You need to restock your audiences. It's too packed with fans who are inflating your sense of how smart and funny you are. They may love you, but they are ruining you. And they are making you seem like a rude host to your guests, even when all you're doing is debating with them.
IN THE COMMENTS: A lot of comments! What's happening in there? Oh, people just got going...
August 30, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
67 comments:
Jon Stewart: stop doing what's made you successful. Pretend that people like Hitch aren't totally wrong. Pretend the Bush administration isn't totally dishonest and incompetent. People LIKE propaganda!
Audience?? That's a good one Charles. And a very good observation.
I was watching Hardball the other night and I was sruck by a commercial for some old and mediocre music group (i.e Tony Orlando and Dawn) that it occurred to me virtually no one else must be watching Hardball on MSNBC.
Thersites: Jon Stewart did not start out with an excessively hooting, fawning audience. He was once charmingly humble. He's getting cocky and smug. That's not so appealing.
Thersites: Jon Stewart did not start out with an excessively hooting, fawning audience. He was once charmingly humble. He's getting cocky and smug. That's not so appealing.
I disagree. Eh, smug is in the eye of the beholder. I see him as less willing to allow someone like Hitchens to dish out disengenuous nonsense unchallenged. I doubt he's going to be losing viewers anytime soon, as the emperor's clothes are looking more and more transparent every day...
Anyway, for the sake of argument taking what you say about his audience as true, what do you want him to do about it, anyway? Tell them to shut up (he has told them to back off with certain guests, BTW)? Sternly lecture them? Practice affirmative audience action?
The latter. Affirmative action. Definitely. For the good of the show.
Thersites: It seems it's coming down to what you read. There's apparently a heck of a difference. On the left you say things like, "the emperor's clothes are looking more and more transparent every day..." On the right people would say the same thing about everything being said by the left... there's no truth or facts in it. The divide seems incredibly wide and increasingly hostile. Is there NO common ground? Clinton (who I voted for twice, by the way) couldn't do anything right according to the Republicans. Now Bush is evil according to the Dems. What happened to a middle where people could discuss matters intelligently, rather than filling every disagreement with vitriol?
I think it was worth going into Iraq, and I have reasons for that that I've thought long and hard about. I can understand if someone disagrees with me. WMDs didn't mean nearly as much to me as the fact that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN, was completely untrustworthy, and was an example to tyrants and would-be tyrants that they could basically get away with anything because the USA and the UN had no backbone. If I was Bin Laden, I'd have thought the USA (and the rest of the international community) was a paper tiger too. And Saddam's actions would have emboldened me. Even when Clinton was president, and I was backing him, I was seeing Saddam building palaces while complaining that his people were suffering because of the USA and the sanctions, and I could not believe he was getting away with it. I was behind Clinton and the Dems in 1998 when they called for regime change. Republicans said it was "wag the dog", but I believed Clinton when he talked of the danger Saddam posed, and his constant flauting of the cease-fire agreement and UN resolutions pissed me off.
Now I hear the left saying Bush lied (for saying the same things), saying the war wasn't worth it, that it was all about oil, etc. and I wonder what made them less agressive on the issue AFTER 9/11.
I also believe Bush is right that a democracy in the epicenter of the Middle East will have a positive effect on the region, and I agree with Hitchens that there's evidence that it's true (Libya, Lebanon, etc.).
I hope this has come off as a reasoned dialog, even if you disagree. I think that Ann's point re: Stewart and Maher is that quick denigrating wise-cracks get laughs and applause, but they don't further an understanding that may bring people to an ability to fully understand each other. Don't have to agree, but it would be nice if we could say, "I don't agree, but it appears you arrived at your conclusions honestly." And I'm talking about BOTH sides.
What happened to a middle where people could discuss matters intelligently, rather than filling every disagreement with vitriol?
A war dishonestly sold and incompetently waged.
The latter. Affirmative action. Definitely. For the good of the show.
Ah. Those wishing to view the taping of a TV show ought to be quizzed as to their ideology beforehand. Those who are not fans of the host must be compelled to attend such tapings on a rotational basis.
Thersites: You lack (perhaps willfully) the imagination to devise a technique. I can think of plenty of methods that would work. And the show does have many conservative fans.
