Goldberg proves his own "Bias" on Daily Show

[SineSwiper]

I'd have to say that any inkling of reading his useless fucking book "Bias" has totally gone down the drain with his interview on the Daily Show. Jon ripped him apart! And he had an extended interview with him, too. There, he's harking his newest book:



Now, if that image alone doesn't show his own bias, nothing will. Shit, the fucking subtitle is bad enough. So, Zeus, why the fuck would I read a book about media bias when the fucker can't get enough of his own twisted bias? No, seriously. Why do you even think this man is accurate?

[Nev]

Is that Barbara Streisand on the cover?

[SineSwiper]

Is that Barbara Streisand on the cover?

Yep, because Barbara Streisand is ruining America.

[Agent 57]

Stewart really did rip him a new one...that interview reminded me a lot of when he went on "Crossfire". I especially liked the part where Jon blasted him for focusing on all the culture defamation from the Hollywood types instead of the problems brought up by the guys in Washington who actually have power.

I'd never heard of the book before the interview started, and when Jon mentioned the title I was intrigued for a moment or two - but by the end of the interview I had no interest in reading it whatsoever.

I was also quite surprised:

a) When Goldberg said "Now on the (hypothetical) bigot channel, you would call Italians wops, Jews kikes, and blacks, well, you know." Very very interesting that he drew a line there.

b) Along the same lines, when he did finally say "niggers", Comedy Central bleeped him out. It's depressing that racism is still such a problem in this country that people are still this sensitive about it.

[Nev]

Is that Barbara Streisand on the cover?

Yep, because Barbara Streisand is ruining America.

That's fuel for a good stand-up routine right there.

[SineSwiper]

Yeah, because calling a homosexual a faggot or an Asian a chink is a-okay, but god forbid you call a black a nigger. Fucking double standards!

[Nev]

Yeah, because calling a homosexual a faggot or an Asian a chink is a-okay, but god forbid you call a black a nigger. Fucking double standards!

Where on earth did you get the basis for the first half of that (up to a-okay)?

[SineSwiper]

Where on earth did you get the basis for the first half of that (up to a-okay)?

Mental, if you wish to join in the conversation, please try to keep track of the context first:

Goldberg said "Now on the (hypothetical) bigot channel, you would call Italians wops, Jews kikes, and blacks, well, you know."

[Nev]

I am keeping plenty track of the context.

Honest to Dog, Sine, you make me mad sometimes. You will come out with the craziest, non-sequitur, off-basis, married-to-your-point-of-view, pseudointellectual crap and then attempt to come off as a rational and patient guy.

You are referring to the stigmatization of using the word "nigger" in comparison to the stigmatization of the use of other racial slurs. Yes, I agree with the assessment that saying "nigger" is more likely to get you branded as a racist ass than using some of the others, at least in the minds of much of the population. Why? I really don't know. A combination of complex cultural causes I suspect.

However, I stand by what I said. I understand that you're trying to point out the discrepancies in double standards, as you said, but I still don't know where - IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONVERSATION - you got the idea that someone thinks calling gays fags or Chinese people chinks (it doesn't apply to all Asians, by the way) is all right. I didn't see the show, so maybe this Goldberg guy is a racist as well as a complete nutter - I stand by what I said also that you could make a hella standup routine out of the idea that this guy thinks Barbara Streisand is a serious danger to America - but I do not know too many people that think using all racial slurs except nigger is okay.

[Julius Seeker]

Heh, Eminem on the cover of that:

"People say that I'm a bad influence
I say the worlds already fucked, I'm just addin' to it
They say I'm suicidal
Teenagers' newest idol
C'mon do as I do, go ahead get mad and do it"

[SineSwiper]

Honest to Dog, Sine, you make me mad sometimes. You will come out with the craziest, non-sequitur, off-basis, married-to-your-point-of-view, pseudointellectual crap and then attempt to come off as a rational and patient guy.

Why? Because you were suddenly implying that I was racist when you questioned my statement? Come on, cut me some slack.

You are referring to the stigmatization of using the word "nigger" in comparison to the stigmatization of the use of other racial slurs. Yes, I agree with the assessment that saying "nigger" is more likely to get you branded as a racist ass than using some of the others, at least in the minds of much of the population. Why? I really don't know. A combination of complex cultural causes I suspect.

I was just agreeing with Agent 57. Nothing more.

