st_stoimenov

I'm not interested in Chris Rock's political positions or half-baked social commentary. And as of yesterday, I'm not interested in his "comedy" as well.

I'm not familiar with his previous work, but if one has to base one's conclusions about his comedic talent on this special alone, I would argue that the comedy Chris Rock does is a sub-standard virtue signaling grot. Chris Rock may be possesses some rudimentary proclivity for comedy, but hardly a talent. His mind lacks the penetrative power that would allow his comedy to form the edge to cut through the layers of BS and propaganda.

Many previous reviewers pointed the fact that Chris Rock's execution lacks a focus, and although I do agree with that assessment, I think that its main shortcomings stem from the debilitating lack of depth.

Is there a significant figure in the British -- and most of all in English -- military, political or cultural history those creepy cretins in California hadn't had desecrated? And denigrated. And belittled... It gets truly annoying, but most of all -- it's starting to get personal for me. Not being a native Brit, notwithstanding.

Mr. Watters is doing his very best to constantly add different forms of quality and value to the content he's producing. Arguing that Jesse Watters hadn't had significantly grown professionally since the show's early days would be a blatant lie. His monologues, for example, have gotten way more punishing and penetrating than the unnavigable mish-mash they used to be some time ago. The manner of selecting and interviewing the guests has had improved visibly, especially in terms of the interpersonal dynamic Jesse always manages to establish -- a true achievement considering this short format of only three/four minutes per guest.

But the MOST important -- and most recognizable due to the stark contrast with nearly every other anchor, and with CNN's especially -- characteristic of Jesse Watters is that he does not hide like an intellectual coward behind the very principles he otherwise claims he stands for.

Also, he seems to be very aware of the epistemic responsibility he shoulders. He accepts the burden of being accountable -- and amenable -- for each and every perspective, belief, and moral imperative he advocates for.

When hundreds of thousands, if not even millions, of one's compatriots trust one's evaluations and interpretations, it must be rather easy for a TV personality to forget the most basic journalistic truth that a commentator's popularity's invariably founded on the ephemeral notion of that commentator's usefulness as a tribune and a lightening rod.