"A war dishonestly sold and incompetently waged"
Thanks for coming back on a thoughtful argument with a one line dismissal that contains no argument, it's just a talking point. If the war was dishonestly sold (you gotta be talking about WMDs), then everybody lied about it. When Tommy Franks visited the Arab states around Iraq before the war, to a man they warned him that his troops would have to be ready for chemical weapons. Clinton, Kerry, Blair, Putin, etc. all believed Saddam had WMDs, and, given Saddam's track record with inspections (more dedicated to proving he could control them than proving he didn't have WMD, nor did he give the required info to prove they were destroyed), people had to believe that was true. If Saddam DID destroy them, it was the worst political decision in history not to do it transparently and prove it so that he could continue to appear as a bigger threat than he was (which is what HE said about why he didn't come clean).
As to "incompetently waged"... only someone who could put forth a better plan and guarantee that it would work, and guarantee that no action of the enemy would adversely affect it, can make that claim. As they say, any plan you make goes out the window upon first contact with the enemy. Anyone can stand back and claim they'd have done something better and smarter. And it's easy to say you'd do better when you don't have to prove it. Listening to people talk about the conduct of the war is like listening to people calling sports talk radio after a game, or before a season starts.
History will tell. You and I won't know until 20 years or more from now when we see how Iraq turns out, and what effect it has on the middle east. Until then, we are both just guys in the stands with a bunch of opinions.
A few years ago my in-laws (not young) went to a taping of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. They got there early and were able to get seats at the very front row, only to be moved to the back and replaced by good looking young people right before the show started.
Given the tenor of his posts, I believe Thersites has done the best job of any here in choosing his net-name.
I have a soft spot for Stewart because after 9/11 and anthrax he made me laugh when I thought the world was edning. He was devastated, as were we all, but his comedy restored a little sanity to a hysterical world. When he then slipped into a comfy America-Bush-stupid daily routine, I tuned out. It's hard to be funny every day, but this is cheap boring shtick.
LOL Simon. "head was full of obscenities, teeming with rant."
It's harder to get a trained seal to go after a fish than it is to manipulate a TV audience to give you the reactions you want! They figured that out in the '50's...
Given the tenor of his posts, I believe Thersites has done the best job of any here in choosing his net-name.
Indeed, I'm now curious why he chose such a name. This is like naming yourself Wormtoungue or Iago.
If the war was dishonestly sold (you gotta be talking about WMDs), then everybody lied about it.
Only the administration professed certainty and suppressed reasonable doubt, and pushed for war without tangible evidence. And only the administration made the case for nukes, which was always obvious hogwash, as were the Al Qaeda "connections." There is simply no question NOW that the country was misled, whatever historians say in 20 years.
As to "incompetently waged"... only someone who could put forth a better plan and guarantee that it would work, and guarantee that no action of the enemy would adversely affect it, can make that claim.
Nonsense. You don't need to provide a better plan in order to know you're being sold a line of crap. Anyone who listened critically to the "plans" for war would have known it would be a cock-up. The potential costs in money and lives were downplayed and there was obviously no real planning for the aftermath.
I do not see the "pro-war" position as legitimate or rational. Sorry. The good of the country right now requires that we hold the administration accountable for its mess, not that we promote an equality of understanding between the cheerleaders for a disaster and those who foresaw the obvious.
Indeed, I'm now curious why he chose such a name. This is like naming yourself Wormtoungue or Iago.
Thersites stood up and said "this war is stupid," which it was. Then his name was dragged through the mud.
I like riddles but I am very stupid so would someone tell me what the inside joke is re the name "thersites"? Thanx!
The audience goes up in whoops of laughter! HOW CLEVER he thinks he is!
Yeah, that show is so funny and popular, nobody watches it anymore.
/Yogi Berra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thersites
AJ Lynch -
Reread Shakespeare's "Troilus and Cressida." Thersites is Shakespeare's greatest portrait - beyond Iago, or Lewis's Wormtongue, as Mechanical Eye mentioned - of a spirit of absolute, ranting, obscene negation. His attempt - in the play - is to vitiate all human values. This is a fair summary of his character (Act V Scene V):
Hect. What art thou, Greek? art thou for Hector’s match?
Art thou of blood and honour?
Ther. No, no, I am a rascal; a scurvy railing knave; a very filthy rogue.