[Zeus]

I'd have to say that any inkling of reading his useless fucking book "Bias" has totally gone down the drain with his interview on the Daily Show. Jon ripped him apart! And he had an extended interview with him, too. There, he's harking his newest book:



Now, if that image alone doesn't show his own bias, nothing will. Shit, the fucking subtitle is bad enough. So, Zeus, why the fuck would I read a book about media bias when the fucker can't get enough of his own twisted bias? No, seriously. Why do you even think this man is accurate?

Because you need to take a long, hard look at the other side in order get the big picture and better develop your views. How can you say he's wrong without actually reading the book?

[SineSwiper]

Well, gee, I guess I could waste my time on a long book and go "Damn, this guy is a total moron", but I think I'll just skip the first step.

[Julius Seeker]

hmmm, double post

[Julius Seeker]

I agree with Sine on this one. Also, watching the Daily Show a few days ago, yeah, it is actually quite obvious that this book is ridiculous. He targeted a lot of people that really didn't have any power, and there were only 3 conservatives in the entire book. Wouldn't it be people who actually have power that are ruining America? Watch the clip Sine posted and you'll see the guy getting totally ripped up by Stewart.

Yeah the guy has an opinion, but he has no real basis for it, and a lot of evidence that counter-supports his claims. He is more upset about the use of the word fuck than of human slavery or segregation.

[Nev]

I agreed with Seeker on something. Dear God, I'm frightened.

(Pigs fly around Shrine. Devil puts on heavy jacket against subzero winds.)

I mean, yeah, I agree that it's important to be able to see things from both sides, Z...but, Barbara Streisand?!?!?!? Come on now.

[Zeus]

Well, gee, I guess I could waste my time on a long book and go "Damn, this guy is a total moron", but I think I'll just skip the first step.

Well, if you completely ignore the other side - and make no mistake about it, Stewart is a staunch liberal, probably more so than Moore and Stern, but not more than Franken - then you can't sit there and discredit or even criticize their point of view. You don't understand it, you only understand some staunch liberal's interpretation of it.

Remember, I'm a liberal-minded person (well, leaning liberal), so it's not like I'm a right-wing nut here trying to defend a very right-wing point of view. But that also doesn't mean they're always wrong and the liberals are always right. That's just being hypocritical. And you can't just read what they say and, before you even start, know that you're going to disagree and say "it's crap". Give it a shot, you never know.

But it seems that you already do.....

[Nev]

I hope you're not talking about me. I'm rather avowedly "liberal" (I think I might prefer "progressive" actually) but I try very hard not to dismiss conservatives out of hand...

[SineSwiper]

I see Stewart as more of a "voice of reason" on both sides of the fence than some "staunch liberal". It's just that the right has become a hell of a lot hypocritical in their arguments in the past 5-6 years, so he has been focusing more on their lies. Even then, he still has time to make potshots on Democrats' dumbassery sometimes.

Despite myself being liberal, I don't blindly defend one side or another. Democrats are closer to my ideals, but they can be just as hypocritical and idiotic as the Republicans. Hell, just look at what the Dems' poster boys are:

Ted Kennedy - A drunken blowhard relic of a "royal" family who should be behind bars for drowning his girlfriend.
Hillary Clinton - A carpetbagger trying to use her influence to make her way into the presidency. Her latest stunt was imitating Liberman when she starts blaming GTA on corrupting our children.
Howard Dean - Actually, I like Dean, since he likes to speak his mind about the evils of the Republican party. It reminds me of Ventura somewhat. But, it's enough to get him in trouble often.

Comparing Stewart to Moore is just plain wrong. Stewart doesn't have any of that distort of truth, which Moore is adapt at.

[Julius Seeker]

As far as Moore goes, he's still not even close to as bad as a lot of the Conservatives. I mean, the Iraqi war alone is proof of that; there is less bullshit in Texas than there is in the white house.


Moore doesn't come close to President Bullshit.

[Nev]

I need to see some of Moore's stuff (I still haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 as I feel it might just enrage me to the point of making it hard to think). While I know I generally tend to agree with what his views are usually represented to be, he seems to also piss a lot of people off. I think he might be a better representative of the views he espouses were he to use less provocative techniques to deal with the subjects he deals with...while it might be more entertaining, it also seems to stir up the right like throwing rocks at a beehive, and then everyone's angry and nothing gets done or changed for the better.

[Zeus]

I see Stewart as more of a "voice of reason" on both sides of the fence than some "staunch liberal". It's just that the right has become a hell of a lot hypocritical in their arguments in the past 5-6 years, so he has been focusing more on their lies. Even then, he still has time to make potshots on Democrats' dumbassery sometimes.

