Champagne Showers!! Champagne Showers!!

Sensationalism vs. Journalism

So most of you who actually read my articles would probably notice that I idolize Jon Stewart. Which is both a good and a bad thing. Although sometimes I disagree with him on certain views (videogames specifically). During the Sunday Morning Fox News show with Chris Wallace appearance, Jon Stewart brought up a good point: the difference between sensationalism vs. journalism.

Sensationalism is the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement. However, sensationalism can also include adding a sense of theatricality at the expense of an informative approach, and/or the enhanced presentation of information. Sensationalism is the plague that is dominating the current journalism community. Instead of a hard truth approach that journalism should uphold and a goal to seek answers to daring questions, most of what we account as 'journalism' is merely stories with theatricality. What news networks search for are ratings, nothing more, nothing less. High ratings bring money and more advertising, low ratings equate to no money and folding. 

Journalism, in recent times, can be seen as key political tool for politics.  This is where it all goes wrong. Journalism should not be a footstep for political figures to use, rather, journalism should report to the general public what exactly these political figures are doing, and seek answers to questions the public has. Questions on platforms, future plans, and hard-hitting facts should be answered through journalism. Yet, journalism now focuses on the personal lives of politicians, overlooking what they are doing and what is needed to be informed to the public. It is Sensationalism that turns journalists into personalities and crafts the public mindset that they are one and the same.

Major news networks now only seek the stories that society wants rather than what society needs. An example of this was when Nancy Pelosi was hyped to talk about the Anthony Weiner scandal. All major news networks were there, ranging from the 'liberal' MSNBC to the 'fair and balanced, but really right-winged' Fox News were filming. As Nancy Pelosi arrived to begin her speech, cameras zoomed in. She then announced that she will not be answering any questions about the Weinergate scandal and will not discuss it at all. Instead she decided to address more important issues, such as education and the current debt issue. As soon as she said these words, the networks were turned off. CNN went back to their normal programming and Fox News just cut the live footage off. All they wanted was the ratings. The ratings that could have been given if Nancy Pelosi had decided to address the recent scandal.

In regards to the Weinergate scandal, Anthony Weiner was a pretty decent representative and posting an 'improper' link should not have been such a big deal. Okay, so he did show his male genitalia to the public. But one mistake does not have to count so much. Take a look at track record vs. mistake and this would have been a small issue. Sensationalism brought it dow, with investigative 'speculation' not investigative 'search for the truth.'


Sensationalism has also become a tool for the now-corporate news channel. To appeal to an audience, news networks generally 'pick-a-side.' Fox News with their right-wing agenda, and MSNBC with their 'liberal' agenda. Networks generally spin their stories and create a form of bias to push these agendas forward towards the viewer... to create a sense of appeal. 

This isn't what Journalism should be. Journalism wants the truth. The truth that cannot be changed by an agenda, by an individual, or by some corporate giant. What talks is what is happening, nothing else. More on this topic in the future.


 

So what's the deal with Google+ ?

So everyone has been hearing the hype about Google+! Who's in and who's not? How do they choose.. and what is this testing group? I just happen to be one of those privileged individuals allowed into "testing". (By this I mean, I have a friend who was privileged and found a backdoor that sent an invite to me even though they say they're full!).

MY TWO CENTS:

This new toolbar! It's nice, I can dig it. I like the integration of the Google+ profile with the other "everyday" google options.

About the Overall Concept
From what I read, understand, see, and generally observe; it seems as if google is trying to change the pace of social networking. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. foster an unnatural social construction that exists in and only in the internet. GOOGLE TO THE RESCUE. Here they come, bright and mighty as ever, creating a new environment! This new network is here to emulate real* social interaction. (That of the sort that you find when in the presence of other humans)*. So here is why. There is no "wall". You post what you are doing and choose who is seeing that particular message. There is a public option, but I get the impression that they're like.. do you really want your mom to see that? Also, HANGOUTS! It's cool! you can be like, hey "friends" let's hangout. So whoever pleases... enters this "hangout" (video chat). They're really there! OMG! It's actually awesome because few chat programs/ web apps allow multiperson video.

Pretty much google is always awesome, they bring it to the next level.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I started this, I had just gotten an account. Here I am, with some friends in circles, a fully functioning Google+ participant. I have to say, I do check it less than facebook, but it is a similar medium. Google eliminated the need to publicly communicate by "writing on 'walls'", but still allows the twitter-esque 'tagging'.

