Ms Maddow is the bearer of truth. I am a fact checker and historian, and I would be the first to disseminate her reporting. Ric Heivilin

Ric, you are a historian and you would promote Ms. Maddow show as an unbiased representation of the current era for historical preservation? From where do you have credentials? I like Rachel, find her show entertaining, and it challenges (and teaches) me, but I don't view it as a record for history other than what it is...a liberal's view of politics and culture (a well articulated view at that).

The main common denominator between Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow is they are both commentators on (mostly political) news. To identify Maddow's show as a purveyor of the news would be incorrect. She provides us with wonderfully insightful editorial commentary on news events in a generally articulate and intelligent manner, as does Stewart. The difference is that Stewart's primary (and stated) purpose is comedy, specifically satire, while the purpose of Maddow's show is not, although she can generally be counted on for providing humorous segments and commentary in her program. I am a big fan of both and hope they will continue to do what they do so well for years to come.

Jon is a post modern type who argues from the point that there is no truth. Truth is whatever anyone believes it is. It is not possible to argue with him because he has a slippery base of "no truth really exists". Jon is, therefore, not someone you can pin down. Rachel is rational and has a base of truth to use as an assumption behind what she does. I love the way she argues.

I don't think that he was arguing that there is no truth, I think that he was saying that we all have our own sense of the truth, and we have to recognize where each of our truths begin and start the conversation there, this is why I think that Stewart is so good at interviewing his guest. I also believe that Rachel is a lot like Jon on many levels.

Once again gotta side with RD here (ya know, cause he aint some crazy nut like we always paint the right as being ;-) ). It was a very interesting exchange where nobody yelled or gutted each other. They both just said "this is what I think" "well what about this?" and so on. I liked the interview because I wish this is how all interviews went. It saddens me that RobDon is painted as some extreme representation of the conservative view point on Maddowblog...when in reality I'd bet money that he represetns more of the conservative base than all the 'trolls' do. I bet most people (who are conservative) are like RobDon- I've studied what evidence I've been shown and it's brought me to X as a conclusion. And when we debate it's about X. But like with RD, we don't ever forget that the debate should not lose sight of the conclusion. I wish the rest of America could see that. Le sigh.

And again RD please stay with us. If you've got friends bring 'em with you- I'd rather talk to a bunch of people who disagree so that we can work out a middle policy than I ever would just pander to a bunch of people who agree or yell at a bunch of people who disagree. Good on ya bro (if it's alright to call ya that)

This interview is a good lesson in how civil discourse should take place in this country. I felt that both Jon and Rachel made valid points and conceded when they felt the other made their case. I am one who thinks that if we want our country to move in a positive direction we need to have more conversation and less accusations. We can stay true to our own principles and at the same time acknowledging that the other side has the right to challenge you respectfully on those very principles. We seem to have come to a point in this country that everything and everyone is either black or white. I think that there is always a gray area on which we can agree. Great interview... I would love to see our congressional leaders take a lesson from this.

EXACTLY!!!!

Except most on the "other side" are not very respectful. Particularly Foo News. If they, and other Conservatives would argue constructively, chances are lots more positive things can be achieved.

It takes two to tango.

My wife and I watched the interview, and both realized how different the "Leftwing" world was from the "Rightwing" world.

Dr. Maddow and Jon Stewart had an in-depth, cerebral, thoughtful, penetrating and nuanced discussion...something not only alien to the Right, but positively anathema to it.

Seems this thread came back to life given the recent re-post and re-airing of the interview. Civil discourse is hard and for good reason. People should be passionate about their beliefs and defending them without emotion (and all that often comes with that) is a challenge.

That is one of the things I really like about Ms. Maddow (and pardon, in comparison to Olberman, Beck, and Hannity), she doesn't seem to let her emotions run the dialog although her passion is evident. I don't always agree with the way she characterizes people with views similar to mine or the way she presents her side but I do recognize there is a strong professionalism about what she does and I value that.

Mickey thanks, again, for acknowledging that a civil opposition voice is a good thing. I, too, can say from your comments that you try to separate the subjective from the objective and realize that good people can disagree on very strong moral issues.

It still amazes me how people on both sides (myself included) can't see "blind spots" in their belief, view, presentation of facts, etc, anything that one is passionate about. I love to discover my own. Sometimes it changes my mind, sometimes I have to modify my view, and still others I have to say, "well, I don't know."

Anyway, keep the civil discourse alive but don't lose your passion.

I kind of agree, this *was* a very frustrating interview to watch. You're very thoughtful and analytical and you studiously wrote down your questions, but you almost never got any of them out because Stewart would always interrupt and disagree with your premise--even if that premise was something as self-evident as the justification for the Iraq War being weapons of mass destruction ("No," says Stewart, "there were really FOUR justifications, and WMD was only one..."--Bush himself is not that evasive). If Stewart came on your show to repair his reputation in the wake of that truly meaningless stunt in Washington, he only dug himself in deeper by his refusal even to hear your out; he sucked up all the oxygen in that so-called discussion.