I think it's self-evident that surrounding yourself with admirers and sycophants will eventually degrade your work. Especially as a comedian. Your audience give you instant feedback on every moment of your act. If your audience gives you only one kind of feedback no matter how funny or unfunny you are, your work is going to suffer.
Also, just in case anyone thinks that this is hard, it is very easy to stock your audience with whatever sort of people you'd like. His audience is what it is because that's the type of audience the producers have decided on. They could easily modify it.
Even I as a Maher and Stewart fan am somewhat offput at times by their cocky self-assuredness. Firstly, they are comedians, but lately they've begun to drink their own kool-aid. They both make great points, but the debate-ability of these points need to be left to those with a better handle on the facts.
Brando: So are you saying that you would have impeached JFK over Bay of Pigs? (good thing JFK had no personal indescretions!) or LBJ over the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?
Is groupthink by any president an impeachable failing? What president would finish a term?
Simon:
Thanks for the Thersites explanation; you were very thorough and clear. Will take your word on it since I never liked Shakespeare. But I am well-rounded enough to know he once played quarterback at Notre Dame.
Re Maher and Stewart:
Maher has not been funny for years. He is so strident and I suspect he is a very unhappy individual.
Stewart's show is still very funny when a segment does not involve him. His supporting staff and writers are talented.
His audience is what it is because that's the type of audience the producers have decided on. They could easily modify it.
Prove it. last I heard they gave tickets away to anyone who requests them.
I think it's self-evident that surrounding yourself with admirers and sycophants will eventually degrade your work.
Hence our administration's lunatic foreign policy.
I am tired of arguing about the war with the various posters here. New posters can be confident that every point has been made and remade.
However, I am willing to argue about the effects of history and how the ends justify the means.
One should step back and consider World War II without the holocaust. Would it have been worth 350,000 American lives to save parts of Europe from Fascist Dictatorship? It would certainly change the debate. Evidence of the holocaust ended this debate forever...yet the holocaust was not known of at the time America entered the war.
Further, it is well known that FDR circumvented the law and lied to the American public and Congress in his aggression towards Nazi Germany in 1940-1941. It was well known that FDR wanted to get the U.S. into the war.
Should we consider Roosevelt a criminal even though his lies and and actions helped saved the world from tyraanny?
I used to love Stewart. Laugh out loud funny. I drifted away over time, admittedly because of the unilateral attacks on Bush before the election. I mean please, Kerry and Edwards were a comedian's dream couple. The material wrote itself. Sure, mock Bush. But why lay off Kerry? What's not to mock there? It was almost too easy.
As a result, I hadn't watched him in over a year, but caught the Hithchens visit quite by accident.
Stewart did indeed score some points, which was certainly his intention. Hitchens seemed off, uncomfortable perhaps; why I cannot say. Entertaining? No. Informative? No.
So, 5 fewer viewers in this household. No skin off his nose, to be sure. He should have learned what Carson knew, and kept him on for decades: keep yourself out of it.
To add to Larry: The world is rid of Saddam and his use of $70 per barrel oil.
Ron: also add in impeaching FDR over Social Security. Talk about lies and misleading millions of Americans. I just found out that there is no lock box.....what the......
How about the "war on Poverty." I am sure more americans lost lives and money in that war. What a total sham.
Prove it. last I heard they gave tickets away to anyone who requests them.
Do you have a mental block about this? Why would you think that a television show leaves something as important as the audience unmanaged?
You can choose the venue you use to give away tickets. You can choose to hand them out at the door to hardcore fans who will arrive hours early, or you can hand them out elsewhere. You can choose where to advertise the free tickets. By choosing the venues and advertising you use to give away tickets, you can choose your audience. This is very basic marketing.
I'll ignore the comment about the president as that is entirely off the topic of audience selection for a television show.
The real news that Stewart mimics doesn't have a live audience, his fake news show doesn't need one either.
Live audiences are only helpful to comedians if they are honest, skeptical and discerning. If the feedback the comedian gets is uniformly and wildly positive like what Stewart receives, that must be deadly to perspective, timing and craft.
And the 'but he's only a comedian' defense of Stewart when discussing him is undercut by the fact that those same people often attempt to inflate the cultural importance of his show by pointing out that his target audience aren't avid consumers of traditional media.