One of the great sharing features is notify my circles. I think it is nice to set your friends up as either passerby's or you need to look at this now!!


Also, the photo interface is the fuck awesome. 

DRAG AND DROP! AT LAST! I have albums all set up in iPhoto from uploads, and no more searching through. Just click and drag. Also, the commenting/+1 is nice. ALSO no bad quality truncated photos. It's like flickr and facebook had a lovechild.

That's all for now.

Have a problem? Let me google that for you! ;)

Online Shopping: Ruelala.com

To be honest my interest in fashion started from the fact that I absolutely loved to shop. The thrill of buying new clothes and wearing them to impress others was the sole base for my love of the aesthetic look. However, as the world evolved and internet became king, I had found a way to keep up in trend without having to actually go to a store. Hence, saving me my time and also, saving me money.

Online clothes shopping is generally one of the best ways to find good deals is by online shopping. They usually end up giving you ridiculous discounts for some of the most branded products. (Then again you could argue that those online shopping places sometimes get the raw end of the products that are slightly damaged or last season; then again those are variables that can't be accounted for).

One of the best websites that I have found so far for online clothes shopping is Ruelala.com

Pros:

• Great deals on branded products
• Customer service is superb
• Fast delivery
• Secure connection
• Easy interface
• Doesn't only sell clothes. Sells deals on vouchers for restaurants and stores. Also sells home products and holiday deals.

Cons:

• Members only. (You can sign up for an invite and eventually they'll get to you, but it's easier if a member invites you)
• They mess up deliveries sometimes (Like you bought something but it never shows. But your payment is then voided and you get an extra 20 dollars credit as an apology)
• It isn't like Zappo or Piperlime or Net-a-porter where you have a bunch of clothes from A-Z designers. Ruelala has a 'boutique' system similar to ideeli.
• Easily run out of stock (so get there fast)

The idea is pretty simple. You choose a boutique in which to buy from and from that point you choose from what they have available. Designers can range from Marc by Marc Jacobs to Halston Heritage.

To explain:

'Boutiques' is the concept made by Ruelala (also utilized by other online shopping websites) to organize all the clothes they want to sell. Usually they are grouped by brand and designer, but sometimes by season or trend. Boutiques are only open for two days so you have to get to the website quick if you want to get something for a good deal. After two days, the deals are over and then you just have to wait until your favorite designers/deals come back.

Overall Ruelala.com is my favorite website to shop in. With a large variety of brands to choose from (although limited to 4 designers a day, that's still pretty good) .

The New Liberal

Bluntly speaking, I am a moderate. Some might shout at me for being allegedly 'indecisive,' but that is not the case. I don't believe in partisan politics, but in our current society, our views seem to be shaped by the contrasting sides of friends and enemies. I have leanings on both the progressive side and the conservative viewpoint. However, my sympathies to the conservative side seems to be a downer sometimes, especially in the world I currently live in.

When I was younger I used to think that the donkey was the mascot for the republicans. Why? Because Donkeys are stubborn and elephants never forget the past.

What I've seen lately is what I would call the 'rise of the progressives.' As far back as I can remember, conservatives used to be everywhere. The minority, at least the way I saw it, was the progressives. Political banter was ever present between the Republicans and Democrats, but at least back then we were able to negotiate rather than fight to the finish.

Maybe it's because I've moved to MA, a progressive state, but lately I feel that being a progressive is not liberal at all. It's being a conservative in MA that pushes the boundaries. Liberals want to break the boundaries and push it further for the greater of the people. Progressives tend to be supporters of the social aspects of our lives from pro-choice, to general equality for the people. These goals tend to make progressives seem like socialists as they push democracy to allow programs, high tax, etc for the better of the people. I might be wrong, but I still see the progressive view to be quite noble and valiant.

Now that being a liberal is part of society in MA, I feel the pressure to join them. Political fights erupt wherever I go because of  my sympathy towards the conservatives. Liberals usually look to non-conformity, yet here I feel a push to conform  with them. On campus, so far, there are two conservatives... out of 400 or so students. Being a conservative here... means non-conformity. Being a liberal here, is being a part of a tradition on campus, ---> (in my logic) the liberal is the conservative on campus as they follow what has already been set as 'progressive' rules on campus. The conservatives have turned into the liberals on campus as they push for either, a)better security b)decrease in student power over admin c) turning the school into a more educational campus. It might sound like we're party poopers but that is not the case. I like having just as much fun as everyone else, illicit or not. Sophie is a party animal.