His always backs out of criticism by saying that he is just a comic and that there is no similarities between what you do and what he does. But his show is one of the most heavily researched, fact-checked, and written 22 minutes of programming currently on television. How could they come up with these powerful montages of a politician or media star contradicting themselves over the period of half a decade if they didn't have a team of interns or something sitting in a basement watching endless hours of C-SPAN footage or ancient episodes of the O'Reilly Factor for that 4-second gem of a quote they want to use. What he is doing is much more than comedy.

He compared himself to Seinfeld, but it's another false equivalence. The one time Seinfeld actually stepped aside from his observational role and seemed actually to make a judgment was in the final episode when he had the main characters, himself included, jailed--basically saying that there was something morally bankrupt in their whole worldview. But Stewart's one soapbox moment in Washington was self-congratulatory, saying that everyone else on television, except himself, was corrupt. It evinced a total lack of self-awareness, as did this conversation he had with you. I only wish you had been more aggressive with him rather than play by his "let's talk in inside voices and not saying anything disagreeable" mantra.

Beautifully spoken words. Thanks (much better than mine). I will never ever watch him again. He would never be so foolish and condensing to O'Reilly. His passive-aggressiveness was abhorrent. He literally seems scared on Conan, and perhaps losing his job. He should.

Jon Stewart, I'm not usually that vulgar, but WTF!!! There is one show I'm not ever going to watch again. I couldn't wait for that interview and then you treat one of the most gifted, most talented and most fact checking individuals in political journalism as if she were a bimbo throwing out her bias as she pleases without any reflection. You did all the serious journalists out there a disservice. SHAME ON YOU!!! Rachel, chapeau for being so gracious despite of being treated like a little girl that doesn't know anything.

If you're shocked by this, you've probably never seen a Jon Stewart interview. This is about par. I think the basic premise of his show is a critique of the 24/7 news networks, including the likes of Rachel Maddow. And I think he believes that the fact that people take him seriously as a credible news source is evidence that there's a problem in the news media industry.

People identifying themselves as liberal get disappointed when they find out he's not in complete lockstep with the "left" point of view as it's presented in the media, even though his personal political views could be fairly characterized as "left leaning."

His always backs out of criticism by saying that he is just a comic

Maybe there's some truth to this complaint. But let's face it... at the end of the day, he IS just a comic. It's not his job to be informative and balanced in illuminating the complex issues of the day; that's the news media's job. His job is to make people laugh. I actually think he does a pretty good job of taking on a responsibility that he's not really obligated to take on in the first place. What do you want from the guy?

It evinced a total lack of self-awareness, as did this conversation he had with you.

I heard him say, "I'm guilty of this too," at least once, maybe more, during the interview, so I don't think it's fair to say he's not "self aware."

As for Rachel Maddow, I don't watch her show, so I don't know that much about her. I've seen enough to know that she's another pundit with a point of view, which is fine. I think she did a good job with the interview and probably challenged Stewart better that most interviewers I've seen him with.

Rachel allowed Jon to have lunch. Too gracious in my opinion. Waterboarding has been defined as torture, therefore criminal, Bush admitted to authorizing torture, a crime was committed. So, Jon dances around those facts like they are not facts. How cerebral, Jon. Rachel let him slide...

Jon is right! MSNBC should listen to him and balance their very bias coverage of politics. Fox is more balanced.

Fox news is for the dimwitted in my opinion. I'm still amazed at nearly 50 I still find so many people that act like kids on a school yard and believe anything they hear as fact even when proven it's not and will still argue it is fact. To think that so many don't have a mind of their own and can't think for themselves & need to be told what to think is AMAZING!

Absolutely... Rachel was handed her vendictive, sensationalist dishonest self on a silver platter by Jon... He went out of his way to crush her gently... But he exposed her for the lying libtard wack-job she is!

I don't think you understand Jon's statements at all Carolyn

I'm with you MIckey - I don't think Carolyn understood many of Jon' statements.

Someone once wrote if you are a hammer, everything looks like nails so if a person is looking for things to agree with they will find them and if someone is looking for things to disagree with they will also find those. And no amount of "facts" will dissuade a person who has already decided.

There are some seriously tribal dems, patholgically so, if they constru Jon's discussion with Rachel as demeaning or whatever. It was simply a GREAT give and take, repectfully so to the Nth degree. So what if Jon may have been a bit defensive about calling 215,000 or so people to the Mall in DC and wanting a wider venue to explain his own personal reasoning. Yes, he's more than earned that privledge and leeway. Rachel would be shocked to hear some of her viewers' tribal dribble regarding Jon. I don't think she feels she was put down by Jon in any way, shape, or form. Great interview: that's why Rachel ran it twice on MSNBC.

