[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think Stewart was being pretty straightforward with this commentary.

Limbaugh, Beck, et al are also very straightforward. Being straightforward doesn't mean you're right--certainly doesn't mean you'll get 100% agreement.

The conditions about the issue didn't change, just the controversy surrounding it and how some were just out to stir the pot as we've discussed here at length.

FOX may get special attention, but are they more guilty of promoting
misleading or unfair accusations? While the video certainly isn't a
detailed report on the issue, I can say I sure don't hear the kind of
rhetoric (or it's inverse) on the other cable news networks.

I didn't say "conditions ABOUT the issue" changed. The commentator on the Fox clip reported that initially there WAS NO ISSUE. There is now an issue on which Fox and other networks report and comment. That you don't like how Fox is handling it is neither surprising nor relevant. Stewart's implication that Fox somehow flip-flopped or changed their story is not true.

Terrorist training center...there could be a Hamburg cell right downtown...And this is by FOX regulars...

Other cable networks have regulars who say things that many think are stupid.

The Heston remarks really had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many.

Two things were being interwoven in his analysis. The symbolism argument and the constitutional right. He brought up the Heston analogy, after other false analogies, as a similar occurence to the Columbine massacre where the Left demanded that the NRA not hold their convention near the sight OUT OF RESPECT to the victims and their relatives. Stewart says that this was painting too narrow a picture connecting irresponsibly the actions of two psychotics to an entire group of reasonable people expressing their constitutional rights.

It is was not only too narrow a picture, it was a totally false picture. The NRA had no connection to the psychotics or their massacre. There wasn't even a symbolic tie.

Stewart says he accepts the symbolic argument as valid. THAT IS THE ONLY ARGUMENT AGAINST PLACING THE MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO. There is no argument about denying first ammendment rights by those opposed to the mosque. That is a manufactured counter argument. Stewarts analogies were somehow supposed to show how those protesting against the mosque on symbolic grounds lost his support. They don't do that. The Heston thing is a strong argument for the constitutional right to build the mosque there, but has nothing to do with the symbolic argument against it. And the analogy itself, is incompatible--false.

Sure it did, as he pointedly hammered on the shallowness of Beck's own attacks and how he's degraded the Nazi card to a cheap commodity.

He pointedly showed teeny clips out of context, not analyzing the total argument that Beck made in every case. Very easy to do with any argument to make it look silly. If the Nazi card has been degraded to a cheap commodity, it was done a long time ago by the left and right. Whether Beck's comments were shallow or untrue would have to be examined in the total context of what he said.

And god forbid it's employed by a comic. To think...the nerve.
-spence

Precisely--he's a COMIC. His video is funny. It is not to the point and has false references.