resources). But this isn't true. I've spent a few days watching CNN Europe, and I have to tell you that it is a far better news channel. They actually do balanced and interesting stories, and are generally much less Tucker-Carlson-like. So the crap they're brodcasting into the USA is deliberately dumbed down. They actually have less-dumbed-down versions of all their big stories, but they just don't broadcast them in North America.

I saw Jon Stewart on Crossfire and from what I could gather from his rant, he objected to the institution of Republicans and Democrats yelling slogans from their talking points list, and pretending it's debate... and then pretending that reports like "Democrats claim X; Republicans claim Y" is news. So what if Crossfire is over. Everything that JS freaked out about is absolutely at the foundation of the way CNN reports. Crossfire is just reveals that formula in an especially naked way. So I don't understand how somebody could agree with JS and still be CEO of CNN-USA.

Re:I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (1)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274108)

So the crap they're brodcasting into the USA is deliberately dumbed down.

Networks will only broadcast what the public want.

When it comes to news, from what the outside world sees, the American public (the majority thereof, which I suspect (nay, hope) does not include yourself, or many /.ers) happens to want dumbed down news.

They want flag waving sound bites, heaven knows they don't want to be made to think about stuff, or told stuff about "some foreigners who don't live here", just force fed the top stories of the day before their limited attention span has expired.

Mod me flamebait if you like, but it's the truth.

Re:I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (1)

uradu (10768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274625)

> the American public (the majority thereof [...]) happens to want dumbed down news.

I wouldn't say the majority, but a sizeable portion. That would explain why Fox News is popular, but not THAT popular. There's a certain segment of the population that cannot stomach criticism of anything American, and unfortunately since the current administration is part of it, this segment gets over-targetted by the mainstream media.

Re:I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11276195)

You're wrong. The majority do want dumbed down news. You just forget about to include the people who are only interested in being told how evil Bush is. If you include those people, along with the flag waivers and the ones who are only interested in how Jennifer Aniston is wearing her hair these days, then you've got just about everyone.

Re:I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (1)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274109)

In the US the press needs to keep the political parties happy with them. If not they might lose their Air Force One press pass and get over looked during press event question periods. It may or may not actually happen, however that isn't the point.

Re:I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (1)

4of12 (97621) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274682)


In the US the press needs to keep the political parties happy with them.

Only indirectly.

I used to think that Rupert Murdoch's main purpose was to drive a particular political agenda, particularly with hiring Roger Ailes to run a "News" channel.

I was wrong.

Newscorp's political agenda is, in turn, driven by his main objective: to make money by drawing in as many viewers as possible and correspondingly large advertisement revenue.

If the "news" you're watching isn't either boring (Medicare costs are going up) or make you feel despair about the bad things going on (Iraqi's are blowing up their liberators/occupiers), then you're getting entertained rather than informed.

Re:I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11276547)

I've spent a few days watching CNN Europe, and I have to tell you that it is a far better news channel.


Perhaps. Or maybe CNN Europe is just more biased towards your corner of the political spectrum, thus making it seem more "high-quality" to your eye.

Why are you comparing CNN Europe's regular news coverage with the content of an editorial debate program anyway? Do you mean to say that CNN Europe has no programs where opposing ideas might meet? Sounds monolthic and watered-down to me.

Re:I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279366)

I gave up on CNN when they started spending more time on entertainment "news" than they do on real news. Scott Peterson is not real news, BTW.

CNN are such ratings whores that it is sickening. Fox and MSNBC are no better. The only real news on TV is on PBS, otherwise the only way to get balanced news is via several websites (you can't just rely on one).

Re:I doubt the sincerity of that comment! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11280233)

I think he only agreed with the part where JS called Carlson a dick.

Props to Jon Stewart (4, Insightful)

ed333 (684843) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274096)

We need more people like Jon Stewart to actually say whats on their mind.

Re:Props to Jon Stewart (-1, Offtopic)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274126)

MY PEE SMELLS LIKE HAM!

Can I have my late night talk show now? I'll work cheap since my only living expenses are cat food and ham.

Re:No Props to Jon Stewart (1)

scootr1 (159749) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274862)

We need people to speak their minds without being obnoxious "I'm rubber and you're glue" pricks about it, which is what Stewart did.

Re:Props to Jon Stewart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11277193)

Jon Stewart is a complete idiot. He doesn't say what is on his mind, he says what he thinks will be funny. He is a bad comedian and nothing more.

