Errata is a web journal written by Robert Davis who has neither spent a night in a ghost town nor pulled a turnip from the earth. He doesn't even know if turnips grow in the ground. Perhaps on trees, like candy corn. Therefore, Errata is a non-commercial project.

Observation #1: It may be appropriate, when leaving a movie theater, to say "mysterious."

Observation #2: It may be appropriate, when leaving a movie theater, to say "mysterious" at the top of your lungs. Bring your eyebrows together before you say it. Effective!

Observation #3: Same for books. Even at libraries.

There is a prize for people who correctly guess the thing about Metropolis, Nevada.

Except where the text specifically states otherwise, Errata's vagaries are indicated vaguely and its authors are indistinct in the traditional way of the Internet, except where the authors lay claim to their work. In some cases Robert Davis lays claim to work that is not his own but has been abandoned like so many ghost towns. Except where held presently, fistfuls of dirt are suspended via dispersal, or dispersed via suspension (in the air), and thus their dissolution is their transcendence, or their transcendence is their dissolution. And yet our eyes tear, and our vision is impaired, demonstrating for the umpteenth time that one entity's gain is another's fit of sneezes. Except where indicated, storms shall outlive the clay upon which they rain, unless storms are improperly delimited by their clouds, which dissolve, rather than by their inevitable return. Thus the clay loses, unless the clay is said to own the storm, to use it to make itself heavy, to make itself cling to white garments, refuse dispersal, cake upon the facades of abandoned buildings, and sit like Man [sic] upon the earth where it is pelted by a storm that it owns. In which case the clay still loses, if you ask us.

Some of the above is legally binding and should be considered a mental contract between Errata and those upon whom it acts. The bit about the prize should be considered an overstatement insofar as prizes differ from dirt and prize dispersal differs from dirt dispersal. Please recall that ownership is a weight and, therefore, hope that you do not win the prize.

One day Errata or its representatives will call upon you for a favor. It is expected that you will hop-to without delay.

You may contact Robert Davis by email unless it's about the rock that was thrown in anger. The rock is more properly called a clod. Why do you continue to raise the topic?

16 October 2004

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Here's the video of Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire. The program was broadcast live. Quite live. If you can't see the video, here are a couple of good rundowns in Salon and the Washington Post.

If Tucker Carlson is right that Stewart doesn't ask hard enough questions on his show, then I think it's fair to say that Crossfire just isn't funny enough to be worth a bucket of warm spit.

Then again, how the hell would I know? I guess I'm just going by their web site, where the hosts aren't mugging quite enough for the camera, which accidentally makes their show look like a mid-season replacement for The Profiler. Not funny. Not funny, like that. Granted, using the word "debate" three times in their 77-word description of the show is pretty funny, so maybe Crossfire is worth a bucket of warm spit after all.

Turn off the cable news channels. Please. My God, they make my blood boil.

(Via Long Pauses)

Posted by davis | Link

Reader Comments

October 16, 2004, 05:19 AM

davis

Also...

The challenge that most of these political debate-style shows face is to be entertaining but appear logical. To make that happen, they've wholeheartedly embraced the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. With this handy tool someone can say, "We're fair because we present both sides of every issue," as if every issue has exactly two sides when actually few do.

Once you've reduced an issue to a dilemma, it's fairly easy to paint your opponents into corners or catch them in inconsistencies. Look how Paul Begala attempted to reduce Jon Stewart's complaints about Crossfire not being a real debate show. Whipping his trusty false dilemma out of its holster — heck, why wear a holster? Just keep that thing drawn! — Begala attempted to rephrase Stewart's complaint as "you're not tough enough." Then later he could easily spot an example where — ah HA — Stewart thinks the opposite. Or Begala's partner— err, opponent, Tucker Carlson, could whip out an example of Stewart himself not being tough enough, that wily hypocrite.

In the show's final minute, Begala and Carlson broke ranks to team up against Stewart, whose final retort was a look that just said, "idiots." While Begala and Carlson would love to stay on their respective left and right sides, nobody but nobody can pry their favorite fallacy from their cold, shameless hands. On that, I'm sure these sworn opponents agree.

October 18, 2004, 10:36 AM

girish

Rob--it makes my blood boil too.

This might sound surreal, but about a year ago, I cancelled my cable/satellite service and threw out my rabbit ears in disgust. And so, I literally had watched no TV for a year until I saw the Crossfire clip on the web.
I felt this strong deja vu of disgust, all over again!

When I called my satellite provider to cancel my service a year ago, there was a long pause of inredulity and then in a sanctimonious, censuring, irony-free voice he said, "You don't want to watch any TV?...But that's.....UN-AMERICAN!!!"

October 18, 2004, 02:17 PM

davis

I've thought about doing that, too. I don't watch much TV, but I recently got a TiVo and it allowed me to sample some of these "news" shows I had heard about but not actually dialed up. My God.

I know a number of people who've killed their televisions (except for movies). One of these days....

(Funny, I just posted about your site as you were posting here.)

October 18, 2004, 02:18 PM

davis

By the way, I've noticed that the Crossfire home page no longer has the 77-word description of the program that I mentioned. I'd like to take credit for having that impact (ahem), but I assume they just needed to make space for the "campaign countdown."

But here's the old version of the page, from the Wayback Machine. "Debating the issues that impact life."

October 18, 2004, 05:16 PM

amber

I love Jon Stewart!And i don't care what other people say!:)

October 18, 2004, 08:08 PM

girish

actually i like jon.
it's those other two crossfire cretins that i found insufferable!

October 19, 2004, 11:51 AM

davis

I know this can be found anywhere online, but since for the time being you're right here, I'll point you to Jon's followup on his show last night.

October 20, 2004, 10:49 AM

Doug

I haven't owned a TV in about 15 years. I've honestly never missed it.

"The challenge that most of these political debate-style shows face is to be entertaining but appear logical. To make that happen, they've wholeheartedly embraced the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. With this handy tool someone can say, "We're fair because we present both sides of every issue," as if every issue has exactly two sides when actually few do."

This is so true, Rob, and well-stated. In fact, it's my current number one criticism of corporate media (and even NPR) that with any story, regardless of its objectivity or tuth component, a "dissenting voice" will be provided, even if it's not until the end. It's maddening. Like you write, as if there's only two sides, anyway. But more than that, it fundamentally perpetuates middle class passivity and regards the world as a conglomeration of opinions rather than facts and lies. A news story about the earth being round today would inevitably prove its "objectivity" by stating that there are, in fact, flat-earth people who disagree with the notion.

I am so out-of-touch with cable shows that I've only very recently began watching Stewart's program online. If I did have cable, I think I could become addicted to The Daily Show.

Other Recent Posts

Other Recent Episodes

Favorite Films