Someone thought they were a good writer, but didn't get a call back from the Daily Show team.

I'm not reading all that butthurt.

Whether he's doing something righteous (blistering financial hack Jim Cramer), something easy and lazy (poorly impersonating the clownish Glenn Beck)...

I stopped there. Stewart killed it in those bits.

Maybe we like Stewart over Moore because he's erudite and incisive while Moore is abrasive and self-important.

I get tired of reading the word 'liberal,' so I had to stop. Five 'liberals' is my limit, sorry.

First sentence: Michael Moore is one of the few heroes of contemporary American culture.

You lost me.

MayoSlather: This seems like something written for the left, but reads like something written by republican.

Exactly.

It's plain old pretending to like Michael Moore to excuse bashing Jon Stewart.

MayoSlather: This seems like something written for the left, but reads like something written by republican.

He does sound concerned.

People like Stewart over Moore because Stewart isn't fat. ^*

There, was that so hard to figure out?

^*Also because Jon Stewart doesn't come across as an annoying asshat every time he opens his mouth.

Ugh, talk about a whiny biatch. Stewart was never supposed to be liberal. He was very moderate during the Clinton years but the absolute bat-shiattery of the Bush administration turned most reasonable-thinking people against the modern GOP.

Placing Stewart on a progressive pedestal is foolish and the author is a fool for thinking everyone who watches him does.

Diogenes: Maybe we like Stewart over Moore because he's erudite and incisive while Moore is abrasive and self-important.

That would be "douchebag", to be more concise.


Lumpmoose: Ugh, talk about a whiny biatch. Stewart was never supposed to be liberal. He was very moderate during the Clinton years but the absolute bat-shiattery of the Bush administration turned most reasonable-thinking people against the modern GOP.

Talking Bush out on his antics during his tenure isn't called "liberal". It's called "over 70% of the farking country".

Michael Moore is one of the few heroes of contemporary American culture. He is a true patriot, a serious populist, and a clever provocateur, dedicated to striking politicians, jabbing corporate elites, and encouraging the American public into summoning the courage necessary to create a country of egalitarian love, benevolent community, and universal justice.

I horked in my spork.

Michael Moore does a service by spotlighting certain things that people don't necessarily know. Aspects of his movies provide a good insight into the undercurrents of our society. However, you cannot claim he is just a documentarian and a voice of the people. He has an agenda, he hides behind the "documentary" label, and he does engage in the same kind of selective editing that the douchebags he attacks do. I feel he does more positive than negative, but I'm not going to worship him.

I will say that the inherent trouble with "The Left" that Stewart highlights is that it is often painfully fair. Stewart goes a bit overboard in trying to offer a bit of "both sides are assholes, guys" which is true to a point, and the herd-of-cats mentality of liberal causes means that it is not remotely as simple to rally a liberal cause as it is a conservative one. Conservatives are masters of lockstep and groupthink, and can protect, attack, deny, and move as one with ease. This need for fairness in treating both one's enemies and friends is what liberals are all about, but that doesn't change the fact that playing fair (not that we always do, fortunately or no) in an unfair world is what makes it such an uphill battle to effect progressive change.

I like and Moore and Stewart but you have to be brain dead to try and compare them. There is no point.

It would be like comparing Dennis Miller with Ann Coulter.

Stewart is a comedian. He is literally a fake news reporter. To call him superficial is stupid. Try and not come off as superficial while playing a fake character on a 30 minute comedy show. Your goal is to make people laugh (think) perhaps. Stewart has been on many other shows where he talks about how he feels. He doesn't come off as superficial on those appears, he comes off as passionate and serious (although less funny). Passion/conviction as funny.

Moore leads with the passion and conviction but he also is incidentally funny and used humour differently.

I don't see the value in comparing them. I don't see why you can't like or dislike one or both of them.

Stewart's entire persona is based around a smug self-satisfaction that speaks for his audience's sanctimonious self-confidence in being right.

That nailed Stewart right there. And his audience.

SkinnyHead: Stewart's entire persona is based around a smug self-satisfaction that speaks for his audience's sanctimonious self-confidence in being right.

That nailed Stewart right there. And his audience.

I think this is a better article, about the same topic:

John Stewart and the Burden of History - Esquire (pops)

rikdanger: I think this is a better article, about the same topic:

John Stewart and the Burden of History - Esquire (pops)

Seven pages? I don't pretend to be the most patient person in the universe. But, couldn't that author have made their point about Jon Stewart a little more succinctly?

So basically, tl:dr

Cythraul: rikdanger: I think this is a better article, about the same topic:

John Stewart and the Burden of History - Esquire (pops)

Seven pages? I don't pretend to be the most patient person in the universe. But, couldn't that author have made their point about Jon Stewart a little more succinctly?

So basically, tl:dr



McKrosky: "Sorry to pull you out of bed, Commissioner, but this is big."
Commish: "Forget it, I was reading."
Kruger: "What's the story?"
Commish: 'It was about a man who catches this great big fish - but that's not important right now, Kruger!"

michael moore appeals almost solely to emotion whereas stewart tends to point out intellectual failings and logical hypocrisy. it's not really a wonder why many people prefer the latter to the former.

/also fat, lul

Defenses of Jon Stewart tend to be unnecessary.

EyeballKid: Michael Moore advocates progressive causes, John Stewart advocates chilling out.

As a result of Moore's advocacy, Kmart stopped selling ammo. As a result of John Stewart's advocacy, the Tea Party goons got elected.

/just sayin' dawg

Stewart's primary advocacy issue is that news show/channels actually do their job. As stupid and lame as news coverage has been over the past 10 years, it would have been much worse without shows like Stewart's & Colbert's on their case.

HeartBurnKid: Cythraul: rikdanger: I think this is a better article, about the same topic:

John Stewart and the Burden of History - Esquire (pops)

Seven pages? I don't pretend to be the most patient person in the universe. But, couldn't that author have made their point about Jon Stewart a little more succinctly?

So basically, tl:dr

I think we found Herman Cain's fark handle.

I don't want to be Herman Cain. Can I be me instead? Although, I would like to have his money.

HMS_Blinkin: Who the hell is "John Stewart?"

He did that song back in the '70s about people out there turning music into gold.

/next stop: earworm city!