AKA "Carlson gets a better, more visible job" (-1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274134)

Did the poster and editor even RTFA? They let him go because he wanted his own prime time show, and they didn't have one open. And it looks like he is getting one on MSNBC regardless. So basically, the public will be seeing this jackass even more frequently.

An MSNBC spokesman had no comment on CNN's decision.

We think Tucker is a great journalist and we're exploring our options for a new 9 p.m. show, said MSNBC's Jeremy Gaines.

Re:AKA "Carlson gets a better, more visible job" (4, Funny)

alex413x (845817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274195)

Hey, we can always hope that JS shows up on that show and owns Carlson there, too.

Re:AKA "Carlson gets a better, more visible job" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11274470)

Dude. Nobody even WATCHES MSNBC. John fucking Macenro has a show on MSNBC for fuck's sake. This is what we call "spin". It's like when a top government official or CEO, that you know was pushed out, says "I'm doing this to make more time for my family". It's BULL...SHIT...

Quit ass kissing tucker carlson's puckered asshole.

Re:AKA "Carlson gets a better, more visible job" (3, Informative)

Alomex (148003) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274693)


Mod parent down. The poster and the editor did read the article and summarized it properly.

Crossfire was cancelled and Carlson did not get a more visible job. CNN has about twice as many viewers as MSNBC in America

A good start (2, Insightful)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274160)

Maybe the conservative media will start swinging back towards the center now.

News Coverage (1)

daigu (111684) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274200)

Considering that press coverage where Carlson basically got carte blanche to respond after-the-fact in major papers like the Chicago Tribune [chicagotribune.com] , this is a fitting end. You especially have to love the comment:

"His career aspirations and our programming needs just don't synch up," Klein said. "He wants to host his own nighttime show and we don't see that in the cards here. Out of respect for him and his talent, we thought it would be best to let him explore opportunities elsewhere."

He'll probably reappear somewhere else like MSNBC - hopefully without the bow tie.

A parade of human cartoons (3, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274220)

The show became a parade of human cartoons. Novak the duckman. Lord Voldecarville. Pat "Third Reich from the Sun" Buchanan. Let's leave this kind of thing to Warner Bros Daffy vs Bugs cartoons.

still on PBS (1)

zeno_ (13057) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274397)

Sadly, we won't be entirely rid of Tucker: even if he doesn't land the MSNBC job, he'll still have this [pbs.org] .

Re:still on PBS (1)

slcdb (317433) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279874)

Thanks for the pointer! Now I know what to tune in to in lieu of CNN from now on.

Wolf Blitzer used to be respectable, but he's turned into something of a clown. His coverage of this year's Presidential Election was a career low for him, IMHO. Larry King has slowly become more and more dweebish over the last couple of decades. Watching the banter between Larry and Blitzer that November evening, discussing "but what if this?" and "but what if that?" just made me laugh. Aaron Brown is as dumb as my left nut. It's too bad because CNN used to be a great media outlet. What the hell happened? I guess it's true: the universe really does trend toward maximum entropy.

I'll be the first to say it... (4, Funny)

bizpile (758055) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274450)

...Jon Stewart '08. (Hopefully Lewis Black will be his running mate.)

Re:I'll be the first to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11277031)

And I'll be the first to say that you are a complete moron.

Re:I'll be the first to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11280728)

Amen.

It's Official (5, Insightful)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 9 years ago | (#11274579)

John Stewart -- The Most Powerful Comedian In News.

Re:It's Official (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278237)

John Stewart -- The Most Powerful Comedian In News.

Now if he could just prevail on Comedy Central's web monkeys to make the Daily Show's web site work.

We've decided it's time to drop our cable service, because we've found so little that's worth watching on all those channels, so why pay for something that we aren't using? One major exception was the Daily Show, which was the best place to find accurate coverage of the recent American elections. For "straight" news, TV is now pretty much useless, and any sensible person has already switched to the Internet (and laboriously built a set of bookmarks that match their own personal biases ;-).

In our house, we have a collection of computers, mostly OSX and linux, but also a couple of Windows boxes kept around for the few things they're good for. The Daily Show's web site doesn't work properly on any of the dozen or so browsers on any of them. It doesn't even work with IE (on Windows or OSX). Well, occasionally a video clip does work, but mostly we just get the "broken" icon, or a blank frame.

We do see some of the clips, since lots of political bloggers capture them and put them online as simple links. This shows that the video clips are actually ok. It's just the bizarre and overly complicated javascript in the Daily Show's pages that falls on its face nearly every time.