Despite myself being liberal, I don't blindly defend one side or another. Democrats are closer to my ideals, but they can be just as hypocritical and idiotic as the Republicans. Hell, just look at what the Dems' poster boys are:

Ted Kennedy - A drunken blowhard relic of a "royal" family who should be behind bars for drowning his girlfriend.
Hillary Clinton - A carpetbagger trying to use her influence to make her way into the presidency. Her latest stunt was imitating Liberman when she starts blaming GTA on corrupting our children.
Howard Dean - Actually, I like Dean, since he likes to speak his mind about the evils of the Republican party. It reminds me of Ventura somewhat. But, it's enough to get him in trouble often.

Comparing Stewart to Moore is just plain wrong. Stewart doesn't have any of that distort of truth, which Moore is adapt at.

Make no mistake about it, Stewart is a staunch liberal all the way, a fact he doesn't hide behind. The fact that you don't see him as such is actually the main point behind Goldberg's book. Whether he's extremely biased or not doesn't mean he can't make a good point. You just gotta use your own filter when reading (or watching) anything, including liberal propoganda, such as Moore or Stewart.

And EVERYONE distorts the truth, one way or the other, particularly the media guys. You might prefer Stewart's way more than Moore's, but one is not really better than the other.

And I'm sorry if I confused you, but I in no way equate "liberal" with "democrat". The Demorcatic party is just barely left of centre in the political spectrum, most of them aren't even liberally minded (not the big, influential ones, anyways). And I don't disagree with you on those guys either.

[Zeus]

I need to see some of Moore's stuff (I still haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 as I feel it might just enrage me to the point of making it hard to think). While I know I generally tend to agree with what his views are usually represented to be, he seems to also piss a lot of people off. I think he might be a better representative of the views he espouses were he to use less provocative techniques to deal with the subjects he deals with...while it might be more entertaining, it also seems to stir up the right like throwing rocks at a beehive, and then everyone's angry and nothing gets done or changed for the better.

Moore is extremely talented at the whole "stand up and shout" routine, but makes people actually listen. He's never hidden behind the fact he's a staunch liberal and his work is biased in that regard. He will use facts (which is why no one has sued him yet) and interpret them in his own way, but that's what every single news reporter, filmmaker, and TV newsperson does. He just happens to do it in a more aggressive, shit-stirring manner. He's basically like a Republican with a liberal mind that way. Obviously he's biased, but no more than your average news reporter. He just gets waaaay more press and pisses the wrong people off (powerful conservatives), so he gets a ton more heat on him.

His first work, Roger and Me, is quite excellent, maybe his best. He had to raise the money himself and is a human story on downsizing. The Big One is a decent follow up to that and is about what he discovers on his book tour for Downsize This, except he meets with the head of Nike a couple of times (quite entertaining). It's his weakest one. Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11 I'm sure you know all about and are both very good IMO.

[Julius Seeker]

I need to see some of Moore's stuff (I still haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 as I feel it might just enrage me to the point of making it hard to think). While I know I generally tend to agree with what his views are usually represented to be, he seems to also piss a lot of people off. I think he might be a better representative of the views he espouses were he to use less provocative techniques to deal with the subjects he deals with...while it might be more entertaining, it also seems to stir up the right like throwing rocks at a beehive, and then everyone's angry and nothing gets done or changed for the better.

Well, for one thing, it is mainly the pro war supporting republicans do not like being exposed for being the bad guys. The thing is, he's absolutely right on pretty much every point he makes, and there is no one who has been able to really argue against it without looking like a total fool or coming up with a very pathetic argument against a very trivial detail; IE. "Everyone thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction" Well, all the ignorant drooling morons did because President Bush (Or President Bullshit) said he did, the rest of the world essentially put 1+1 together and knew he didn't, and that's why mostly everyone opposed the war.

Michael Moore actually doesn't go that far; there is also the argument "Well, the war wasn't about that really, it was about taking a tyrant down out of power." Bullshit, Iraq is in horrible shape, constantly getting worse all the time; Saddam was better for Iraq than the reign of terror that is going on right now. The American government blatantly lies to the people about the war (just watch the daily show now and then; it makes me wonder that with all this evidence why Bush and his group don't have life in prison right now). Moore could have easily used examples such as Rawanda or Sudan where large genocidal massacres were taking place and the Americans were doing absolutely nothing to stop it.