Bee Boy — Thu, 8/31/06 2:35pm

a) Law of averages. Pick an American at random and there's about a 60% chance he's a Bush hater. That isn't our fault.

b) This puts the score of despicable, democracy-straining, water-poisoning, partisan political schemes at, what, now? Bush-lovers: 14387, Bush-haters: 113? (After all, if those numbers were any closer, our side wouldn't be losing so bad.) Not that this changes what Rumsfeld said, or how Olbermann responded.

c) If we're handing out tinfoil hats, the line starts behind Christopher Hitchens.

Bee Boy — Thu, 8/31/06 3:38pm

My first long-form exposure to him was that stupid Fahrenheit 9/11 article he wrote, and I just thought he was mean and dishonest. But then I saw him on The Daily Show a couple of times and I realized he's a self-obsessed contrarian who'll say anything for shock value and plays loose with the facts (when he plays with them at all).

Which should make us kindred spirits, now that I think of it, but instead I just hate his living guts. I suppose it'd be different if he did all that stuff for our side. But I guess we already have Al Franken.

(Zing! I kid because I love AMERICA!)

Joe Mulder — Thu, 8/31/06 5:48pm

I suppose it'd be different if he did all that stuff for our side.

He used to be like the king of your side!

I just heard him on the radio yesterday, talking about appearing on "The Daily Show." I wish I could find a transcript of the radio interview (although who would do that?); it was all about the impossibility of having a serious discussion in front of an audience as preconditioned as Pavlov's dogs. And, although he (inexcusably) didn't use the phrase itself, he delivered the most scathing indictment of the "I Get That" Laugh. Fun stuff, and it pretty much explained why it's not that much fun to watch Stewart or Colbert regularly unless you've drunk the Kool Aid.

Bee Boy — Thu, 8/31/06 7:44pm

No, the phrase in question isn't "Pavlovian" (used by smug pricks everywhere – try to find Hitchens not saying that!), it's "the 'I get that' laugh," which is (tm) Joe Mulder. (And a brilliant (tm), at that; seriously, my hat's off.)

I think Hitchens is right about the Pavloviness of Stewart's audience, and I've railed against that in the past. (Not that I need to be on the defensive; there's long been a sort of understood "present company excepted" in these sorts of comment volleys. But I have railed against it! So, nyah!) In the case of the Hitchens appearances I recall, however, that doesn't explain everything away. Hitchens was saying stuff particularly to be an ass, and stubbornly disagreeing with really obvious stuff, just to do it. I'll hunt for a transcript myself someday. Maybe. But the point is, I remember him being a sniveling little bitch.

I really enjoy Stewart and Colbert in spite of the live audience which – especially in Jon's case – I wish they'd do away with. I admit, however, that it's pretty impossible for me to imagine watching from a viewpoint of someone who specifically and honestly disagrees with the central points (e.g., Arksie). However, in both cases, the central points are more about the media than any particular political party (honest!) so I guess that contributes to my lack of understanding.

In any case, you have to admit Colbert was brilliant at the Emmys.

Bee Boy — Thu, 8/31/06 10:19pm

Stewart has said in the past that they only have guests on "because we can't write another five minutes of comedy" in a single day. Which, to me, smacks of lazy comedy writing. They just need to hire another writer or two. Haven't they seen my spec "On Notice" lists?

Bee Boy — Thu, 8/31/06 11:20pm

I just got a chance to read the entire transcript: the interview was quite interesting. I've added Brian Lamb's Q&A to the Season Pass list as well; hopefully they're right and it's worth watching. Hitchens was more polite and respectful than I'm used to, which is probably the difference between an interview at a fairly serious talk radio program and The Daily Show. I didn't agree with a lot that he said, but at least I respected most of the way he said it.

I'd love for The Daily Show to lose its studio audience. I think it'd improve the interview segment, and especially improve the comedy segments. Without their cheerleaders to finish half the punchlines, they'd have to raise the bar. But just because he's got backup, it doesn't mean everything Jon says is misinformed or disingenuous. I think Hitchens is still a smug prick, because he disregards anyone who hasn't drawn conclusions which match his own as too stupid to have figured the world out. I think there's room for serious criticism of the Bush Administration, and I don't say that because more and more people seem to agree (as nice as that is). I say it because it's what I believe, based on a more-informed-than-average understanding of today's politics. Which I think is a fair thing: to have an opinion.