There are some seriously tribal dems, patholgically so, if they constru Jon's discussion with Rachel as demeaning or whatever. It was simply a GREAT give and take, respectfully so to the Nth degree. So what if Jon may have been a bit defensive about calling 215,000 or so people to the Mall in DC and wanting a wider venue to explain his own personal reasoning. Yes, he's more than earned that privilege and leeway. Rachel would be shocked to hear some of her viewers' tribal dribble regarding Jon. I don't think she feels she was put down by Jon in any way, shape, or form. Great interview: that's why Rachel ran it twice on MSNBC.

This would prove, not disprove, my point

Damn, I knew I should have become a trial attorney! Proof!! ;-)

It's absolutely amazing how people can view the same events so completely different like night and day, even those of the same political persuassion.

So Rachel would not edit, but play the interview for the FULL complete hour, TWICE on MSNBC, post the FULL interview on the blog, Rachel would gush over her "get" on the following Lawrence O'Donnel Last Word show ... cuz she was handed her lunch by Jon and shown to be not up to the task??? AND Jon was demeaning to her, did not bow, or whatever? Seriously??

Education either is a goal, takes root and flourishes in man, or the mind remains fallow and animal waste droppings (idle minds, Beck, et. al) feed a field of weeds. 27-29% of adult Americans have degrees. HS dropouts are a pandemic here in the US. But give each the freedom to post their thoughts!!!!!! Bill Maher overstates American intelligence.

I don't think 'she handed Jon his lunch' to put it in your words. I simply don't think this was a disagreement. I think to put it in such terms plays in to the media hype and furthers divisions; I do not see how doing do helps anything. That was my point (sarcasm, obviously, put aside....you gotta learn to ignore my sarcasm cause if that's all you focus on then we're in trouble...loil)

erm by "your words" i did not necessarily mean you PhxKenster, sorry about that. I mostly agree with your statement and thought it was "awesome" (totally with highlights too ;-) )

No, no, no... you weren't the target of my comments, Mickey. Others were. I don't think either handed either their lunch. Sure they had disagreements, differing perspectives, that's what made it a very interesting hour with Rachel & Jon. Imagine being in total agreement with each other! Boring.

What blows me away is someone who watches both TRMS & Daily Show to come away from the interview and say they'll never watch the Daily Show again because of the level of "disprespectfulness" or whatever else they wanted to characterize Jon with without realizing the context in which Jon felt 1000% at ease with Rachel in order to have a same level, friendly discussion, free from hurls ;-) , free to disagree on perspectives chat. That's taking some serious tribal sentiments into all one's perspective and "judging" this interview with say, Jon & O'Reilly, who Jon probably doesn't feel anywhere near the level of at ease or kinship to open up the way he did with Rachel.

All's well. =)

Ya I don't get it. It's like people fill in their own blanks. And on that note sorry lol my bad, but good on ya for sticking with ya.

I agree that Jon Stewart didn't come off very well. Many people I know watch his show to stay up on the news because they feel they can get the news and be entertained at the same time. So, Jon Stewart saying that he's not delivering news is not the perception out there. I understand it when people say that there is rhetoric on both sides, yet, as Rachel tried to point out, the degree of the rhetoric and the source of the rhetoric should matter. For example, Fox TV has been putting out misinformation about Obama's trip to ASIA, how can Stewart defend this. Mostly liberals watch Jon's show, so he's biting the hand that feeds him. I'm hoping that he came off so bad because he was ill, yet, I'm very disappointed.

I agree with your points. Knowing nothing about Jon before the interview and watching it, he did seem evasive to some questions. And I assumed(myself) some pro FOX/Republican/Tea Bias-until I dug just a little deeper and discovered some very interesting history and facts about him, and connections to the Democratic Party/opposing parts of FOX as well. Simple click to Wikipedia revealed a bit of great background. I understand, after thinking, that this is a very socially polarized polical climate Jon has to walk a fine line and not make a political or pro media bias one way or the other. This could be easily used against him, the show. advertisers, execs, etc. One derogatory statement could explode and be used against him. Imagine if Jon said, "Yea FOX disappoints me sometimes." FOX could rebroadcast that and twist it, using it against him and the show. Could loose a portion of the audience with one Liberal or conservative statement. Interview was an introduction to me about Jon himself, as I knew nothing about him, or the show. Seems a solid, good guy. In my view, both Rachel and Jon were Stars to watch.

"Imagine if Jon said, "Yea FOX disappoints me sometimes." FOX could rebroadcast that and twist it, using it against him and the show."

?? John makes it abundantly clear over and over again that FOX reviles, offends, and provokes him, and that he tried to evade that stance was really disingenuous.

it seems to me that many of you are expecting to either agree with some one or not get along with them. PLEASE watch this interview again and see two dignified people respectfully disagreeing with each other. nobody has been slighted here and nobody is being "evasive" or "disingenuous" so much as CIVIL.

you may be used to the 'with us or against us' aggressive approach to discourse as seen on sensationalized news networks, but 'not angrily attacking' Fox in the manner that you would like to if you had the chance, does not make Jon Stewart "disingenuous".

look again at this interview and you just might be able to see mutual respect amidst some honest disagreement or even misunderstandings. i know it's not what you're used to, but that doesn't mean attacking it is a healthy or productive thing to do. looking past your own conditioned inclinations to draw lines in the sand and play a game of "vs." - here you can actually see two people with great respect for each other, even if they don't see eye to eye on the appropriateness of that game of "vs."

well, what I meant was if he took a media bias on MSNBC with Rachel, he could be labeled and boxed as a Left Liberal for MSNBC, which would segregate him from his Tea Party, Conservative, Independent, audience. I understand your point, though. I watched being a Rachel Maddow/MSNBC fan a lot more than a Jon Stewart fan-I knew nothing about him or his show.