Being a liberal means to free yourself from the chains of tradition and orthodoxy. What is orthodox here on campus is to be a liberal and to support non-conformist views. Hence, a new liberal has been born in the area, the conservatives.

Music of the Day

Had to post another song. From one of my personal favorite bands, Swedish House Mafia:

Solutions to the Greece crisis -Polemics-

For the past couple of days, I've been discussing the Greecian economic crisis and what possible solutions can be put in place. It is obvious why this was a topic of conversation as it is the 'main issue' of the world.


So I've decided to put my two cents in the situation, here goes:


Solution one:


The first solution I encountered was one by the magazine, "The Economist", wherein:

• Greece, instead of defaulting, should just restructure its loans
• Greece owes 160% of its GDP. If we decreased the amount that Greece owes to 80% (with financing from France and Germany) then systematic risk will be decreased.
• Also, the world economy will not collapse and die and we will all not lose that much money.

Okay so here's the thing with this solution. Restructuring the debt does not solve the problem. It just allows more time to solve the issue. So is this a solution? Not really. Can it be useful? Totally. Is it worth it? Maybe.


Solution Two:


The second solution was one I encountered in "The Financial Times":

• Greece does not have to default at all
• Get rid of systematic risk by having Greece pay in long-term payment plans.
• Finance debt with loans from France and Germany. Pay them back with interest and in accordance to their regulations.

I ranted about this one in a conversation in facebook:

I just think this is a good plan... in the eyes of everyone else other than Greece. By restructuring their debts into a long term one WITH interest rates. If Greece finances their debts utilizing the terms of France and Germany.... A) Both F and G will be looking to make profit B) Greece will never be a 'free' country again.


For B), think about it as if it were an interaction between the IMF/World Bank and Indonesia. Indonesia had debt. A lot of it too. Specifically, to America and a bunch of other developed nations who helped kick out the Japanese and Dutch way back when. So to help finance those debts they looked for a loan from the IMF/WB, which they got. So they paid back those debts etc.... and then we got fucked over because we had to make long term payments to IMF and WB for the loan we took from them. So even if we are more prosperous now (and we have a high abundance of resources, including oil, but people forget that) we have to use all of that money made to pay back the IMF/WB (as per their terms).

So in conclusion, if Greece followed that plan.... Yes the systematic risk would be overturned, yes the world will not end, and America would be the focus of the debt again. But Greece will have a shitty shitty life from that point on.

So yeah, that's what I thought of it.


Solution 3:

This is not really a solution... more like a possible scenario.

• France and Germany invest in Greece
• Greece fucks up and defaults anyway
• Everyone loses money and we cry in fetal positions under our desks.

Obviously if this were to happen then everyone fucked up and they are idiots. But then again, at least the problem is over right???? (We have more problems but oh well, at least that one is dealt with).

Solution 4:

I saw this one in the Economist as well:

• Greece does not default
• Changes currency back to drachma
• Systematic risk depleted (but not entirely)

Well... this could work. But I use this quite lightly. Mainly because I think that if Greece were to change back to Drachma, the currency would be too volatile and the debt would increase rather than decrease. Although it could be argued that Greece can have better control of it's debt that way. Also the Eurozone will be saved from demolishment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all, we're fucked wherever we go with this.

Robert Rodriguez -The Designer, not the Director-

I've been shopping around Indonesia lately and found that one of the most popular contemporary brands out there is none other by the designer, Robert Rodriguez.

Profile:

• Drapey clothing
• Neutral colors
• Urban chic
• Transcends age

When I first googled him, the first couple answers pertained to the director, Robert Rodriguez (Spy Kids). Scroll down a bit and you find the designer Rodriguez. Check it:

http://www.robertrodriguezcollection.com/

Personally, I love this collection. My other contributor, Sophie, may not agree with me. Mainly because the collection is quite... 'drapey.' Most of the clothes fall on your body rather than fit with your body. As shown in the kimono dress next to this piece of text.

But then again, drapey clothing has it's pluses. Because it falls on your body rather than 'fits,' it tends to hide your extra weight and make you look smaller. It's just generally good at hiding things. Although the minuses can be that it actually makes you look bigger (if you have a pear shaped body).

Essentially it depends on what you like rather than what looks good. Robert Rodriguez however, has a great collection that can apply to all. Although most of his summer collection is drapery (to fit with the movement ideal of summer), it's quite the urban chic style.

His stuff isn't too expensive if you find it in the right place. Get it from Nordstrom and it will cost you an arm and a leg. Get it from an online retailer or boutique website and you can get a piece for as little as 25 dollars.

