Rob Riggle looked piiiiiissed off

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

When “Daily Show” correspondents do their presentations, they typically adopt a sort of faux arch attitude, leaving Jon Stewart looking bewildered (and I have to say, it is amazing to watch Stewart go from being joke-deliverer to straight man with such facility.) It is that archness that makes much of the material work, because what they’re saying is incredibly sarcastic, but it’s presented as if they’re unaware that what they’re saying is sarcastic at all.

Not so with Rob Riggle last night in discussing the Bush build-up.

Typically the DS comes up with nonsensical areas of expertise for their commentators: When Bush nearly strangled on pretzel sticks, it would be discussed by their “Senior Junk Food Hazard Analyst.” But Riggle is an ex-marine, so he really *is* something of an expert on military affairs, especially in discussing boots-on-the-ground tactics.

And boy, did he look pìššëd.

I think the audience sensed it. The laughter from what he said was more uncomfortable than it typically is. He came across to me like a guy who was absolutely incensed, doing his best to try and make it comically appealing, and not quite managing. I can’t blame him: This is a guy who, unlike the commander-in-chief and the VP, has genuine on-the-ground experience. He does not take life as cheaply or consider it as disposable as America’s leaders apparently do. And, to me at any rate, it showed.

PAD

63 comments on “Rob Riggle looked piiiiiissed off”

  1. As a viewer from beyond the US shores I have to say I love America but I hate the ‘news’ service provided withi its borders. Seriously, whenever I get back to the UK I need to watch an hour of SKY or BBC just to find out what’s really been going on in the wider world.

    Though I hate the politics of, say, FOX News, what I hate more is the fact that it’s portrayed AS news. It’s not. It’s 90% opinion, with commentators commentating, panelists pontificating and the continual promotion of a ‘fair and balanced’ claim that’s laughable (and all too often supported by a ‘well everyone else is biased too defence).

    The Daily Show may be an accquired taste but its strength is often in the fact that the first 10 minutes or so are often not FAKE news but pretty accurate ironic commentary… but it doesn’t claim to be anything grander. Jon Stewart has often said that the show isn’t there to report the news impassively, it’s to say ‘Hold on a darned second…what the hëll’s going on?’. Though the Republican party is often the butt, the Democrats have got it in the neck too and will even more the next time they get into the White House.

    Me… I get my news from as MANY sources as possible rather than falling into the trap of only seeking out the source that echoes my pre-existing thoughts . That’s the only way to expand your knowledge and even try to avoid those who tell you if you don’t think as they do, you’re wrong and it’s your fault.

  3. I’ve read through this whole topic, agreed with some views and disagreed with others. And what my opinion of the actions of both political parties boils down to is this.

    When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.

    Remember that quote? B5. My favorite show has been off the air for close to ten years, and it looks more topical than ever. Bush is like President Clark, a little man who’s gotten his hands on enormous power and is hellbent on keeping it at any cost. The Department of Homeland Security is the Ministry of Peace and the Nightwatch, all rolled into one. We can’t find the terrorists who attacked us, so we go attack someone else instead. The actions of a few have made us the most hated nation on the planet. And the actions of the Republicans are something the Democrats will be cleaning up after for a century, assuming they stay in power that long.

    I’m most disgusted with McCain. Six years ago, he was the only decent Republican to run for president since Eisenhower. Now, he’s Bush’s pulltoy. If Bush said he was going to start making snuff pørņ films in the Oval, McCain would be all for it.

    And as a party, the Democrats have become so wimpily defensive that they’ve lost any effectiveness. Maybe they’ll get that back, now that they have control of Congress again. We’ll see.

    Shìŧ like this is one reason why I call myself a Libertarian, and I don’t agree with a lot of their views.

    Scotty, beam me the fûçk outta here. These people are all nuts.

    Miles

  4. John, many of us would probably find the BBC anything but fair or unbiased.

    The examples are too numerous to list, though the one by correspondent Barbara Plett come to mind: speaking od the death of Yasser Arafat she said “”When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry…without warning.”

  5. Bill Mulligan, I agree that the BBC, like any news outlet, has its own set of biases. (A gentleman I know in England once told me, “The ‘Beeb’ talks a lot of bølløçkš these days.”) Nevertheless, I believe that the BBC’s international coverage is more thorough than that of the major U.S. networks, and is worth watching for that reason alone.

    That’s why I agree with John Mosby that one should get one’s news from multiple sources. It makes sense to read both the Washington Post AND the Washington Times.

    I used to avoid anything with a conservative angle “back in the day,” until I realized that I was cheating myself of a legitimate and often worthwhile point-of-view.

    I’m not sure if you’ve perceived this, Bill, but I think a few of the posts I’ve addressed to you over the last few months have been a bit… I dunno, snarky? Snotty? I’m not sure where it came from or why. That’s why I want you to know that I value your point-of-view particularly because it’s not always the same as mine. Our exchanges often challenge my preconceived notions and help me avoid becoming intellectually lazy.

    Just thought you should know.