Now if there were a page somewhere of simple links to all their video clips ...

(There's also the problem of their recent switch to only WMV. Why they would go with the lowest-quality video format would be a mystery, except for the common knowledge of the "business" tactics of WMV's owner. The Daily Show can't be arguing that they're just going with the most popular platform, because their video clips usually don't work for Windows+IE either. ;-)

tucker is not aaron brown, either (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 9 years ago | (#11275443)

tucker stood in for aaron on his regular newsnight program last week. tucker just read the news very quickly (totally sans feeling) and was the worst substitute they could have chosen! not soft spoken, not sensitive, not caring in the least.

that guy should NOT be put in front of public. he's just a moran in outdated garb.

Re:tucker is not aaron brown, either (1)

Lord Pillage (815466) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279672)

not soft spoken, not sensitive, not caring in the least.

Although I didn't see the program, as CNN is not my choice of TV viewing, (as I hardly watch TV anymore, nothing is good anymore. It's aimed at people with IQ's 90 and below. I watch the CBC for news.) I would think that presenting the news without being sensitive to the issue is a good thing. Emotion brings bias and the news is supposed to be completely subjective unless it completely represents the views of the entire viewing populous. Take the tsunami disaters for example. It was a horrible tragedy and I don't think anyone who has a shred of decency and isn't living in a hole in their basement waiting for the moment when they can spring forth and slaughter Barney because he's so cheery, would think that presenting that news in an emotion light would be bad news. On the otherhand, I think it's necessary to present facts without bias. I think news isn't meant to tell people what to think. It's meant to inform them of event currently occuring and to give information and let the viewer decide their own opinions. And perhaps have a segment separate from the main part of the program for people to express their views. And yeah, Tucker was a jerk (I'm allowed to say that, I'm not on the news). I hated Crossfire, horrible show with nothing in it but bias and opinion. I'm glad it's gone.

Tucker Carlson is a pussy (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11276476)

Carville always made him his bitch. Someone like Ann Coulter would have made a better commentator. I'm shedding no tears for the milqetoast clown.

As for CNN canceling crossfire, so what? It was innovative in its day, but its day is over. It had gotten boring. No one ever debated anymore, just slung their party-line slogans around. Jon Stewart's appearance was just an excuse (and a lousy excuse, at that. What a self-rightous diatribe THAT was).

NOTHING to do with Stewart (1)

scotay (195240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11277364)

CNN is not doing the right thing anymore than fox or any of the other media outlets. That would mean that CNN is a media outlet that is not solely concerned with ratings. They all are. It's all about the eyeballs with CNN as much as fox. CNN is just as calculating and envious of Fox. If they thought they could attract a larger audience of pro-Bush conservatives, they would switch editorial direction in a second. Don't believe they are above that. I think the new approach they are using with Lou Dobbs will grow. They are going with a mixed appeal to pro-American labor progressives and ethno phobic conservatives that hate those wetback darkies coming up to suckle at the US welfare teat (except for their own gardeners and nannies who apparently are not since they're getting paid under the table :-) It is all a competition and calculation about eyeballs and has nothing to principles. Carlson is gone because he was negotiating with the competition and wanted higher up in the corporate structure then CNN would give him. Carlson will not be the last screaming conservative you'll see on CNN. CNN will look more like Fox in the future. Fox will not look more like CNN. We get the media and the governments we deserve. Our eyeballs are attracted to the fame and hype and screaming and lurid sensationalism. The media is there to give us what we want, not what we need. Cue cancer cure story, pedophile tsunami gang story, and soldier with puppy dogs...

CNN is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11277491)

Face it, folks, CNN is dead and will never again be the number one news channel. The American people have realized that FoxNews is a better choice to hear ALL the news and ALL the viewpoints. Yeah, I know you liberals hate Fox, but it does do a better job. I guess hearing opinions you disagree with is just too much to take, isn't it? Well, that's the way we've felt about CNN for years.

I would say let it rest in peace, but I'd rather see it bleed money for years and become the laughing stock it deserves to be.

Re:CNN is dead (2, Insightful)

zCyl (14362) | more than 9 years ago | (#11280810)

I guess hearing opinions you disagree with is just too much to take, isn't it?

I know, I'm feeding the troll. But I don't have a problem with opinions I disagree with. I have a problem when opinions become news. News should be about reporting facts, investigating, digging for information, and expert analysis. When it becomes opinion from one party line or from two party lines, both are terrible.

