An article on JS in Parade revealed that NBC at least approached him to replace David Gregory on Meet the Press. As much as I love Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, this is the kind of thing that is wrong with modern media today: The Internet-ization of culture.
On the Internet everything is fueled by humor, snark and sarcasm because that is what is easy and entertaining and gets views. This has been creeping more and more into discourse and culture as whole. The problem is not everything can be sarcastic. For society to function someone has to be the adult in the room and be responsible.Without that it is just a circle of people rolling their eyes at each other. So I am glad Jon was smart enough to say no.
And yes I fully realize this is an “Old Man Yells at Cloud” moment for me but that doesn’t make me wrong.
They were probably investigating whether Stewart would be willing to be serious in his entire role. He’s good at serious political interviews when he wants to be. He’s better than just about anybody on calling politicians on answers that aren’t answers or don’t make sense.
I saw him interviewed on Sunday Morning a couple of weeks ago, though, and he said to Mo Rocca that he actually hates interviewing politicians. I don’t know if that was just a pleasant answer (politicians suck! Amirite?) or something more substantive, but it sure doesn’t speak of the passion for it that would be required of the Meet the Press job.
Do you actually watch Jon Stewart do interviews? He’s probably the best interviewer of serious political guests out there right now. Because he cracks jokes doesn’t mean he’s somehow weak tea or incapable of handling a serious job. There’s more truth and insight that comes out of the daily show than possibly every other American media news source.
As long as he’s not waiting for a chance to launch a zinger, Jon Stewart is a great interviewer. He actually listens to the answers and responds, even if it takes him off his pre-printed question list. And he asks the questions I want to ask or wish I’d thought to ask.
I think Stewart could do an excellent job on a show like Meet the Press if given free rein, but the problem is that he, like those before him, would be a captive to the fundamental problem of inside-the-beltway journalism: the constraints of “access” reporting.
For shows like Meet the Press to work, they need to be able to attract political figures to come on the show and be interviewed. The politicians themselves see shows like Meet the Press as, essentially, free advertising for their political message, and the main aim of those who go on these shows is NOT to provide real answers to the journalists’ questions, but to get their talking points across.
If shows like Meet the Press start to get too critical, and too willing to call politicians on their bullshit, then the politicians will simply go elsewhere, because the politicians aren’t going on these shows in the first place to have the facts exposed. And if you can’t get access to the people in power, then you really don’t have a show at all.
I hardly ever watch the Sunday political shows, because almost every time i’ve ever tuned in to these shows, all i see is a bunch of questions not being answered, and an interviewer that is unwilling to push in order to get an actual answer. I was always amazed that Tim “Softball” Russert had a reputation among some Americans as a tough interviewer; that fact alone is indicative of the poverty of political journalism in this country.
He also seems to actually read the material guests have written, or at least has someone good on the staff reading it and writing synopsis and questions.
There’s truth in what you say, and unfortunately, it gets truer with each passing year, but there’s also the gravitas of a show like Meet the Press that works in the other direction - a politician has to go on Meet the Press because it’s taken so seriously, and if the politician wants to get on a larger stage they can’t avoid it.
The internet and plethora of cable channels is destroying that, though. It’s more and more possible for a politician to only grant access to friendly audiences and go far.
The story is only one example of how the networks have been desperate to get viewers to start watching their Sunday talk shows again.
Ratings for Meet The Press nosedived after Tim Russert’s death. Whether or not that was David Gregory’s fault, who knows because. . .
The same thing happened at ABC’s This Week after David Brinkley left the show. It officially went through multiple host changes, and a whole bunch of temporary hosts, before coming back to George Stephanopoulos The lowest-rated host was Christiane Amanpour, arguably the best journalist of any of them.
Almost by default, Face The Nation has been thetop-rated Sunday talk show for several years, despite the fact that Bob Schiefer is 77 years old.
Jon Stewart would be great, but his expertise has always been incisive poking at the system and the politicans. I fear Meet The Press would water him down.
As an aside, as brilliant as Jon Stewart is at interviewing, his sycophantic coat-tail-riding cohort Stephen Colbert is unwatchable.
*
Gotcha! Gotcha! Gotcha! Oh, you were saying…Gotcha!*
I don’t know if the Sunday talk shows can be saved. It used to be that there was serious discussion of the issues on Sunday mornings. Now it’s just get the hacks in front of a microphone to deliver talking points. They don’t want to converse, they don’t want to debate, they just want to deliver the lines that they think promotes their party. Kelly Ayotte is by far the worst of the lot. Tim Russert at least challenged guests as they recited their rehearsed lines. David Gregory, not at all. And Chuck Todd never saw a Republican sound bite that he wanted to challenge. Until the shows find a host who doesn’t put up with guests who won’t talk seriously, the format is doomed.
On a serious show Stewart wouldn’t be able to emote, pantomime, or do stereotypical cartoon impressions. That’s like half his act nowadays.
Stewart is a dubious interviewer, especially of political oriented guests. It’s the worst part of the show. He’s OK with people he agrees with because they can commiserate. His behavior to those on the other side is often deferential, or a sort of passive aggressive moodiness while trying to pander to the audience. He doesn’t have enough command of the facts to counter obvious BS, but then again not a lot of people want to watch dueling cites on a comedy show either.
The only interview I can remember being impressed by was when he challenged Obama on the security state, but Obama deflected it away like a pro. So there’s not much point anyway.
Sam Donaldson regularly called out guests who gasbagged his questions. First he’d repeat the question. When the guest gasbagged a second time Donaldson would say, “So, you’re refusing to answer the question?”
I agree that there’s far too much of this schtick on the show now, and it detracts from the political skewering, but i don’t think that Stewart really needs to do this, and i think he could do just fine without it.
I agree with a lot of this. I recall be very disappointed with some of his political interviews, because i felt he went far to easy on them. Rick Santorum, some years back, comes to mind. It was little more than some good-natured ribbing.
I disagree with the first part of your sentence here, and i think that if he had a forum where he was actually expected and encouraged to engage in factual and rational debate, he could do a great job.
