Why is it Fi crusades? His arguments are always backed by factual evidence dug up by a pretty good team. He brings up well thought through points and expects that in return. Most people aren't prepared to match wits with him. That doesn't make his argument an fi crusade. You make it sound like he's running purely on emotional spur which seems off.But I'm starting to become more than a bit irritated at his self-righteous Fi crusades against people in politics that he's just positive are up to something nefarious. The problem isn't even that he's wrong, because he's often right--the problem is that he has no idea that there's any possibility he could be wrong, which is one of my biggest problems with Ji in general, but especially Fi.
He also doesn't take a purely partisan position - he takes a position after examining the evidence. There's no "wrong' here in the normative sense unless he's missed a vital piece of information that wasn't available to him. One could disagree with his interpretation of the evidence which people have the opportunity to do but rarely do well. His statements are backed by facts - more than can be said of many of his guests.
I think he rarely gets a guest who is really prepared to answer his questions and debate him the way would be needed to show his position isn't the most rational one, given the evidence. That's the real problem as evidenced by the interviews referenced here.
I think this is a fair point. He is not just a comedian (although there's nothing 'just' about doing comedy well), he is a political commentator, has prominent guests on his show and questions them in a rather pointed manner - it's not just comedy althout it is pretty funny a lot of the time (as is the reality of the world we live in). He was filling a void that existed before MSNBC had Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and continues to have a large and loyal following (many moderates by the way, not just liberals). I think your point is well taken in that he should just accept that he is doing political commentary and own it.He needs to make up his mind about whether or not he's a comedian. He launches crusades in the form of serious political attacks and "pwnage" (which is typically just his leftist audience mindlessly cheering after his every word), and then dodges serious criticism from others by hiding behind, "Well hey I'm just a comedian; my show is a joke!" Well, which is it, Jon? Comedian or political crusader?
Having said that, what would taking responsibility for doing more than a comedy show mean in practice? What would we expect from serious journalists? Primarily that they have a good research team, do honest appraisals of issues and take the stand that makes the most sense given the facts before them - without trying to alter or cherry pick the evidence. We can't really hope for neutrality from anyone but altering the evidence or providing poor to little evidence would be more serious allegations to worry about. He already lives up to this standard of serious journalism and does this better than most political commentators on TV so what would be different besides him just saying out aloud in words, 'I'm not just a comedian' ?