You can choose the venue you use to give away tickets.
Great! So, how does the Daily Show apportion tickets? You seem absolutely sure they do it in a specific way for specific reasons. So I assume you've researched this and have firm evidence to back up your claims. Surely you're just not shooting your mouth off?
the ad hominems are repellent. "dishonest," "incompetent," "stupid," "lunatic," etc. does it make you feel all-powerful to indulge in namecalling from behind a mask?
We're describing a policy, not a person. Now go look up "ad hominem."
10. Reduce support for terrorism and increase positive feelings for the US throughout the Islamic world
So much spin, so little space. The Pew poll you reference registers (very modest) improvements in the attitudes of Islamic countries towards the US from June of this year; your own starting date for your overall analysis is 9/12/01. There's a problem.
Let's instead go to the Pew poll of 12/19/01, where we read that "ordinary people" in Islamic states were 52% favorable to the US.
Now let's look at the poll you cite, from 7/14/05. Of the five Islamic countries surveyed, the highest the US gets is Morocco, with 49% (though there's no elite/ordinary breakdown; if the attitudes from the '01 poll hold, it's much less among "ordinary" Moroccans). The lowest we get in the 7/14 poll is Jordan, with 21%, and Turkey, with 23%. Pakistan comes in at 23% also. (And viz. Iraq & Afghanistan, Turkey & Pakistan are probably the most relevant countries.)
Now, there are a lot of variables here, too many to take into account in a comment post. But your claim that the Iraq war has made us more popular in the eyes of Muslims is obvious crap. As for support for terrorism, terrorists don't need a lot of popular support, except in war zones, and the ones in Iraq seem to have all they need. But anyway. Look with a cold eye at the Pew numbers on terrorism over time, and if they make you feel happy, you're nuts. (We know from the State Dept. that terrorism is up worldwide.)
There are similar problems with the rest of your list.
Less fantasy, please. Makes the heart brutal, I hear.
While I don't think Maher or Stewart are anywhere near as entertaining as they think they are, and agree the lack of occasional negative feedback from the audience leaves them the poorer, the idea of seeking out audience members with different viewpoints seems a little silly. Their audiences are self-selecting by people who like and agree with them, just like other audiences. If Jay Leno started telling only GWB jokes, eventually his audience would self-select by people who like that type of joke.
Eventually Maher and Stewart will sink or swim on their ability to attract a large enough TV audience, which is how it should be.
I'm not saying Maher and Stewart should put people in the audience who don't like the show, just that the audience should "feel" to us at home like normal people, not a bunch of Michael Moorish goons. I consider Maher and Stewart to be normal, smart guys whom I would enjoy talking to one-on-one. I like to watch their shows. But their audience is ruining it. Satire should have some dimension and subtlety. It shouldn't be enough to say "Bush is stupid" and get roaring laughter. I feel like the audience is providing that kind of cheap laugh track. I'm turned off by the show the way I'm turned off by a sitcom with canned laughter laid on way too thick.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing for and why.
You say they CAN do something. And you believe that proves that they DO do something. That's silly.
Please provide the evidence that they DO do what you claim, that is, only let in sycophants. Since they give away tickets for free and all you need to do to get them is sign up and wait, your claim seems pretty idiotic to me, barring any proof to the contrary. Which you obviously lack.
I think you're baffled because you don't understand what "evidence" actually is.
ust that the audience should "feel" to us at home like normal people, not a bunch of Michael Moorish goons.
Well, Stewart does, to me. Most people by most recent polls think Bush is not convincing about the war, also, so your view of what a "normal person" is may be skewed. The majority of the nation right now is pretty down on Bush.
Michael Moore makes a handy demon, doesn't he? I doubt most of the country agrees with you there, either.
If it makes you feel better, I always thought Maher was kind of an unfunny jerk.
Thersites: You look like a troll in this thread. If you have some other motivation for your obtuseness, it's time to put up. Otherwise, I recommend that people ignore you.
My last comment was posted before your most recent one, but again, you're being obtuse. I'm not complaining about Stewart, but his audience. Really, try to pick up the quality of your comments. You seem like you're just trying to bait people. Read the comments you're responding to before spouting.
I second that--please ignore trolls. They will stop posting.