At last an opinion that I concur with. I like Jon and what he does with the issues. Lord knows a reason to laugh has been lacking lowe these passed ten years. And given the current rate of change that we're seeing,we'll need to hang onto his every word.

But this interview made him seam as though he was politicing, in order to protect some impartiality to hold himself above it all.

Because I believe that there is no way anyone can conflate the fictious lies of the right wing. And their "news" punditry. Be it FOX Cable or IAB Radio with the fact checked reporting of MSNBC.

Rachel as always great job!

as i watched, words like "sophistry", "obfuscation", and "horsepucky", came to mind. you treated him, as you treat everyone you mix it up with, with civility, kindness and class but i felt like he was "rope a doping" you. he feigned you were making valid points, i.e., his false equivalency take at the rally, and then tap dance and bop you never really accepting the validity of premises that were palpably factual.

it was an eye opener for this liberal/progressive about the perceived sardonic, ironic "comedians" over there and their affinity? with my msnbc hero lineup/firewall anti-fox reality/fact based nightly sanity check.

the bush stuff was "alice in wonderlandish," and if he's deluded enough to think that his take makes sense in light of bush's recent pride in authorizing "waterboarding" and other crimes doesn't make it and him "evil" morally and legally it said lots about where the discussion on the main topic, "false equivalency" went. the list of people who did really bad stuff to other human beings is replete with their apologists who attempt to dismiss their unintended consequences when they say it couldn't have been known when the "decider" chose to do what he did.

and, yes as others have intimated, i think you let him throw you off your game. no one can best you on facts and arguing from them. and if you'd have pestered him with them more, sick as he was?, he may have been less disingenuous/evasive even if he couldn't or wouldn't say that your arguments were winners.

Oh my...I have work to do here, I can see.

Jon is a comedian...he is very bright and very talented and his strong suit is to bend that brilliance toward comedy. He is correct in saying that he is following a well-trodden path: I am old enough to remember That Was The Week That Was, or TW3...a weekly news spoof program that made fun of whatever was in the news that week. SNL does the same thing. Jon is NOT bringing you the news, kiddies -- he's making fun of it in his own inimitable and wonderful way.

Rachel is at least equally bright and brilliant and she IS bringing you the news and commentary, analysis, opinion and well-researched facts. If she includes some humor and doesn't take herself as seriously as Bill O'Reilly takes himself, let us ALL say AMEN!

The "interview" last night wasn't really an interview. Y'all know that don't you? It very quickly turned into something more rare and special: two intelligent people allowing us to overhear them discuss their respective approaches to their crafts and to their audiences. They were friendly and respectful of each other despite their differences. You can actually LEARN things from conversations like these.

Rachel, Jon: it was terrific and we were riveted for every televised minute. Please keep it up and maybe expand the series. The world obviously needs examples of good, well-mannered, interesting conversations...as evidenced by the opinionated stupidities above. My fan is at the ready to swat heads!

I argree entirely with the post above. I'm a fan of both Rachel Maddow and and Jon Stewart (as well as Keith Olbermann and others), I do (obviously) consider myself a liberal, but I think Jon had an excellent point. He was somewhat dismissive of Rachel's arguments in this interview and I can see how that angered a lot of her fans, but the point of it wasn't to debate political views, it was to show that there can be respectful and rational discourse despite our differences. That was the whole point Jon was trying to make with his rally.

I see both Rachel and Jon as brilliant people who are both, in different ways, valuable assets to our culture. I applaud them both for what they do, and I agree with Jon on one point - there is entirely too much noise.

He over analyzed the simplest of question. The man defended the right more than Fox does.

Very much so. He overanalyzes to avoid having to admit the equivalencies he's drawn don't hold up under examination. Putting it simply, Rachel provides facts with an open bias (that is, facts + bias, not biased facts). The right provides bias without facts, denies having a bias, and makes sh*t up in lieu of facts. Of course, he couldn't admit that, so he talked around (and around, and around) it.

I thank freelight for coming to my defense in such a gallant way. You are a gentleman or a gentlewoman and a scholar.

