Jon Stewart did get his message across to those who were paying attention: namely, that the talking heads in the media who think of themselves as representations of public opinion or reasoned scholars on issues are nothing of the sort. They are frauds. Liars. Delusional.

The difference between Crossfire and The Daily Show is The Daily Show doesn't pretend it's something its not. It's a comedy show. That's all it's ever tried to be. Jon Stewart's job is to make you laugh, not pontificate all the tough subjects and issues of the day. Crossfire, on the other hand, brands itself as this serious and educational "debate" show that enlightens viewers with its pundits views from opposite sides of the political system.

Jon: "YOU'RE CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." But it is, as Stewart pointed out, "theatre". For one thing, the show misleads viewers into thinking that the only viewpoints that exist on any issue--or should ought to exist--are the Left-Right dichotemy of corporate politics. The show does not have anyone who weighs issues and makes arguments and opinions on them based on their own merit. No, what they have instead are bipartisan interpretations of those issues. It's a very dishonest thing they're doing, to compartmentalize reason itself into this bipolar extremist mindset. Not that I blame them, of course. People, for the most part, are stupid. They aren't capable of actually contemplating the sophisticated mathematics of hardcore deductive reasoning that would arise in a REAL debate. It's too dry and boring to them for one, and it's too incomprehensible for another. What people need are soundbites: Simple, bite-sized debate chunks, made soft and palatable for their puny brains to digest. It is for this reason that the C-SPAN format of political wagering does so poorly, and the Crossfire format of highly-charged, partisan bickering does so well.

Secondly, debates themselves have a beginning, middle, and end. Or at least, they're supposed to. If all parties involved are dedicated to the same goal--that is, coming out with a sound, reasoned and calculated conclusion--then ultimately a debate should end when everyone comes to agreement. Because the purpose of a debate isn't to prove that you're right, but to decide what the best course of action is. What entails this is consensus and compromise--two things completely alien to partisan politics. Instead, we are treated to talking heads spouting the party line, neither side conceding a single inch of intellectual real estate to the other, and in the end no consensus is reached. They each get their minutes in, and the issue remains largely untouched, much less expounded upon or--god forbid--actually solved. Orwell invented a word for this kind of political speaking: duckspeak, meaning "to quack like a duck".

Tucker, can't you tell that, unlike your regular fawning guests, Jon will not put up with any of your bullshit. So Jon is invited on the show, which he finds amusing because he takes every chance he gets to make fun of it. And he comes out firing: Stop. You're hurting America by giving them this farce......by tricking them into thinking they're getting enlightened discourse, when they're really being the rope in a political game of tug-of-war. He complains that they have this wonderful opportunity to really ask tough questions, dive deep into issues, and hit politicians hard, but they don't.

Of course, the response from the pundits is actually predictable, in a sad sort of way, since they aren't really skilled debaters, and they commit one of the biggest logical fallacies that any Logic 101 student could tell you: Fallacy of Distraction. "Well, YOU don't ask the hard questions. So don't you criticize us for not doing that."

That's not what Jon's show is for. He is not living the lie. He is not pretending he's something he's not. When he has politicians on his show, he does exactly what his show's mandate spells out clearly: shoot the shit, make fun of them, and call it a day. If The Daily Show was about hardhitting political discourse, he would make more of an effort to have it be about hardhitting political discourse. But it's not. Crossfire, meanwhile, has the exact opposite problem: it is a politically-charged information show on CNN that pretends to be about hardhitting political discourse, but falls just short of the mark. Like........as far as an Adam Sandler film being rich, sophisticated cinema, the pinnacle of haute couture.

He sneers at Tucker Carlson pretenses of being a serious debate show "You're 35? ....and you wear a bow tie." But what was most alarming for them was the way Jon Stewart acted. They expected, like most politicians, actors, and whoever else they have on their show, the people to be obedient little talking heads ("playing the role for the theatre"), answer their questions, plug their book or movie or whatever, and leave with their words evaporating in the air and nothing getting said or done. But no; he wasn't going to be the actor in their little play. They accosted him for that. "Come on, be funny." Uhhh...no, Tucker. On The Daily Show he'll be the funny man. But he's not on The Daily Show right now, is he? He doesn't have to be funny and light-hearted and whimsical just because you want him to be. Stewart shoots back "I'm not gonna be your monkey."

Stewart actually has less of a political axe to grind than you may think. His only complaint about Crossfire (or Hardball, or "I'm gonna kick your ass", or any of those shows) was that they weren't doing their jobs. He could care less about what views they expoused. The biggest mistake they made (which made them REALLY look like fools) was in assuming that he wasn't doing his.