posted
That's an update of a quote by Winston Churchill!It just goes to show that Jon Stewart, while he does follow a show about "puppets making crank phone calls," knows something about history. America: the Book is about ten times as hilarious as it would have been had he just made everything up, because he uses actual history, and puts a (rather large) twist on it.
But I honestly don't know why you are attacking Stewart without watching the clip. I would highly reccomend you do so, as inflection and tone have a lot to do with interpretation. There are torrent and avi links in this thread.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I may in the minority, but I never think that declaring someone to be a vulgarity is something to applaud. I also want to prick self-important people with a pin, to see what happens.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that's never been seriously disputed is the validity of Jon Stewart's claim. He was sincere, and more importantly, dead on. The way Carlson and Begala acted pretty much proved it. On the right, it was attack mode. Carlson was repetitive and shrill, and never once honestly debated with Jon. There's something so funny in watching that hack engage in dishonest tactics to counter a claim that his show wasn't about honest debate. Begala, for his part, seemed honestly dumbstruck that a liberal could acutally criticize him. He was left literally speechless that someone he thought was on his "team" could attack him like that.
You don't have to know how to drive to know the way. The Daily Show is satire keep that in mind.
posted
Its an attempt to be funny, being outrageous and paraphrasing Churchill at the same time. It was made by the host of a comedy show, on a comedy show, after all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, declaring him to be "a vulgarity" was not really what I was most applauding( though I think his analysis is dead on concerning Carlson's status as a section of the male anatomy.) Rather, it was his indictment of both the Crossfire hosts as partisan hacks who engage in political theatre to the detriment of those who (albeit foolishly) depend on the media to verify, not just present, the claims of the parties.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:...the rest of the show is increasingly wobbly. It’s full of half-baked taped bits relying on hoodwinking-the-rubes interviews that condescend to a big chunk of the citizenry Stewart would like to mobilize (to judge from serious comments he’s made) as well as to entertain.
This isn't anything new, it's what The Daily Show has always done, since the days of Craig Kilborn. If anything they do a good deal less of it now.
posted
Katie, it's worth noting that the "backlash" here basically consists of "hey, you say you're a comedian; either stay in your box and don't have real opinions, or join us."
Now, that's a fair criticism: I think that the Daily Show underrates itself when it pretends that it is not a major force of social commentary and satire, and I think that they tend to hide behind that label in order to get away with things that a "real" news outlet or social commentator would not be able to say.
But if that's the only price they have to pay to say these things, to get these things into the national discourse, that's absolutely worth it. Right now, the Daily Show is one of the only shows out there actually seeking to dialogue with the American public.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The message Stewart has presented, over and over, has two main points.
The Daily Show is not a news show. He's never said anything about being a social force or a source of commentary, just news. They seek to entertain, any information content is incidental.
And too many legitimate news sources seem to want to be entertainers instead of informers. They should be seeking to inform, any entertainment content should be incidental.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He's never said anything about being a social force or a source of commentary, just news."
Yeah, but he's actually trying to have it both ways -- which is a valid criticism. If you go on Crossfire and lecture them about their responsibility to the nation, you can't retreat to your turf and say, "Well, we don't have to be responsible, because we just want to be funny." It's not that he's not right, and that he should have to be responsible, but if Stewart's going to wear a mantle of moral authority that entitles him to raise the issue, he's going to have to put on the rest of the outfit.
When Will Rogers criticized the news media, they were justly angry; he did not, however, respond by saying, "Aw, shucks! I'm just a comedian; you don't have to listen to anything I say, 'cause ah'm just a-makin' it up anyways."
posted
Perhaps if Jon Stewart wants to be taken more seriously then he can't have it both ways. However, that doesn't diminish any of the points he makes. Truth is truth regardless of the messenger. If people choose to criticize the messenger and debate his fitness rather than to consider the message itself, well, that says more about them than it does about the messenger.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Which is why I'm defending him to Katie at the same time that I'm criticizing him to Chris. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, however, Stewart needs to make it clear why he and the Daily Show aren't contributing to the same problem, and "I'm just a comedy show" isn't enough in my mind.
posted
Coming from the position that all television shows passing as news are pointless, flawed, and generally useless, I have the freedom to nitpick the messenger. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that Stewarts "moral authority" to comment on this is simply being a citizen, and member of the viewing public. The fact that he has a Fake News show just gives him the ability to get on these shows. What he does for his day job doesn't disqualify him, IMO, from critiquing the current state of "debate" shows.
posted
Dag, the thing you have to keep in mind is that Jon Stewart has to be nice to his guests, especially ones like Kerry, otherwise, he will stop getting them. Stewart goes easy on high profile republicans as well, remember. His attack dogs are reserved more for the "news" segment of the program. Besides, if he ceased editorializing and taking sides, he would cease to be funny.