Carolinaladywithfan and freelight, thank you for putting into words how i felt about this "interview." I found both Jon and RAchel so thoughtful, so civil, so engaging and so respectful. I wish they were the model for political discourse and disagreeing in this country. I agreed with Rachel on some points, with Jon on others, but overall, i was impressed by both and have become an even bigger fan of Rachel and Jon. Mostly, though, i wanted to thank you both Carolinaladywithfan and freelight for having the courage to speak out in spite of the tenor of the other comments. I was surprised to come to this blog and see so much negativity toward Jon, or toward Rachel, or toward this process they both engaged in.

"Imagine if Jon said, "Yea FOX disappoints me sometimes." FOX could rebroadcast that and twist it, using it against him and the show."

Anyone who doesn't realize that FOX is an ongoing and favorite target of the Daily Show, has never seen the Daily Show.

I like Jon a lot, but have to admit that much of what he said sounded garbled to me, and left me saying "huh?" Guess those 'smart' pills I've been taking haven't taken effect yet.

If someone out there wants to clear it up for me succinctly, I'm all for it.

1.) Jon Stewart had a job before 24 hour cable news networks FOX & MSNBC had any success. And mock-news shows have been a comedy staple since long before CNN ever launched 24 hour cable news.

2.) In what way did Jon Stewart "use" Rachel Maddow as a platform for himself - and to what ends?! He didn't plug anything (though he's got a book out) and his ratings are much larger than Rachel's.

3.) You seem upset that he didn't agree with Rachel's outlook on the news networks. Sometimes people don't agree. I think they disagreed quite respectfully. keep in mind also, Rachel was the interviewer and drove the conversation.

i think Jon's point is that people doing "wrong" things, usually do not do them with the thought "i love evil and i will do these evil things..." they usually are doing "wrong" things which they have, in their minds, justified. i think his point was that while Bush "may actually be a war criminal" that we are fooling ourselves out of honest discourse on the topic when we approach it from a position of 'that evil bastard chose to be evil and do these evil things...'. it is perhaps more honest (and therefore productive) to consider why one would really engage in such mistakes.

I agree...sort of, on the premise of "evil is always stupid; stupid is not always evil." Bush did not commit to the evil that is waterboard torture in a vacuum, there was plenty of expert advice made available to him from intelligence sources about the inadvisability of it vis a vis intelligence gathering as well legal precedent. The U.S. has prosecuted many cases of waterboarding via Geneva Conventions, internat'l law - even a case or two which occurred within our own borders. Bush cherry picked his legal advice on this the same way he cherry picked his WMD "info" - info that he continued to use even after it was retracted by its sources. All of which makes the case for stupid indeed being evil. True, from Jon's perspective bashing an adversary over the head with harsh rhetoric is not guaranteed to be productive in all circumstances, but in this discussion - and in Rachel's and Jon's last night - we can and should call a spade a spade: Waterboarding in Bush's informed hands WAS evil.

You're right. But this is where I would have liked Rachel to push Jon a bit; although I think Bush was the worst president ever, I do not think he is an evil man, and I'd be willing to bet he thought he was doing the right thing. Bush probably did think the world would be a better place without Hussein, but he also realized that he was going to need to deceive the American people in order to attack Iraq, and the question is do the ends justify the means, especially when the ends don't work out? Should there be punishment for not adhering to a legal process? Should cops plant evidence on criminals they know are guilty? I think this is a true divide between liberals, who argue that once you start ignoring the rules of civilized society (such as laws against torture) you start defending a society not worth defending, and conservatives, who are wiling to accept some of the collateral damage created by bending rules as long as the goal of national security is paramount.

Jon's argument defending Bush's willingness to torture, which is essentially people in power are often forced to do distasteful things, and therefore shouldn't be held criminally accountable is another decision point. Corruption for personal gain is universally condemned. But ignoring laws that constrain those leaders from doing what they think are right are what decisive leaders do. Is that a good thing?

This was a fascinating discussion between two intelligent people who respect each other, and it would be nice to see more such discussions. Jon demonstrates his willingness to respectfully disagree with his conservative guests in the interviews he does on his show, but Rachel is right, MSNBC is not the left-wing version of Fox. Liberals take pride in their willingness to consider other points of view (its part of being liberal), whereas Fox conservatives take pride in the faith they have in their own rectitude. You don't see too many serious left-wingers being respectfully interviewed on Fox.

once you start ignoring the rules of civilized society (such as laws against torture) you start defending a society not worth defending

kjames, just an aside... that was very well said.

At what point does condoning or approving of an evil (torture) as a leader make the leader evil?

At what point did Hitler or Pol Pot or Mao become evil, rather than leaders?

Why do we have laws if leaders are above them?

Yes, I thought he was an ally. His bi-partisan stance felt deflating to me.

Things he critized about your show, he does on his own show.

And this is where Stewart, legitimately, pulls out the, "Yes, but I'm a comedian... You're the news," refrain that people always seem to find so offensive. I think it's a fair point.

And that's not a crack at Rachel Maddow or her show. Jon's beef with the networks (as I see it... can't speak for the guy) is that there's a 24/7 machine churning out pundit after pundit after pundit whose sole purpose is to elevate one set of positions over another, rather than truly investigating key issues and getting to the crux of the matters. And this has created a polarizing divide among viewers that either A) isn't really there or B) is grossly exaggerated.