The problem is, there's now such a polarized climate – and it was put in place by politicians and their operatives, as a way to perpetuate their own existence. (I blame the Bushies, because I see them working very hard at this, but this is at its heart an incumbent problem. That the majority of incumbents currently happen to be Republicans is just an unfortunate coincidence. It doesn't mean I think everyone on my side of the aisle is innocent.) The result is a deeply fractured debate. And everyone has an agenda, so you can find "facts," "evidence," and "experts" to support any viewpoint. So, someone like Hitchens can always represent himself as the ultimate authority on this kind of thing, because he's more intimately involved in it than people who have jobs that don't involve digging into it all day. It gets to a point where, why should I even try to follow politics? I don't have the time or inclination to do background checks on every pundit I agree or disagree with – so I can't definitively say who's an authority and who's a blowhard with a microphone. I may as well just skip the whole thing and watch The Daily Show, which is at least entertaining.

See, an exchange like this perfectly illustrates, to me, the pompous arrogance of Christopher Hitchens:

HH: Now I'm going to put you in the position of being a radio producer for a moment, Christopher Hitchens. What individual or individuals in the world would serve my audience by being on weekly? People who both can carry on a conversation, have something to say, that they would be able to talk to them?

CH: Well, I'll send you an e-mail.

Wouldn't a normal person realize that Hewitt is asking that question as a way of putting Hitchens's viewpoint in front of the listening audience? As a way of extending the discussion in the context of an interview about how political discussions and debates are being held? Instead, Hitchens thinks he's being called upon as this Intellectual Superhero to solve the problem of talk radio. "I'll get back to you with a definitive answer to put this issue to rest forever." No, ass. The point is to answer the question for the listeners. It's not a study problem. It's not a take-home quiz. It's not an appeal to your genius to deliver this perfect, golden list. It's an interview question.

But Hitchens is just too much in love with his own intellect to see an interview for what it is – which is something separate from a discussion between just two people around a table. He automatically assumes that if a question is posed to him it's because he alone is brilliant enough to illuminate its intricacies, even if he'll need to go home and think it over first.

This is the kind of guy who enjoys routinely using "liberal" as a slur. He says that Jon Stewart's "assumptions are axiomatically liberal" – spoken as a slur, and a linguistically highfalutin one at that. This doesn't elevate the debate; it purely serves to illustrate, "What a shame that someone like Jon Stewart is not so enlightened as I am, to be able to cast aside these ingrained modes of thinking and just draw his own conclusions." Well, if Hitchens is so above the fray, he shouldn't still be throwing in the word "liberal" when he wants to denigrate someone who disagrees with him.

I guess the person I want to respect is someone who is actively working to increase awareness and understanding and to decrease petty partisan bickering and polarized impasses of attrition. I'm not saying I'm that person, or Jon Stewart is that person. Certainly not. But it damn sure isn't Hitchens, and I guess that's why I'm content to dismiss him out of hand.

Bee Boy — Fri, 9/1/06 4:14pm

There's not really a way to do a show like that without [an in-studio audience]

I thought Kilby did fine for years without one. The problem isn't them laughing during the comedy, but the fact that if they laugh during the comedy, Stewart feels compelled to bring the rest of the show to a grinding halt and "mug" for a few seconds. (Especially – maddeningly – if it's a clever pun in the over-the-shoulder graphic – a joke which is best underplayed.)

And, the beauty of Conan's self-deprecation is that he counter-balances it nicely with the Will Ferrell "overblown, misguided self-confidence." (Or, as he did on Sunday, extends it to NBC-deprecating, which we can all get behind.) Not that I'm here to criticize Jon Stewart, whom I dearly love. But if you gave me a choice between the two styles, at least Conan's has that balance going for it.

As an example, the delicious video clip Late Night submitted for last year's Best Comedy/Variety Show Writing Emmy. All the other writers' names whiz by faster than you can read even with TiVo, and then a shimmering, soft-focus shot of Conan in a placid meadow, spinning to the camera in slow-motion with the wind in his hair, Fabio-type pirate shirt unbuttoned to mid-sternum, while "Conan Christopher O'Brien" gleams in golden fancy writing across the screen. Brilliant.