Moreover, when Kerry appeared on his show it was right at the height of the whole Swift Boat Vets thing. This was something Jon was rightly outraged about; as such, it's likely he felt that drilling Kerry at this time was not the right thing to do. Yes, he is partisan, but he will not defend anything Kerry does. Recently he seems to be taking a more bipartisan tack as he seems to be concentrating on both candidates equally.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading Tom's post, I have another comment to make.
Can't we just accept that Jon Stewart is a satirist? He satires what he sees as wrong with the media and politics; when he has an opportunity to directly confront the problem as he sees it, is it at all surprising that he takes it? Despite the outrageous nature of pieces like "A Modest Proposal", Jonathan Swift cared deeply about issues he cared to write about, in this case, the treatment of the Irish. If he chose to speak in all seriousness about the manner, would it be fair to say that we shouldn't take him seriously because he thinks the English are baby-eaters?
Furthermore, as a regular viewer of the show, I fail to see how he is part of the problem. It seems he is completely unequivical about his wish to see a media that fact checks, and does the tough work of making judgement calls. Is partisanship incompatible with this? Of course not. Jon Stewart is making the claim that the discourse of "on the left, and on the right" is a damaging oversimplification. Naturally, he editorializes, but does this make him a partisan hack? One repeat guest he obviously respects is John McCain. He praises his efforts to keep the parties civil and productive. I think his interviews with McCain indicate more than his interview with Kerry just how he feels about the current state of Washington.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't necessarily think his content is part of the problem. But if the effect caustic attacks in lieu of real debate have on viewers is the issue, then he has to show why the caustic attacks in his show don't have the same effect.
He can't hide behind his intentions when he's attacking others for their actual effects.
This isn't about his moral authority to say this. Rather, it's about clearly defining what the problem is that he claims exists. He clearly thinks his show isn't part of the problem. From a definitional standpoint, he needs to make the distinction clear.
"We're just trying to be funny" doesn't make it clear.
posted
Dag, I don't think you understand the nature of his complaint. This is understandable because he kept getting interrupted, and if you didn't watch his show regularly, and haven't watched or read his other interviews, you won't have the full picture.
His main complaint is that Crossfire debate is inherently dishonest and meaningless. He decries the process of hurling talking points at each other for 30 minutes as political theatre, rather than honest debate. It is not so much the partisanship of the hosts he despises, but the totality of their partisan apologetics. Neither side concedes anything, and neither side will criticise their party. The arguements are often dishonest, and the dialouge is ultimately meaningless. Frequently, everyone is trying to shout their talking points over their oppoents and nothing can be heard. Above all, Jon Stewart hates talking points, and the media's reliance on them. Because the Bush Administration and campaign has relied on them so heavily, he harps on them heavily; however, he also takes issue with Kerry on his talking points. One exchange I remember very well was with him and John McCain where he praised him for being one perhaps the only high profile Washington insider who will challenge both sides on their "f***ing talking points".
<edit>
Perhaps I can make this a little clearer, Jon challenges the talking points, rather than just rebutting with the talking points of the other side. Because he takes on the talking points he often goes into deeper analysis than anyone in the TV news media. This is, quite frankly, scary, and he knows it is.
quote:He decries the process of hurling talking points at each other for 30 minutes as political theatre, rather than honest debate.
This is where I'm brought up face to face with my alienation from the general public. Wasn't this general knowledge??? How on EARTH can you get honest debate when there is no way to concede without "losing"? Television discussion of the issues has been pointless since Nixon lost because he refused to wear makeup. I can't believe anyone ever took them seriously.
There is no such thing as honest debate in any situation where people have an agenda that hinges on them seeming to have won the debate, regardless of the truth or worthiness of their position. Honest debates don't even exist in high school debate tournaments, much less public forums where the opinion of the public and therefore the power of the nation is batted around like a cat's toy and the last one to grab tightly wins.