My last comment was posted before your most recent one, but again, you're being obtuse. I'm not complaining about Stewart, but his audience. Really, try to pick up the quality of your comments. You seem like you're just trying to bait people. Read the comments you're responding to before spouting.
OK, I misread your post. So you're not complaining about Stewart. The audience also seems normal to me -- normal as far as fans of Stewart go. If you're asking the producers of a successful show to keep its most passionate fans out of the audience to solve a problem for whose existence only subjective evidence exists, well, I don't see why they should.
And your comment about Michael moore also seems to lack substance.
In this very thread you have Freeman Hunt making claims he clearly can't support, and LarryK making a poor case from publicly available polling data. Is that a better quality poster than someone who disagrees with you about a matter that is clearly one primarily of taste?
I'm saying maybe a third of the audience should be restocked by offering the tickets through channels that will bring in different kinds of people. Also, I think the audience should be talked to before the show about phoney overreaction and how it plays to the home audience.
I especially dislike applauding as a reaction to a joke. I'd tell the audience to laugh naturally and not to see itself as a cheering section. Even if the viewpoint is skewed anti-Bush, I'd be happy if the audience just laughed naturally -- rather than politically.
Please provide the evidence that they DO do what you claim, that is, only let in sycophants.
I did not make this claim. The producers have decided to leave the audience to some sort of self-selection which has resulted in sycophants and admirers. The producers have not changed their methods in response meaning that they currently think the audience make up is okay. Allowing audience self-selection is a means of controlling the audience.
My entire point has been that the audience can be modified. In your second post you act as though this is impossible. It is not. An audience is easily modified.
If you posted less based on naked, generalized rage and more based on reading comprehension, your posts would be better.
Having read your posts in this thread, I will not be reading or responding to your posts anymore. It is a total waste of time.
Ann, I think that your ideas would go a long way. The talk prior to the show alone would probably correct a lot of the problem right away.
I'm saying maybe a third of the audience should be restocked by offering the tickets through channels that will bring in different kinds of people. Also, I think the audience should be talked to before the show about phoney overreaction and how it plays to the home audience.
OK... all I'm saying is, I think a lot of the audience IS reacting politically, and that might be one of the reasons for the show's success. You may be underestimating the degree of anger towards Bush in the population. In which case, from Comedy Central's point of view, there is no problem. After all, its attempt at "balance," that horrible Colin Quinn show, tanked, and should have been put out of its misery earlier.
So from a business perspective, if we want to go there, I think you'd have to prove to CC that there is more in it for them to go for you as an audience member than the one that's worked for them so far. I don't think that case can be made very persuasively. I could be wrong. Let's find data.
And FWIW, I can recall several times when Stewart (and Maher) have told the audience to give a conservative guest a break (Maher did it with Ann Coulter).
Yeah, one of the reasons I'm offering my advice to them is that I think they know it's a problem. I'm trying to encourage them to solve it more proactively.
I think that if you did try to mix up the audience to get a wider mix of the political spectrum you'd end up with more political reactions than you have now as the audience would feed off of each other.
I think it depends on the personalities you go for. You could give out tickets through channels that would provide audience members of a less combative nature. Maybe they could go for people who love the show but wouldn't be coming to try and "stick it to the other guy." Maybe go for people who love stand up comedy (I would market to a list of people who have attended certain stand up comedy clubs in the last few months) but aren't necessarily politically charged.
If you posted less based on naked, generalized rage and more based on reading comprehension, your posts would be better.
Funny. I was going to say the same to you. You find a conspiracy in the fact that a successful show offers free tickets and its fans take them, and believe that this should be changed. That makes no sense to me at all.
My whole POINT is that the audience is self-selecting. Sheesh. That's called... the market. Shudder.
Yeah, one of the reasons I'm offering my advice to them is that I think they know it's a problem.
Why do you think they know it's a problem?
All right. I'm at the end of my patience with you, Thersites, because if you were reading carefully, you'd know that I was responding to what YOU said, which indicated the reason I think they know they have a problem. I'm not going to spell it out. Keep up with the thread. Otherwise, you're boring me. Go back and read. The answer is in there.
Excuse me for asking. When you said "they" I thought you meant Comedy Central & HBO, not the hosts.
Sorry for missing the pronoun...