  6. The examples are too numerous to list, though the one by correspondent Barbara Plett come to mind: speaking od the death of Yasser Arafat she said “”When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry…without warning.”

    While we posting from home know Arafat as someone who passed $2 billion to his widow, while the Palestinians insist the Jews are their problem, Plett may have been reacting sympathetically to the despair of the Palestinian people. I don’t automatically assume her inability to demonize them as a sign of bias.

    If Plett witnessed ragged Palestinian women and children shouting down a well to Arafat’s spirit, like villagers out of a Kurosawa film, it seems denying them any representation in the media is what is really biased.

  8. Bill, I haven’t had any sense of snarkiness in the least from you. I owe you an e-mail or two but I plead forgiveness on the grounds of A-final exams for this semester; B-preparing for the new batch of eager young minds yearning for knowledge; C- A series of film projects almost too cool for words and D- a terrible cold. Worst I’ve had in years. This is the frikkin Andromeda Strain, I swear.

    You know, I like listening to the BBC, they hit a lot of European news that would otherwise be missed. What’s happening in Belgium? It’s more likely that the BBC will tell me than CNN. But they have, in my opinion, a very pronounced anti-Israel bias.

    However I should, in the interest of fairness, point out that they may be aware of this and taking steps to correct it. The example I gave, concerning Ms. Plett, resulted ultimately in the BBC Board of Governors stating that she had “breached the requirements of due impartiality” and the director of news characterized it as an “editorial misjudgment”.

    I know that here in the USA I can access all manner of news programs, from Fox to CNN to MSNBC to the BBC. Can folks in Europe watch FOX or MSNBC if they choose? (I’m genuinely curious, I have no idea how many channels are available in Europe. Do they get stuff like the Cartoon Network or the Sci Fi Channel? Are there some premium channels there that we don’t get that would likely be hits?)

  9. Bill Mulligan, I’m sorry to hear about the cold. Hope it clears up soon. I can’t wait to hear about the film projects, though! I’ll keep my eyes peeled for the tell-all e-mail!

    As for the ‘Beeb,’ it would not be unreasonable to conclude that it is more likely to “tow the party line” because it is government-funded and run. I’ve read, however, that the opposite is the case: the BBC tends to bend over backwards to run negative stories about the British government precisely because they want to avoid the appearance of being the government’s lapdog. It would seem that they try harder to appear unbiased than their private-sector U.S. counterparts. Pretty ironic, ain’t it?

    But, yeah, it would be a mistake to think that the BBC doesn’t have its own set of biases nevertheless.

    Getting at the truth is a bìŧçh, isn’t it?

  10. [The BBC] have, in my opinion, a very pronounced anti-Israel bias.

    Do you have any examples, or are you saying a correspondent demonstrating a sympathy for the Palestinians is inherently anti-Israel?

  11. But is bending over backwards to run negative stories really the act of an unbiased institution?

    The good news is that, like all the established media, the BBC has to deal with the interent and the army of bloggers and other writers who are quick to jump on any innaccuracies or slanted coverage. They can, of course, ignore this but I think it would be unwise to do so.

  12. Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 16, 2007 02:54 PM

    But is bending over backwards to run negative stories really the act of an unbiased institution?

    No. Although to be fair “bending over backwards” was my phrase and may not have been the best choice of words. I was just trying to point out that they try to be careful not to act as the British Government’s “ministry of information.”

    Anyway, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the BBC has its own set of biases, just as any news organization does. But I think the international coverage they provide makes them worth watching nevertheless.

    I remember a professor in college telling me that the most objective newspaper being published at the time was The Christian Science Monitor. I’ve never had occasion to check that claim. Has anyone else heard this? If so, by whose standards are they “the most objective” and how was this measured?

    Heh. I just remembered one of the slogans The Daily Show: used to use in its ads: “…where more Americans get their news than probably should.”

  13. Heh. I just remembered one of the slogans The Daily Show: used to use in its ads: “…where more Americans get their news than probably should.”
    Bill Myers: no used to about it. They still run it almost every evening, right before The Daily Show starts. They started it up when Pew released their most recent findings.

    I’ve never had occasion to check that claim. Has anyone else heard this? If so, by whose standards are they “the most objective” and how was this measured?
    I’ve heard this as well. It’s measured by… uhm, it’s not Pew, but another group that’s in Upstate New York. They sift through articles looking for slant/bias… the problem is, they tend to be biased themselves, and have a short term memory. They actually recently took The Daily Show to task for being biased against Republicans – but only took into account the shows during the Bush Administration. Another study group went back a full eight years (Stewart’s complete reign) and found that the show’s actually pretty balanced in dishing it out – it’s just that it dishes out hardest to those making the news.

    And that’s the problem with anything that posts statistics like “most reliable” and “least biased” – you have to dig out their biases and agenda in order to evaluate their claims. (For example, the Upstate New York place whose name I can’t remember doesn’t appear to “get” satire, or comedy, and routinely denounces late night television in all forms…)

    Okay. Rambling. La la la…

Comments are closed.