My theory behind the 2nd Iraq War is so much more simple. Bush jr was settling a personal vendetta: It was rumored Saddam tried to assassinate the chickenhawk's daddy while celebrating the liberation of Kuwait in shameful war #1.

And why was Iraq war #1 shameful? Bush Sr withheld US intentions to defend Kuwait while Saddam massed his troops. Bush was silent because he wanted the political hay.

To Mr. Stewart, FDR's internment of the Japanese Americans vs. the Bush war/massmurder/torture lies is another false equivalency.

To Mr. Obama, delivering combatants to torturers is just as evil as torturing them yourself.

I agree with you. I felt the conversation kind of an "out of body experience"-not articulate on Jon's part at all.

I always like Rachel when she is doing serious reporting and not doing the funny stuff. Perhaps Jon feels others are on his terf.

One thing about liberals when in an interview, they will tear apart anything just to see how it looks (and perhaps show off their open mindedness).AT times I wish they would simply have a party line and answer like the Repbulicans always do, and just support the party,please.

I also thought that Stewart was pontificating, offering his opinions from "on high". I was disturbed by his reluctance to see evil in the destruction of so many American and Iraqi lives by a war which had no justification. He seemed to be at great pains not to name the agent. This is the sort of muddled thinking that allows slippery arguments like Bush's to go unchallenged.

Sorry, but you just proved Jon's point, total over reaction if you don't like the topic. Fox had little responce to the rally , yet Rachele and Keith thought they were being picked on. Grow up folks, not every one is going to agree with you. That was one of Jon's points.

Some rereading of WWII history may be in order for you.

Thanks, Bill. I believe that Rachel did not feel picked on by Jon's rally. My remarks were about his interview with Rachel. For me this was not about Maddow vs Stewart as much as it was about clear-thinking, plain-speaking vs convoluted, labyrinthine, dead-end thinking. I honestly do not know how she does not spend every waking hour of every day banging her head on the desk. She is shoveling sand against so much tide.

P.S. I am a total Mama Wolff fan!

Try as I may to take Stewart's arguments about civility to heart, after years of observing the natural dialogue that does and will go on between liberal left and conservative right and indulging in some myself along the way. I have this observation to offer: You should always start the conversation with a reasonable tone, but in most cases, you are going to soon find that the conservative you are talking to is not listening to a dam thing you are saying and will soon ratchet up the rhetoric no matter how reasoned and calm you may remain. There's a limit to how far backward you should bend when you dance with the devil. A lot of the Left's problems - image-wise as well as in political battle - stem from their tendencies to be oh, so "reasonable." The stark example of playing nice and "reasonable" with a certain rightwing political organization in 1930's Germany comes to mind, whereby an awful lot of good people tried reason and compromise - right up to their being led away to the gas chambers.

Just REPORT our stories and let the American people make up their minds on who is wrong and who is right.

We report; you decide? Now what does that remind me of?

THE BOOGY MAN!!! BOO!

Texas-1627906

Apparently I didn't read this particular comment of yours as I scanned through those already submitted but all I can say is "right on". How can anyone who is sympathetic with Jon's theory of just reporting the facts not come away from your message and not have a dog in this hunt. Bush's transgressions transcended simply reporting the facts because as you say,Texas, they violated the Geneva Conventions which is criminal and punishable. How Jon can rationalize that any other way is what really tore at me during this interview (sic).

where and when exactly did Jon Stewart express this supposed belief that "we shouldn't be too judgmental about torture"?!?!

I don't think Jon was justifying torture at all, he was just pointing out that we live in a complex world where moral judgements are rarely simply black and white, especially when lives are at stake. People can do bad things for reasons that they may perceive as being "good" or "justified" at the time, and we should take that into account in our judgement of them. But more importantly, if we are going to make such judgements, that we should do it consistently.

I think the point he made that we should try to be consistent with our labels and not just label one guy a "war criminal" because he's on the opposite end of the political spectrum to us, and another guy a "patriot" because we identify with him politically is an important one. I totally agree with Jon's assessment that if we look at it neutrally, if Bush is a "war criminal", Roosevelt and Obama probably are too, and throwing around blanket derogatory terms that imply that the person is simply evil is more likely to shut down debate and polarize people than build on it.

Looking at these comments I'm honestly shocked that so many people have had such a negative reaction to what I thought was an amazingly profound, sensible and sensitive debate on the media issues of our time. You did a wonderful job, Rachel and Jon, I'm really proud of both of you and I feel like this will probably be a staple go-to interview for media studies classes for some time to come.

P.S. Get well soon Jon!

