If you’re watching Stewart for the news then you’ve got problems. He reports the news the same way that Dan Akroyd or Dennis Miller did on SNL. (Perhaps SNL still does this but since I stopped watching it 100 years ago I wouldn’t know.)
Anyway, it’s NOT the news.
But that’s not always the case. When Neil deGrassi Tyson comes on to talk about Pluto the planet-NOT!, that’s clearly entertainment. When a retired general or a senator comes on to talk about Iraq/economy/whatever and Stewart’s tone goes all serious, that’s not clearly “entertainment” although Stewart wants to reserve the right to lapse into “hey, I’m a comedian” when the going gets rough.
Which makes it a tragedy that not being the news, it’s still offers more valuable information and analysis than purportedly real news programs.
Yes and no. Weekend Update usually mocks politicians and celebrities for being stupid and that’s about it. The Daily Show mostly does the same thing, but also sometimes offers a more valuable analysis by criticizing media coverage and by giving additional context to the statements and actions of politicians and pundits. It’s still comedy but it does something the news usually doesn’t. Weekend Update is simpler, it just makes fun of current events.
I’ve never seen “the going get rough.” He jokes with every guest. It’s ALL entertainment.
Let me see what comes up over the next couple weeks. Since Cramer’s on next, we may get to see it soon enough.
Yes, he jokes with every guest, IOW, during his 6-7 minute conversation, there are usually a few jokes, which is not equivalent to “It’s ALL entertainment”. Dennis Leary, that’s all entertainment. Some ex-Iraq marine vet with a book out, that’s not “ALL entertainment”. Bill Kristol, that’s not ALL ente… ok, that one is.
I’m not sure what people are suggesting what would be a better way for Stewart to proceed. The guest has had his say, and if Stewart doesn’t have a substantive comeback, why not end it off with a joke? It’s better than on the news channels where the host then gets into a pointless, endless shouting match with the guest. Who benefits from that?
Are you saying you think Stewart makes jokes to hide is ignorance? I think he goes out of his way to honor honorable guests (liberal or conservative) and if he avoids anything its to keep his show from becoming The McLaughlin Group.
But perhaps you have a cite for when the ‘going got rough’ and he retreated behind comedy.
I don’t have a cite either, but I can say there was at least one time when the debate got a little intense and Stewart cut it off (unsatisfyingly, IMO) with something like, “Dude, this is a joke show.” Unfortunately, I don’t remember any details beyond that.
TDS is very much a “the emperor has no clothes” style of jesting. It gets the bulk of its humor from exposing politicians and media figures for frauds and hypocrites. That necessarily requires a lot of truth in the humor, so it’s not that surprising that Stewart’s managed to gain some respect for being reliable and truthful despite merely being a comedian. The best comedians point out uncomfortable truths, just usually not in such a regular, direct, and topical way. A stand-up might make fun of the President at a nightclub in NYC or even a taped show on Comedy Central or HBO, but Stewart approaches the media daily on their own turf, so to speak, and is accessible to them in that way. It’s really just a different way of doing stand-up.
But because it’s so different, I think some folks aren’t really sure how to handle Stewart (Colbert does parody humor, though still incisive, so they’re on slightly better ground with him), and due to the facade of a news show that he uses, folks forget that he’s there for comedy and believe he’s actually espousing some ideological viewpoint. The fact that the previous administration provided tons upon tons of fodder to the point where Stewart’s smile was cracking under the weight of it certainly didn’t help.
The above analysis was pulled out of my ass. Take it for whatever you think it’s worth.
“Until”? The show aired last Wednesday. His correction was Monday. They don’t run a Friday show. That’s pretty damn responsive.
I’m not sure what the problem is. Comedy has long been one of the most effective means of social commentary. Not that I’m making a one to one comparison here, but was Mark Twain a comedian or a social commentator? Jonathan Swift? Just because you’re one, doesn’t mean you can’t be both.