Robert Rodriguez's clothes are generally not machine washable. So hang tight to your money if you don't want to drop cash to take it to the dry cleaners (or if you are like me, a college student, no dry cleaners, only machines).

It is important to note that RR has three main lines.

1) The Robert Rodriguez collection:

    His main ready-to-wear collection. Mid-tier. It's his line between runway and 'normal clothing.'

2) The Black Label:     His high-end evening wear label. Usually consists of dresses with embellishments. Makes about 6 pieces per season for this label
3) Robbi+Nikki:

    Targeted at a younger more trendy crowd. Filled with what I define as 'hippy' designs. Quite nice, but equally expensive. Makes a huge collection per season for this label.

I like this song; so I'm going to post it up

So I just fell in love with Lupe. For some reason this song just caught on for me.

Update: Those Colored Jeans. Beyond

Remember the picture I used in the last post?

Colored jeans remind me of these guys.

Oh, well it's gotten worse. Some of you might have said that the colored jeans don't look like the jumpsuits of the Power Rangers but check this new and improved 'trendy' resin jeans. 

Resin jeans: Jeans created with a 'varnished' look

So imagine those colorful jeans with resin coating... it's starting to look like the pants belonging to the Power Rangers right?

The Thing about Colored Jeans

I guess they are 'fashionable' and 'in.' Yes, they are flying out the racks of every single department store that sells them. Especially the most popular of them all, the colored jeans of JBrand:

Personally I think this is ridiculous.

But for some reason... I'm so turned off from them. They just look... awful. I mean the blue one is still alright, but the other two... No. Just no. I love to follow trends, especially the cargo/harem pant trend that's going on right now. Yet I feel that wearing such bright jewel tones (at least pants-wise) is just so... unflattering. So what do colored jeans remind me of? This:

Might Morphin' Power Rangers... They wear the jeans!

I'm not going to walk around feeling like I'm the long lost 6th member of this monster-fighting group. I'll stick my jewel tones on my blouses, dresses, and accessories thank you. 


Now this is wearable.

Advice for those who still want to wear the jeans

Although I might hold disdain for this trend. It can look good. But the main tip here is to match the bright colored jean with a neutral shade.



A                        B                           C

Here are some examples:

A) Rachel Bilson has the concept, just not the right shirt. Block off the colored jean with a white shirt to create some nice contrast and color blocking.
B) Rihanna tried mixing two trends together. Which in my book is not a big plus. Although I love pushing the boundaries of daily fashions, animal prints and colored jeans do not mix. Try geometric prints (black and white, or some neutral colors) with the colored jeans to add playfulness.
C) Best example so far. Fergie (I assume that's her) has it all right. Black shirt (neutral shirt) with the high waisted colored jean with black heels to match. Perfect.

Disney is a war training facility (Pt.1)

Dear Diary,


Today I have been called in to work to infiltrate the evil corporation known as Disney.
Why? Because they are evil.
Why are the evil? Because their shows suck and have mild sexual themes (which are then exposed to children)
Apparently I'm infiltrating their organization by this magical ticket given to me by my boss. The ticket merely has a picture of a duck without pants and the words "Disneyland" in snazzy font. This must be an extremely special card as in the back it states 'admit one.' This is how secretive the organization is; they only let ME use the ticket. They look like this:

These are extremely rare and special as they allow you to enter the Disney HQ

As I entered the corporation's headquarters known to the public as a common amusement park, I was given a special map that provided me with enough information to figure out how to fit in. First of all, I needed to get an employee badge; that would make me seem like a part of the company.

I looked around and found out that almost everyone in the vicinity was wearing a hat with two rounded plastic ears that look like this:

The Employee Badge

By wearing these ears you would be considered 'part of their world.' I took upon chance and found one on the ground lying near a trash bin. Perfect. Now I fit in:


"Now I fit in!"

I decided to follow the crowd of people around. Good god, I realized that the workers had brought their children with them. There are more children in the area than adults. This really must be an evil place if they make parents force their children to work too. I ended up infront of this building labeled 'Buzz Lightyear's Star Command.' It seems pretty harmless. But here's the worst part, they make you wait in the hot, blazing sun for about an hour. This is apparently where Disney decides to torture children and adults alike into submission. I entered this 'Star Command' compound after about an hour and looked around. The parents look exhausted beyond belief and the children... those poor poor children... are screaming and laughing like crazy. They make children go insane here. Next thing I know I'm on a conveyor belt being pushed into a little round vehicle... with GUNS ATTACHED.