I appreciate your sentiments Arrow but I'm more concerned with stopping torture then stopping the conversation. A civil conversation about torture -- God forgive me for writing those words -- does not occur after the torture it occurs in the formulation of the policy. That conversation resulted in the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. legislation against torture. You write that "people doing bad things for reasons that they may perceive as being "good" or "justified" at the time, and we should take that into account in our judgement of them." When a law is passed or a treaty is adopted people don't get to "perceive" or "justify" their way around it. They have a civil discussion about changing the law. Of course, your premise has nothing to do with the facts at hand since when people torture in secret, lie about it and then destroy the evidence of it, it is a pretty safe bet that they knew what they were doing was wrong. Jon Stewart, trying to make this all "gray" in his current role as the last reasonable man on TV, is the type of pandering, for want of a better word, that excuses torture and unjustified wars.

If you or he want a "civil" discusssion (with no judgments about the actors involved) on the subject of social security, the deficit, the military budget, health insurance, etc that is fine, count me in. I'm not interested, however, in tiptoeing around torture and dropping bombs knowing that civilians will be killed in a war that was not necessary.

I think it's time to see that his team of writers is much better as he is personally.

His biggest problem seems to me that he becomes a victim of false equivalency so often. Look at the last time Al Gore was guest and then when he had the Freakonomics guy. His questions to Gore were nonsensical and with the Freakonomics guy he could have mentioned the substantial criticism, but behaved like a fanboy.

Yes, Chris - it occurred to me that his writers must be the real geniuses behind the Daily Show. But it is he who is the face of the show, and he does in fact make serious criticisms of real issues, not merely the often-times ridiculous media perspective on said issues; that perspective is his vehicle. Fake news, about 'real' news, about social and political issues.

stop clinging to the silly divide of red vs. blue.

Red wants me dead. Sorry, not listening to them.

For what it's worth (and hopefully to the extent that it doesn't offend you) love ya MT!

Well then, it would have been much better had he himself carried on a rational debate. Saying that FOX is ideological but not partisan? The truth is clearly straight the other way around. I agree with him that the media peddles false narratives, but it was as if he wanted to assert that partisanship wasn't even a reality.

How is that even a point of contention? If a dem says something that is even remotely conservative in nature, they'd be a headliner on every Fox show and premiered as the new age of enlightened democrats. That's what it means to be ideologically conservative and not partisan. They already love and hate repubs from moment to moment based on how well they carry the right's message and denounce them as cowards if they even suggest working towards a compromise with a dem.

The other side isn't interested in rational discourse, they're interested in winning. The more time we spend on trying to find rational discourse, the less time we have to defeat them.

Was none of this made clear during the first two years of the Obama Administration? If it has come to this, then we must face the facts. You may be secure in your dorm room or your high tech job or your father's basement, but millions are on the edge. We are fighting for them.

If you wish to discount discourse out of hand, how do you intend to "defeat them" and what do mean by that? If you're planning on adopting the modern right's high rhetoric with undeveloped logic then what exactly are you fighting for? The power of modern left is that it is a side filled with rational, logical arguments against which the right has been unwilling to even try to debate.

I can appreciate that you're emotional about this and I understand that your attack on me stemmed from those emotions. But you're not actually saying anything other than you really want to beat the other team.

Not partisan? Who benefited from Fox's coverage, endorsements, and financial donations?

Todd, well said. You don't talk nice with people who've clearly demonstrated they're engaging in bad faith.

First, on the partisan issue.

The beneficiaries of their coverage were those who carried the conservative message that Fox preaches. No one is saying that they aren't biased. The point to this question is that their bias is towards a specific ideology. More to the point they obstruct republicans who would otherwise try to compromise and work with the administration. That's the real danger, not only are they biased but their bias is effectively getting in their way of supporting the republican party.

"If a dem says something that is even remotely conservative in nature, they'd be a headliner on every Fox show and premiered as the new age of enlightened democrats." This is not partisan, this is ideologically conservative.

"They already love and hate repubs from moment to moment based on how well they carry the right's message and denounce them as cowards if they even suggest working towards a compromise with a dem." This is not partisan, this is ideologically conservative.

The biggest difference between the two is that partisans can cooperate for the good of their party. Ideological opponents must obstruct because there is no scenario where cooperation can support their absolutist ideology.

On the discourse issue.

You're not talking to the extremists or the obstructionists. You're speaking to the middle of the country. Their party lines shift from year to year but their political movements are meaningful. Yes, they shifted right because of economic issues. Everyone saw this coming. A poor economy pushes moderates the other direction almost all of the time. Two years prior, solid rhetoric and strong liberal discourse pulled those moderates to the democrats. That's what Stewart was saying. That discourse does work, but you can't aim it at the extremists with equal extremism. You have to focus it towards those who will listen.

When one sides depths promotes a "let them eat cake" philosophy and death, (literally) and the other side promotes angry rhetoric and maybe rolling a Cop car or two (to stop the deaths!), these are truly false equivalences.

I respectfully disagree regarding whether FOX is more ideological or partisan. The beneficiaries - those who received coverage, money and votes, not to mention got elected - all have Rs after their names. It seems to me the ideology is pretty superficial really; FOX uses it as a draw, yet they end up aiding very establishment big money Rs. Just the way the Rs have used the so-called Tea Party to take control of the House. Fox may make an occasional story of a conservadem or an idependent, and certainly their blowhards like Beck talk all kinds of ideology, but they are led by very establishment BIG money, very dedicated to Republican control.