That's why bias in print media irritates me so badly. TV news is already beyond hope, and it was once the image because as important as the message and the success of a show was measured by its ratings. There is much information to be gained by the shows, but not about the issues they are purporting to be discussing.
I don't disagree with what Jon Stewart said; I'm floored that he felt he needed to say it at all, and skeptical that he actually thinks he can shame an industry into giving up the system that serves them and their guests so well with exactly what they want. It's like he wants the industry to change, but not for him. He wants someone else to do the hard work of defying the system and working for an idealistic good probably resulting in career suicide while claiming that his own material is just a bunch of jokes. He irritates me in the same way that anyone does who flips through comic books and claims children should only read moralistic fables does.
Jon Stewart says that shows like Crossfire are more theatre than honest discussion. No freaking kidding - that's why they are doing it on a stage. If they were interested in finding and presenting truth, they'd be working for a think tank and doing original research somewhere else.
Who actually thought there WAS honest debate, untinged by partisanship on Crossfire? Who thinks there ever is?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's funny, Kat, is you're attacking a position Jon Stewart doesn't have and agreeing with one he does.
He doesn't think people don't know that this is entertainment (well, there are probably people out there who don't know it, but generally speaking), his point is that it asserts it is not entertainment (they certainly say they're considering the issues) (which they shouldn't do if they are entertainment rathr than issue consideration), and that they should be considering the issues instead of primarily thinking about entertainment, which seems to be the gist of what you want to happen, too .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
He is condemning them for conducting an entertainment show (political theatre) while they SHOULD be conducting a public service show. However, he, in the meantime, will be doing an entertainment show, thank you very much.
The difference in opinions between Jon Stewart and I is that he thinks that publicly shaming his fellow entertainers, he can get them to change into good little kids while remaining an entertainer, while I have no such hope and will continue to judge them on their entertainment value while looking for truth elsewhere.
Or, he doesn't believe he can shame anyone into changing and is merely trying to point out the lack of clothes on the emperor. My wonder at this is that anyone thought they were dressed in the first place.
Or, alternatively, he's an entertainer through and through and has a personal reason for all of this.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(BTW, you can find the hilarious clip on IFILM.COM. There are two clips: one of the Crossfire interview, and the other on Jon Stewart making fun of the interview while safe on his own show)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, what you fail to consider is that Jon Stewart is not claiming to be real news. He isn't claiming to be a serious policy debate show. Crossfire is, and he thinks the portrayal of honest policy debate as the shouting on Crossfire is damaging.
There is value in satire. It's clear to me that The Daily Show does this quite well. What Jon Stewart has a right to be angry over is how the serious shows have become a mockery of themselves.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crossfire claims to be a news show, a serious show. The Daily Show does not (though it coincidentally tends to use political material). It claims to be a comedy show.
It is reasonable that something which claims to be a comedy show is a comedy show. Saturday Night Live is a comedy show, which often uses bits from politics in its comedy. This does not make it a political show, and it does not claim to be one. We do not expect SNL to suddenly stop being a comedy and become a serious news show.
It is not reasonable that a show which claims to be serious political commentary is not. If the Daily Show claimed to be a serious news show and wasn't, that would be hypocritical, not to mention detrimental to political discourse if it was part of an environment of such things. Crossfire claims to be a serious news show, and isn't. That is hypocritical and detrimental to political discourse.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seemed to me that his argument was along the lines of "Political entertainment is my job, yours is to bring intelligent political discourse to the people. Stop doing my job, and start doing yours."
As for his comments on his own show, he went on Crossfire and told them they were "hurting america" and then went on his own show and said that their show "blows". If he had been all lovey dovey to their faces, then went back and made those comments - that would be one thing. He didn't. He told them to their faces what he thought, then continued in the same vein on his show for further comedic effect.
And yes, you should watch the clips, because the timing is *everything* with Jon Stewart. The words chosen are done so for maximum comedic effect, and the silent pauses before them make that abundantly clear.
Trying to interpret a speaker's meaning from text alone (especially trying to interpret comedy) is not doing the words justice.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Which is why I'm defending him to Katie at the same time that I'm criticizing him to Chris. *grin*