What I saw next was horrifying. Like World War II horrifying. It was in this very 'Star Command' command compound that they [Disney] trained their workers to be an army. Children are forced to take the laser guns and shoot at targets around me. Let me repeat this. THEY TRAIN CHILDREN TO GO TO WAR. This right here... is a great discovery.

Funny enough, the Disney corporation did my job for me by allowing us to buy photos of the 'training experience.' Stupid Disney. I bought multiple photographs of children in this training camp (the good thing is that all the photos are of them shooting something; good evidence). Uh-oh, people are looking at me funny now. Apparently it's odd to buy pictures of other people.

I better get out of here before my cover gets blown.

Sincerely,

That Agent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lesson here: Why are people bitching about Disney? Geez, people are just crazy nowadays. Leave them be.

Model... United... Nations?

After reading Carl Schmitt (fine fine he's a Nazi, but he makes good points. Go read his Nuremberg testimony then you'll understand why I think we are able to somewhat over look that), I have come to the conclusion that the UN... is useless.

It is within Chapter Six of his book, The Concept of the Political, where Carl Schmitt deconstructs the concept of the "world state." As quoted from Wikipedia:

He uses the inevitability of the friend/enemy distinction to target the liberal international order. A League of Nations or any political group claiming to represent humanity must, according to the logic of politics, dehumanize and annihilate the enemy. "To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity."^[10] "Humanity" is not a political concept for Schmitt. When it becomes one, it distorts the real political groupings. The world state as it's conceived, which is to say a universal government that has successfully abolished war and conflict, cannot be anything more than a clearing house of commerce. It, as a result, strips us of all meaning. "For what would they be free?"^[11] Schmitt asks of the inhabitants of this new world state.

To explain, the friend and enemy distinction is a theory that Carl Schmitt presents to the readers as an 'inescapable' component of the political. As I interpret it, Carl Schmitt is telling us that in politics or the form he uses 'the state' is pretty much an 'us' versus 'them' concept. It is impossible for me to fully explain this in one blog post so I would suggest reading The Concept of the Politcal, it's a good read.

I do agree with Carl Schmitt that the League of Nations is quite redundent and that the concept of the world state is ridiculous. Yet, ironically, I am a part of my college's Model United Nations team. Why? Simple. It looks good on my record/resume/transfer apps. Also, I get to practice my advocacy, writing, and negotiation skills. Call me selfish, call me whatever you want, but I'm at least honest about it. I don't really like the way Model United Nations runs. It's simply too easy. Just because as a body supposedly representing countries does not mean we actually understand how the United Nations runs. We are not a 'model' united nations, we're like the Pre-School United Nations. All who participate actually barely know what actually happens in the UN.

Yes, the UN does follow parliamentary procedure, yes they have things called caucuses. Yet, when we are drafting articles, sponsoring, choosing sides, creating blocs etc. In our heads as representing countries, when joining a side we only take into account of what we know of our represented countries. We have to note that we don't know everything. Supposedly China should side with America for their financial interests, but who knows? Maybe China has some shady dealings with some other country which forces them to change sides.

Sometimes I feel that MUN is pretty ridiculous, us kids sometimes go to the point of thinking that if WE were in the UN, we would fix things faster, or all in all, be 'better.' Check out the SNL M.U.N sketch by Andy Samberg and Arcade Fire (love the both of them though):

I think we can all agree that the UN makes mistakes. Sometimes really BIG ones. But I might just be overly sympathetic, but the UN is comprised of human beings. Countries, governments, etc. HUMAN. I criticize that the UN's motivations and intentions, but I do not criticize their intrinsic human characteristics within them. (Unless they do something absurd like say that we should blow up the world or Mars or anything that's just obviously... stupid).

P.S. I Hate You, Jon Stewart

Oh right, but sometimes you make mistakes Jon...


The 'Oopsies' of Jon Stewart

1. I get that you are a comedian. But at least admit that people look to you as a news source!

Most critics of the Daily Show argue that Jon Stewart isn't really comedian as many viewers tend to look to him as a news source rather than a place of satirical value. Jon Stewart always denies this and places the fact that he is first and foremost a comedian and is not a journalist. Hence, journalists should not look to his show for comparison.