While I appreciate your POV - I agree that those topics are serious - you are not acknowledging the fundamental reality here. Entertainment first, last and always for The Daily Show, which is a comedy show on Comedy Central. The fact that Stewart is able to engage more esoteric folks in a way that stays entertaining is his gift. If those topics could not be couched in an entertaining way, trust me, they would not be on a show that gets the attention that Stewart gets.
Stewart pays the bills with entertainment - any actual substance on a topic is gravy.
And more often the “emperor” in question is the TV news industry.
Actually, I think it’s the other way around. If Stewart were just another comedy show with a focus on current affairs à la SNL Weekend Update or Mock The Week where it was just straight up riffing on politics and goofs within, then it wouldn’t be as popular. The major basis of Stewart’s popularity, of which I believe Stewart is self-aware, is that he’s speaking “truth to power” and that’s the subtext of most content on his show even when it’s overtly comical. It’s a serious show pretending to be a funny show pretending to be a serious show. That he happens to be right about the shortfalls of the American media doesn’t change that.
Raygun99, Stewart originally aired the Cramer clip shortly after Bear Sterns collapsed. He simply reused it on Wednesday.
We can choose to disagree about which comes first, but okay, sure - that is what Stewart is self-consciously doing. So? How does that affect his “obligations” within the context of an interview?
Bingo. Some folks’ odd need for Jon Stewart to fill one role, and that’s all, is bizarre and silly. He’s a satirist, a wiseass, a comedian, and a very sharp commentator.
It has that quality, but really, what you’re saying is that it’s a smart show - compare to Weekend Update, where one of the catchphrases du jour is “Really?” Stewart says “it’s a comedy show” because that’s what it is. He is rejecting other people’s demands that he be serious or funny according to their needs. The show is just as capable of being stupid. Last Monday John Oliver spent about five minutes raking Stewart over the coals for being a bad Oscar host. There wasn’t any pretend funny or pretend seriousness there, it was just what it looked like.
You seem to be implying, and there’s a little of this in Scarborough’s criticism too, that Stewart is obliged to be goofy all the time or serious all the time, otherwise he’s avoiding responsibility. That’s bullshit, although it would be great for his targets: if he were serious all the time, he’d be another useless blowhard, and if he goofed all the time he’d be another dismissable lightweight. Instead he’s embarrassed CNBC by pointing out that they puff up their own reputation and claim to be a trustworthy name in financial news, but their big star blew his call on Bear Stearns and other experts have repeatedly called a bottom in a market that has been falling for more than a year. The bottom line is that the network is trying to simultaneously say that it’s a news network and cheerlead for the market. Those goals conflict, and the result is stupid crap like what Stewart has been talking about.
If he’s doing a ‘serious’ interview and the guest is trying to make a serious rebuttal, don’t brush it off with a joke. If he agrees with the rebuttal, acknowledge it. If he doesn’t, and doesn’t have time to debate, simply say, “I think that’s wrong. Anyway, moving on…”. This is not a general prescription for making the interview completely devoid of humor.
If anyone wants to see it, here’s the original airing of the Cramer clip from March 18, 2008 (starting 4:40)
I’ve heard no one suggest that he has an obligation over his conduct on the show due to some dispute over the show’s ownership.
Remove “That’s bullshit” and I agree with all of the above. If he didn’t take on the tack he is taking, he would indeed be either just another commentator or a lightweight. But that is immaterial to observing whether he evades responsibility by keeping the comedian card ready.
I’m not talking about ownership of the show. I’m saying that viewers sometimes make demands of him and “it’s a comedy show” is part of how he rejects them. Leftists sometimes get upset when he’s cordial with Newt Gingrich instead of calling him a dick, for example. Scarborough is upset he offered some legit criticism of CNBC instead of just jokes, but won’t pick stocks on air.
He does sometimes. His interview with John Kerry was nothing to write home about and I remember wishing he’d done more with that opportunity. Other times, he’s right.
Cite for Stewart doing this?
Cite for Stewart doing this?