I was trying to soft peddle this in my comments last night in case some wanted to watch later replays and still be surprised. In the bit they framed it as:
"I just wanted you to let you feel how uncomfortable being on someone else's show is and having an entire race on your shoulders" "OMG yea, I did that, I did that" "yep you did that shit" "its pretty uncomfortable". Jon made his face which I decode as "yes, I am a dick", and I totally take that whole opening as about as close as he is going to get, at least before leaving, to acknowledging Cenac's underlying point. I actually think it works pretty well at that level. On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Doug Fields <[email protected]> wrote: > If you’re reaching, you’re not alone. I made the exact same > interpretation, watching Stewart on Nightly. It’s likely the casual viewer, > without some knowledge of the Cenac story, would go down the path of the > “revenge for Larry’s TDS role” angle. > > > > Doug Fields > > Tampa, FL > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 2:12 PM > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Wyatt Cenac on blow up with Jon Stewart > > > > One could interpret Stewart's appearance on The Nightly Show last night as > an oblique acknowledgement of the dust-up. But since it could also be a > turnabout over Wilmore's role on The Daily Show, I'm likely reaching. > > > > David > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* PGage <[email protected]> > *To:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:42 AM > *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Wyatt Cenac on blow up with Jon Stewart > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Steve Timko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting recap of the attention TDS is a receiving plus a video of > Stewart's pre-show Q&A. > > http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/07/jon-stewart-white-house-wyatt-cenac-daily-show-secrets > > > > Stewart addressed this last night (I guess I will leave it at that for > now) - after responding to viewer Twitter questions in a scene in which I > thought he might address the Cenac stuff, but didn't. It was in the context > of a comic bit, but had his unmistakeable serious voice ("I don't know if > they were secret - I mean, I'm in the visitor's log and they took pictures > of the meeting" - that last is a set up for a visual joke, but I can not > find the picture online yet). > > > > Politico proves yet again that it is the worst, and Vanity Fair does not > do much better - continuing the breathless tone in discussing these two > meetings. It is a by now unsurprising comment on the state of American > journalism that two short meetings in seven years between a fake > news-reader and the president are presented as part of some secret > conspiracy or conflict of interest, while the regular schmoozing and > back-massaging that goes on between supposedly real journalists and the > high level politicians they are supposed to be covering is treated as > simply the necessary grease that provides "access". > > > > In his opening segment Stewart may have gone a bit out of his way to > demonstrate what is clear to anyone who has watched his show during the > Obama years - he has been a fairly tough critic of this president. Last > night he used what in the eyes of most people not under the influence of FN > has been a wildly successful and morally courageous African trip by Obama > to make a point about American arrogance (Obama telling saying that > policies that discriminate against women are "stupid") leading up to the > kicker - pointing out that while Obama has been willing to make a show of > his courage in lecturing African countries, when he visited Saudi Arabia > during his first year in office he never raised concerns about their human > rights abuses (punchline "let that be a lesson to Africa - you want to fuck > with people, you have to lube them up first" - over a graphic of a barrel > of oil). True Stewart's recent interview with Obama was mostly a mutual > congratulation society, but Stewart has been extremely tough on Obama in > the past, consistently taking the view that all the "hope and change" > rhetoric of his first campaign was BS, that Obama caved on health care > reform (Stewart was one of those who made a fetish of the "Public Option"), > and that his inability to close Gitmo, ongoing surveillance of Americans > and over reliance on drone strikes makes him not substantively different > that his predecessor. > > > > Jon Stewart has "covered" three US Presidents. I think most current > viewers and TV and political pundits forget just how tough he was on > Clinton during the last two full years of his administration - tougher than > Dave or Leno (and Dave was pretty tough, I will have to leave it to others > to comment on Leno). If he was tougher on Bush than Clinton (and he was) it > was because he had 8 years of the latter, and, by any standard that would > make even a pretense at being objective, the problems of the Bush > administration were more serious than fellatio in the Oval Office. I think > it would be fair to rank the presidents in order of how critical Stewart > has been as Bush, Clinton, Obama, but it would be unfair to suggest either > that he has not been critical of Obama (he has been, at times very harshly, > and at critical points in his presidency) or that two short meetings with > Obama are the reason he has been less harsh than he was on the guy who > finger fucked his 19 year old intern or the guy who led the country into > both the worst foreign policy and the worst financial crises in living > memory while laughing his way over a devastating hurricane in the process > of killing 1800 Americans. > > > > > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