Well, just as a minor aside, I have trouble accepting their view as ideology. I think it's something in the same direction as ideology but there's a better word for it. Ideology requires thought, reflection and regular testing of your ideals. It's more than just naked defense and high rhetorical statements against differing ideals. You can't prove the nobility of one thing by stating how wrong a different ideal is. Fox provides a high rhetorical support of a group of ideas without providing a rational for those ideas. They make assumptions about the virtue of their ideas without supporting the reasons behind that virtue. They get so offended by different ideas because they assume that their ideas are and must remain perfect and absolute.

There's a word for that kind of single minded defense of an idea. It's a kind of ideology but it's an ideology without the necessary rationality. It's called theology.

Matt, good parsing of terms...but I think maybe the word you're looking for to describe the things Fox broadcasts is PROPAGANDA. Per www.dictionary.com, propaganda is:

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. [truncated]

It's just a shame that there are so-called journalists (on Fox) who are willing to put their journalistic integrity on the line to fabricate and spread falsehoods. It is an even bigger shame that such a huge segment of the public can be duped so easily.

"...to think that Jon believes simply reporting the facts will mollify the Right, thus creating a civil discourse is stunning."

Here, here, Sybil!!! You have recognized the problem. That is the first step to a solution! :-)

RealtorTodd,

I'm still gobsmacked just thinking about it. Jon will never look the same to me again and boy, do I feel bad about that. It's difficult to realize that our perceptions can change so rapidly.

Just a quick thought RE: Jon Stewart's tendency to interrupt and prevent Rachel from completing her questions.

1. The dude was sick. I'll give him that, but mostly that was low energy, maybe cold meds, and sometimes losing his train of thought, and I felt I could sense his own frustration that he wasn't as articulate as he usually is (I get that way without enough sleep).

2. Many men, or people with strong personalities, often do this to women and some other men. I am one woman who is not offended by this, nor do I sense Rachel is either. Some women find the alpha game deeply offensive, while others will take on Mr Alpha head to head (lesbians who grew up tomboys or running in gangs of neighborhood boys, sometimes even leading such gangs, sometimes have an easier time of it-- it's just another day at the office if you were the only girl on the Little League team when all the guys are tapping their cups and peeing in the corner of the dugout).

Nothing for me is more like watching paint dry than a debate that has no heat or urgency to get good points out before you forget them. So long as Mr. Alpha-Bellow-Lungs isn't holding forth in a long extended monologue (cough-Chris Matthews-cough), I'd rather see people interrupt from time to time, with lots of give and take.

THAT SAID!

3. Watch the famous Crossfire episode from 2004 with Jon Stewart. It was years ago when I watched it live, but relived it again when the clip was posted on this site. If I hadn't watched it recently, I would not have been struck by this particular thing: Stewart did the EXACT same thing to Tucker and Begala. He was gunning for them. He came in with a bone to pick, and by god, he was going to pick it. He was brilliant, and the effect was brilliant. Begala backed off, but Carlson didn't know enough to let it go and he got seriously mopped up by a pro. Pure poetry.

Interestingly, perhaps Stewart (often the smartest guy in the room) thought he'd run that same number on Rachel. "Thought." No one could do that sick, but perhaps it was his intention. Same rhetorical patterns. Less succinct and able to draw clear points. Interruptive and often accusatory. But with one key difference Stewart should have anticipated, if he had watched on some of these evenings when TRMS went head to head with some serious debate-engagement with guests:

Rachel can take on anyone. I'm not saying she'll always win, because I'm not sure she always wants to. She's actually seeking larger truths in debate and dialogue, more so than just winning, and in some contexts (over beers), I'd bet she flips to devil's advocate side in debates just to keep from winning, to keep things interesting.

Far from quibbling over semantics he was not letting her get away with oversimplifications. If you didn't get his point about her bias in each of the cases he mentioned it is because you hold the same biases. For her to start the interview by saying, incredibly, 'How do you think the left shuts down discussions???' was a clear indication she needed to be called on her biases.

He is absolutely right in calling her on saying that technically Bush is a war criminal is meant to be a conversation stopper, or that there is more to her commentary then 'that was bad for the country' as opposed to 'he is a bad man'. Brining up Pol Pot was an important distinction.

I found him to be one of the most reasonable voices on the left so far; far better then the sneering, sure-they-are-right, paint anyone not on the left-side of gay marriage, abortion, the war on terrorism or health care as selfish uneducated rednecks you generally see on these shows.

I think she needed to be jostled a bit to see that her bias is just that and get called for it when she was. Better then letting her finish and putting the double-talk under the bridge.

Note I am NOT anti Rachel Maddow, but I think with good dose of either humility or a measure of self-awareness her presentation of her positions would carry far more weight.