[F,T]ucker on PBS (1)

drivers (45076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11277728)

I saw he has a show on PBS now. To placate the right wing? Anyway, I hope he gets off of PBS especially.

Tucker on PBS, Jon S (1)

_aa_ (63092) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278403)

Has anyone watched Tucker's PBS Show [pbs.org] ? Personally I don't see why people are hating on Tucker so bad. I get the impression that Novak actually believes the shit he spews, and that Tucker is spewing the shit for the purpose of debate, playing devil's advocate perhaps. In my opinion, the only time Crossfire was ever tolerable was when it was Begala vs. Carlson. Mostly because Begala is easier on the eyes than Carville.

Crossfire was pretty dumbass, but i found it interesting because it was a daily testing ground for the political operatives' spin of the day. If you've ever seen The War Room [imdb.com] you'll see that this is how these guys actually act. The show never had any educational or informational value other than observing how political operatives think. Which to me is very interesting, especially in an election year. Plus, Crossfire and perhaps the McLaughlin Group are the only truly non-partisan politics shows. Both sides get equal time.

And I like Jon Stewart, but he's a comedian, not a journalist. Because of this he is able to protect what he says behind the guise of satire. Nothing he says on his show matters beyond humor, though obviously he is able influence his audience, and beyond.

I'm disappointed that Stewart chose to come out from behind the protective shield of satire only to attack some dumb TV show. Why does he not criticize the government without his tongue-in-cheek? I speculate that seriously criticizing officials without the protection of satire would open him up to counter criticsm and jeapordize his career. A 2-bit, non-partisan cable show, he can get away with that.

Re:Tucker on PBS, Jon S (2, Informative)

Lennavan (847042) | more than 9 years ago | (#11278843)

This was the funny (yet sad) part about Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire. He clearly admits that his show is a comedy show, duh its on a network called Comedy Central. People don't tune into his show to become informed on the news, they tune in to laugh.

Crossfire does attempt to be a news show and does a terrible job at it. They're on CNN, a news network that people turn on to learn about the news. Go figure?

Stewart was attacked for doing a bad job or reporting the news on his comedy show? I say we blame Stewie on The Family Guy next for not informing me more about civil rights.

Stewart attacked Crossfire for doing a bad job of reporting news on their news show. The sad part is that they, and you, don't seem to understand this.

Re:Tucker on PBS, Jon S (1)

_aa_ (63092) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279279)

Stewart has been a guest on dozens of hard news shows, soft news shows, and entertainment shows. In fact you'll be glad to know that the Daily Show and Crossfire both air on CNN International.

Politics is not really news. It's gossip. And this is what Crossfire was tasked with covering, leaving the real news to Wolf Blitzer.

I would hope you would be able to see what I think is blatently obvious in that the Daily Show is NOT a news show. No person on that show is a journalist. It's sole purpose is entertainment. In my opinion, if Stewart wants to become a media critic he is more than welcome to. But he can't be a comedian by day, and media watchdog by night. Like the boy who cried wolf, a comedian should not expect to be laughed at one second and taken seriously the next.

Again, I like Jon Stewart. I think he's smart, funny, and I agree with most of what he said about Crossfire. But he is not a journalist, and his opinion on Crossfire is simply that; an opinion.

The purpose of the Daily Show (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11280137)

is to ridicule the poor quality of the mainstream news. It just happens to also be entertaining.

You can't say that Stewart might choose to become a media critic. He already is one. While a "conventional" media critic might write an article, Stewart uses humor to make his point.

And just because he's funny doesn't mean he shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact that he's a comedian doesn't detract from his opinions. The fact that he's not a "journalist" shouldn't either. His opinions are valid or invalid on their merits, not because of his occupation.

Carville not easier on the eyes. (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11280026)

"Mostly because Begala is easier on the eyes than Carville."

I know. Unlike Carville, Begala has not done such stunts as fire deathbeams from his wand into the audience screaming "Due, muggle scum!", reveal that his face was on the back of the head of a stuttering professor, and drinking unicorn's blood on live TV.

Re:Tucker on PBS, Jon S (1)

zCyl (14362) | more than 9 years ago | (#11280763)

Tucker is spewing the shit for the purpose of debate

You misspelled "blind raving lunacy and pumping the party line".

Where's the Stewart torrent? (1)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11279362)

I wanted to hear this interview, and was unable to connect to the links posted from the original story. Anybody have a working link to a torrent stream of the Stewart interview on Xfire? thanks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...