I get that Jon is a comedian. I love his work, I even subscribe to him on iTunes (10 bucks for 16 episodes, not bad). Yet I admittedly look to him for current information, views, and even what the hell is going on these days in 'politics.' I understand that you are:

• Not an idealogue
• Not a participant of partisan hackery
• A COMEDIAN (geezus)
• A nice guy who makes fun of absurdity rather than political partisanship

However, to me at least, Jon is not just a plain old comedian. He is a political commentator who presents his viewpoint through humor. My views are sometimes shaped by his commentary on subjects. Especially on the 'Crisis of the Dairy land' (Wisconsin vs. Teacher Unions; more on that one day). So one day Jon, please let us all know that you interpret rather than observe.

(Addition)

Also, you can't be 'a comedian first' and not equated to journalistic shows if the people who show up to your shows are politicians and well-known public figures such as Bill O'Reilly, President Barack Obama, Michael Mullen, etc. etc.

2. Admit that you have more influence than you think

I might be wrong here, but there are many times that Jon Stewart has rejected claims that he is the cause of many incedents or what not. Maybe I'm wrong again but I believe that Jon Stewart has also denied shaping the views of his audience.

Well Jon, I think you're wrong.

• Crossfire
  You got it CANCELED. Former CNN CEO even referenced the case you made on the show as one of his factors of getting rid of it. Take pride in it, don't demolish it. 
• Rick Sanchez
  By calling you a bigot... he got fired. (Although he did say many other things, this contributed to the firing).
• John Kerry skipped Bill O'Reilly for you
  Presidential Candidate on your show... and not Bill's. Well hot-damn.
• Jim Cramer and that publicity
  The world was anticipating that day where you confronted Jim Cramer... and won. No one has stopped talking about it since. Many journalists praised you for that confrontation.

Oh yeah, Askmen.com voted you the most influential man of 2010.

All in all, I do love Jon Stewart. I consider him one of my idols. Not that I want to emulate him or anything. It's because of him that I someday want to be a journalist, I want to be better  than the ones that he criticizes.

I may have faulty criticisms and whatever, but then again I might not. But I still love you Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart, I Love You.

I am not afraid to admit that I am a fan of Jon Stewart. Although I would not categorize myself as a liberal (I would prefer the moniker of 'person who believes what she believes') I hold a great deal of respect for him. Although I am new to 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' and the man that is Jon Stewart, I can't helped but be somewhat captivated by him. I am not easily taken with hosts of television shows, but he's different. Even if I do love him per se, I do have my share of criticisms.

The Loves of Jon Stewart

1. He's a great speaker

Every time I watch Jon Stewart on his show, he knows exactly what to say and what to comment on to make me laugh. You could argue that it's because he funny or is a comedian, yet I would have to say that no one can capture an audience without charisma and expert forensic skills. One thing that contributes to Jon's good grasp of speech is that he is tactful; he chooses his words wisely. I would go on to say that he chooses his words better than most presidents do (hint: Hire him as your PR guy and you would probably start to lack absurdity in your comments Mr. Newt). Specifically, I would like to point out his Fox News Sunday interview/debate/great-moment-on-television-so-far when he stated that:

"I am a comedian first..."

Chris Wallace went on to argue that Jon was also in many ways a liberal idealogue that pushes a liberal agenda and that Jon seems to dance around questions about his [Jon's] 'journalistic' qualities by stating he is 'only' a comedian. Jon counters, due to his good choice of words, that he stated that he is a comedian first, he never denounced the fact that he could be anything else.

2. Crossfire, what an attack!

Remember Crossfire? I definitely do. Although I was at a young age at the time (10-11), I enjoyed watching two political pundits battling it out on television over random issues. Even though I missed the episode, Jon Stewart came along and sat in on the show to supposedly 'promote' his new book: "America, (The Book): The Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction." (Good read, it's funny. Don't take it seriously) Yet, once he started talking he immediately started pointing out that he disliked the show Crossfire and told the show to 'stop hurting America.' 

Good move. Even if I did like the show, it was just political theater more so than an actual news program. The argument here is that it was actually a debate/forum show, however, shouldn't a debate actually have a conclusion of sorts? If I can recall Crossfire, it was just shouting and political spin revolving around issues. I am assuming here that political theater to Jon Stewart means that it is a platform for poltics to 'act' rather than to actually be an area of discourse. Stewart makes a good point to note that if Crossfire was on another network (not a news network like CNN) then maybe it is proper; but it was on CNN. (He brings this up in many of his criticisms of other networks). The point of a news channel is to provide the public with accurate information filled with journalistic integrity. Entertainment should not be the priority. Journalism is.