“I am a clown. The problem is you are also a clown, but you pretend you’re not. That makes you a con man.”
Jon Stewart is a fraud. He poses as a serious, intellectaul provocateur, until someone calls him on his B.S., at which point he conveniently pretends, “Hey, I’m just a comedian!”
If the fourth estate hasn’t failed us so completely, Jon Stewart would probably be making celebrity fart jokes or something else equally benign. But it has failed, and he’s stepped up, for the betterment of our society.
He only points out that he’s a comedian when morons call him a journalist.
As for “B.S.” Cite? What has he said that’s bullshit?
Aren’t they both just monkeys on a tree saying “look at me?”
Cramer’s not a con man. He’s a former stockbroker turned hedge fund manager. He’s not always right, but that doesn’t make him a con artist.
The thing is, he is a journalist, or at least a commentator. A 2006 Indiana University study found that the Daily Show has about the same amount of news content as the network news.
A 2008 study by the Downtown Women’s Club found that “23% of Gen Y respondents stated that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was a major source of political news and information”
Stewart regularly has serious guests on his show, and they talk about serious topics of national and world importance. So, I think when he says he’s just a comedian, he’s being disingenuous.
He’s still not a journalist. He hosts a comedy show. He makes jokes about the news, he does not report it.
The fact that TDS has the same amount of news content as newtwork news is an an indictment of the networks, not of Stewart.
This article only says that “[t]he average amounts of video and audio substance in the broadcast network news stories were not significantly different than the average amounts of visual and audio substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart stories about the presidential election.” Seems to me they were just comparing the amount of actual footage used in both, and not really analyzing what was said about those footages.
I imagine a lot of people would say the Rush Limbaugh Show is a major source of political news and information. That doesn’t make him a journalist either.
Just because someone else (even a lot of someones) take you seriously, that doesn’t mean you have a sudden obligation to be serious.
I love the show, but I agree with this and have trouble with it. Another favorite of his is asking “hard” questions that would require political suicide of the guest to answer on the spot, forcing them to look like idiots for coming up with some “PC” response at all.
Colbert is much funnier anyway.
But to the OP, yeah, that Cramer is a fucking wack-job!
If I have a public access show on which I jerk off for 27 minutes, then spend 27 seconds discussing recent events, am I a journalist or public masturbator? If my public masturbation show has as much news as a network that focuses only on news, what does that say about the news networks?
I object to this too sometimes. But it’s worth remembering that he actually IS a comedian, and that once you start taking yourself seriously you’re usually not funny anymore. So to the extent that he’s protecting his ability to do what he does, he’s correct, and smart to do it. There are times I want Stewart to be more consistent, but he’s asserting his right do his show as he sees fit rather than fitting somebody else’s definition of appropriate conduct for a commentator. You don’t have to be serious all the time to be intellectual or provocative.
I expect Stewart to take things down a couple of notches tonight, and to try to have a conversation with Cramer about the failings of CNBC generally and the lack of accountability stock pickers (and all other pundits) have.
Jim Cramer manipulates the stock market. He admits it here.
How does John Stewart mocking politicians and “journalists” compare with that level of assholery?
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. …
…as long as that newsletter is contracted out. I don’t want his dirty hands touching it!
Back when Stewart was on “Crossfire,” and Tucker Carlson was ragging on him for not asking the SERIOUS questions, Stewart reminded Carlson that his show was on a network called COMEDY CENTRAL, and at the time his show followed a bunch of puppets making crank phone calls. He also said something cutting about the fact that a news network was comparing its coverage to that of a half-hour comedy show.
I have to go with the people who say that the fact that people get a better handle on the news from the Daily Show than they do from actual news networks says FAR MORE about “real journalists” than it does about Stewart.
He’s a comedian who sometimes asks serious questions, not a journalist who occasionally does comedy.
While I understand where this feeling can come from, I fundamentally disagree. What matters is the quality of the ideas and arguments:
-
When Stewart nails somebody - showing video illustrating their hypocricy or commenting on their poor journalism standards - he is making an assertion based on real data and commenting on a specific topic in the news. The fact that he does this in a way that often brings the Funny - well, bonus.
-
When Cramer pops back with “but he’s just a comedian” and Scarborough says he cherry picks clips and to both Stewart replies “you’re right” - well, as you frequenters of Great Debates know, that is a logical fallacy - argumentum ad hominem. Okay, so he is a comedian - what does that have to do with the validity of his assertion against you? Speak to the assertion, don’t try to insult the man.
-
So when Stewart agrees that he is a comedian, not a serious journalist, taking pot shots - how is he hiding, how is he a fraud, and how does the fact of his comedic role in *any way *take away from the cogence of his arguments? The fact that someone playing a court jester-type role, speaking truth to power, is able to do so in a funny way - well, that’s proven to be a vital role in many societies.
So yeah - he doesn’t actually have to do a job like a congressman or a journalist - he has not walked a mile in their shoes, if you will - but what is fraudulant about what he is doing?
Well, the “problem” is that Stewart doesn’t consistently maintain a single role. Either that of a comedian or a serious commentator. Sometimes he has a provocative guest with an opposing viewpoint on a contentious issue. The interview will start out serious and there will usually be some good back and forth. But then if the guest brings up a legitimate sounding rebuttal or counterpoint, Stewart will often rejoin with a joke. thus evading a serious reply. If Stewart wants to speak ‘truth to power’, he ought to be gracious enough to seriously engage with guests who think he’s wrong.
Note that he didn’t put forward a correction for his original jibe at Cramer (the now famous Bear Sterns eval which was about the brokerage and not the stock) until this ongoing current fracas with Cramer and only after his researchers found a Cramer buy call from a telecast five days prior.
Why would have issued a correction? I thought the original jibe was just fine.
I gotta think about this - I mean, ultimately it comes down to the difference between an interview and a debate, doesn’t it?
-
in a debate, two parties engage in owning and representing differing points of view and must argue in a compelling fashion until their view wins the day
-
in an interview, especially one meant to entertain first, the goal is to get the interviewee to talk about themselves and their topics. If Stewart makes an assertion and the interviewee comes back effectively - well, why not just move on, perhaps sealing it with a joke?