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/nielsen-more.htm
Source: Nielsen Media Research, May 30-Aug. 14
Number of viewers in millions.
1.The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (NBC) 4.3
2.The Late Show with David Letterman (CBS) 3.2
3.Nightline (ABC) 2.6
4.Late Night with Conan O'Brien (NBC) 2.0
5.The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson 1.4
6.Jimmy Kimmel Live (ABC) 1.2
7.The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Comedy Central) 0.6
Those are the most current ratings. Anyone have a link to some older ones for comparison?
I think they do know it's a problem (or at least have given lip service to it). I remember an interview from last season wherein Bill Maher claimed to be getting weary of the knee-jerk cheering that broke out at all the "appropriate" moments, and said he was looking for ways to get a more diverse audience in. I have no idea what, if anything, he's done about that.
Honestly, what do you want from Stewart, Althouse? You act as if...
I kid.
Really though, Thersites: I very.. generally agree with you politically (though veering further and further away..), but I'm lost as to how this is relevant in this thread whatsoever. Stewart and Maher are comedians, despite the political leanings of their comedy styles and audiences, while Bush is the president. The two positions are not comparable. At all.
Also, you're being more antagonistic than I am. Go back and reread your discourse with Freeman: you were obnoxiously antagonistic. :) Oh, and she won your little debate anyways.
I used to like Bill Maher, but like many people the war has made him and my reaction to him more intense about that subject, which also influences other subjects. I think it is harder to make jokes about Bush and the Government because Government has become a lot more serious in the last few years - it is too easy to fall into unfunny territory. Perhaps people in comedy long for the Clinton years It was the pinnacle of Presidential jokes because times were much less serious (or so they appeared) and Clinton himself was a clown. The 1990s is when everyone overindulged, plotted, planned, defrauded, etc... The 2000s is when we had to to pay for all the fun (just ask KPMG).
Aaron,
I think you hit the nail on the head. An unrelieved ironical stance is just a bore. (Just like unrelieved troll talking points are a bore.) Stewart's real emotion after 9/11 was what everyone responded to; now it's just the true believers who are left.
Anne:
Congrats on posting a subject that got the old audience juices flowing. Got a little nasty though. Funny as it was started by two comedians.
But I got a free lesson on William Shakespeare and I gave the readers one too (anyone of you notice it?). I think not.
Ann Althouse: [Jon Stewart] was once charmingly humble.
When? He oozed self-adoration long before he started hosting The Daily Show.
AJ Lynch: Stewart's show is still very funny when a segment does not involve him. His supporting staff and writers are talented.
Exactly! Stephen Colbert and Rob Corddry are > Stewart.
Brando--
the applause is pandering and distracting. Watch "Conan O'Brien" every now and then... quite often a joke tanks, and he deals with it (very effectively). This is an example of genuine host-audience interaction. A comedian who doesn't need to take risks because it has become too easy to please the audience becomes boring. This is the dynamic on the Daily Show.
You could be right--Stewart very well could continue to please the audience who agrees with him indefinitely. But it doesn't make for a good comedy show for the rest of us.
I read all the posts yesterday, and many of the ones I missed today, so somebody may have mentioned this: What about audience prep? I attended a taping of Welcome Back, Kotter in 1978 and they were prepping the audience with a comedian and instructions. I would venture a guess that they do it on The Daily Show. Even if you don't self select, show prep could be designed to create something of a mob mentality so that everyone acts together. Anybody been to a show lately?
I used to love that show, but I can't stand it anymore. Just saying "Bush is stupid" is NOT FUNNY. Get a grip, people. The audience laughs and hoots at the Bush-bashing like it was a political pep-rally at MoveOn.org. Maybe they should take their show on the road and do one from Kansas City, Cincinnatti or Denver instead of Los Angeles, because Jon's audience acts like a mob, and they wouldn't know funny if it smacked them upside the head.
Everyone keeps talking about this universal belief that Iraq had WMDs, which isn't true at all. In fact, the only group on the ground in Iraq, led by Hans Blix, said there weren't, and protested the hurried invasion based on the lack of evidence.
If Jon and Bill are not in the american televison,by this time,most sensible will shoot themself by watching stupid and dumb newsreader and talk show hosts from CNN or MSNBC
Post a Comment